Would a new Canon Mirrorless ILC System replace the EOS System?

[JackM]

(sorry, I haven't read all the responses)

I would think they would be about the same size as the current Leica M9 digital rangefinder camera,

M9 isn't a lot smaller than a 5DII.

I would think because of the nature of physics Canon would develope an entirely new retrofocs lens system for this new camera.

They should, because the flange-to-sensor distance will be shorter, so EF lenses would require an adapter.

These lenses would have even better optical quality than current "L" lenses

huh? Why?

With no mirrorbox, nor flapping mirror to avoid hitting the rear lens element, the lens rear element could be closer to the sensor, hence improved IQ, and a smaller camera body depth as well. So with smaller lenses I think there is an advantage of portability for this type of camera system.

It's a slight advantage. M9 with a lens mounted is really no more portable than a 5DII with a prime. Oly PEN or Pany GF or Sony NEX with kit zoom mounted do not fit in a pants pocket. That defines portable for me. If I have to carry a bag, I may as well have my 5DII.

Now, going out for the day with only a small prime mounted can make such a camera portable. I can shoot all day with only my 35L and I love it. Not that it's portable, just saying that I don't mind not having zoom.

So in the last 2 years I have been using Micro 4/3 camera bodies with legacy old leica lenses. The Olympus E-P1 with a 50mm f/3.5 Elmar lens mounted in the collapsable position.

Cool! I have an old Leica IIIf with the 50/3.5 Elmar and 50/2 Summicron. The Elmar is indeed tiny and disappears into the camera body when not in use. Surely you can't take a picture with it collapsed into your E-P1, can you? By the way, you should try a collapsible Summicron. Sharper in the corners and two stops faster.

So for me I would like Canon to come out with such a system because I believe Canon would do it right. It would have exrernal controls, optical and combo EVF as well as real live view LCD.

I'd be surprised if Canon did something so groundbreaking. They've been playing fairly conservatively lately.

They could also introduce a smaller camera using the 1.6 crop sensors and these should be more affordable.

While a FF MILC would be neat, I don't think there's any point. The 1-stop noise advantage would come at the cost of larger size and weight of the overall system.

If FF and compactness and a fast, high quality lens were the priorities, I think it would have to be a fixed prime lens camera, like a Ricoh GR1.

Olympus's new E-P3 has taken the focusing speed crown for now, it's faster than any other camera on the market including DSLR's.

I can't believe that.

Also 24-35MP FF is not unreasonable so the IQ would be very good.

In a compact, take-everywhere camera, there's no point in having anything higher than 18mp. Heck I'd take a 12mp camera if it made leaps and bounds in noise and DR performance. One only needs 21mp+ for printing HUGE.

Anyway history shows that Canon and all other mfr's have already changed their entire camera systems at least twice. Going from 35mm rangefinders to 35mm SLR's, then from SLR's to DSLR's.

SLR to DSLR was not a significant direction change. The lens system is basically the same. EF-S lenses are a small fraction of the EOS system, and they use the same mount. SLR to DSLR was an easy transition for everyone.

So is there anyone here interested in a smaller but very very high IQ, mirrorless ILC camera system from Canon? Or do you think it best for Canon to stick with DSLR's and let other companies continure to develope the mirrorless camera into a mature system without Canon particapating?

I would love a pants-pocketable APS-C Canon MILC. I would buy one immediately. But I see no need for them to scrap the EOS system for this new system. There is tremendous benefit to looking through the lens for many situations. Sports, closeups, telephoto, etc. And knowing when the !@#$ing lens cap is still on!

Canon has the resources to have both systems. Heck, Sony, Olympus, and now Pentax are doing it.

In the mean time I'm getting an S95. I would get an Oly XZ-1 or Pany LX5, but I use Canon DPP for my workflow, and I like the consistency across Canon cameras.

My Leica IIIf will be my high quality FF MILC for now! It fits in my pants pocket!

 

[Peter Nelson]

Hi jpr2,

Your idea is a good one and has been written in this thread at least twice by myself.
-Peter ;-)

jpr2

Why less when you can have more ?
FF sensor in form factor roughly equivalent to a G12 ...
Think it is impossible ? Then have a look at this one :

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1956-1965/1959_p.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1956-1965

And what a viewfinder ! 1/1 with a 35, 50 and 100mm frames, not the small dark contraptions we have in Dslr now.

Please, don't tell me that Canon cannot do now what they could do 52 years ago !

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[Peter Nelson]

Hi Jack,

I would think they would be about the same size as the current Leica M9 digital rangefinder camera,

M9 isn't a lot smaller than a 5DII.

Later I wrote that they could also make a FF digital mirrorless ILC camera the ame size as the original "Barnack" Leica screw mount 35mm film cameras as well as those small screw mount lenses. Canon was in the screw mount rangefinder business from the 1920's through the 1960's. So they are very familiar with this body style. These cameras with certain lens mounted are able to fit into any pocket. I know as I have 2 of them.
-Peter ;-)

I would think because of the nature of physics Canon would develope an entirely new retrofocs lens system for this new camera.

They should, because the flange-to-sensor distance will be shorter, so EF lenses would require an adapter.

These lenses would have even better optical quality than current "L" lenses

huh? Why?

