dancam wrote:
if Canon produced a camera to compete with the GF-1/EP-1 that would be amazing! APS-C would be just fine and it could still use an EF mount which is already plenty adaptable.
It would probably use a micro EF mount. There would be no need for the required camera depth for that mount -- it woulkd just make the camera unnecessarily fat. Like the m4/3rds, you probably could mount your EF lenses with full functionality via an adapter.
I too would really like to see something from Nikon or Canon in this form factor...
+1.
I was agreeing with Dancan's point of being able to fully use EF lenses on a smaller body, just like m43 now does with 43 lenses. this couls also be done with a mount that can be set short or long, moving in and out of the body. My old BRONICA S2A MF did that with its lenses.
If you think about it, there really isn't that much R&D required for Canon to make a body like this. They can hack up a T1i and use mostly existing technology and parts. The only thing that would need to be developed is the mount which like Olympus and Panasonic should be able to easily adapt to their mainline lenses.
dancam wrote:
If you think about it, there really isn't that much R&D required for Canon to make a body like this. They can hack up a T1i and use mostly existing technology and parts. The only thing that would need to be developed is the mount which like Olympus and Panasonic should be able to easily adapt to their mainline lenses.
That really isn't true. Olympus currently is taking a lot of flack for the AF system in the E-P1 compared to Panasonic's system which is vastly more effective. Panasonic did it right - they acknowledged that they were going to have to compete with dSLRs head on in terms of AF performance and spent considerable time and money on it. Panasonic not only beat Olympus, they now set the bar for Live View-based AF, with a better system than Canon's $8,000 flagship camera. If Canon was going to bother with this market, they would likely take the same
approach and develop a completely new system that was significantly better than their P&S systems and approaching their dSLR systems.
Sam Bennett wrote:
That really isn't true. Olympus currently is taking a lot of flack for the AF system in the E-P1 compared to Panasonic's system which is vastly more effective. Panasonic did it right - they acknowledged that they were going to have to compete with dSLRs head on in terms of AF performance and spent considerable time and money on it. Panasonic not only beat Olympus, they now set the bar for Live View-based AF, with a better system than Canon's $8,000 flagship camera. If Canon was going to bother with this market, they would likely take the same
approach and develop a completely new system that was significantly better than their P&S systems and approaching their dSLR systems. ...Show more →
I would think both of you are right. Canon probably would need to invest in getting the AF right. To be sure they have considerable expertise and technology in this area but would need investment. Further, much of the rest of the camera is off the shelf between their DSLR parts bin and their compact P&S part bin (G-series in particular) much of this is ready to go. Much of what is needed is cosmetics, ergonomics, and systems engineering to get all the bits combined in a new body and working together.
If Canon decided to do this, they could put a product together pretty quickly with a reasonable but not major investment.
I wouldn't mind if the Rebel line was converted to some sort of hybrid 4/3rd. Then the xxD/7D line would be the full sized DSLR line (and up from there).
bluetsunami wrote:
I wouldn't mind if the Rebel line was converted to some sort of hybrid 4/3rd. Then the xxD/7D line would be the full sized DSLR line (and up from there).
What benefit would that have for users buying into the hybrid format? If they only buy hybrid lenses, they'd have to get completely new lenses when they moved up to the dSLR line, due to the presumably shorter flangeback distance of the hybrid.
Nov 04, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
My take is that the market for the OP's proposed camera--small mirrorless full frame--is the market that now includes those who want a 5D, 5D MKII, or D700. It is the market to up sell those who have gotten into DSLRs or if enough people get into MFT to sell them on a better camera. Such a camera will likely have excellent IQ in a small package, but will not have high fps, or great autofocus--sounds a lot like the 5D series doesn't it?
I do see the EVF moving to all cameras within ten years. It just seems that the EVF will be significantly better than optical viewfinders before long and that technology seems way ahead of contrast autofocus technology. So it seems inevitable to me that at some point the EVFs will be plenty good enough to go mirrorless, but the contrast AF technology won't be there yet. When that happens you will see pro cameras with mirrors just for AF and EVFs and prosumer cameras that are mirrorless and at that point you might as well make them small. I think that is when you will see the OPs proposed camera. I would guess something like 7 to 10 years.
Then what happens to lenses? I think that depends on whether new lens designs will be needed anyway for higher resolution sensors or to aid contrast based autofocus. I would think initially Canon and Nikon would just make these prosumer mirrorless cameras with their old mounts, but if phase shift AF is completely replaced by contrast based AF then eventually we will see a new mount and new lenses that are smaller with a shorter registry distance. If the timing is right that the older lenses are not giving the needed resolving power anymore and the new lenses could be designed to increase resolving power and make contrast based AF easier and work better, then I think the change in lenses will be sooner. If not the change will take longer. Either way the inevitable, IMO, change to mirrorless cameras is going to completely change cameras and if Canon and Nikon don't make the change or wait to long to make the change they run the risk be run out of the business in twenty years, and the company that can make the change most effectively to mirrorless cameras will have a significant edge in the market.
Sam Bennett wrote:
What benefit would that have for users buying into the hybrid format? If they only buy hybrid lenses, they'd have to get completely new lenses when they moved up to the dSLR line, due to the presumably shorter flangeback distance of the hybrid.
I meant a hybrid that takes all the normal EF lenses. No new mount system or anything.
For this kind of camera, FF doesn't really interest me much. Since I do a lot of people shooting and close-up/macro shooting the increased DoF usually works more for me than against me. I also really don't find myself pining for an EVF at all - the GF1's LCD is surprisingly good in bright sunlight.
The GF1 is almost perfect for my needs - my only real complaint is the high ISO performance, which is pretty terrible for a modern camera. I end up having to process in B&W a lot since I do so much shooting indoors at ISO 800 or higher.
Having an EVIL type camera based on a Micro F mount would be cool since I could use my Nikon lenses, but honestly... it doesn't hold much appeal. In practice, I think I would do what I'm doing with the GF1 - taking advantage of the super-short flangeback and keeping things as compact as possible. That means buying "native" glass, or M Mount glass. So... I'm not sure if Nikon went this route (which seems more likely than Canon) if I'd even bother buying into it unless Nikon approached it as a "professional" system with more robust build quality, weather sealing, etc.
Sam Bennett wrote:
For this kind of camera, FF doesn't really interest me much. [...] my only real complaint is the high ISO performance, which is pretty terrible for a modern camera.
...at the expense of shallower DoF, larger size, etc.
Panasonic is not getting as much out of the 4/3rds size as they could if they had as much experience in sensor design as Canon and Nikon have. I don't need D700-like noise performance out of MFT, but getting a usable ISO 3200 (or 1600 for that matter) would be great.
Sam Bennett wrote:
What benefit would that have for users buying into the hybrid format? If they only buy hybrid lenses, they'd have to get completely new lenses when they moved up to the dSLR line, due to the presumably shorter flangeback distance of the hybrid.
That is the same argument as going from EFs to FF lenses; there is room for both.
dasrocket wrote:
That is the same argument as going from EFs to FF lenses; there is room for both.
Except that buying a 1000D and a bunch of EF-S lenses means you still have an upgrade path with those lenses to the 500D, the 50D or the 7D before you have to sell everything off. Jumping from "EF-SS" to EF-S would mean you're completely hosed, even though the crop-factor likely hasn't changed.
Yakim Peled wrote:
BTW, my dream camera has 40mm FFD or less, FF, AS, 2MP EVF and an adapter to enable aperture and AF in EF/EF-S lenses. It will never be built, I know.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Mine is one the size of the E-P1 with a fast (read: 1.4, no less), small 35mm and a little slower (2.8 is ok), also small 17mm+- on a body that can do ISO 3200 well. Put in a 2K EVF and completely remove the LCD screen. Oh and please, a flash sync socket!
