Canon to go mirrorless.

[Johnd2000]

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.

Of course, SLTs aren't mirrorless, so they're not really relevant save for discussing the effectiveness of EVFs. However, the point about them using PDAF is perhaps the biggest advantage of the "halfway house" (between SLR and mirrorless designs) that SLTs represent. You get full PDAF in video as well as still photography, even when the shutter is open. They don't just refocus between shots at 10fps, they continuously maintain focus throughout.

 

[HoppyUK]

I have no time for Sony's SLT gubbins. It takes us nowhere, has inherant drawbacks and doesn't even work very well. It's just a (cheap) marketing tack so that Sony can say, 'hey, we're different and innovative' with the implication that somehow this makes them better. If Canon had such an option, I wouldn't buy it. And these new Sony's aren't exactly rippin' up trees are they.

EVFs are the way forward, with contrast-detect AF. It is already pretty good, rivalling entry-level DSLRs for speed, and it will surely get very good very soon. Imagine the ability to lock on to the subject (basically using face-detection technology) and track it anywhere around the screen, permanently in perfect focus. Any info you like can be overlaid.

How about an EVF that you view with both eyes? (Please don't mention 3D ) It would be like being instantly transported to the cinema - big, bright, sharp, easy to view, in any light. It's gonna get good this camera stuff

 

[Johnd2000]

I have no time for Sony's SLT gubbins. It takes us nowhere, has inherant drawbacks and doesn't even work very well. It's just a (cheap) marketing tack so that Sony can say, 'hey, we're different and innovative' with the implication that somehow this makes them better. If Canon had such an option, I wouldn't buy it. And these new Sony's aren't exactly rippin' up trees are they.

OVFs are the way forward, with contrast-detect AF. It is already pretty good, rivalling entry-level DSLRs for speed, and it will surely get very good very soon. Imagine the ability to lock on to the subject (basically using face-detection technology) and track it anywhere around the screen, permanently in perfect focus. Any info you like can be overlaid.

How about an EVF that you view with both eyes? (Please don't mention 3D ) It would be like being instantly transported to the cinema - big, bright, sharp, easy to view, in any light. It's gonna get good this camera stuff

Did you mean EVFs in the 2nd para? Your post doesn't make sense, if not. Then again, you're way off in the 1st para anyway. How many camera of the year awards did the a55 get? Ive seen 3 or 4.

An EVF you can view with both eyes? I'd call that a screen! ;-)

 

[HoppyUK]

Did you mean EVFs in the 2nd para? Your post doesn't make sense, if not. Then again, you're way off in the 1st para anyway. How many camera of the year awards did the a55 get? Ive seen 3 or 4.

An EVF you can view with both eyes? I'd call that a screen! ;-)

Haha! Sorry, yes. I mean EVFs - now corrected. Thanks.

Awards - you mean like TIPA? Well, who hasn't got a TIPA award - Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Samsung, Fuji, and Panasonic all got one too. They're awarded to attract advertising. All awards are.

 

[roseway]

How can an EVF rival the optical resolution of the human eye??

That's a bit of a silly rhetorical question. The human eye is used in both cases. What the EVF is replacing is an optical system in the camera, and of course its performance can equal or exceed that, and no doubt will in due course.

 

[odd jim]

That's a bit of a silly rhetorical question. The human eye is used in both cases. What the EVF is replacing is an optical system in the camera, and of course its performance can equal or exceed that, and no doubt will in due course.

Its not silly, or rhetorical.

Why be limited by pixels when you can have a straight optical view through the lens with your very own eyeball???

The input/output resolution will always be far better with OVFs.

 

[Musicman]

The input/output resolution will always be far better with OVFs.

I used to think that way, based on my experience with a Nikon bridge camera with an EVF we have at work (which was horrible).

However, I wouldn't bet on that holding true for anything longer than a few years - always won't be forever.

My G2 has an 60 fps 800x600 EVF. There's some technical gubbins about it using 'full colour' pixels, which means that it gives a better looking image than a conventional LCD display of that resolution.