It's been discussed before. I think you could learn why by reading over at some of the rangefinder forums. Erwin Puts is also a good scorce. It has something to do with the rear lens element being closer to the sensor plane.

With no mirrorbox, nor flapping mirror to avoid hitting the rear lens element, the lens rear element could be closer to the sensor, hence improved IQ, and a smaller camera body depth as well. So with smaller lenses I think there is an advantage of portability for this type of camera system.

It's a slight advantage. M9 with a lens mounted is really no more portable than a 5DII with a prime. Oly PEN or Pany GF or Sony NEX with kit zoom mounted do not fit in a pants pocket. That defines portable for me. If I have to carry a bag, I may as well have my 5DII.

I disagree. I have a Leica M5 wich is almost exactly the same size as the Leica M9 and it is smaller in every way than any of my Canon, Nikon, Pentax DSLRs. Inclusing the crop sensored cameras. Anyway, I would really prefere the Leica "BarnaK" screw mount camera style camera over the Leica M camera as the Screw Mount body is a lot smaller.

Now, going out for the day with only a small prime mounted can make such a camera portable. I can shoot all day with only my 35L and I love it. Not that it's portable, just saying that I don't mind not having zoom.

I agree prime lenses make any camera system more portable. BTW I sold my Canon 35 f/1.4 L because it was so large and heavy (when I no longer need f/1.4). Now I'm better served with the Canon 35mm f/2 smaller version.

So in the last 2 years I have been using Micro 4/3 camera bodies with legacy old leica lenses. The Olympus E-P1 with a 50mm f/3.5 Elmar lens mounted in the collapsable position.

Cool! I have an old Leica IIIf with the 50/3.5 Elmar and 50/2 Summicron. The Elmar is indeed tiny and disappears into the camera body when not in use. Surely you can't take a picture with it collapsed into your E-P1, can you? By the way, you should try a collapsible Summicron. Sharper in the corners and two stops faster.

Well I know your joking about taking a picture with the lens collapsed into the E-P1 body. Just pull the lens out, lock her in and there you go you are now ready to start taking pictures with the E-P1.

Besides the 2 50mm f/3.5 Elmar's (Russian Versions) I have an old f/16 Leica Summitar 50mm f/2 Collapsible lens made from 1939-1955 which originally predated your lens made from 1953-1960. But their was a 2 year overlap when both were in production.

I also have the Leica M 90mm f/4 Elmar Collapsible and I like it. Sharp and portable.

So for me I would like Canon to come out with such a system because I believe Canon would do it right. It would have exrernal controls, optical and combo EVF as well as real live view LCD.

I'd be surprised if Canon did something so groundbreaking. They've been playing fairly conservatively lately.

They could also introduce a smaller camera using the 1.6 crop sensors and these should be more affordable.

While a FF MILC would be neat, I don't think there's any point. The 1-stop noise advantage would come at the cost of larger size and weight of the overall system.

If FF and compactness and a fast, high quality lens were the priorities, I think it would have to be a fixed prime lens camera, like a Ricoh GR1.

Olympus's new E-P3 has taken the focusing speed crown for now, it's faster than any other camera on the market including DSLR's.

I can't believe that.

Also 24-35MP FF is not unreasonable so the IQ would be very good.

In a compact, take-everywhere camera, there's no point in having anything higher than 18mp. Heck I'd take a 12mp camera if it made leaps and bounds in noise and DR performance. One only needs 21mp+ for printing HUGE.

Anyway history shows that Canon and all other mfr's have already changed their entire camera systems at least twice. Going from 35mm rangefinders to 35mm SLR's, then from SLR's to DSLR's.

SLR to DSLR was not a significant direction change. The lens system is basically the same. EF-S lenses are a small fraction of the EOS system, and they use the same mount. SLR to DSLR was an easy transition for everyone.

So is there anyone here interested in a smaller but very very high IQ, mirrorless ILC camera system from Canon? Or do you think it best for Canon to stick with DSLR's and let other companies continure to develope the mirrorless camera into a mature system without Canon particapating?

My Leica IIIf will be my high quality FF MILC for now! It fits in my pants pocket!

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[jpr2]

Hi Peter,

it is a long thread - and while we agree on predicates, I beg to differ
about conclusions, there are two tough problems:

• the forced use of EVF, which I abhor (pls. notice: "evil and lags of EVF");
• and a tough to solve, with a rangefinder type of OVF, use of long[ish] lenses (of 150mm and longer; but even at 100mm it was not very satisfactory 50 yrs. ago);

so far no one has proposed a good solution to either in MILC ;
so the reasons why SLRs took over in mid XX c. are still rather valid !!

jpr2

Your idea is a good one and has been written in this thread at least twice by myself.

-Peter ;-)

jpr2

Why less when you can have more ?
FF sensor in form factor roughly equivalent to a G12 ...
Think it is impossible ? Then have a look at this one :

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1956-1965/1959_p.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1956-1965

And what a viewfinder ! 1/1 with a 35, 50 and 100mm frames, not the small dark contraptions we have in Dslr now.

Please, don't tell me that Canon cannot do now what they could do 52 years ago !

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

 

[JackM]

Later I wrote that they could also make a FF digital mirrorless ILC camera the ame size as the original "Barnack" Leica screw mount 35mm film cameras as well as those small screw mount lenses.

