Hints of Canon mirrorless to come ?

gizmodo.com/5886593/patent-hints-at-canon-mirrorless-camera-duh

I've got my fingers crossed that the sensor in the new G1 X is also the new mirrorless sensor.

Kelly

I would love to buy a mirrorless system, and I own several EF lenses. But I'm not excited about the idea of a mirrorless camera system that supports the EF mount.

The EF mount is HUGE. It's was overdesigned for a full frame 35mm negative. Using EF lenses with a smaller sensor seems like kind of a waste. The EF mount was designed to accomodate a big mirror flipping up out of the way. If you go mirrorless you can design your lenses so they sit much closer to the sensor. But not EF mount lenses -- 'cause they are designed to sit a certain distance from the sensor.

Basically an EF mount mirrorless system is not going to be much smaller than a digital rebel. The only place you are going to save space is by getting rid of the pentaprism. You are just giving up the optical viewfinder. (Something many mirrorless system critics complain about.) And the advantages of phase detection autofocus vs contrast detection autofocus.

Really, if you want a Canon mirrorless system, put your Canon DSLR in "live view" mode and you are there.

If you want a smaller mirrorless camera you need to abandon the EF mount. Which means Canon has to come out with a whole new line of lenses, and there is no advantage to Canon vs any other mirrorless manufacturer.

If EF lenses are so great for mirrorless cameras, why doesn't Canon sell an adapter so their expensive lenses can be used on Sony/Olympus/Panasonic mirrorless cameras? Surely they all have 100% electronic interfaces?

mattmoran wrote: If you want a smaller mirrorless camera you need to abandon the EF mount. Which means Canon has to come out with a whole new line of lenses, and there is no advantage to Canon vs any other mirrorless manufacturer.

EF-S

To me the whole point of buying a mirrorless camera is to reduce weight and size. So a mirrorless canon that uses the same heavy EF lenses I already own isn't too appealing. I guess I could always buy some lighter EF-s lenses, but then I'm still buying all new lenses so might as well purchase any of the mirrorless options.

I'd rather see a small lightweight canon with it's own line of small fast prime lenses with an optional EF adapter for those who insist on using EF lenses.

So what's this? A camera that lets you take photos of mirrors?

Stealthy Ninja wrote: EF-S

The flange focal distance for EF-S is 44mm, just like for EF. By comparison, the flange focal distance for micro 4/3 is 20mm and for Sony E-mount is 18mm.

If Canon makes a mirrorless system that is compatible with EF and EF-S lenses, it will not be a small camera body. They wiill give up the big advantage of mirrorless to maintain compatibility with lenses designed to leave room for a mirror.

mattmoran wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: EF-S

The flange focal distance for EF-S is 44mm, just like for EF. By comparison, the flange focal distance for micro 4/3 is 20mm and for Sony E-mount is 18mm.

If Canon makes a mirrorless system that is compatible with EF and EF-S lenses, it will not be a small camera body. They wiill give up the big advantage of mirrorless to maintain compatibility with lenses designed to leave room for a mirror.

Could make it like the NEX cameras.

Gotta agree with -Matt. A mirrorless design lugging EF-S lenses makes little sense. Though I do hope that the new mount can take a fully functional EF-S adapter. It would be super cool if Canon just adopted Sony's E-mount, but you-know-where would freeze over first.

Kelly

KCook wrote: Gotta agree with -Matt. A mirrorless design lugging EF-S lenses makes little sense. Though I do hope that the new mount can take a fully functional EF-S adapter. It would be super cool if Canon just adopted Sony's E-mount, but you-know-where would freeze over first.

Kelly

Lenses on the NEX system are pretty big too.

When I first got my NEX I was sort of disappointed that the lenses seemed so big. I own numerous 35mm film cameras with much smaller lenses. I even have a few medium format film cameras that have smaller lenses. I'm wondering if being able to pixel peep so easily has really changed our perception about what a quality lens is. I was perfectly happy with those film lenses, but maybe if pixel peeped they'd show problems? Or maybe film is more forgiving about the angle that the light is striking it vs. photoreceptors on a sensor?

