Better late than never... (a thread based around mirriorless cameras) [Archive]

alt4852

2nd of July 2010 (Fri), 09:18

canongarcon: does someone piss in your coffee every morning?

nicksimcheck: i do have to admit your requests are a bit too hopeful in my opinion though. your requests contradict the concept of EVIL cameras. if they're built to your specs with a full frame sensor, they would require similarly large lenses to project into such a large image circle. if your "XOS" mount his lenses that are nearly as large as EF ones, you'll just be carrying 15-18lbs of equipment rather than 15-20lbs up an impassible trail in cambodia. an EVIL camera with a full frame sensor and corresponding lenses would cost more, be marginally smaller than, and have a smaller market than a 5Dc for example. i guess it just doesn't make much marketing sense.

the olympus EP-2 along with it's 17mm pancake lens only has two advantages that i can think of over say a 5Dmk2 and a 35 f/2: it can fit in your cargo shorts, and it's cheaper. the full frame aspect if integrated would most likely negate the price advantage, and as for trekking in cambodia, you're assuming that people will bring 20lbs of gear because they can. it's a bit of an unfair comparison considering you would only carry less EVIL equipment because there's less of it available. in EF terms, you could carry just a 35 f/2 and a superzoom and it wouldn't break 6-7lbs which i think would be pretty reasonable and it'd have the same focal length capabilties and then some.

i think EVIL has potential, but i'd guess for cost reasons it'll probably never go past an APS-C sensor if even that. it's marketing niche is convenience, and i don't think a full frame sensor really fits that mold. i suppose if people who want a pocketable sized body and high image quality can always opt for the leica M9.. and we all know canon is too pragmatic to offer something that isn't meant to appeal to the largest market possible. :p

CanonGarcon

2nd of July 2010 (Fri), 09:22

:lol::lol:

Seriously CanonGarcon, do you hear yourself?

When you trek up 2500' of a virtually impassible trail in Cambodia in 95 degree heat with 100% humidity and come back saying that you had fun with 15-20lbs of gear cause you were scared you might look like a person who owns a poodle you let me know, OK...

Sheesh :rolleyes:

I would be scared if I was a poodle owner and demanding an imaginary camera that doesn't and cannot exit right now.:rolleyes:

Equipment too heavy, get a point and shoot.

nekrosoft13

2nd of July 2010 (Fri), 09:53

Equipment too heavy, get a point and shoot.

or pay five dollars to a local to cary it for you :lol:

CanonGarcon

2nd of July 2010 (Fri), 11:01

alt4852

2nd of July 2010 (Fri), 11:18

We have to use what is available and accessable to us, that is part of realm we call reality. The camera fairy is not going to bring us the camera we think should be available.

you have extremely limited vision.

although i don't think this particular thread's ideas are very realistic from a marketing perspective, the point is to conceive ideas and methods that may serve our purposes better.

if your sight is limited to only what is available and accessible, you will NEVER contribute to any form of progress. the camera fairy is our ingenuity and our will to start and support companies that do take the initiative to create what we want. the reality that you're so quick to settle with was built by people who wanted to shape it rather than accept it.

the transportation fairy swung by in 1902 and it led to technology that lets me get from new york to los angeles in under six hours. i don't mind donning some wings and wielding a wand if it means becoming the next camera fairy to bring us ideas and developments that move us forward.

Tom W

2nd of July 2010 (Fri), 12:31

EVIL cameras are for women and men who own poodles and pugs. There are many people out there who want and need a real camera what has size and a solid build. And guess what? Such cameras exist in the land of reality.

Us real men don't need a big, gnarley camera body to compensate for, ummm, something else. :)

brian00321

2nd of July 2010 (Fri), 13:00

I would be scared if I was a poodle owner and demanding an imaginary camera that doesn't and cannot exit right now.:rolleyes:

Equipment too heavy, get a point and shoot.

FML . . . I can't slip my cam into my pocket. If it's too big for that, I guess I might as well get one of these . . . :rolleyes:

http://interactive.usc.edu/members/noha/mammoth2.jpg

CanonGarcon

2nd of July 2010 (Fri), 13:55

FML . . . I can't slip my cam into my pocket. If it's too big for that, I guess I might as well get one of these . . . :rolleyes:

http://interactive.usc.edu/members/noha/mammoth2.jpg

Now that is a real manly camera.