They could but the safe bet is that it will be APS-C. It's "good enough" and cheaper to produce. And it can always be smaller/lighter than FF.

These lenses would have even better optical quality than current "L" lenses

huh? Why?

It has something to do with the rear lens element being closer to the sensor plane.

makes sense.

M9 with a lens mounted is really no more portable than a 5DII with a prime. Oly PEN or Pany GF or Sony NEX with kit zoom mounted do not fit in a pants pocket. That defines portable for me. If I have to carry a bag, I may as well have my 5DII.

I disagree. I have a Leica M5 wich is almost exactly the same size as the Leica M9 and it is smaller in every way than any of my Canon, Nikon, Pentax DSLRs. Inclusing the crop sensored cameras.

I didn't say the M9 wasn't smaller, I just said it wasn't significantly more portable. If you can't put it in your pocket, then it's not very portable or discrete. Sure it may weigh less.

Discrete is the groomsman with the S95 in his sportcoat pocket. The groomsman carrying the camera bag is the geek to be avoided!

Anyway, I would really prefere the Leica "BarnaK" screw mount camera style camera over the Leica M camera as the Screw Mount body is a lot smaller.

I love the size of my IIIf.

I agree prime lenses make any camera system more portable. BTW I sold my Canon 35 f/1.4 L because it was so large and heavy (when I no longer need f/1.4). Now I'm better served with the Canon 35mm f/2 smaller version.

I have both and I agree the L is a lot bigger and heavier than the f/2. Definitely a downside that I have to try to overlook. But again, attached to a 5DII, either pair has to go in a bag or on a strap. I am also a sucker for silent and consistent AF, so I roll with the L for now.

Well I know your joking about taking a picture with the lens collapsed into the E-P1 body.

Ha, well I didn't think so but I couldn't be sure about the way you worded it.

Just pull the lens out, lock her in and there you go you are now ready to start taking pictures with the E-P1.

albeit with manual focus. :-/

 

[Peter Nelson]

From my eperience using a Leica M5 and my Leica 135mm f/4 Elmar I have no trouble in the slightest-none. The M5 has frame lines for this lens. Now with my Epson R-D1 their are no frame liness for 90mm or 135mm. My solution is to use a Russian made optical Turrent rangefinder that has viewfinders for 28, 35, 50, 85 and 135mm.

Now with my Olympus E-P1 with it's rear Live View LCD I can use any lens that I can mount. I have used w/a from 24mm through 300mm with ease. I have used 400mm and 500mm lenses with problems due to image shake but I can still get the shot.
My Panasonic G1 is just the same and sometimes even easier with it's EVF.
Fuji's new X100 has both EVF and a frame line optical viewfinder for 35mm.

I am confident that Canon could improve on all of this. Providing an optical viewfinder for 28-135mm and an EVF for all FL lenses.

Remember these ILC Mirrorless bodies are not sport cameras but for stills they are really good. Yes the SLR/DSLR has a place for sports and high frame rates. But I think the market for a small pocket camera with the features I describe is a larger market.

Canon can carry on with the DSLR EOS System, and simply add a new FF pocketable Mirrorless ILC digital camera system.

My experience is that I hardly use my 10fps Canon EOS 1VHS 35mm film camera for sports anymore at all. I hardly use my Canon 1DsMkII anymore either. It's gathering dust. I hardly use my newly accuried 50D (last October). I do not use my 5fps Nikon D1H for sports. I use my Kodak SLR/n for stills only.

I do use my old pocketable Russian made screw mount cameras, and my pocketable Olympus E-P1 and Panasonic G1 and Epson R-D1. I would prefere a new pocketable FF Canon Mirrorless ILC camera to every camera I own. I have complete Canon, Nikon and Pentax Systems all in SLR and DSLR, and over 50 lenses.

I really know what I want and I want to carry it with me in my pocket everyday, along with 2 or 3 small primes.
-Peter

it is a long thread - and while we agree on predicates, I beg to differ
about conclusions, there are two tough problems:

• the forced use of EVF, which I abhor (pls. notice: "evil and lags of EVF");
• and a tough to solve, with a rangefinder type of OVF, use of long[ish] lenses (of 150mm and longer; but even at 100mm it was not very satisfactory 50 yrs. ago);

so far no one has proposed a good solution to either in MILC ;
so the reasons why SLRs took over in mid XX c. are still rather valid !!

jpr2

Your idea is a good one and has been written in this thread at least twice by myself.

-Peter ;-)

jpr2

Why less when you can have more ?
FF sensor in form factor roughly equivalent to a G12 ...
Think it is impossible ? Then have a look at this one :

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1956-1965/1959_p.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1956-1965

And what a viewfinder ! 1/1 with a 35, 50 and 100mm frames, not the small dark contraptions we have in Dslr now.

Please, don't tell me that Canon cannot do now what they could do 52 years ago !

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[Peter Nelson]

Jack I am enjoying our exhanges here on dpr!

Later I wrote that they could also make a FF digital mirrorless ILC camera the ame size as the original "Barnack" Leica screw mount 35mm film cameras as well as those small screw mount lenses.

They could but the safe bet is that it will be APS-C. It's "good enough" and cheaper to produce. And it can always be smaller/lighter than FF.

Please I am tired of crop sensores, I have two FF DSLR's now and I like w/a and normal and short tele's for walking around with.

