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

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' 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:

    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. Advertisements

  2. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    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
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 9/13/2010 9:27 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:

    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
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Some interesting points.

    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. ;-)

    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
  5. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    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
  6. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    I'm sure Olympus and Panasonic will be hoping you are right. ;-)

    Still, it has certainly set the online forums buzzing ...
    Bruce, Sep 13, 2010
  7. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    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
  8. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    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
  9. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    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?
    Ofnuts, Sep 14, 2010
  10. Bruce

    Mort Guest

    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
  11. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    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
  12. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    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
  13. Actually, there were at least four! ;-)
    Two from Minolta, the 110 Zoom SLR in 1976
    followed the more conventionally shaped Mk-II from 1979

    and the two classics from Pentax, the Auto 110 in 1978
    followed by the Auto 110 Super in 1982

    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.
    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 McEwen, Sep 14, 2010
  14. ["Followup-To:" header set to]
    They just wonder why everything takes ages to focus.
    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 Weisselberg, Sep 14, 2010
  15. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    They just wonder why everything takes ages, period. Most of them haven't
    even got the concept of "focus".
    Ofnuts, Sep 15, 2010
  16. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    Focus time included, of course, since it's what we are talking about...
    Ofnuts, Sep 15, 2010
  17. What? Are you one of those lame crapshooter snapshooters that can only take
    photos with an auto-everything camera? That is what you are saying, you do
    realize that don't you. I generally use manual focus. And I pre-focus for
    action shots. So there's no lag for anything that I shoot due to focus
    issues. But since you insist on bringing this up. Then for auto-focus
    preferences I would MUCH rather have a slightly longer and MUCH MORE
    ACCURATE contrast-focusing where 100 out of 100 shots I intend to take are
    IN PERFECT FOCUS. Compared to the HIGHLY INACCURATE phase focusing where 95
    out of 100 shots are OUT OF FOCUS. Making them all but useless for anything
    more than 5"x3" prints, or less. Plus you can't even go back to try to
    correct for the error the majority of the time. It's far to late for that.
    You forget, we've seen that ratio already depicted in all the shots from
    DSLRs posted to these newsgroups. You can't deny it even if you wanted to.

    Perhaps you should try to pretend having some other interest or profession
    with your imaginary equipment and imaginary knowledge in some other
    newsgroup. Then you wouldn't be so clearly outted so often for the
    KNOW-NOTHING troll that you are.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Sep 15, 2010
  18. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    Well, yes, I purchase a camera with automatic bits, so I use them,
    especially when they work well. Isn't CHDK, that you created almost
    single-handed if I believe your declarations here and there, a bag of
    additional automation? Should the people who use CHDK motion detection
    to shoot lightnings spends hours instead with their finger tensed on the
    shutter button waiting for a strike?
    But the general public doesn't.
    If you can pre-focus, it's not really action. Unless you count a hamster
    in its wheel as action. How do you prefocus on birds in flight?
    If your automatic contrast focus is 100% perfect, why do you use manual
    focus? Shot yourself in the foot here, didn't you?
    Ofnuts, Sep 15, 2010
  19. Right, with these tiny sensors they need 5mm lenses ... and
    suddenly everything is sharp. After all, there are no f/0.35
    5mm lenses for P&S cameras.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 15, 2010
  20. I suggest you go look up the word "hyperfocal".

    Oh look, the pathetic troll outs its stupidity yet again. Because
    pre-focusing for action shots is infinitely faster than using ANY type of
    auto-focus. And on macro-shots where large areas of your image must be in
    best-focus, autofocus will never land on all the important areas in an
    image. Just like auto-exposure will never automatically know what parts of
    your image are supposed to be blown-out highlights nor intended lost
    shadows, but an under/over-exposure viewfinder overlay will show this to
    you instantly. (Something that you have no knowledge of nor experience with
    due to your imaginary dependency on crippling optical viewfinders.)

    **** are you ever stupid. But then, since you've never owned ANY camera and
    wouldn't know how to properly use one even if you did own a camera at some
    point in your life ... how could you be anything but this blatantly stupid
    about using them.

    Now are you starting to see why it's so easy to spot pathetic fools like
    you to be nothing but role-playing pretend-photographer trolls? No? Well,
    the rest of the readers sure can tell now.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Sep 15, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.