Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > New Canon EIS mirrorless system - Four Thirds, but not Four Thirds!

Reply
Thread Tools

New Canon EIS mirrorless system - Four Thirds, but not Four Thirds!

 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2010
There are strong rumours that Canon's EIS mirrorless camera system
will be announced at Photokina later this month. The sensor size is
very, very close to Four Thirds.

Basic specs:

22 MP sensor , size 18 x 12 mm (Four Thirds is 17.3 x 13 mm)
1080P video at up to 30 fps
ISO 100-6400 native
Dual SD card slots

Rumored EIS-format lenses include the following (remember to consider
the 2x crop factor):

12-75mm f/2.8-4 IS Macro (kit lens)
75-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
5mm f/4 Fisheye
8-25mm f/4
14mm f/2 Pancake
25mm f/1.2 Pancake
45mm f/1.5 Pancake
65mm f/2 Macro

For more information, go to:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3abvdph
or:
http://www.photographybay.com/2010/0...camera-rumors/

The sensor could be described as Four Thirds size but with a 3:2
aspect ratio instead of 4:3. It is interesting that Canon should give
such a strong vote of confidence in the principles of Four Thirds
without actually joining the system.

Of course all the armchair experts and serial bores on here will
pontificate about why it can never work, despite (probably) selling
like hot cakes ...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2010
On 9/13/2010 4:49 AM, Bruce wrote:
> There are strong rumours that Canon's EIS mirrorless camera system
> will be announced at Photokina later this month. The sensor size is
> very, very close to Four Thirds.
>
> Basic specs:
>
> 22 MP sensor , size 18 x 12 mm (Four Thirds is 17.3 x 13 mm)
> 1080P video at up to 30 fps
> ISO 100-6400 native
> Dual SD card slots
>
> Rumored EIS-format lenses include the following (remember to consider
> the 2x crop factor):
>
> 12-75mm f/2.8-4 IS Macro (kit lens)
> 75-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
> 5mm f/4 Fisheye
> 8-25mm f/4
> 14mm f/2 Pancake
> 25mm f/1.2 Pancake
> 45mm f/1.5 Pancake
> 65mm f/2 Macro


Also they've announced an EF lens adapter, though it's hard to imagine
using some of the large EF lenses on such a small body.

22 mpixels on an 18 x 12mm sensor huh? Are they trying to take on
Panasonic for the noisiest cameras? Maybe they've come up with some new
way to deal with noise.

The other big question is about the AF speed. One of the biggest reasons
people buy D-SLRs is for the phase-detect focusing which is so much
faster than contrast detect, but that thus far has required a mirror.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2010
On 9/13/2010 9:27 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, and the same for Nikon. I presume they don't want to "join the system"
> so that other makers' lenses won't fit their cameras. While Nikon and Canon
> must see this as a plus, I'm wondering to what extent consumers will see it
> as a negative.


4:3 and Micro 4:3 are hardly a widely used standards, if you can call
them standards at all. There are magnitudes more Nikon or Canon users
using a "proprietary" system then there are 4:3 users.

Assuming that both Nikon and Canon offer adapters that allow the use of
their current SLR lenses on the new systems, it would be a positive
versus going to something like 4:3.

No doubt shortly after these systems are announced, if they gain any
traction you'll see after-market lenses from the usual players.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2010
"lofi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I was recently in central Europe.
>Camera stores in central Europe most prominently feature Olympus in their
>window displays: whether this is Olympus marketing or reflects actual market
>penetration I have no idea.
>At the tourist sites I informally surveyed cameras.
>Ignoring the glut of P&S cameras, which to their users are miracles compared
>to the cheap film cameras they previously used, there were already a large
>number of EVF cameras and slews of dSLRs. The latter were mostly Canon and
>Nikon with a smattering of Pentax and Olympus.
>The most common EVF camera I noticed was, surprisingly, the Sony, chiefly
>among Asian tourists. However its form factor is more distinctive than
>others which may create a false impression.



Some interesting points.


>The slews of dSLRs suggest that this niche has achieved market saturation. I
>wonder how many users tote these things only to make snapshot jpegs they
>could have gotten of equal quality with smaller, lighter gear.
>I was surprised how many tourists of all origin, with dSLRs, tote massive
>high end lenses that are virtually useless, except for neck and back strain,
>at mid-day crowded venues. The best gear on earth will not get you the image
>you want under poor lighting conditions with hundreds of people milling
>about.



Sadly, it has always been the case that millions of people make very
bad snapshots with very expensive equipment. Very few people need
expensive DSLRs to take pictures of their family, their pets and their
vacations. A 24 MP mediocre snapshot is no better than a 6 MP
mediocre snapshot.

Unless camera owners take some action to improve their ability, this
will continue to be the case. The next generation of DSLRs may well
bring 34.5 MP DSLRs, but without owners who know how to use them, the
results will be 34.5 MP mediocre snapshots that are no better than
their 6 MP mediocre snapshots.

The trouble is, most photographers are fooled by advertising into
thinking that better equipment means better images. That's only the
case if the idiot behind the camera also becomes a better idiot.


>If I did not have a closet full of Canon and Nikon dSLR gear I would favor
>smaller and lighter for extended travel: the 4/3 sensor size is more than
>good enough for the purpose the images will be used for.



99% of camera owners will find all the performance they ever need in a
good quality compact point and shoot digicam or a superzoom. For the
vast majority of images that are taken around the world, even (Micro)
Four Thirds is overkill.

Having said all that, I think the new Canon EIS System will change the
digital photography market forever, just as several Canon products
have done in the past - for example the Canon EOS 1Ds, the Canon EOS
5D and the Canon G Series.

 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2010
On 9/13/2010 10:50 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:

> Yes, probably, if sales volume justifies it as you say. I expect that will
> take some considerable time though.


These new systems all assume that size is the only barrier to many P&S
owners moving to an interchangeable lens camera from a superzoom (or
other P&S).

These new systems will eliminate some of the problems that plague
superzooms, but not all of them. They will have better high ISO
performance, less noise, and eliminate the need for the compromised
lenses of the superzooms. But will they be as slow in AF as the superzooms?

I think I'll stick with a D-SLR and use my CHDK equipped P&S cameras
when it's impractical to carry the D-SLR outfit. Buying lenses and
bodies and flashes all over again for a smaller, but less capable system
is not something I'd spend money on.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2010
On 9/13/2010 11:59 AM, Doug McDonald wrote:
> On 9/13/2010 12:48 PM, Bowser wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 12-75mm f/2.8-4 IS Macro (kit lens)
>>> 75-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
>>> 5mm f/4 Fisheye
>>> 8-25mm f/4
>>> 14mm f/2 Pancake
>>> 25mm f/1.2 Pancake
>>> 45mm f/1.5 Pancake
>>> 65mm f/2 Macro

>>
>> A consumer system with all these fast primes? Really? I seriously
>> doubt this one is real.

>
> They don;t require any optical design work ... they are likely
> just shrunk versions of older lenses, tweeked a bit in a hurry.
>
> Doug


With the dismal sales of 4:3, Micro 4:3, and the Sony Nex system, it's
only natural that Canon and Nikon feel compelled to enter the market for
smaller, interchangeable lens cameras.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2010
Neil Harrington wrote:

> Their sales are really that bad, huh? Maybe Nikon and Canon feel, though,
> that the type is going to become much more popular and they want to get
> their own systems into the market as early as possible, because once buyers
> have gotten into a system (lenses and other accessories) they are less
> likely to switch.


I'm sure that's the case. Plus Nikon and Canon have a huge advantage
because of their installed base of lenses. Still, it almost seems to me
like APS again. Remember the APS film SLRs? There was nothing really
wrong with them, and they were smaller than 35mm SLRs, but they were
basically an answer to a question that nobody asked.

It remains to be seen if the Canon and Nikon mirrorless systems are
worthwhile products, but based on the earlier competition it seems that
the only value proposition is smaller size, but you give up some of the
crucial advantages of D-SLRs over P&S models. If I'm giving up those
advantages anyway, I might as well just get a G12 for when the
D-SLR is too much to take along.