I admit the APS-C is nice with my 500mm f/4.5 and 800mm f/5.6 but the FF DSLR actuall provides a better image with these lenses.

These lenses would have even better optical quality than current "L" lenses

huh? Why?

It has something to do with the rear lens element being closer to the sensor plane.

makes sense.

M9 with a lens mounted is really no more portable than a 5DII with a prime. Oly PEN or Pany GF or Sony NEX with kit zoom mounted do not fit in a pants pocket. That defines portable for me. If I have to carry a bag, I may as well have my 5DII.

I disagree. I have a Leica M5 wich is almost exactly the same size as the Leica M9 and it is smaller in every way than any of my Canon, Nikon, Pentax DSLRs. Inclusing the crop sensored cameras.

I didn't say the M9 wasn't smaller, I just said it wasn't significantly more portable. If you can't put it in your pocket, then it's not very portable or discrete. Sure it may weigh less.

Discrete is the groomsman with the S95 in his sportcoat pocket. The groomsman carrying the camera bag is the geek to be avoided!

Anyway, I would really prefere the Leica "BarnaK" screw mount camera style camera over the Leica M camera as the Screw Mount body is a lot smaller.

I love the size of my IIIf.

Me too! Screw mount Barnaks are the ultimate camera with pocketability and good enough IQ. Now throw in a FF 16 or 24mp digital sensor and that's the ultimate digital camera system.

I agree prime lenses make any camera system more portable. BTW I sold my Canon 35 f/1.4 L because it was so large and heavy (when I no longer need f/1.4). Now I'm better served with the Canon 35mm f/2 smaller version.

I have both and I agree the L is a lot bigger and heavier than the f/2. Definitely a downside that I have to try to overlook. But again, attached to a 5DII, either pair has to go in a bag or on a strap. I am also a sucker for silent and consistent AF, so I roll with the L for now.

I kept my Canon 24mm f/1.4 L because of the FL but it's stioll a big and heavy lens. It works good on my 1DsMkII and all my EOS 35mm film cameras. I like that lens.

Well I know your joking about taking a picture with the lens collapsed into the E-P1 body.

Ha, well I didn't think so but I couldn't be sure about the way you worded it.

Just pull the lens out, lock her in and there you go you are now ready to start taking pictures with the E-P1.

albeit with manual focus. :-/

I should mention that I prefere manual focus. For me it's faster, more consistant and it adds a feeling of involvement that AF lacks.

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[jpr2]

...just add some view box cameras of early era, and some MF with most
advanced digital backs, and most of the history of photography would
be covered - each finding its own particular niche, fulfilling someone's
needs; however, to use them all you'd need to hire a truck and a caddy;
obviously a common definition of a set of minimal requirements for
MILC is required, otherwise it will be just a parade of possibilities

Remember these ILC Mirrorless bodies are not sport cameras but for stills they are really good. Yes the SLR/DSLR has a place for sports and high frame rates. But I think the market for a small pocket camera with the features I describe is a larger market.

Saying this kicks a challenge out of equation, so here is our main bone
of contention buried - IMO if a MILC body will be able to cope even with
demanding action shooting, and using long lenses too, than all lesser
tasks should be no problem.
And laws of economy would for sure take care of finding a proper
market if a technical side will be solved right .

So, what would constitute such a minimal yardstick:

• interchangeable lenses;
• ability of free hand shooting, using some kind of viewfinder (shooting at arms length using back screen, even with a stabilized system, introduces too much of a compromise, esp. with longer lenses; possible solution: to use a tripod, and a black cape cutting reflections and glare - would revert us to beginnings of photography);
• OVF much preferable to EVF; a dual system offering both might be a possible compromise;
• not compromised manual focusing: using directly a focusing ring with enough throw (so far none of the offers for focusing by wire was 100% foolproof);

the list could be extended, but already it poses quite a hurdle for most
cameras but [D]SLRs, and some top RFs - so far not a single MILC

jpr2
--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

 

[JackM]

Jack I am enjoying our exhanges here on dpr!

likewise.

Please I am tired of crop sensores,

Why? I have a 5DII and a 7D. I like my 5DII better for the viewfinder, and the ability to use Canon EF lenses as they were designed, especially primes. (The difference in DOF doesn't really matter to me.) All of that goes out the window when discussing a compact MILC, because it will be an entirely new system, so I don't see why it would need to be FF.

I'm not going to buy a Canon compact MILC and then mount an adapter and my large EF lenses on it, so no need for FF if you ask me. 1 stop of better high ISO is all I can think of, and even that could be negated by a lower, more realistic megapixel count like 12 to 16.

An APS-C MILC could be introduced with a few choice manual focus primes like 15, 22, 31, 53, 85mm (equivalant 24, 35, 50, 85, 135mm) I'm worried about the size of autofocus lenses for such a system. I hope they can be made compact, but the EF-S lenses don't inspire much there.

Me too! Screw mount Barnaks are the ultimate camera with pocketability and good enough IQ. Now throw in a FF 16 or 24mp digital sensor and that's the ultimate digital camera system.

Ultimate for some things. Travel, hiking, street...

I should mention that I prefere manual focus. For me it's faster, more consistant and it adds a feeling of involvement that AF lacks.