NickSimcheck

2nd of July 2010 (Fri), 17:08

alt4852

2nd of July 2010 (Fri), 21:47

Gee-whiz you guys...

Ever heard of the saying "Shoot for the moon, that way if you miss you'll land among the stars."?

That's kinda why I started this.

In 1902 people may have accepted that flight is possible, but they would have said that LA to NY in 6 hours was 'a bit too hopeful'.

Let's bright it closer home, in the 70's Nikon thought autofocus was a joke, and just about every photographer in the 90's thought digital was never gonna make it. Now...now Digital Nikons autofocus like a mug.

So I dare to disagree, and ask for you to imagine a Digital Contax G2 and realize that it is indeed very possible.

well, to be fair, i mentioned that your request might have been a bit too hopeful because it integrated aspects of design and function that compromised what made a hypothetical system like that attractive in the first place. i think the primary reason there is a place for a device like this on the market is due to it's size, and autofocus 35mm image circle lenses would compromise the ideal. thinking abstractly, if they were able to condense all of that in the future to something smaller, that would be the evolution of the DSLR as we know it rather than just applicable to EVIL systems.. which most likely would nullify the need for such a model to begin with.

toxic

3rd of July 2010 (Sat), 02:58

For the record, a camera with a clip-on EVF like the OP wants is not an "EVIL" camera. EVIL requires a built-in EVF...hence the E?

if they're built to your specs with a full frame sensor, they would require similarly large lenses to project into such a large image circle.

False. Digital rangefinders have had APS-C or larger sensors since inception (Epson R-D1 to the current Leica M9). They can all use the same lenses that fit 35mm rangefinders from the early 1900s. None of those lenses are "large". Part of that is because they don't go past 135mm and don't have AF...but there is no problem making a compact lens with an image circle large enough for a 24x36mm sensor.

J_TULLAR

3rd of July 2010 (Sat), 03:26

Maybe the Camera Fairy can make your dreams come true because Canon certainly is not coming out with a camera like that for at least one long time.

EVIL cameras are for women and men who own poodles and pugs. There are many people out there who want and need a real camera what has size and a solid build. And guess what? Such cameras exist in the land of reality.

WOW!! I have no words to describe your comments :rolleyes:

ofdphoto

4th of July 2010 (Sun), 06:15

Cameras close to the imagined spec already exist and are creating themselves a nice market for Olympus and Panasonic, among others.

So, CanonGarcon, perhaps you haven't been introduced to the right camera fairies yet? ;)

Also, as it happens, this thread is in the "Camera Rumors and Predictions" section, and is a perfectly legitimate prediction-type discussion, so maybe you should limit yourself sections you can appreciate, rather than poo-hoo'ing this one? :p

NickSimcheck

4th of July 2010 (Sun), 10:16

well, to be fair, i mentioned that your request might have been a bit too hopeful because it integrated aspects of design and function that compromised what made a hypothetical system like that attractive in the first place. i think the primary reason there is a place for a device like this on the market is due to it's size, and autofocus 35mm image circle lenses would compromise the ideal. thinking abstractly, if they were able to condense all of that in the future to something smaller, that would be the evolution of the DSLR as we know it rather than just applicable to EVIL systems.. which most likely would nullify the need for such a model to begin with.

....Which is exactly what I am talking about! :lol:

(where did I ever mention EVIL?)

All and all, I think we might not be on the same page, but certainly in the same book.

alt4852

4th of July 2010 (Sun), 12:38

For the record, a camera with a clip-on EVF like the OP wants is not an "EVIL" camera. EVIL requires a built-in EVF...hence the E? i have never heard of this before. the "E" stands for "electronic", i don't see how that has anything to do with whether the viewfinder is integrated or a clip on.

