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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Sep 13, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    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/2010/09/12/canon-eis-60-mirrorless-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 ...
     
    Bruce, Sep 13, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    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.
     
    SMS, Sep 13, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    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.
     
    SMS, Sep 13, 2010
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    "lofi" <> 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.
     
    Bruce, Sep 13, 2010
    #4
  5. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    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.
     
    SMS, Sep 13, 2010
    #5
  6. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    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.
     
    SMS, Sep 13, 2010
    #6
  7. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    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.
     
    SMS, Sep 14, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 14/09/2010 01:08, Outing Pretend-PhotographerTrolls is FUN! wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:18:31 -0700, SMS<> 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
     
    Ofnuts, Sep 14, 2010
    #8
  9. Bruce

    Mort Guest

    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
     
    Mort, Sep 14, 2010
    #9
  10. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    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
    24×36mm 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.
     
    SMS, Sep 14, 2010
    #10
  11. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 9/14/2010 8:30 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:

    > Exactly. I never could see the point of APS -- other than to help Kodak et
    > al. sell a lot of expensive photofinishing equipment. The size advantage
    > over existing compact 35s was trivial, the ease of loading was really no
    > better than that of 35s by that time, and the choice of formats was probably
    > of little if any interest to the average buyer who only wanted standard 4 x
    > 6 prints anyway.


    Well the one nice thing about APS was the small Canon Elph camera,
    probably the only APS camera that ever sold very many units.

    It was also supposed to be a better way to store negatives, and it would
    be easier for automated photo-finishing equipment to process.
     
    SMS, Sep 14, 2010
    #11
  12. In article <4c8f87aa$0$1620$>, SMS
    <> writes
    >
    >BTW, there was even a 110 SLR.


    Actually, there were at least four! ;-)
    Two from Minolta, the 110 Zoom SLR in 1976
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minolta110ZoomSLR_20090412.jpg
    followed the more conventionally shaped Mk-II from 1979
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Minolta_110_Mk_II.jpg

    and the two classics from Pentax, the Auto 110 in 1978
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Pentax_Auto_110.jpg
    followed by the Auto 110 Super in 1982
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/DSC03941.JPG

    The Pentax models are certainly more memorable though, because they were
    backed by a complete system, "System 10", including interchangeable
    prime and zoom lenses as well as motor drives and automatic flashes.
    http://whitemetal.com/pentax/a110_slr_system/DSC04071.JPG
    The Minoltas were fixed zoom lens cameras more akin to what are these
    days termed "ZLRs", but they pre-dated the taxonomy.

    A neat feature of the Pentax 110 cameras that should have made it to the
    modern dSLR is the in-camera iris - stopping dust from ever entering the
    camera when the lens was changed. Forget dust cleaning systems, this
    would be dust prevention! (I know there are aftermarket kits that serve
    a similar function on dSLRs.)

    We like to think that electronics enables miniaturisation but, though
    the Four-turds format is about the same size as a 110 frame, Olympus has
    struggled to make their dSLR range as small as any of the OM full frame
    cameras. Meanwhile Minolta and Pentax managed to do this with a
    mechanical system back in the 70s, despite the extremely inefficient 110
    film cartridge packaging. Progress! :-(
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Sep 14, 2010
    #12
  13. Re: New Canon EIS mirrorless system - Four Thirds, but not FourThirds!

    ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    Ofnuts <> wrote:
    > On 14/09/2010 01:08, Outing Pretend-PhotographerTrolls is FUN! wrote:
    >> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:18:31 -0700, SMS<> 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).


    They just wonder why everything takes ages to focus.

    > 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?


    Obviously. Contrary to P&S cameras with contrast focus designed
    last century which allows even slow spiders to escape from being
    photographed. Of course there is one exception, P&S cameras with
    fixed focus, a design from 2 centuries ago, which allows one to
    snapshot without waiting for the camera.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 14, 2010
    #13
  14. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "SMS" <> wrote in message
    news:4c8eb7bd$0$22177$...
    > Ofnuts wrote:


    >
    > Clearly our favorite troll has never used a D-SLR since he does not
    > comprehend the advantages it provides.
    >
    > What he should do to be taken seriously is to learn the trade-offs between
    > the different types of digital cameras and to which conditions each one is
    > suited.


    You're assuming a non-existent sincerity. It specializes in chain pulling.



    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Sep 17, 2010
    #14
  15. On 9/17/10 PDT 5:01 AM, Peter wrote:
    > "SMS" <> wrote in message
    > news:4c8eb7bd$0$22177$...
    >> Ofnuts wrote:

    >
    >>
    >> Clearly our favorite troll has never used a D-SLR since he does not
    >> comprehend the advantages it provides.
    >>
    >> What he should do to be taken seriously is to learn the trade-offs
    >> between the different types of digital cameras and to which conditions
    >> each one is suited.

    >
    > You're assuming a non-existent sincerity. It specializes in chain pulling.



    Crikey, can't you three stop talking about the pest??? There's only a
    handful now that feed his ego.

    --
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 17, 2010
    #15
  16. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:i700gh$ng1$-september.org...
    > On 9/17/10 PDT 5:01 AM, Peter wrote:
    >> "SMS" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4c8eb7bd$0$22177$...
    >>> Ofnuts wrote:

    >>
    >>>
    >>> Clearly our favorite troll has never used a D-SLR since he does not
    >>> comprehend the advantages it provides.
    >>>
    >>> What he should do to be taken seriously is to learn the trade-offs
    >>> between the different types of digital cameras and to which conditions
    >>> each one is suited.

    >>
    >> You're assuming a non-existent sincerity. It specializes in chain
    >> pulling.

    >
    >
    > Crikey, can't you three stop talking about the pest??? There's only a
    > handful now that feed his ego.



    Including you? :)

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Sep 17, 2010
    #16
  17. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 9/17/2010 5:01 AM, Peter wrote:
    > "SMS" <> wrote in message
    > news:4c8eb7bd$0$22177$...
    >> Ofnuts wrote:

    >
    >>
    >> Clearly our favorite troll has never used a D-SLR since he does not
    >> comprehend the advantages it provides.
    >>
    >> What he should do to be taken seriously is to learn the trade-offs
    >> between the different types of digital cameras and to which conditions
    >> each one is suited.

    >
    > You're assuming a non-existent sincerity. It specializes in chain pulling.


    People can change. Perhaps he'll eventually tire of his current shtick
    and decide to educate himself. I do wish he'd stop promoting CHDK, and
    stop claiming that he's a contributor to the CHDK effort, as he hurts
    the reputation of CHDK by association. Every time I load CHDK now, I
    cringe to think that our favorite troll promotes it.
     
    SMS, Sep 17, 2010
    #17
  18. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "SMS" <> wrote in message
    news:4c93940d$0$1613$...
    > On 9/17/2010 5:01 AM, Peter wrote:
    >> "SMS" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4c8eb7bd$0$22177$...
    >>> Ofnuts wrote:

    >>
    >>>
    >>> Clearly our favorite troll has never used a D-SLR since he does not
    >>> comprehend the advantages it provides.
    >>>
    >>> What he should do to be taken seriously is to learn the trade-offs
    >>> between the different types of digital cameras and to which conditions
    >>> each one is suited.

    >>
    >> You're assuming a non-existent sincerity. It specializes in chain
    >> pulling.

    >
    > People can change. Perhaps he'll eventually tire of his current shtick and
    > decide to educate himself. I do wish he'd stop promoting CHDK, and stop
    > claiming that he's a contributor to the CHDK effort, as he hurts the
    > reputation of CHDK by association. Every time I load CHDK now, I cringe to
    > think that our favorite troll promotes it.



    Since you don't know it's real identity, even if you personally have met
    every contributor to CHDK, how can you tell the truth?
    Just think logic.


    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Sep 17, 2010
    #18
  19. Re: New Canon EIS mirrorless system - Four Thirds, but not FourThirds!

    SMS <> wrote:

    > People can change.


    People, yes. Slime molds and trolls? I doubt it.

    > Perhaps he'll eventually tire of his current shtick
    > and decide to educate himself.


    It alreads is educated (as far as it can ever be). After all,
    it uses DSLR pictures and claims they were done by P&S cameras.

    It just won't tire of it's stick. Maybe a usenet death
    penalty would cure it over half a year (i.e. nobody even gets
    to read what it writes), but people still feed it.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 18, 2010
    #19
  20. On 9/17/10 PDT 8:55 AM, Peter wrote:
    > "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    > news:i700gh$ng1$-september.org...
    >> On 9/17/10 PDT 5:01 AM, Peter wrote:
    >>> "SMS" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4c8eb7bd$0$22177$...
    >>>> Ofnuts wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Clearly our favorite troll has never used a D-SLR since he does not
    >>>> comprehend the advantages it provides.
    >>>>
    >>>> What he should do to be taken seriously is to learn the trade-offs
    >>>> between the different types of digital cameras and to which conditions
    >>>> each one is suited.
    >>>
    >>> You're assuming a non-existent sincerity. It specializes in chain
    >>> pulling.

    >>
    >>
    >> Crikey, can't you three stop talking about the pest??? There's only a
    >> handful now that feed his ego.

    >
    >
    > Including you? :)
    >


    Yes, including me. It's very tiresome. Now only you and a half dozen
    others are continuing the practice.

    --
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 18, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul D. Sullivan

    Is the Four-Thirds project the answer for DSLR's?

    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    671
    Mike Engles
    Aug 21, 2003
  2. Todd Walker

    Re: 300D as a 'Four Thirds' killer?

    Todd Walker, Aug 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    42
    Views:
    1,008
    Todd Walker
    Sep 16, 2003
  3. Alan Browne

    Re: 300D as a 'Four Thirds' killer?

    Alan Browne, Aug 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    331
    Lionel
    Aug 21, 2003
  4. Bernhard Mayer

    Re: 300D as a 'Four Thirds' killer?

    Bernhard Mayer, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    324
    Jim Townsend
    Aug 29, 2003
  5. Charles Schuler

    Four-thirds?

    Charles Schuler, Jul 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    254
    Views:
    5,151
    Brian C. Baird
    Jul 19, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page