I don't see how MF can ever be called faster, unless you are using lenses with cheap AF. I agree it connects you to the camera and to the output more. Like driving a manual car. But it sounds like you don't shoot kids or people much. In order for me to get really good shots of my kids with my manual focus gear (Pentax MX, Leica IIIf) I either have to get really lucky or I have to bribe/force them into a pose.

 

[Peter Nelson]

I think the mfr's are so slow to move to what is an obvious camera design is because then what do they do? Right now with small changes yearly the mfr's are able to keep their customers coming back each years for a new camera purchase. But once the customer has a satisfactory camera as both I and you have described then they will use that one for years and years. There is always the new lenses market even for these customers. I hope they make this camera for us soon.

Remember these ILC Mirrorless bodies are not sport cameras but for stills they are really good. Yes the SLR/DSLR has a place for sports and high frame rates. But I think the market for a small pocket camera with the features I describe is a larger market.

Saying this kicks a challenge out of equation, so here is our main bone
of contention buried - IMO if a MILC body will be able to cope even with
demanding action shooting, and using long lenses too, than all lesser
tasks should be no problem.
And laws of economy would for sure take care of finding a proper
market if a technical side will be solved right .

So, what would constitute such a minimal yardstick:

• interchangeable lenses;
• ability of free hand shooting, using some kind of viewfinder (shooting at arms length using back screen, even with a stabilized system, introduces too much of a compromise, esp. with longer lenses; possible solution: to use a tripod, and a black cape cutting reflections and glare - would revert us to beginnings of photography);
• OVF much preferable to EVF; a dual system offering both might be a possible compromise;
• not compromised manual focusing: using directly a focusing ring with enough throw (so far none of the offers for focusing by wire was 100% foolproof);

the list could be extended, but already it poses quite a hurdle for most
cameras but [D]SLRs, and some top RFs - so far not a single MILC

jpr2
--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[Peter Nelson]

Hello Jack,

Jack I am enjoying our exhanges here on dpr!

likewise.

Please I am tired of crop sensores,

Why? I have a 5DII and a 7D. I like my 5DII better for the viewfinder, and the ability to use Canon EF lenses as they were designed, especially primes. (The difference in DOF doesn't really matter to me.) All of that goes out the window when discussing a compact MILC, because it will be an entirely new system, so I don't see why it would need to be FF.

A narrow DOF only matters to me when doing portraits and flowers. Then my FF 1DsMkII and the 85mm f/1.2 L really shine.

If a small Leica screw mount camera can be true 35mm format then a similar mirrorless ILC digital camera can be FF.

I'm not going to buy a Canon compact MILC and then mount an adapter and my large EF lenses on it, so no need for FF if you ask me. 1 stop of better high ISO is all I can think of, and even that could be negated by a lower, more realistic megapixel count like 12 to 16.

No adapters!. A new lens system must come out for the new FF Canon Mirrorless ILC pocket camera.

An APS-C MILC could be introduced with a few choice manual focus primes like 15, 22, 31, 53, 85mm (equivalant 24, 35, 50, 85, 135mm) I'm worried about the size of autofocus lenses for such a system. I hope they can be made compact, but the EF-S lenses don't inspire much there.

Me too! Screw mount Barnaks are the ultimate camera with pocketability and good enough IQ. Now throw in a FF 16 or 24mp digital sensor and that's the ultimate digital camera system.

Ultimate for some things. Travel, hiking, street...

I should mention that I prefere manual focus. For me it's faster, more consistant and it adds a feeling of involvement that AF lacks.

I don't see how MF can ever be called faster, unless you are using lenses with cheap AF. I agree it connects you to the camera and to the output more. Like driving a manual car. But it sounds like you don't shoot kids or people much. In order for me to get really good shots of my kids with my manual focus gear (Pentax MX, Leica IIIf) I either have to get really lucky or I have to bribe/force them into a pose.

Manual focus is faster for me. I have been using Manual focus since 1981. I can follow moving motorcycles, boats, runners, walkers, cars and all type of events and get more keepers using manual focus. This is because only I know the exact point in the frame that is my subject. AF systems cannot do this, and to change the AF point takes too much time and the shotis gone. MF is not difficult, remember there is a certain DOF, so once your subject is in focus you use your mind to predict where the subject will be in if it's moving. I have taken pictures of chioldren playing tag and you know they are changeing direction and speed often to avoid being tagged - your it! Manual focus gives me more keepers thanm AF even under this condition.

Using long tele lenes like my 500 and 800mm with AF can cause the lens to misfocus on the wrong spot, especially for birding. Manual focus will not miss the shot.

Lastly mf keeps you invilved in what you are doing and that gives you a better grasp of the scene and action before you, also being involved is more fullfilling than p&s style that AF provides.
-Peter
--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[jpr2]

it took about 20+ yrs. for a winning design to evolve from first sub-35mm
SLRs of 1920' to the pentaprism Zeiss Contax S in 1949;

so the teething pains might still take some time to find a
replacement through evolution (that is IF such replacement is
possible at all: so far nothing can beat versatility of DSLRs - from
macros, through landscapes, studio, action/sports, to even astro
all in one, universal body) - the x100 is a promising start, if only to be
gauged by uproar it created (and cries of disappointment afterwards),
but I doubt we'll see the x100 MkII - addressing all the unfulfilled
issues and problems - in less than 2 yrs. ??

jpr2

I think the mfr's are so slow to move to what is an obvious camera design is because then what do they do? Right now with small changes yearly the mfr's are able to keep their customers coming back each years for a new camera purchase. But once the customer has a satisfactory camera as both I and you have described then they will use that one for years and years. There is always the new lenses market even for these customers. I hope they make this camera for us soon.