False. Digital rangefinders have had APS-C or larger sensors since inception (Epson R-D1 to the current Leica M9). They can all use the same lenses that fit 35mm rangefinders from the early 1900s. None of those lenses are "large". Part of that is because they don't go past 135mm and don't have AF...but there is no problem making a compact lens with an image circle large enough for a 24x36mm sensor.
as you said, you're talking about manual focus primes which don't exceed 135mm. my film SLR equipment is also small. however, once you introduce decent apertures, zooms, and autofocus, the body of the lens becomes dramatically larger. this is why i said the comparison isn't valid. if you're only considering small primes from 17mm to 50mm or so, this takes away the perceived weight and size penalty of DSLRs. people are making the mental connection of comparing an olympus EP-2 with a 17mm pancake lens to a 5Dmk2 with a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and concluding that one is much more portable than the other. however, if you take a 5Dmk2 with a 35mm f/2, you start to realize they're not quite so different. with a full frame sensor, the prices would be much closer, and the 5Dmk2 would offer much more speed and versatility in shooting capabilities and all of the sudden the advantages to keeping your $2500 camera in your cargo shorts instead of on your shoulder start disappearing pretty quickly.
....Which is exactly what I am talking about! :lol:

(where did I ever mention EVIL?)

All and all, I think we might not be on the same page, but certainly in the same book.

EVIL = electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens

the thread title suggests a mirrorless camera and your first post mentioned a clip on EVF and you expressly listed ideas for a lens mount.. so i think it was fair to assume you were discussing EVIL camera designs.

i think i'd be interested in an EVIL camera someday, but not if it will cost as much as a full frame DSLR and offer less features. the main draw in my opinion is convenience and price. technological advances would be scalar and if the future held an affordable and pocketable full frame EVIL camera, i can only assume DSLRs would be even more appealing. i think this genre of camera should probably stick with it's strong suit: offering much improved performance compared to a point and shoot, while being small and affordable enough not to tread on DSLR territory.. because honestly, if you're spending $2000+ on a camera, i can only figure it's in pursuit of great image quality and i think at that price point, most people would opt for function over form.

Naturalist

4th of July 2010 (Sun), 12:55

EVIL cameras are for women and men who own poodles and pugs.

:lol::lol:

bkdc

4th of July 2010 (Sun), 17:49

Unfortunately, optics is still optics, and the focal distance/max aperture of a lens is determined by the size of the front glass element.

You can shrink all you want, but if you want a 200mm or 300mm focal length, you'll still end up with a whopping lens.

toxic

5th of July 2010 (Mon), 02:13

i have never heard of this before. the "E" stands for "electronic", i don't see how that has anything to do with whether the viewfinder is integrated or a clip on.

"E" means electronic viewfinder, rather than optical. If it doesn't come with a viewfinder, it can't be an EVIL camera. It has to be integrated - you can clip on whatever you like onto whatever you like, but that doesn't change what it is. No one advertises the LX3 as having a viewfinder just because it has an accessory one.

There is yet to be an official term for the latest mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras (either that or I'm behind the times). In any case, it isn't "EVIL".

if you're only considering small primes from 17mm to 50mm or so, this takes away the perceived weight and size penalty of DSLRs. people are making the mental connection of comparing an olympus EP-2 with a 17mm pancake lens to a 5Dmk2 with a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and concluding that one is much more portable than the other. however, if you take a 5Dmk2 with a 35mm f/2, you start to realize they're not quite so different.

I don't know where anyone compares a Pen with a prime lens with an SLR with a telephoto zoom. The Pen body is significantly smaller than the 5D. It is still more portable with the same-sized lens.

with a full frame sensor, the prices would be much closer, and the 5Dmk2 would offer much more speed and versatility in shooting capabilities and all of the sudden the advantages to keeping your $2500 camera in your cargo shorts instead of on your shoulder start disappearing pretty quickly.

"Much more speed and versatility" is a broad and vague statement. It is obviously wrong in many situations because rangefinders have always had their place in photography because of their size, focusing system, and quietness, plus better IQ with wide-angle lenses. The newest cameras don't have the focusing system, but that doesn't mean they can't fill the role of a traditional RF.

alt4852

5th of July 2010 (Mon), 10:11

"E" means electronic viewfinder, rather than optical. If it doesn't come with a viewfinder, it can't be an EVIL camera. It has to be integrated - you can clip on whatever you like onto whatever you like, but that doesn't change what it is. No one advertises the LX3 as having a viewfinder just because it has an accessory one.

