Canon to go mirrorless.

  • Thread starter Thread starter whiteflyer
  • Start date Start date
W

whiteflyer

Guest
According to a Reuters article:

"Canon (7751.T), the world's largest maker of digital cameras, is exploring the possibility of launching a mirrorless model, featuring many of the capabilities of an upmarket single-lens reflex camera in a more compact body, a senior company executive said."

Also:

"Masaya Maeda, head of Canon's camera division, also said the company had restored camera production to pre-quake levels at the end of June, after supply chain woes hampered output after the March 11 disaster, and it now plans to hike production capacity in Taiwan."
Click to expand...
 
So they have bought and stripped down one of the new Sony's to see how it works then ;)

Must admit it will be strange to take a shot without the sound of the mirror, think as the technology advances it will soon be the 'norm'

.DAVID.
 
David Stallard said:
So they have bought and stripped down one of the new Sony's to see how it works then ;)

Must admit it will be strange to take a shot without the sound of the mirror, think as the technology advances it will soon be the 'norm'

.DAVID.
Click to expand...

I believe Canon actually played with SLT tech in the 80s but abandoned it in favour of SLR ;)
 
I think mirrorless is eventually how all DSLR's will end up in the future.

If sony can make an A55 SLT shoot at 10fps, think what could be done with that sort of technology in a pro grade body.

I'm sure nikon and pentax are "exploring the possibility" of mirrorless models as well.
 
I'm all for progress, as long as us non Sony shooters dont have to put up with those God awful EVFs that are starting to plague the Sony die hards!
 
EVF's will get better.

The one in my G1 puts many SLR's / DSLR's to shame although it suffers in poor light but once that's fixed, and doubtless the newer ones are better, we'll be trying hard to find anything to complain about.
 
Canon make a 10fps pro body. it takes film and is called a dripped EOS 1v :p

They have done a couple of pelicle mirror film SLRs too so its not really new ground for them.
 
Something like a 1DmkIV in a small pocketable body and I'd be sold big time! :thumbs:

I love my Panasonic GF2 for it's size and discreetness which makes travel/documentary/reportage photos a pleasure to take. For sports and aviation it falls down on it's AF tracking and FPS bursts. If they could sort that and add 7D, 5D2, 1D4 image quality I think it would be a real winner.

I like using an viewfinder but since getting the GF2 I have started to see that I am not really bothered if a camera doesn't have one provided the LCD is high-res (which the one on the GF2 sadly is not).
 
EVFs are the big stickling point for me as well. Unless they get as good as a direct optical path (and let's face it, will they ever?) of light, they are possibly a dealbreaker to me.
 
freecom2 said:
EVFs are the big stickling point for me as well. Unless they get as good as a direct optical path (and let's face it, will they ever?) of light, they are possibly a dealbreaker to me.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no doubt that EVF's will get better, and remember that the best now are far better than some SLR/DSLR OVF's already.

With the advantages that they bring I'm sure that future generations will look back at OVF's and wonder how we managed :) Even my now quite old tech G1 has an EVF that's better than many OVF's I've used, it gets noisy in low light but it's still better and that says good things about what will be achieved.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I have absolutely no doubt that EVF's will get better, and remember that the best now are far better than some SLR/DSLR OVF's already.
Click to expand...

Could you fill me in on this? I've always considered them to be inferior - slower and more laggy. Maybe the worst crop sensor DSLR viewfinders might be possibly rivalled by some high end EVFs, but I very much doubt SLR viewfinders are even remotely matched - you could park a bus on the viewfinder image of the best film SLRs.

I'm not entirely sure where to look for the cutting edge regarding these technologies, so any pointers would be appreciated, thanks!
 
I've used plenty of film cameras that had crap viewfinders and modern DSLR's can be worse.

Have a look at this to see what the coverage is like...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicDMCGH2/page3.asp

... makes an APS-C DSLR look pretty poor, for coverage anyway.