Remember these ILC Mirrorless bodies are not sport cameras but for stills they are really good. Yes the SLR/DSLR has a place for sports and high frame rates. But I think the market for a small pocket camera with the features I describe is a larger market.

Saying this kicks a challenge out of equation, so here is our main bone
of contention buried - IMO if a MILC body will be able to cope even with
demanding action shooting, and using long lenses too, than all lesser
tasks should be no problem.
And laws of economy would for sure take care of finding a proper
market if a technical side will be solved right .

So, what would constitute such a minimal yardstick:

• interchangeable lenses;
• ability of free hand shooting, using some kind of viewfinder (shooting at arms length using back screen, even with a stabilized system, introduces too much of a compromise, esp. with longer lenses; possible solution: to use a tripod, and a black cape cutting reflections and glare - would revert us to beginnings of photography);
• OVF much preferable to EVF; a dual system offering both might be a possible compromise;
• not compromised manual focusing: using directly a focusing ring with enough throw (so far none of the offers for focusing by wire was 100% foolproof);

the list could be extended, but already it poses quite a hurdle for most
cameras but [D]SLRs, and some top RFs - so far not a single MILC

jpr2

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

 

[JackM]

If a small Leica screw mount camera can be true 35mm format then a similar mirrorless ILC digital camera can be FF.

But for what benefit? 1 stop better noise? Meh. That will price the camera out of the market for many. My 7D is excellent at ISO 800, very good at 1600, good at 3200, and usable at 6400. A 12-16mp APS-C MILC should be even better.

I'm not going to buy a Canon compact MILC and then mount an adapter and my large EF lenses on it, so no need for FF if you ask me. 1 stop of better high ISO is all I can think of, and even that could be negated by a lower, more realistic megapixel count like 12 to 16.

No adapters!. A new lens system must come out for the new FF Canon Mirrorless ILC pocket camera.

You will need an adapter to mount an EF lens to a MILC. Assuming the MILC has shorter flange-to-sensor distance, as it should.

My point was there's no need for the MILC to be full frame because (among other things) using EF lenses should not be a consideration.

Manual focus is faster for me. I have been using Manual focus since 1981. I can follow moving motorcycles, boats, runners, walkers, cars and all type of events and get more keepers using manual focus.

Well you are clearly much better at MF than me and dare I say most people!

 

[Tessarboy]

Once again, let it be clear that my Eos 5DII is the best camera i ever had, bar none.

But i happen to have a problem with the size .. and can compare, as i have or had many of the cameras mentioned in previous posts.

It is not the first time i read : "A Leica M9 is not much smaller than an Eos 5DII". At first sight this seems true, but it is the wrong argument for 2 main reasons :

1. The sheer bulk is of another order : the difference is in the size of the lenses and not so much in the cameras. This becomes obvious when you compare the total bulk of a typical photographers bag content, for example a Leica with 3 good primes and the Canon 5DII with 3 good EF L primes. Most Canonists cannot even imagine that the Leica bag would be 1/3 in volume of the equivalent Canon bag...

2) The sheer size of the lenses is intimidating : aim a typical EF L lens in their direction and 90% of people will halt their normal behaviour. (except .., i know) For a certain type of photography that i happen to like, these lenses and even more so their shades, kill any spontaneous expression.

So it might be obvious that i would welcome the 5DII sensor in a much smaller package

Why OVF ? It really amazes me that the whole crowd of 4/3 and equivalent apc mirrorless producers (except Fuji) overlook one important human demographic aspect. Almost all ageing people become farsighted. The majority of people over 55 Yrs old need spectacles to read and cannot work well wiith a lcd screen at armlenght anymore ! They need spectacles to see the lcd sharply, and have to take these off again to see the reality in front of the camera ! The typical OVF (with diopter compensation) doesn't show this problem, besides having other advantages. And guess what class of population (agewise) has the desire and the $$$ to buy a FF mirrorless ... ? Right !

I bet on Canon bringing the next rangefinder "renaissance".

Why not Leica ? Yes, they have the M9. Pricewise it is to exclusive and besides they are already straining to follow up orders and cannot afford to drop their small size manual production methods. They have the X1, which could grow into the the perfect small Barnack camera, (the dreamed IIIF equivalent). I doubt that Leica has at the moment the expertise to drop a FF sensor in an X1 sized body. But then this won't happen because it would become much more expensive with a mechanical OVF and besides that it would canibalise on M9 sales.

Why Canon then ? I think Canon has the resources and the state of the art to put a FF sensor in a compact camera. Canon no doubt has the experience as it built Leica-killer rangefinder cameras with OVF and good optics 50 yrs ago !

Go Canon !

(besides, i find your 'digital Barnack screw mount Canon' so wiity and appropriate !)
--
Tessarboy
'photography is about the quality of light'

 

[JackM]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but you did not make any arguments for a Full Frame MILC over an APS-C one . Why would it need to be any larger than APS-C? It doesn't. As a 5DII and 7D owner myself, and 5DII lover, I'll take compactness over the 1-stop noise advantage of FF in my fantasy Canon MILC.

