What is your take on Canon entering the m4:3 market ?

[roli_bark]

Due to the enumerous interest that the new Panasonic G1/GH1 and the new Oly new Pen E-P1 has generated lately, do you think there's a chance that Canon will follow with its own m4:3 camera & lenses ?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Not likely, Canon has it's "small form factor" in EF-S..
I expect that line to continue..

I don't think Canon would be interested in delving into a form factor that won't sell Canon's pride.. the EF/EF-S lens line up.

[roli_bark]

How about this interview with a Canon senior:

( taken post-Photokina 2008 )
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08100302_canoninterview.asp

[Tom W]

I don't see anything to be gained by doing so.

[bsmotril]

I don't see anything to be gained by doing so.

If Canon does not participate, they will lose market share to those that do participate. Look at it like a defensive play to prevent market erosion. But hopefully, it will be a full frontal attack with features and functions the others don't have.

[Tom W]

Personally, I don't see much of a market share issue - the APS-C format is larger, and Canon's 1.6X cameras exibit better noise and detail characteristics then their 4/3 format competitors. I'd stack Canon's rebel or XXD series against any 4/3 body of comparable price.

[Yohan Pamudji]

Personally, I don't see much of a market share issue - the APS-C format is larger, and Canon's 1.6X cameras exibit better noise and detail characteristics then their 4/3 format competitors. I'd stack Canon's rebel or XXD series against any 4/3 body of comparable price.

Have you seen the high ISO comparisons of the new Olympus E-P1 vs. Canon T1i (among others)? If you haven't yet, the short version is that image quality has come a very long way for 4/3:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP1/EP1A.HTM

I think 4/3 is finally competitive with APS-C IQ-wise, and possibly in some ways better. I never thought I'd see the day, but it has arrived. Look for this level IQ or better in upcoming full 4/3 cameras.

Canon won't do Micro 4/3. Not a chance. It sounds like they're closely watching the fledgling mirrorless interchangeable lens market, and they might eventually come up with their own "Micro EF-S" standard (I hope they do!), but I don't see them joining an existing standard. Not enough in it for Canon.

It'll be interesting to see if the mirrorless interchangeable lens market takes off. With current tech I much prefer a good optical viewfinder over an EVF, but it's nice to have options for smaller form factors, and removing the mirror is one of the most obvious ways to provide a large sensor in a smaller camera body.

[roli_bark]

Canon won't do Micro 4/3. Not a chance. It sounds like they're closely watching the fledgling mirrorless interchangeable lens market, and they might eventually come up with their own "Micro EF-S" standard (I hope they do!), but I don't see them joining an existing standard. Not enough in it for Canon.

It'll be interesting to see if the mirrorless interchangeable lens market takes off. With current tech I much prefer a good optical viewfinder over an EVF, but it's nice to have options for smaller form factors, and removing the mirror is one of the most obvious ways to provide a large sensor in a smaller camera body.
"Micro EF-S" ? - Sounds interesting !, Let me dive into further speculative question:
Will it be feasible for the 2 BIG guys (Canonikon) to launch in a foreseeable future a Mirror-Less/Prism-Less Micro-APS-C and Micro-FF Cameras ?

[ with a new shorther Flange-to-Focal-Plane distance, slimmer body, new generation of lenses, and an adpator for legacy EF, EF-S, DX lenses ] ?

[cyrn]

Given current Canon's corporate mentality. I wouldn't buy it if they come up with such a cam.

You'd have a small form factor cam that suxxs in everything else. ;)

Also, I don't forsee Canon producing fast pancake lenses.

[Tom W]

Have you seen the high ISO comparisons of the new Olympus E-P1 vs. Canon T1i (among others)? If you haven't yet, the short version is that image quality has come a very long way for 4/3:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP1/EP1A.HTM

I think 4/3 is finally competitive with APS-C IQ-wise, and possibly in some ways better. I never thought I'd see the day, but it has arrived. Look for this level IQ or better in upcoming full 4/3 cameras.