As for quality, you're really going to have to try them for yourself. You wont be in any doubt that you're looking at a generated image and it's only my own opinion but even ignoring the technical advantages and features that come with EVF's and consentrating upon them just as something to look at and frame a shot with I still stick with my opinion that the best are already better than many OVF's.
 
odd jim said:
I'm all for progress, as long as us non Sony shooters dont have to put up with those God awful EVFs that are starting to plague the Sony die hards!
Click to expand...

How would you make a mirror less camera with an OVF, apart from some kind of rangefinder arrangement?
 
freecom2 said:
Could you fill me in on this? I've always considered them to be inferior - slower and more laggy. Maybe the worst crop sensor DSLR viewfinders might be possibly rivalled by some high end EVFs, but I very much doubt SLR viewfinders are even remotely matched - you could park a bus on the viewfinder image of the best film SLRs.

I'm not entirely sure where to look for the cutting edge regarding these technologies, so any pointers would be appreciated, thanks!
Click to expand...

The EVF in the Sony a33/55 is a little laggy and pixelated in low light, but has it's advantages in very low light. Always having a WYSIWYG view means you can see the result, before shooting, in complete darkness. Even the best OVF become pretty much useless (save for viewing settings, meter info etc) when you can't see the subject at all. :)

Rumour has it that the a77 will have a much higher res EVF, with no visible lag (plus the usual 100% coverage, levelling guide etc etc). Even as an a850 user, who loves his huge pentaprism OVF, I suspect the EVF in the a77 will be good enough (will all the other advantages of the SLT design) to tempt me.
 
specialman said:
EOS RT - pelicle mirror model. Cool as f... how I wanted one!!!! :)
Click to expand...

Certainly a cool idea, but it lacked the 2 things needed to make up for the lost light; an EVF and a good high-ISO digital sensor. :-)
 
Interesting - looks like a field that will be rapidly developing in the years to come. That said, arguably the cameras which have EVFs which are better for low light don't have the technology like the best DSLRs to capture that low light well, so it works both ways really.

I don't doubt that some film SLRs had bad viewfinders, but I shoot with a Pentax MX :)
 
freecom2 said:
I don't doubt that some film SLRs had bad viewfinders, but I shoot with a Pentax MX :)
Click to expand...

I've got an MX on the desk next to me.
It hasn't got any film in but every now and again I pick it up just to have a look through it. . .
 
Last edited:
freecom2 said:
That said, arguably the cameras which have EVFs which are better for low light don't have the technology like the best DSLRs to capture that low light well, so it works both ways really.
Click to expand...


I leave my GF1 and G1 on auto ISO and let them get on with it. I forget what the highest setting is but auto only goes to 1600 (only! :)) Here's a shot taken while out walking @f1.7 followed by a 100% crop, both have had basic NR in CS5...

P1020759s.jpg


P1020759cs.jpg


More recent cameras will be better and I suppose each of us will have to make our own minds up when they're good enough.
 
Johnd2000 said:
How would you make a mirror less camera with an OVF, apart from some kind of rangefinder arrangement?
Click to expand...

With a rangefinder arrangement.
 
According to a Reuters article:

"Canon (7751.T), the world's largest maker of digital cameras, is exploring the possibility of launching a mirrorless model, featuring many of the capabilities of an upmarket single-lens reflex camera in a more compact body, a senior company executive said."

This is both something and nothing though isn't it? Of course they're looking at it, as they have been for the last few years.

I'm guesing that they're waiting for the technology to become good enough, ie better than their current conventional technology. Now if he said they'd made a breakthrough of some kind, that would be interesting.

The 'problem' for Canon and Nikon is that they have an enormous and profitable share of the DSLR market and cannot afford to be second best; Sony, Olympus, Samsung and Panasonic have, arguably, nothing much to lose.
 
If/when Canon do this it'll be interesting to see what sensor size and mount they go for. One thing that would put me off would be a big full frame EF or APS-C EF-S lens on a small form body (although some say that it's not a problem on the Sony.) The MFT sensor size is adequate (IMVHO) and allows smaller lenses, a plus point I think.
 
woof woof said:
I've used plenty of film cameras that had crap viewfinders and modern DSLR's can be worse.

Have a look at this to see what the coverage is like...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicDMCGH2/page3.asp

... makes an APS-C DSLR look pretty poor, for coverage anyway.

As for quality, you're really going to have to try them for yourself. You wont be in any doubt that you're looking at a generated image and it's only my own opinion but even ignoring the technical advantages and features that come with EVF's and consentrating upon them just as something to look at and frame a shot with I still stick with my opinion that the best are already better than many OVF's.
Click to expand...

vfcomp.jpg


Just so people can see, the viewfinder in the GH2 is really quite big!
 
daugirdas said:
I can't see Canon allowing m43 lenses on their cameras. I am sure they will use their own mount - whether EF or something new - just like Sony.
Click to expand...

I can't see them using MFT mount either and I didn't mean to say that I thought that they would. They could develop something smaller than APS-C but not MFT, maybe they'll do a Pentax :) and go really small... Whatever, I think that it'll be interesting to see what they'll do and if they intend users to use EF or EF-S lenses it'll be interesting to see how a smaller camera feels with those relatively large lenses.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I can't see them using MFT mount either and I didn't mean to say that I thought that they would. They could develop something smaller than APS-C but not MFT, maybe they'll do a Pentax :) and go really small... Whatever, I think that it'll be interesting to see what they'll do and if they intend users to use EF or EF-S lenses it'll be interesting to see how a smaller camera feels with those relatively large lenses.
Click to expand...

Whatever they do, I think it will be pretty special. I guess a lot depends on how far the technology will allow them to go, and we have no idea if they have a big leap forward around the corner, or just incremental developments. Can they even get rid of the shutter and go fully solid state?

I think they'll have two lines, eventually - a super-compact consumer range which could be MFT using a new lens range with shorter back focus, and then a pro range using existing EF lenses (where back focus doesn't make much odds) and possibly a new format making better use of the lens' image circle. Doing away with the mirror/shutter would be hugely liberating.

Personally, I would love to see a square 32x32mm format and get rid of the turning the camera landscape/portrait thing. That would have 18% more sensor area and given that a lot of images are cropped along the width anyway, you'd lose nothing. Give it 40mp and take the medium format market as well :love: This digital thing has hardly begun really :thumbs:
 
I have absolutely no doubt that EVF's will get better, and remember that the best now are far better than some SLR/DSLR OVF's already.
Click to expand...

Rubbish, there is a lot of difference between coverage area and quality, they may have better coverage but in comparison the quality is *****.. stick them in a low light situation and they fail miserably as does that damn awfully slow auto focus system.
I tried my G1 with everything up to leica lenses and it still failed in low light.


As for the so called news about canon going mirror-less this is old hat they have been talking about it for nearly 2 yrs, what remains to be seen is how they go about it.

Most are hoping that they stick with APS-C and don't go for a 4/3rds size sensor, I myself just hope they go for either a built in optical viewfinder or a composite optical/EVF similar to the system on the Fuji.

If canon don't bring out an M39 adaptor, you can bet a third party will, so I wouldn't panic on that one.

I would also like to see them bring out something to challenge the Leica M series.

Full frame sensor in a compact rangefinder size/style body with full manual controls, now that I would buy if its was affordable (not many can find nearly £5000 for the Leica + another few grand for lenses)
 
David Stallard said:
So they have bought and stripped down one of the new Sony's to see how it works then ;)

Must admit it will be strange to take a shot without the sound of the mirror, think as the technology advances it will soon be the 'norm'

.DAVID.
Click to expand...

Maybe not lose that. My little Canon P&S has the option to turn the shutter sound on and off.
Shutter / mirror clunk becomes a "comfort" sound after a while.
 
woof woof said:
I have absolutely no doubt that EVF's will get better, and remember that the best now are far better than some SLR/DSLR OVF's already.

With the advantages that they bring I'm sure that future generations will look back at OVF's and wonder how we managed :) Even my now quite old tech G1 has an EVF that's better than many OVF's I've used, it gets noisy in low light but it's still better and that says good things about what will be achieved.
Click to expand...

There is no chance that even the very best EVF is anywhere near as good as the worst OVF.

How can an EVF rival the optical resolution of the human eye??
 
Have the doubters actually tried these cameras? If you two haven't saying that my view is "rubbish" would seem somewhat arrogant and ill-informed.

I stick by my view I have used some poor OVF's through the years but if argumentative others haven't I really could give a flying...:wave:
 
HoppyUK said:
Personally, I would love to see a square 32x32mm format and get rid of the turning the camera landscape/portrait thing. That would have 18% more sensor area and given that a lot of images are cropped along the width anyway, you'd lose nothing. Give it 40mp and take the medium format market as well :love: This digital thing has hardly begun really :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Yup. Turning the camera is a pain. Some cameras have a 1:1 crop mode, ok you lose some as it's a crop but for many uses it'd be ok and the shape of some sensors with multi crop modes means that you still get a good size image.
 
squishy said:
I've got an MX on the desk next to me.
It hasn't got any film in but every now and again I pick it up just to have a look through it. . .
Click to expand...

It's amazing, even more so considering how it's the smallest 35mm SLR as well.

I'm reserving judgement on EVFs, but I still am not entirely convinced that it can beat a direct light path from the environment, onto mirrors and pentaprisms straight onto your eye. That's like looking at the moon, or looking at a monitor with a sensor pointing at the moon?

Besides, haven't Nikon/Canon/all major photographic companies been toying with this idea for ages now? The presumption of the title is completely wrong, from what I can see.
 
woof woof said:
Have the doubters actually tried these cameras? If you two haven't saying that my view is "rubbish" would seem somewhat arrogant and ill-informed.

I stick by my view I have used some poor OVF's through the years but if argumentative others haven't I really could give a flying...:wave:
Click to expand...

Yeah I've used them which is why I detest them!

I've owned 2 fuji's which had EVFs, and used more modern variants and they are all as rubbish as eachother. IMO.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
There is no chance that even the very best EVF is anywhere near as good as the worst OVF.

How can an EVF rival the optical resolution of the human eye??
Click to expand...

Because it shows things you can't see with an OVF.
 
woof woof said:
I accept your well informed view and hope that at some point in the future they're good enough for you.
Click to expand...

I hope so too. And I'm sure one day they will but I'm not sure we are close to that point.
 
woof woof said:
Yup. Turning the camera is a pain. Some cameras have a 1:1 crop mode, ok you lose some as it's a crop but for many uses it'd be ok and the shape of some sensors with multi crop modes means that you still get a good size image.
Click to expand...

If you compare a modern DSLR with an old film SLR, they are extremely similar. SLRs had to be that way, because of the film they used and because of the necessity of working around the mirror/prism/shutter mechs.

None of that need apply to digital - the only thing that is dictated now is the need for a lens with a sensor stuck on the end. Everything else can be changed or repositioned.

I don't think electronic viewfinders are good enough yet, but they will be. Could be around the corner, could be years away, but it will come. The potential advantages are just too great to ignore.
 
Exactly, like being able to see what you're shooting in low light, OK with OVF you can use focus assist... or a torch :) then there's all the tricks and treats that digital can do. I'm obviously the biggest fan of EVF's in this thread :) but even with the noise and slow refresh etc in low light shooting in very low light last night I could see detail that an OVF just couldn't reveal and as I said before that's the state of play with a camera that's a couple of years old now and things are only going to improve.

As to the shape of things, I wonder who will be the first to change the shape.
 
iancandler said:
Rubbish, there is a lot of difference between coverage area and quality, they may have better coverage but in comparison the quality is *****.. stick them in a low light situation and they fail miserably
Click to expand...
can only speak for the Sony SLTs but they gain up in dim light meaning that you can see better than you would with an OVF (albeit you are aware that it's an electronic image)
as does that damn awfully slow auto focus system.
Click to expand...
Sony SLTs have phase detect so same as your DSLR.
& supposedly the latest Olympus & Panasonics have made a big improvement in contrast detect focus speed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top