Look at the Pentax Q. It is already bordering on not fitting in a pants pocket and it is not even M4/3.

I agree an M9 bag is a lot smaller than a 5DII bag, but it still requires a bag. I want something that will fit in my pants pocket, like my IIIf. 'course, if Canon made something about the size of an X1 or heck an M9 for that matter, I'd still buy it.

 

[Tessarboy]

Thanks ! With photographers who look further this forum gets interesting again

Well, i guess FF experience varies. This is difficult to explain. Probably more a feeling. Of course apc came first, because at the time there wasn't anything better. Then much later came a 5D and a 5DII and i thought i wouldn't look back anymore.

On my large screen it isn't comparable, the difference is huge. The FF pics have more clarity, the apc's are more opaque. An apc pic is just a pic, a FF pic is of an other order, with a 5DII landscape pic you just want to walk into my screen !

I still added an Eos 500D as a second camera or for when the going gets rough. But afterwards i always have a remorse not to have brought the 5DII because i feel some wide pictures would have been so much more realistic. And the again it isn't so much smaller .. Same quest, i bought a Sony Nex 3 last winter to replace the 500D, because i had seen really good pictures on the net and i wanted a smaller package as said. My pics were not bad, on the level of the 500D, but more transparant (+) and alas with terrible CA (-), no viewfinder (-), crazy ergonomics (-). I finished selling it, again i felt a waste not to bring my 5DII. Somehow 'not bad' is not enough for me.

Sizewise i think that a FF sensor camera will never be as compact as an apc camera.

It is not only the sensor in itself, but all peripherals such as batteries that need to be bigger to feed the bigger sensor, bigger processor etc .... That doesn't preclude that in the future a FF sensor could be fitted in a Barnack sized digital camera. The ultimate dream. (i also use a real IIIf for fun, and fun it is)

If Canon brings a rangefinder with FF sensor, i preorder today rather than tomorrow
--
Tessarboy
'photography is about the quality of light'

 

[f_stops]

No adapters!. A new lens system must come out for the new FF Canon Mirrorless ILC pocket camera.

Any Canon Mirrorless MUST be compatible with EOS lenses if it is to be taken seriously. New Camera + adapter will provide a a body that joins the Canon system. This is Canon's biggest strength.

Certainly primes can be added specifically designed for it. Designing a camera for a loyal customer base requires respecting the costomer's investments in the system.

A mirrorless body becomes a 'second body' for many of us, then it can evolve into a flagship product as technology allows. This also allows time to build out a 'mirrorless' lens system.

Unless it is just a toy, an EOS adapter is required. Or M-mount compatablility, but that is very doubtful.

I just don't see that the technology exists today, or that Canon or Nikon are ready to take the step.

However, I decided not to wait around and took the plunge on an M9.
Just grabbed a '48 Summitar for fun.

 

[Peter Nelson]

There would be no problem fitting FF or crop sensors in a Barnak Body. The modern technoligies provide small PC boards, memory and wiring harnesses, batterey. The Barnak body is pocketable with certain lenses and it's still has enough top plate area for external controls. The Barnaks eventually has a rangefinder and an optical viewfinder for framing. I'm very sure that this means there is enough room for the optical rangefinder and also an optical viewfinder with a switch to turn it into a live view EVF.

Absolutly enough room on the back for a live view LCD and additional manual controls.

Like I said, the mfr's must know all this but to bring out such a camera sooner than later will prevent all the yearly upgrades of existing bodies and that would spoil the profits! They are in the camera business to make a profit not to cater to educated customers who know such a camera is possible today.
It will come and I will have one.

Canon has a real lot of Barnak body designs and updates from years ago. So when they make the digital version you can bet that there will be updated cameras coming from Canon for years and years for what would essential be the same Digital Barnak body.

Oh and the new mirrorless ILC lenses, I can hardly wait for them. The best optics at the best price and smallest size ever.
-Peter

so the teething pains might still take some time to find a
replacement through evolution (that is IF such replacement is
possible at all: so far nothing can beat versatility of DSLRs - from
macros, through landscapes, studio, action/sports, to even astro
all in one, universal body) - the x100 is a promising start, if only to be
gauged by uproar it created (and cries of disappointment afterwards),
but I doubt we'll see the x100 MkII - addressing all the unfulfilled
issues and problems - in less than 2 yrs. ??

jpr2

I think the mfr's are so slow to move to what is an obvious camera design is because then what do they do? Right now with small changes yearly the mfr's are able to keep their customers coming back each years for a new camera purchase. But once the customer has a satisfactory camera as both I and you have described then they will use that one for years and years. There is always the new lenses market even for these customers. I hope they make this camera for us soon.

Remember these ILC Mirrorless bodies are not sport cameras but for stills they are really good. Yes the SLR/DSLR has a place for sports and high frame rates. But I think the market for a small pocket camera with the features I describe is a larger market.

Saying this kicks a challenge out of equation, so here is our main bone
of contention buried - IMO if a MILC body will be able to cope even with
demanding action shooting, and using long lenses too, than all lesser
tasks should be no problem.
And laws of economy would for sure take care of finding a proper
market if a technical side will be solved right .