The timing is another issue. It seems that D-SLRs have now achieved such
market penetration that how many owners are going to want to go to the
new mirrorless systems and start all over again building a system? I was
really amazed this summer up in Glacier National Park to see the sheer
numbers of D-SLRs. Even a lot of older kids had them on the trail. Now
the market will be those people that don't yet have a D-SLR, that don't
understand the limitations of the mirror-less system, and that will
likely buy it instead of a super-zoom, not instead of a D-SLR.

Personally, what I'd like to see someone do, is a weatherproof system. I
get tired of worrying about rain and snow and dust. Almost bought the
child unit a weatherproof P&S for her week long canoe trip in the
boundry waters, but she just took the Canon A570-IS in a waterproof bag,
and was careful with it. Can't get her to use CHDK though. My son would
be more impressed with CHDK as he's more into that kind of thing. I've
had him proof-read some of the documentation I've written, and had him
try following the instructions while on the camera, and he thinks it's
pretty cool.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ofnuts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2010
On 14/09/2010 01:08, Outing Pretend-PhotographerTrolls is FUN! wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:18:31 -0700, SMS<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> One of the biggest reasons
>> people buy D-SLRs is for the phase-detect focusing which is so much
>> faster than contrast detect, but that thus far has required a mirror.

>
> One of the biggest reasons people avoid D-SLRs is for their phase-detect
> focusing which is so much less accurate than contrast detect,


99.99% of the people not using DSLRs don't even know phase-focusing
exists (and they don't know about contrast focusing, either).

And, er, "slapping mirror and shutter designed last century which
prevents any expensive lens attached to it having its resolution reduced
by half", that reads that the DSLR shutter allows the lens to be used at
full resolution, right?

--
Bertrand
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mort
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2010
SMS wrote:
> Remember the APS film SLRs? There was nothing really wrong with them,
> and they were smaller than 35mm SLRs, but they were basically an answer
> to a question that nobody asked.


Yes, there really was something wrong with them. Their small film area
meant that cropping and/or large prints were out of the question. I have
6 years of APS film cartridges on my shelf. Even with high-res scanning
and a very good inkjet printer, I can only make good prints in 4x6"
size, or very few, e.g. closeups in 5x7" size. My 8x10s are laughably
bad. Even with Kodak's APS processing, the optical prints were nothing
special. The APS cameras were small snapshot cameras, and were better
than no camera.

I had given up my Nikon F3 and Olympus OM4T outfits inasmuch as I could
no longer carry around 12 pounds of equipment on trips.

APS is now an orphan format, and many photo labs are no longer equipped
to process the films or print them. I had all mine scanned to CD-Rs on a
shop's old machine that still accommodated APS cartridges.

P.S. I now make very nice 8x10s with my Canon SD-850 and careful
software work plus careful printing.

Morton Linder
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2010
On 9/13/2010 5:20 PM, Mort wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Remember the APS film SLRs? There was nothing really wrong with them,
>> and they were smaller than 35mm SLRs, but they were basically an answer
>> to a question that nobody asked.

>
> Yes, there really was something wrong with them. Their small film area
> meant that cropping and/or large prints were out of the question.


APS was not all that small. It was 16.7 mm x 30.2 mm compared to
2436mm for 35mm. It wasn't like 110 file (12mm x 16mm).

The quality of prints from a home scanner and an inkjet printer does not
represent the quality of prints that can be obtained from _any_ film size.

It's similar to today's full frame versus APS-C size digital sensors,
while the P&S sensors are more like 110 film--able to produce decent
snapshots in good lighting conditions, but built to be small, not built
for high quality.

BTW, there was even a 110 SLR.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon mirrorless let-down (maybe) RichA Digital Photography 27 07-28-2012 09:52 PM
Canon, Nikon mirrorless = Disney and FOX on DVD RichA Digital Photography 9 09-15-2011 04:57 PM
Canon; Only loser companies need compact mirrorless RichA Digital Photography 1 03-21-2011 11:25 PM
Nikon's patent applications for mirrorless camera system? Bruce Digital Photography 25 11-28-2010 01:55 AM
Canon and Nikon mirrorless remind me of FOX and Disney at theinception of DVD RichA Digital Photography 2 09-08-2010 01:13 PM



Advertisments