It appears that Olympus has done very well with their latest rendition of 4/3. However, physics dictates that larger photosites, when equal technology is applied, will result in lower noise for the sole fact that a greater amount of light energy (signal) is collected by a larger sensing area. And a larger sensor allows larger photosites while keeping pixel resolution equal. Or it allows a greater number of megapixels while keeping photosite dimensions the same.

Olympus has made a technological stride - apply the same technology to the APS-C sensor and it will be even better.

It'll be interesting to see if the mirrorless interchangeable lens market takes off. With current tech I much prefer a good optical viewfinder over an EVF, but it's nice to have options for smaller form factors, and removing the mirror is one of the most obvious ways to provide a large sensor in a smaller camera body.

That could be interesting. I've been interested in a small rangefinder camera with a clean sensor for quite some time. Something with smallish, fast interchangeable lenses. Pocketable, but very functional. Getting rid of the mirror box would allow much smaller lens lengths, just as with the 35 mm film P&S cameras.

[Tom W]

"Micro EF-S" ? - Sounds interesting !, Let me dive into further speculative question:
Will it be feasible for the 2 BIG guys (Canonikon) to launch in a foreseeable future a Mirror-Less/Prism-Less Micro-APS-C and Micro-FF Cameras ?

[ with a new shorther Flange-to-Focal-Plane distance, slimmer body, new generation of lenses, and an adpator for legacy EF, EF-S, DX lenses ] ?

Why "micro" anything? I've got a Yashica T4 35 mm film P&S that's barely over an inch thick. It's a full-frame 24 X 36 mm film camera. Just eliminating the mirror box would greatly reduce the necessary length of wide to mid-telephoto lenses significantly.

Here's a comparison of an Elan II 35 mm film camera and the Yashica 35 MM P&S:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/82079765.jpg

Of course, a zoom lens with adjustable focus and aperture would have to be a little bigger than the fixed-focal length lens on the Yashica, but it would certainly be much smaller than a comparable 50 mm lens as shown on the Elan.

I really think that an APS-C sensor in a rangefinder with 3 or 4 interchangeable, fast lenses would make a great camera. Low noise, true aperture control, and compact size.

[Yohan Pamudji]

Olympus has made a technological stride - apply the same technology to the APS-C sensor and it will be even better.

In theory, true. Also in theory Nikon should've been on par with Canon in noise performance in APS-C sensors, or even better considering their 1.5x vs. Canon's 1.6x, but that didn't happen for quite a few years.

But to me it's not so much important who's better per se. You're right that APS-C holds an advantage over 4/3 from a sheer area perspective. For me, I look at whether a camera's image quality is usable for the ISOs I need to use, and whether any compromises in image quality are compensated for by benefits in usability. I'm on the fence about the E-P1 in this matter, but it's a really intriguing balance of image quality and usability (because of its size and form factor) to me. Before the E-P1 I wouldn't have wanted to use any 4/3 or Micro 4/3 camera because the image quality compromises were too great for me--I could never bring myself to call ISO 3200 as "usable" on 4/3 before. That has changed.

That could be interesting. I've been interested in a small rangefinder camera with a clean sensor for quite some time. Something with smallish, fast interchangeable lenses. Pocketable, but very functional.

Me too. E-P1 is the closest we have at the moment, but if the mirrorless interchangeable lens segment takes off we might eventually have a truly pocketable camera with a large sensor.

Why "micro" anything? I've got a Yashica T4 35 mm film P&S that's barely over an inch thick.
...
I really think that an APS-C sensor in a rangefinder with 3 or 4 interchangeable, fast lenses would make a great camera. Low noise, true aperture control, and compact size.

I think there's just some misunderstanding here. The "Micro" terminology is just being adopted from "Micro 4/3", which as you know uses the same sensor size as regular 4/3. So a "Micro APS-C" would still use an APS-C sensor and a "Micro FF" would still use a FF sensor. "Micro" is just a lot quicker to type than "mirrorless interchangeable lens", which is what I'm calling it until somebody comes up with a standard acronym for it. I believe that's what roli_bark was referring to as well.

[Tom W]

I think there's just some misunderstanding here. The "Micro" terminology is just being adopted from "Micro 4/3", which as you know uses the same sensor size as regular 4/3. So a "Micro APS-C" would still use an APS-C sensor and a "Micro FF" would still use a FF sensor. "Micro" is just a lot quicker to type than "mirrorless interchangeable lens", which is what I'm calling it until somebody comes up with a standard acronym for it. I believe that's what roli_bark was referring to as well.

Indeed, there is some misunderstanding. I was under the impression that "micro 4/3" was a smaller version of the 4/3 format, just as a micrometer is 1/1,000,000 of a meter. I would hope that they could come up with a less-confusing name for people like me. :)

Thanks for straightening that out.

[roli_bark]

I think there's just some misunderstanding here. The "Micro" terminology is just being adopted from "Micro 4/3", which as you know uses the same sensor size as regular 4/3. So a "Micro APS-C" would still use an APS-C sensor and a "Micro FF" would still use a FF sensor. "Micro" is just a lot quicker to type than "mirrorless interchangeable lens", which is what I'm calling it until somebody comes up with a standard acronym for it. I believe that's what roli_bark was referring to as well.
Exactly ! - by the term 'Micro' I meant == Mirrorless, Prismless, interchangeable lens Camera.

Thus, "Micro-FF" has same sensor as a regular FF DSLR, Sames goes for "Micro-APS-C", until industry comes up with other names.

[cyrn]

I doubt that the EF mount cams can get much smaller. Just hope for a RF body.

[roli_bark]

I doubt that the EF mount cams can get much smaller. Just hope for a RF body.
Think again ...
Nikon has done a good job in reducing the size an FF camera body. Just look at the body of their D700 which is significantly smaller that their D3/D3x [same sensor, same lens mount], and is about the same size as their D300 (an APS-C sensor camera) !

[Karl Johnston]

What would the adv. of them going into the 4/3 market be?

Creating an RF line?

[Tee Why]

I was reading a dpreview interview with the Olympus Product development manager for the slr system here:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09061600watanabeinterview.asp
This is what he says about the potential market for these small cameras with big sensors.

"And this is a market with huge potential - compact cameras outsell DSLRs by around 10:1, so 20% of the compact camera market is more than double the current number of DSLRs sold." (He mentions that 20% of digicam owners would like to upgrade to a dslr but are turned off by the size and the complexity)

I personally would like to see something pretty much like a range finder with a FF sensor, but doubt they'll make it. An APS-C sized digicam would be fine as well. The G10 has great ergonomics in the digicam format so something like a G10 with an APS-C sized sensor and a new line of very compact primes and zooms would do nicely IMO. Maybe an adapter so you can use a EF-s/EF lens would make things fun since I'd be able to use my big Canon EF mount lenses on a tiny body.

If the market is there, I think all will jump in so they don't lose sales, especially if it's a big market.

I love competition as the consumer is generally the winner. Personally, I'd like to see the price decrease, to maybe $500 with a pancake kit lens.

Maybe this is where G11 will go. I can't see Canon trying to stuff even more MP's into that little sensor and recently, that's what they seem to be doing, just cramming more MP's into sensors.

[tkbslc]

Canonet QL17 with an APS-C sensor would be my dream camera.

fixed 40mm f1.7 lens with a viewfinder (unlike the EP1) and a hotshoe. Make it happen, Canon!

[CyberDyneSystems]

If Canon kept the 1.6x sensor, and used the EFS mount,. but removed the mirror box,. they could make a much smaller camera than the Rebel series...

This I could imagine Canon looking into,. but Canon making a Body that would take Olympus lenses?
No way!