So, what would constitute such a minimal yardstick:

• interchangeable lenses;
• ability of free hand shooting, using some kind of viewfinder (shooting at arms length using back screen, even with a stabilized system, introduces too much of a compromise, esp. with longer lenses; possible solution: to use a tripod, and a black cape cutting reflections and glare - would revert us to beginnings of photography);
• OVF much preferable to EVF; a dual system offering both might be a possible compromise;
• not compromised manual focusing: using directly a focusing ring with enough throw (so far none of the offers for focusing by wire was 100% foolproof);

the list could be extended, but already it poses quite a hurdle for most
cameras but [D]SLRs, and some top RFs - so far not a single MILC

jpr2

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[Peter Nelson]

If a small Leica screw mount camera can be true 35mm format then a similar mirrorless ILC digital camera can be FF.

But for what benefit? 1 stop better noise? Meh. That will price the camera out of the market for many. My 7D is excellent at ISO 800, very good at 1600, good at 3200, and usable at 6400. A 12-16mp APS-C MILC should be even better.

FF will be better for 20mm, 24mm wide angle and semi wide lenses such as 28mm and 35mm as well as normal 50mm and mid tele lenses of 85mm/90mm and up to 135mm. That's why FF because most photography is done in these FL's.

I'm not going to buy a Canon compact MILC and then mount an adapter and my large EF lenses on it, so no need for FF if you ask me. 1 stop of better high ISO is all I can think of, and even that could be negated by a lower, more realistic megapixel count like 12 to 16.

No adapters!. A new lens system must come out for the new FF Canon Mirrorless ILC pocket camera.

You will need an adapter to mount an EF lens to a MILC. Assuming the MILC has shorter flange-to-sensor distance, as it should.

My point was there's no need for the MILC to be full frame because (among other things) using EF lenses should not be a consideration.

Not EOS EF lenses. A new sytem of lenses designed specifically for the new mirroress ILC FF bodies. Yes there can be cropped sensored bodies that can use these new lenses from Canon.

Manual focus is faster for me. I have been using Manual focus since 1981. I can follow moving motorcycles, boats, runners, walkers, cars and all type of events and get more keepers using manual focus.

Well you are clearly much better at MF than me and dare I say most people!

I left out birds in flight. They are sometimes too fast but I get enough keepers anyway. You just need to have the focus distance (and Av ) preset to the expected distance and then touch up the focus for sharpness.

BTW AF kills the photographers particapation and the entire feeling is different. Once you are proficient with manual focus your brain is always activly involved in the scene and action around you because usually you think ahead rather than react and point and shoot. It's a much more rewarding photographic expeience.
-Peter

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[Peter Nelson]

You are welcome for dinner at my house anytime. Before that we can go out and particapate in our wonderfull hobby of photography, come home and print the keepers as the wives cook the meal.
I like everything you have written!!! ;-)
-Peter

Once again, let it be clear that my Eos 5DII is the best camera i ever had, bar none.

But i happen to have a problem with the size .. and can compare, as i have or had many of the cameras mentioned in previous posts.

It is not the first time i read : "A Leica M9 is not much smaller than an Eos 5DII". At first sight this seems true, but it is the wrong argument for 2 main reasons :

1. The sheer bulk is of another order : the difference is in the size of the lenses and not so much in the cameras. This becomes obvious when you compare the total bulk of a typical photographers bag content, for example a Leica with 3 good primes and the Canon 5DII with 3 good EF L primes. Most Canonists cannot even imagine that the Leica bag would be 1/3 in volume of the equivalent Canon bag...

2) The sheer size of the lenses is intimidating : aim a typical EF L lens in their direction and 90% of people will halt their normal behaviour. (except .., i know) For a certain type of photography that i happen to like, these lenses and even more so their shades, kill any spontaneous expression.

So it might be obvious that i would welcome the 5DII sensor in a much smaller package

Why OVF ? It really amazes me that the whole crowd of 4/3 and equivalent apc mirrorless producers (except Fuji) overlook one important human demographic aspect. Almost all ageing people become farsighted. The majority of people over 55 Yrs old need spectacles to read and cannot work well wiith a lcd screen at armlenght anymore ! They need spectacles to see the lcd sharply, and have to take these off again to see the reality in front of the camera ! The typical OVF (with diopter compensation) doesn't show this problem, besides having other advantages. And guess what class of population (agewise) has the desire and the $$$ to buy a FF mirrorless ... ? Right !

I bet on Canon bringing the next rangefinder "renaissance".

Why not Leica ? Yes, they have the M9. Pricewise it is to exclusive and besides they are already straining to follow up orders and cannot afford to drop their small size manual production methods. They have the X1, which could grow into the the perfect small Barnack camera, (the dreamed IIIF equivalent). I doubt that Leica has at the moment the expertise to drop a FF sensor in an X1 sized body. But then this won't happen because it would become much more expensive with a mechanical OVF and besides that it would canibalise on M9 sales.

Why Canon then ? I think Canon has the resources and the state of the art to put a FF sensor in a compact camera. Canon no doubt has the experience as it built Leica-killer rangefinder cameras with OVF and good optics 50 yrs ago !

Go Canon !

(besides, i find your 'digital Barnack screw mount Canon' so wiity and appropriate !)
--
Tessarboy
'photography is about the quality of light'

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes