Thoughts From Canon on a Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera

[BigDaddyM]

Personally, if Canon just greatly improves the "G" series (APS-C and a 24-70mm equivalent lens with f2.0 throughout the zoom), then they will have something awesome. I don't need high megapixels but I do want a fast lens and sensor in a small form factor.

Sony proved that most can be done. The only thing that Sony NEX-7 does not have is a fast lens (24-70) that is pancake in size. I find it silly to have mirrorless and then a massive lens.

Canon has won me in the DSLR market, but for compact, I use a LX3. I only wish that it had a APS-C size sensor and if the next "G" was that, Canon will have my money.
M

 

[elflord]

Canon is sitting pretty already with the G12, G13 coming up, and the s100.
Depending on whether size or buttons are more important, these are 2
excellent substitutes for mirrorless.

They already have the IQ & fast lenses in these cameras.

Is there an imminent G13 ? I haven't heard of one and suspect it is on track for extinction because it is bulkier than cameras with much bigger sensors.

While the S100 and G12 have better IQ than "traditional" compacts, they can't compete with big sensor mirrorless cameras that have sensors 4 times as large. Likewise, the lenses are fast if you compare them to other zooms, but not primes.

Just what could Canon gain with yet another "me-too" mirrorless with interchangeable lenses?

They need a bigger sensor in their G12 replacement or it simply won't be competitive. It doesn't need to be an interchangeable lens camera -- they could take a similar approach to fuji.

 

[elflord]

This is what I can't get past. The majority of people are happy just using their phones. Serious enthusiasts are more likely to go for DSLRs.

DSLRs dominate in the US, but mirrorless is doing better in Japan. So it's not clear that DSLRs automatically win the high end amateur market.

The point-and-shoot market is over-saturated already and being eroded by phones. So, where do these mirrorless cameras fit in?

Yuppies and enthusiasts who want a more compact camera. Basically, the high end amateur market.

I can't shake the feeling that the Sony, Panasonic, etc. mirrorless represent a transitional technology. I've no doubt that Canon is watching the market closely and if and when they jump in, they have the resources to offer a category killer if they choose. I'd love to see what their market research shows.

They no doubt are watching the market, but if they went for a system camera, they would need to develop a camera, a new lens mount and a decent assortment of glass. Even then, it won't be a category killer to begin with because much like Sony, they will trail m43 in their lens offerings.

 

[dealaddict]

i don't agreed. The fact is that the sales of mirrorless camera takes 30% of the total camera sale in Japan. And mirrorless camera is more popular in Asia. This shows that there is a market for good quality (mainly due to larger sensor) and smaller than DSLR camera. The size of DSLR is driving many people away. Like me, I shoot with Canon 5D and L lenses, but I pick up my NEX more and more often because of the size. Sometimes I just go out for dinner and I don't know if I will take any pictures, but I still would bring my NEX with me just in case, but I won't bring my 5D. Also, last time I went for a trip with my 2 kids, I want to travel light so I just bring my NEX. To me, it is quite stupid that Canon doesn't get into this market. I don't think a G12 be able to capture same quality picture as the NEX for my kids playing indoor. I agree that mirroless doesn't need to have interchagable lens, but the fact is, you can't make a all in one lens with big aperture with big sensor. If Canon can make the G13 with APSC sensor and a 24-70 F2.8 with the same size as the G12, then it will be a killer, but it seems not possible.

 

[torger]

It seems unlikely to me that Canon would make a mirroless with Leice M9-like quality. Making a whole new set of high quality lenses etc.

Mirrorless will be cheap, and probably not much better than the Nikon V1/J1 toys.

In the very long term mirrorless designs will more than likely replace DSLRs (when technology allows them to be better at everything than DSLRs), so at some point a high quality system need to appear but this is not the time I think.

 

[photosites]

The whole marketing hype of mirrorless cameras is the ability to have a camera with DSLR quality images at the size of the point and shoot. The closest camera to that promise the the GF3X, but that would mean to maintain that size profile, you will need to stick to pancakes or that one lens. Still the GF3X is bigger than the G12.

I have yet seen any photos comparing the NEX-5N + SEL 18-200mm vs DSLR. Would it really be that small?

If we could just take a step back from all that marketing hype that all the mirrorless camera manufacturers poured onto us and take a clear look at the true value proposition of mirrorless cameras, we would realize that this is still a highly un-established market segment. If not for their ability to use classic MF lenses, note that mirrorless lenses are often poor in quality and high in price. Now, do I want a collection of those lenses, definitely not.

 

[Hillsilly]

Maybe Canon has something special in mind with the fixed lens idea? There's a picture of the Canonet 28 on the front page. Maybe that's a hint? Or a clue? or both? I hate it when CanonRumors teases us like this!

Perhaps Canon are planning a full frame replica of the Canonet? While the 28 (pictured) would be ok, I hope they do it properly and go with the QL17 or QL19 GIII. I wonder if they've still got the Canonet factory mothballed somewhere? They just have to dust off the cobwebs and work out how to whack in a 1DX sensor and an LCD and could be knocking these babies out in a few months. They'd sell like hotcakes!

 

[LuckyRosco]

I have recently bought the Sony NEX-5N, I wanted something with better image quality than my G12 but smaller/lighter than my 5DMII & 7D. I think Canon is missing out on this Niche market. They wouldn't have to create a whole new lens line. Just use the EF-S mount and you'll have a instant line of quality lens for the new camera. They wouldn't have to make it compatible with the EF mount, because I doubt someone is going to attach a 70-200L II to something so small.

I would just hope that the image quality is better than the NEX-5N. After comparing the camera against my 7D, the 7D beats it hands down in performance. Even with my 18-55 kit lens.

 

[Doodah]

I think the single most important detail has been left out in CR guy's 3-point synopsis. Canon is contemplating releasing small mirrorless cameras in 2012 besides high-end DSLRs and compact cameras!!! The key considerations are the 3 points raised in CR guy's summary.

If one understands Mandarin, the following site provides a good translation from the original Japanese pdf article: http://forum.xitek.com/showthread.php?threadid=949600

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Well, the first thing to recognize is that EVIL/ILCs are being seen as "competition" for the market, and many of us have a vested interest in seeing no format change taking place. I do not think there is much to worry about, since professional and even consumer lenses for EF mount will not be replaced by an ILC camera.

It would be nice to have more choice, especially for people who mainly shoot just wide to medium telephoto where the lens size can be limited, in smaller bodies. I would caution that we aren't going to see much more quality in compacts without large sensors (which there isn't really any pressure to produce for this market) and large lenses; however the Nikon V1 / J1 demonstrate that you still can have high quality higher ISO shots with a smaller sensor, and even a bit more size in the lenses should allow for much greater quality than currently available in the compacts (assuming, however, that sample variation and mismatches are not going to plague ILCs as much as they do DSLRs - this seems easily tested for compacts at the factory, whereas with an ILC you don't know which lens it will end up being paired with).

One other note about the Nikon F mount adapter: An EF mount adapter for an ILC could restrict the minimum size of the ILC. The Nikon F mount space is notably smaller than EF mount (the film to flange distance is mostly irrelevant here) would either mean an adapter unit would hang below the camera, or it would restrict how small the ILC could be by a certain amount.

 

[mb66energy]

The questions are
- what are the advantages of a mirrorless design?
- Do I want to use one set of lenses for all cameras or am I willing to do things in parallel?

I see some advantages of mirrorless cameras and I want to use ONLY ONE LINE of LENSES.

I would like a camera which has the following three functions/application ranges:
- compact portable camera with a line of 3 or 4 pancake primes (17/24/40/80mm equiv and f/2.8 , perhaps the 40mm as f2.0) - a 17mm lens without the need to bend the light to allow a mirror to flip would be great!
- camera with good video features which can be used with my EF and EF-S glass
- "intelligent rear cap" for e.g. a EF-S 10-22 in the bag - always ready to shoot

This for let's say 1000 EUR with EF adaptor ... I don't want to sell my 40D cameras - they have great ergonomics and IQ.
7D is to expensive 60D is to plasticky for it's price, so the 600D might be a good addition to have video. But it lacks the compactness which comes with a proper mirrorless design and will be some interim solution.

 

[ppucci]

As well as satisfying the desires of 5D Mark II shooters that want a point and shoot with great IQ.

I am one 5D2 owner that would definitely buy a compact with a superb IQ without the need for it to swap lenses (like I have been considering the X100).

 

[Bengt Nyman]

author=smirkypants link=topic=2542.msg54234#msg54234 date=1324509952]
I think mirrorless is kind of gimmicky.

Whoever thinks that mirrorless is gimmicky is in for a surprise.
Whoever thinks that a mirrorless camera does not "need" interchangeable lenses might as well have said that cameras do not need interchangeable lenses.
The future of photography is mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses.
This will only change when zoom lenses outperform primes.

 

[Woody]

Actually, some zooms do out-perform prime lenses.

 

[elflord]

The whole marketing hype of mirrorless cameras is the ability to have a camera with DSLR quality images at the size of the point and shoot. The closest camera to that promise the the GF3X, but that would mean to maintain that size profile, you will need to stick to pancakes or that one lens. Still the GF3X is bigger than the G12.

I have yet seen any photos comparing the NEX-5N + SEL 18-200mm vs DSLR. Would it really be that small?

If we could just take a step back from all that marketing hype that all the mirrorless camera manufacturers poured onto us and take a clear look at the true value proposition of mirrorless cameras, we would realize that this is still a highly un-established market segment. If not for their ability to use classic MF lenses, note that mirrorless lenses are often poor in quality and high in price. Now, do I want a collection of those lenses, definitely not.

It's true that mirrorless cameras aren't pocketable with a supertele, but then no camera is. 500gm for the 100-300mm panasonic (200-600mm equiv) doesn't seem too unreasonable. Canon's lenses in that focal length range aren't even hand holdable.

It's true that there are some really bad lenses for mirrorless mounts. There are also some really bad lenses for Canon mounts. That's a reason not to buy those lenses, but not a reason to avoid that camera.

There are some good lenses available for these mounts (e.g. pana 20mm f/1.7, oly 45mm f/1.8 and the oly 12mm)

 

[gmrza]

It's true that mirrorless cameras aren't pocketable with a supertele, but then no camera is. 500gm for the 100-300mm panasonic (200-600mm equiv) doesn't seem too unreasonable. Canon's lenses in that focal length range aren't even hand holdable.

Hence, there is a point, in terms of focal length, where the weight of the body becomes irrelevant. Many of Canon's tele and all Canon super-tele lenses are heavier than a DSLR body. Even the 85mm f/1.2 is roughly 25% heavier than a 5DmkII. Never mind a lens like a 400 f/2.8. When working with that kind of glass, trying to save weight on the camera body does not make sense, as it will do little to the overall weight of your equipment.

Thus, if my premise above holds, it probably only makes sense to try to produce quality glass to somewhere between 135mm and 200mm for a lightweight camera.

If Canon could thus build a camera with an APS-C sensor and a 15-85mm f/2-f/4 lens, I think that would cover 80%-90% of the potential applications for a lightweight camera. I know there would be cases where I would be limited by such a camera, but on the other hand, such a camera would satisfy my needs 90% of the time.

Would a mirrorless, interchangeable lens camera be nice? Absolutely. Would I think a lot longer about taking the plunge to a second system (in addition to EOS/EF)? Probably.

The flipside to this is how good a job the marketing departments of the manufacturers of CSCs do.

What I do know, however, is that I want a compact camera with a bigger sensor - preferably APS-C. I am less dogmatic about the need for interchangeable lenses. I am still waiting for something that really grabs my attention.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Actually, some zooms do out-perform prime lenses.

Primes designed with technology a decade earlier, you mean.

Primes still have a compelling advantage for blur quality over zooms, as well.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Hence, there is a point, in terms of focal length, where the weight of the body becomes irrelevant. Many of Canon's tele and all Canon super-tele lenses are heavier than a DSLR body.

I think that, in order of importance, the limitations of a small sensor (which allows small glass to hit above its weight) are far more than the size of the glass. Sure, medium format glass doesn't have to perform as well as 35mm format glass, and compact cameras or lenses for small sensors must be even more finely prepared to compete with 35mm format glass - but right now the battle is mainly on the sensor side. Ask anybody who uses converted old glass; a lot of the old stuff still performs great (especially primes).

 

[Dom]

Canon has a superb heritage where rangefinders are concerned, both in terms of lenses and bodies: a reincarnation of the Canon 7 would be quite something to behold – although little more than wishful thinking, I suspect. However, I would love the idea of something replicating the build quality and style of the Canonet G-III 17: today a quality, fast, zoom could easily be manufactured into the space of the original f/1.7 lens.

Going back to the original post, I am one who would welcome a serious flagship PowerShot with open arms. Back in 2004 I purchased the PowerShot Pro 1 and while I acknowledge its various shortcomings, it was somewhat ahead of its time. To have an 8.3Mp CCD eight years ago was extraordinary, but the real pièce de résistance was the L-Series lens 7.2 - 50.8mm, f/2.4 - 3.5 zoom lens(35mm film equivalent: 28 - 200mm).

I would rush out and buy an updated incarnation of the PowerShot Pro 1 and G12 . . . the Canonet GX sounds about right: a high IQ sensor, tilt-swivel screen, and an L-Series lens.

My Photoshop skills are not as good as they ought to be, but I have had a play at creating a mock-up – I don’t think camera design is a field I should get into! . . . .

 

[Rexxer]

M-mount Canon please.

What I love:

My M6
The form factor of a Leica (small, stealth, sexy)
My Leica lenses
The look of my 5D2's sensor

What I hate:

The look of the M9's sensor
The price of the M9
The reliability of the M9

I would love an M9 with Canon's chips and Canon's pricing.