Remember the real break through in the "Micro 4/3" market is the small size due to no mirror box.

[AngryCorgi]

but Canon making a Body that would take Olympus lenses?
No way!

Yes, that would be incredibly odd indeed. Several years ago, Kodak made some DSLRs that took Nikon and Canon lenses, but that's because they didn't have a pre-existing line of 35mm lenses to push out the door. I don't see any reason for Canon to do the same.

[tkbslc]

I think the smart choice would be to make a non-interchangeable large sensor compact. Like the Sigma DP2 only good.

The interchangeable lens thing just makes the design too big and complicated. And we already have those - they are called SLR cameras.

I'd like to see a model with the sensor from the XSI or XS, a viewfinder, small built in flash, hotshoe and a fast fixed lens. How about a nice 40mm f1.7 or 45mm f1.9 like on the old canonet QL series? IN fact, why not just make it EXACTLY like a Canonet QL only digital?? http://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm

[Yohan Pamudji]

I think the smart choice would be to make a non-interchangeable large sensor compact. Like the Sigma DP2 only good.

That would be swell.

The interchangeable lens thing just makes the design too big and complicated. And we already have those - they are called SLR cameras.

I'd like to see a model with the sensor from the XSI or XS, a viewfinder, small built in flash, hotshoe and a fast fixed lens. How about a nice 40mm f1.7 or 45mm f1.9 like on the old canonet QL series? IN fact, why not just make it EXACTLY like a Canonet QL only digital?? http://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm

It's kinda funny that you think the E-P1 is too big but want a digital Canonet QL instead. The E-P1 and QL17 are almost exactly the same size! Or was there a smaller QL that I don't know about?

Digital QL would be nice too, but the rangefinder is dead. Not enough market for a manual focus camera unless you're Leica and are content selling a few thousand cameras a year and can command astronomical prices.

[tkbslc]

That would be swell.



It's kinda funny that you think the E-P1 is too big but want a digital Canonet QL instead. The E-P1 and QL17 are almost exactly the same size! Or was there a smaller QL that I don't know about?

Digital QL would be nice too, but the rangefinder is dead. Not enough market for a manual focus camera unless you're Leica and are content selling a few thousand cameras a year and can command astronomical prices.


The m4/3 has a smaller sensor than Canon would presumably use, and if you use anything but the 17mm on the EP1 it becomes quite a bit bigger. Mostly I meant that since there would be little point in using anything but the "Standard" lens, it might as well be fixed. And it doesn't have to be a MF rangefinder, just similar design with semi-fast contrast AF.

[cyrn]

If Canon kept the 1.6x sensor, and used the EFS mount,. but removed the mirror box,. they could make a much smaller camera than the Rebel series...

This I could imagine Canon looking into,. but Canon making a Body that would take Olympus lenses?
No way!

Remember the real break through in the "Micro 4/3" market is the small size due to no mirror box.

Even if Canon removes the mirror box, the rear lens element to sensor distance is already fixed by the lens design (even for EF-S). So the body would still have minimum depth that is no different from the current bodies.

Not sure how much more compact can the body gets.

[Tom W]

Even if Canon removes the mirror box, the rear lens element to sensor distance is already fixed by the lens design (even for EF-S). So the body would still have minimum depth that is no different from the current bodies.

Not sure how much more compact can the body gets.

It's only fixed if they use the same EF-S and EF lenses. Removing the mirror box would allow completely different lens designs built around a much shorter backfocus distance. And Canon certainly has the capability to design and build new lenses with ease.

[cyrn]

It's only fixed if they use the same EF-S and EF lenses. Removing the mirror box would allow completely different lens designs built around a much shorter backfocus distance. And Canon certainly has the capability to design and build new lenses with ease.

True. That will mean 3 different lens range.

And hopefully Canon will capitalize on the change to build some good pancake lenses for compactness. ;)