There is yet to be an official term for the latest mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras (either that or I'm behind the times). In any case, it isn't "EVIL".

do a quick google search for EVIL cameras. i think you may be shocked to find out that most people consider models such as the olympus pen series, the panasonic GF1, sony NEX5, etc all under the EVIL designation. i've yet to see anyone other than you claim that the definition requires that the viewfinder be integrated into the main body for it to qualify. the de facto term applies to any of the small bridge cameras which have interchangeable lenses and use LCDs for composition (essentially an EVF).

I don't know where anyone compares a Pen with a prime lens with an SLR with a telephoto zoom. The Pen body is significantly smaller than the 5D. It is still more portable with the same-sized lens.

once again, the comparison is implied. when people say they prefer EVIL cameras over DSLRs because they don't want to carry 15-20lbs of equipment, i think it's safe to assume that they are referring to telephoto zooms and the like. i have two SLRs and five primes, and i don't think my bag is anywhere close to 20lbs. the only way to reach that weigh is to either have fast zooms or supertelephoto lenses.. which as i stated, would make the comparison unfair.

yes, the EP2 is smaller than the 5D, but i think the rhetoric being thrown around concerning size and weight start looking a lot less extreme when you compare like to like. instead of a 19lbs weight difference, in reality we're talking about a 2lbs difference. instead of being 12in smaller, we're actually talking about maybe 4in.

"Much more speed and versatility" is a broad and vague statement. It is obviously wrong in many situations because rangefinders have always had their place in photography because of their size, focusing system, and quietness, plus better IQ with wide-angle lenses. The newest cameras don't have the focusing system, but that doesn't mean they can't fill the role of a traditional RF.
honestly, i don't think EVIL cameras will ever replace rangefinders. they're very different systems. one of the most important aspects of RF photography which makes it what it is, is missing with EVIL cameras: framelines. rangefinder photography has found it's niche in street photography and the like because it is small, quiet, and you can see outside your frame.. you can anticipate with greater accuracy what is moving in and out of your field of view. along with a more precise and quick focus method (also lacking in EVIL), these two systems only share one similarity, their size. if you told a RF user that a system that did not incorporate framelines, and utilized contrast detect autofocus was replacing their camera, they'd probably think you were crazy.

elysium

5th of July 2010 (Mon), 10:25

Get a Rebel then or get a point and shoot.

Notice not many pros use Olympus cameras either.
With your limitless knowledge, I would love for you to tell the difference between my shots taken on a DSLR and an EVIL....

Im sure your opinion would speak for everyone...

I sold my Canon DSLR range for the Sony NEX-5 and guess what, everyone I have spoken to has not realised that it was taken on an EVIL.

Pro's dont need to worry about size of their gear, ask any of them, if they could get the same results with a body which was half or even quarter of the size, would they switch? I know I would.

My opinion, you should be barred from any conversation involving people.

toxic

5th of July 2010 (Mon), 12:56

do a quick google search for EVIL cameras. i think you may be shocked to find out that most people consider models such as the olympus pen series, the panasonic GF1, sony NEX5, etc all under the EVIL designation. i've yet to see anyone other than you claim that the definition requires that the viewfinder be integrated into the main body for it to qualify. the de facto term applies to any of the small bridge cameras which have interchangeable lenses and use LCDs for composition (essentially an EVF).

It seems to me like the GF1, Pen, etc. are called "EVIL" by ignorant journalists who found a cool acronym. DPReview and Imaging Resource make no mention of "EVIL" in any of their reviews of the Pens, GF1, or NEX. IR uses its own acronym, "SLD" (Single Lens Direct view).

once again, the comparison is implied. when people say they prefer EVIL cameras over DSLRs because they don't want to carry 15-20lbs of equipment, i think it's safe to assume that they are referring to telephoto zooms and the like. i have two SLRs and five primes, and i don't think my bag is anywhere close to 20lbs. the only way to reach that weigh is to either have fast zooms or supertelephoto lenses.. which as i stated, would make the comparison unfair.