The biggest NEX lens I own (the standard zoom) is about the size of the smallest EOS lens I own (50mm f/1.4). The NEX zoom is about 1cm longer, although it's about that much thinner too. I bought a NEX to Nikon adapter, and I'm using old manual focus lenses on it. The adapter + lens is about the same size as the NEX standard zoom. But once again I'm back to wondering why a small, mf 50mm f/1.4 lens for 35mm film can be half the size of the same for my 35mm DSLR. Is it the AF? I would gladly give up AF for smaller size, although I suppose a lot of folks wouldn't want to do that. I've seen a few old, manual focus, cine lenses adapted for the NEX that are very small. Quality seems to be an issue, but I wonder what could be done if the lens was designed for the NEX from the get go.

Having carried the NEX for half a year now I am not as concerned with lens size. In use it's still significantly smaller than a DSLR. I don't want to go any bigger than the lenses I own now, but the NEX with a lens still takes up less space than a DSLR body alone. It's not a pants pocket camera, but it fits in a jacket pocket just fine. For the pants pocket camera I just assume I'll have to give up interchangeable lenses. How about an APS-C format digital camera the size of a Olympus Stylus Epic . For a truly pocket-able camera that had acceptable high ISO quality I can give up the zoom lens.

For me it is very important that the small camera I'm carrying works good at high ISOs. I'm most likely going to be shooting it in dim, interior situations, and I'm going to skip the flash, because on-compact-camera flash sucks even worse than on-DSLR flash. I don't care what Ashton Kutcher claims about that new Nikon, or the folks who like micro 4/3 say, looking at real world sample images they just don't even come close to an APS-C format sensor at ISO 1600 and 3200. At least for now. But if they figure out how to make a tiny sensor with decent high ISO I'd probably be content with a cell phone cam as my always carry pocket cam.

Colourful Photography wrote: So what's this? A camera that lets you take photos of mirrors?

A non-reflex design. Sure they've been around since day one, and the majority of film cameras were mirrorless without having to point it out, but the kids these days (mainly the ones working in the sale dept.) like to come up with new terms for old ideas.

Henry Peach wrote:

Colourful Photography wrote: So what's this? A camera that lets you take photos of mirrors?

A non-reflex design. Sure they've been around since day one, and the majority of film cameras were mirrorless without having to point it out, but the kids these days (mainly the ones working in the sale dept.) like to come up with new terms for old ideas.

Colourful, you made the same type of statement about "Pancake lenses".

Yes, the "majority" of film cameras were "mirrorless" but those were early models that did not jet you see what the camera "saw". Based on that logic, more film cameras were fixed focal length, fixed aperture point-and-shoots, or as our friend calls them, PhD models (Push Here Dummy). Calling them "new terms for old ideas" is like calling not very accurate. Comparing a mirrorless camera to a Brownie or Rangefinder is totally off mark. These add the benefit of an SLR without the weight.

But once again I'm back to wondering why a small, mf 50mm f/1.4 lens for 35mm film can be half the size of the same for my 35mm DSLR. Is it the AF?

Yup. AF (especially with motor in lens) and in lens IS both add bulk. I don't want to give up either, Canon has already spoiled me on that matter. Could give up these features for a viewcamera or medium format that will always live on a tripod. But not a handheld camera.

Kelly

I have a number of older cameras, the ones that are mirror-less that John referred to and perhaps are what Matt had in mind are probably the viewfinders like the bakelite vest pocket cameras that have a lens, a shutter, a viewfinder (not necessarily even with glass in it) and maybe two settings. - the budget cameras of their day. Some of the box Brownies have mirrors as there are two windows/viewfinders basically, usually one on top of the camera and one on the side so you can turn the camera horizontally or vertically and see the image either way.

Rangefinders use mirrors but not that flip up like an SLR, which makes them more streamlined. There's one image that you see thru the viewfinder and an image that comes in to the film/sensor - the split image focus basically converges the two images I believe. The twin lens cameras have one lens that projects the image to the film and another that uses a mirror to reflect the image up so you hold the camera at waist level and look down at the image.

So besides the fact that there are older cameras with and without mirrors, I wonder if Canon intends to make mirrorless cameras compatible with EF lenses as well as with their newer lenses so people can use the bodies and lenses interchangeably.