YMMV, but I find it's certainly more than good enough for framing with a legacy lens stopped down to f/16 in good light before the image starts to degrade noticeably. I reckon I can manual focus with it accurately 95% of the time without having to magnify the view (which you can't do with an OVF). I don't think I'm much more accurate using a split image rangefinder on a manual focus film body and I wouldn't want to be doing that stopped to f/16 in the first place (automatic aperture control is such a blessing ).

Reviewing images in the EVF often reminds me of holding up a 35mm slide to my eye (with a similar kind of luminosity feel). TBF, a slide that looks good to the naked eye reveals problems under a loupe, but I'm impressed enough that I can make that comparison.

At the end of the day, there's a limit to how much detail the human eye can resolve, which is why it's mostly pointless having 1080 HD on a 22" TV. I can't be bothered to do the research and the maths at this time of night, but my gut feeling is that if the EVF resolution were taken up even up to as little 1024x768 or 1280x960 , it would give a fair approximation of the viewfinder on my 5D. It's already certainly a better experience than the gloomy tunnel that presented itself to my eye on my old 300D.

Take it up to 1600x1200 and I think it would match the OVF in one of my FD film bodies, which is still my benchmark for a decent viewfinder for anything but medium format.

 

[odd jim]

I dont doubt that in a few years the quality of EFVs will be very good, and as you say, the human eye only 'reports back' up to a certain resolution. But at the moment they are nowhere near a comparison.

But when the EVFs are up to scratch, imagine what the rest of the camera will be like! Bring it on!

 

[HoppyUK]

Those figures feel about right Rob. We quite quickly reach a point where extra detail is irrelevant because we can't detect it - basic concept for depth of field, defined by the circle of confusion. Just look at a PC screen - can you see the dots at normal distance?

And the resolution of DSLR optical viewfinders is actually pretty low. They are not direct-optical, and what we see is limited by the focusing screen.

 

[odd jim]

Those figures feel about right Rob. We quite quickly reach a point where extra detail is irrelevant because we can't detect it - basic concept for depth of field, defined by the circle of confusion. Just look at a PC screen - can you see the dots at normal distance?

And the resolution of DSLR optical viewfinders is actually pretty low. They are not direct-optical, and what we see is limited by the focusing screen.

There's no drop in resolution through an OVF (the focusing screen has little effect and simply bounces light around) but it can reduce the level of light hitting the photographer's eye.

 

[HoppyUK]

There's no drop in resolution through an OVF (the focusing screen has little effect and simply bounces light around) but it can reduce the level of light hitting the photographer's eye.

The limit is set by the fineness of the ground glass. Point your camera at a page of small printed text - 30mm-ish lens on a crop format, 50mm on full frame, so it appears roughly the same size - and see what you can read compared with the naked eye. It's much lower through the viewfinder.

 

[Ksanti]

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??

The fact that you think you're looking at a forum screen rather than a load of coloured dots is evidence to the contrary.

 

[odd jim]

The fact that you think you're looking at a forum screen rather than a load of coloured dots is evidence to the contrary.

But if I put the screen to my eye I'd see the dots!

 

[goldenlight]

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.

God no! They'd then have direct competition with lenses from Olympus, including the SHG Zuikos and Canon aren't that stupid!

 

[specialman]

Slighty off the original topic (although the know-it-alls don't seem to be bothered either and it wasn't really a topic to start with, more a vague press release), I'm just wondering - and this is a serious question but one I've never asked before - but how will this benefit the DSLR user of today, especially those who've been using reflex cameras for a long period of time?

Obviously camera size is reduced (and in turn, cost maybe) and I like the idea about better low-light viewing, but what are the other benefits? What would draw someone like me who uses a standard DSLR system and is used to a prism and some glass showing me what's out there? I don't think I've had a play with a proper modern EVF, other than that on a HD handicam (which is poor). Does the G-series (Lumix??) have one? I had a play with one of them and thought it to be a right neat bit of kit, but can't remember how I felt looking at an electronic image....