I think that's people doing what they do and exaggerating... In any case, the weight loss is noticeable. For example, the GF1 is 285g and the 5DII is 810g. The Panasonic 20/1.7 is 100g and the Canon 35/2 is 210g. The difference in lenses closes/reverses with the zooms, as the Panasonic 14-45 f/3.5-5.6 is 195g and the Canon 28-90 f/4-5.6 is 190g, but I don't know how the m4/3 lens compares to the 28-90 in construction, so that might just be because of more and cheaper plastics in the Canon. In any case, a GF1 + kit lens is still much lighter than a 5D+28-90.

I think we can exclude supertelephotos from the discussion since these cameras won't be (normally) used with them, much like RF's don't use anything longer than 135mm.

yes, the EP2 is smaller than the 5D, but i think the rhetoric being thrown around concerning size and weight start looking a lot less extreme when you compare like to like. instead of a 19lbs weight difference, in reality we're talking about a 2lbs difference. instead of being 12in smaller, we're actually talking about maybe 4in.

It doesn't need to be 12" smaller to be significant. "Significant" varies with the object in question. A difference of 2 oz isn't significant for a 17" laptop, but it is for a cell phone.

More importantly, the m4/3 cameras are all pretty flat and rectangular, which makes it much slimmer-looking and easier to carry around in a bag or something.

To put some numbers to the dimensions (from DPReview):
GF1: 119x71x36.3mm
5DII: 152x114x75mm

So a 22x38x52% reduction for each dimension, or a 76% reduction in volume. I think that's significant.

honestly, i don't think EVIL cameras will ever replace rangefinders. they're very different systems. one of the most important aspects of RF photography which makes it what it is, is missing with EVIL cameras: framelines. rangefinder photography has found it's niche in street photography and the like because it is small, quiet, and you can see outside your frame.. you can anticipate with greater accuracy what is moving in and out of your field of view. along with a more precise and quick focus method (also lacking in EVIL), these two systems only share one similarity, their size. if you told a RF user that a system that did not incorporate framelines, and utilized contrast detect autofocus was replacing their camera, they'd probably think you were crazy.

They don't have framelines, but they are still small and quiet, which SLRs clearly aren't. So they don't exactly replace RF's, but just being small and quiet and not compromising IQ, they have a place for themselves.

alt4852

5th of July 2010 (Mon), 18:38

It seems to me like the GF1, Pen, etc. are called "EVIL" by ignorant journalists who found a cool acronym. DPReview and Imaging Resource make no mention of "EVIL" in any of their reviews of the Pens, GF1, or NEX. IR uses its own acronym, "SLD" (Single Lens Direct view).
elysium refers to his NEX5 as an EVIL camera. is he also an ignorant journalist? the de facto definition of EVIL is different than the one you use. the general use along with what this thread is referencing seems to fall under the same umbrella term and i think it's safe to say that the GF1, EP2, NEX5, etc all classify as the genre widely considered to be EVIL.

I think that's people doing what they do and exaggerating... In any case, the weight loss is noticeable. For example, the GF1 is 285g and the 5DII is 810g. The Panasonic 20/1.7 is 100g and the Canon 35/2 is 210g. The difference in lenses closes/reverses with the zooms, as the Panasonic 14-45 f/3.5-5.6 is 195g and the Canon 28-90 f/4-5.6 is 190g, but I don't know how the m4/3 lens compares to the 28-90 in construction, so that might just be because of more and cheaper plastics in the Canon. In any case, a GF1 + kit lens is still much lighter than a 5D+28-90.

I think we can exclude supertelephotos from the discussion since these cameras won't be (normally) used with them, much like RF's don't use anything longer than 135mm.

It doesn't need to be 12" smaller to be significant. "Significant" varies with the object in question. A difference of 2 oz isn't significant for a 17" laptop, but it is for a cell phone.

More importantly, the m4/3 cameras are all pretty flat and rectangular, which makes it much slimmer-looking and easier to carry around in a bag or something.

To put some numbers to the dimensions (from DPReview):
GF1: 119x71x36.3mm
5DII: 152x114x75mm

So a 22x38x52% reduction for each dimension, or a 76% reduction in volume. I think that's significant.