One of the wider questions (and this is the cynic in me asking) would be; why would a manufacturer such as canon (or Nikon, if they follow suit) ditch the whole basis of their business when the design of their key products is one that works. New lens systems, if we're going down the route of thinking about new (smaller) mounts, seems a massive jump for any brand that is market leading, especially when that system has been developed by them and they regard it as the best. I could understand some brand that has piggy-backed an existing system (Samsung) going and doing it because they're investment isn't one developed over many, many years and one they haven't invested countless £££££££££ in.

Seems to be a lot of pdenatry in this thread instead of it of helping dullards like me understand what could be a massive shift in photography equipment....

 

[goldenlight]

Slighty off the original topic (although the know-it-alls don't seem to be bothered either and it wasn't really a topic to start with, more a vague press release), I'm just wondering - and this is a serious question but one I've never asked before - but how will this benefit the DSLR user of today, especially those who've been using reflex cameras for a long period of time?

Obviously camera size is reduced (and in turn, cost maybe) and I like the idea about better low-light viewing, but what are the other benefits? What would draw someone like me who uses a standard DSLR system and is used to a prism and some glass showing me what's out there? I don't think I've had a play with a proper modern EVF, other than that on a HD handicam (which is poor). Does the G-series (Lumix??) have one? I had a play with one of them and thought it to be a right neat bit of kit, but can't remember how I felt looking at an electronic image....

One of the wider questions (and this is the cynic in me asking) would be; why would a manufacturer such as canon (or Nikon, if they follow suit) ditch the whole basis of their business when the design of their key products is one that works. New lens systems, if we're going down the route of thinking about new (smaller) mounts, seems a massive jump for any brand that is market leading, especially when that system has been developed by them and they regard it as the best. I could understand some brand that has piggy-backed an existing system (Samsung) going and doing it because they're investment isn't one developed over many, many years and one they haven't invested countless £££££££££ in.

Seems to be a lot of pdenatry in this thread instead of it of helping dullards like me understand what could be a massive shift in photography equipment....

That's a very pertinent question and one which, being an Olympus user, I've had cause to consider much more than the average Canikon owner. There's a bit of a debate (just a bit!) going on in Olympus Land about the very issues you raise. Small and light is all very nice but it doesn't suit everyone. Micro Four Thirds is seen by many as a welcome addition to, but not a replacement for a full size DSLR.

This is particularly an issue when using Olympus top pro lenses such as the 35-100mm f2, 90-250mm f2.8 and 300mm f2.8 (remember that these focal lengths are effectively doubled on Four Thirds). With just the E-5 currently being produced in the traditional DSLR range the worry for many is that Olympus may pull out of this sector altogether. What's the point in having expensive glass that is consistently better than Canon or Nikon, some lenses being in a class of their own the standard being so high, if there is no body to mount it on?

I don't share those fears because those lenses are the crown jewels and I cannot see Olympus giving them up easily. The smaller Oly DSLRs in my opinion were never ideally suited to these big lenses anyway and really need the superb handling of the E-3/E-5. But the answer to your question is no, for users like yourself a smaller mirrorless camera would not be a suitable replacement for your DSLR.

On the other hand a small, mirrorless Canon system might nicely compliment your DSLR for those occasions when you want a small, light camera and don't need large lenses. It's clear that the micro system market is here to stay and is expanding faster than the DSLR market, indeed encroaching to some extent. Nobody yet knows what inroads this new breed of camera might eventually make into the DSLR market. Nikon and Canon might be wise to join the carnival now rather than be left dominating an increasingly niche market in the future. Although there will always be a need for a DSLR sized camera there is no reason why in the future, as the technology advances, that a full sized mirrorless camera should not be produced.

 

[roseway]

It seems to be fairly inevitable that, over time, mechanical-optical systems will be replaced by electronics wherever it's possible to do so. A mirrorless and shutterless SLR-equivalent camera would have many obvious advantages, and is bound to become the norm eventually, I think.

 

[specialman]

....On the other hand a small, mirrorless system might nicely compliment your DSLR for those occasions when you want a small, light camera and don't need large lenses. ......

A point I've considered lately, mainly because my D2x is not a good fit in the missus' handbag These Lumix G-series, the Fuji X100, Olympus Pen - these are types of camera that interest me greatly because of their size more than anything else....

 

[HoppyUK]

Slighty off the original topic (although the know-it-alls don't seem to be bothered either and it wasn't really a topic to start with, more a vague press release), I'm just wondering - and this is a serious question but one I've never asked before - but how will this benefit the DSLR user of today, especially those who've been using reflex cameras for a long period of time?

Obviously camera size is reduced (and in turn, cost maybe) and I like the idea about better low-light viewing, but what are the other benefits? What would draw someone like me who uses a standard DSLR system and is used to a prism and some glass showing me what's out there? I don't think I've had a play with a proper modern EVF, other than that on a HD handicam (which is poor). Does the G-series (Lumix??) have one? I had a play with one of them and thought it to be a right neat bit of kit, but can't remember how I felt looking at an electronic image....

One of the wider questions (and this is the cynic in me asking) would be; why would a manufacturer such as canon (or Nikon, if they follow suit) ditch the whole basis of their business when the design of their key products is one that works. New lens systems, if we're going down the route of thinking about new (smaller) mounts, seems a massive jump for any brand that is market leading, especially when that system has been developed by them and they regard it as the best. I could understand some brand that has piggy-backed an existing system (Samsung) going and doing it because they're investment isn't one developed over many, many years and one they haven't invested countless £££££££££ in.

Seems to be a lot of pdenatry in this thread instead of it of helping dullards like me understand what could be a massive shift in photography equipment....

Professionals and enthusiasts will be the last to change. You just have to believe that the potential/theoretical promise of smaller, cheaper, faster, sharper, and operationally better cameras, will be realised eventually. But until that time comes, high end users will stick with what we've got (and that's now at a very high standard) and Canikon will keep making them.

But you have to look at this from the manufacturer's position, and the fact that you have £10k's worth of fantastic kit now is, frankly, of little interest to them. They need you to buy new stuff all the time, to stay in business. That is what is driving this whole thing, and when you look at it like that it makes sense.

Lower down the market, the concept of 'better' changes. Simply being new and different is usually sufficient, so long as the performance is good enough. Look at the current selection of compact system cameras, which are selling in large numbers (I heard 25% of the over £300 market, which is probably exagerated but even if it's half true that's a very significant number indeed) and they are much more 'different' than objectively 'better' than similar priced DSLRs but people like buying new things. Any excuse - making it look like an old classic is a popular one, eg Olympus Pen, or the Leica-ish Fuji X100. Those more emotional marketing tags are very strong.

 

[ZoneV]

At last, if there's one thing I've always absolutely hated about my camera it's the bloody mirror!

Consumer bait?

 

[gerrard8]

My wife has a Sony a33 and although i'm no champion for the EVF it does seem way better than that of the Fuji's from a few years back.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the a77 when it arrives, if the EVF is much improved it it may be worth considering.

 

[goldenlight]

I stick by my view I have used some poor OVF's through the years

Oh, so have I! The Olympus E-500 for a start, which was even marginally worse than the Canon 30D. Both are knocked into a cocked hat by the latest Olympus EVF.

But those who really don't want to use an EVF needn't worry, they won't have to for at least another five years, probably longer if they use Full Frame DSLRs.

 

[JBrown1]

I tried an A55, but decided the EVF just wasn't for me.

 

[inkiboo]

The main problem with EVFs is response time. No matter how fast you make the data path it is going to be slower than a pure optical pathway. This makes them fairly useless for sports or other fast moving action.

 

[squishy]

The main problem with EVFs is response time. No matter how fast you make the data path it is going to be slower than a pure optical pathway. This makes them fairly useless for sports or other fast moving action.

I'm sure the technology will advance far enough to overcome this.
There will always be some lagg, but once it's into milliseconds it's no worse than the minute shutter lag that all cameras have anyway.

 

[JBrown1]

The main problem with EVFs is response time. No matter how fast you make the data path it is going to be slower than a pure optical pathway. This makes them fairly useless for sports or other fast moving action.

Especially in low light. It was like when you do frame by frame advance watching a dvd. Not really my cup of tea at all.

To be fair though, the A55 was full of toys. The 10fps sounded nice when you pressed the shutter release...