They don't have framelines, but they are still small and quiet, which SLRs clearly aren't. So they don't exactly replace RF's, but just being small and quiet and not compromising IQ, they have a place for themselves.

you can't have your cake and eat it too.

if you want to claim that the GF1 is not an EVIL camera, don't use it in your next paragraph to compare it with a DSLR as if it were one. by YOUR definition, a true EVIL camera would be a panasonic G2. instead of comparing it to a full frame magnesium alloy bodied DSLR, why not compare it with something closer to it's specs.. like it's plastic body. we'll use the canon XS since it is close, but still has a larger sensor and will offer higher image quality.

now your massive weight comparison suddenly doesn't look so massive. the G2's body is 428g without a lens, while the XS' body is 502g. yes.. a 74g difference, not a 525g one. include the weight difference in the lenses, and we're looking at a difference of anywhere from 85g to 170g. your 76% reduction in volume is extremely misleading for the stated reasons so i won't discuss it further.

considering the fact that the XS has a larger sensor, easy compatibility with a greater lens selection, and retails for half the price, i think you start to see the playing field even out considerably. EVIL cameras as they exist today are heavy compromises. if the work you do falls within these limitations, they are great cameras, but i don't think the technology is mature yet.

ps: saying they don't compromise IQ doesn't make it so. all of the EVIL cameras developed so far have utilized small sensors, and even a APS-C DSLR at half the price will offer better IQ. they may be viable alternatives for some users, but i don't think it's honest to say that they aren't compromises by definition.

alt4852

5th of July 2010 (Mon), 18:44

correction: the NEX5 does have an APS-C sensor.. but i guess it doesn't count since it's not a true EVIL camera.

toxic

5th of July 2010 (Mon), 21:23

elysium refers to his NEX5 as an EVIL camera. is he also an ignorant journalist? the de facto definition of EVIL is different than the one you use. the general use along with what this thread is referencing seems to fall under the same umbrella term and i think it's safe to say that the GF1, EP2, NEX5, etc all classify as the genre widely considered to be EVIL.

Obviously he fell into the same trap, using a convenient acronym even though it isn't correct. It wouldn't be the first time a term is used incorrectly.

"EVIL" might turn out to be the official label for the category, but it certainly isn't right now.

if you want to claim that the GF1 is not an EVIL camera, don't use it in your next paragraph to compare it with a DSLR as if it were one.

You were the one who compared the E-P2 to a 5DII. I just had the GF1 specs so I used that.

however, if you take a 5Dmk2 with a 35mm f/2, you start to realize they're not quite so different.

ps: saying they don't compromise IQ doesn't make it so. all of the EVIL cameras developed so far have utilized small sensors, and even a APS-C DSLR at half the price will offer better IQ. they may be viable alternatives for some users, but i don't think it's honest to say that they aren't compromises by definition.

That is all theoretical. 4/3 is a 1.3 crop of APS-C. That is not a huge difference. And as you pointed out, the NEX is APS-C.

NickSimcheck

5th of July 2010 (Mon), 22:09

$649 Sony NEX-5 (kit) = 229G
$399 15mm Heliar = 113G
$579 35mm Nokton = 200G
$499 50mm Nokton = 255G
$329 75mm Heliar = 226G

Total (retail) cost: $2455
Total weight: 1023 Grams

$899 Canon T2i (kit) = 530G
$719 15mm Fish = 330G
$319 35mm f/2 = 210G
$389 50mm f/1.4 = 290G
$419 85mm f/1.8 = 425G

Total (retail) cost: $2745
Total weight: 1785 Grams

NEX-5 = 111x 59 x 38mm
T2i = 128.8 x 97.5 x 75.3mm

The T2i is nearly twice as tall, and twice as deep as the NEX-5.
Both are APS-C, however the NEX-5 flange is designed with Full Frame in mind.

Just giving an Apples to Apples, for you guys to continue arguing over...

alt4852

6th of July 2010 (Tue), 00:35

You were the one who compared the E-P2 to a 5DII. I just had the GF1 specs so I used that.

which i suppose was my mistake, as the EP2 and the 5D2 are just about as different as cameras get. however, if you're going to try and correct the market's terminology, i think some consistency on your part would be the first step. perhaps googling a model which you think embodies the definition of an EVIL camera would have been more relevant to the discussion.

That is all theoretical. 4/3 is a 1.3 crop of APS-C. That is not a huge difference. And as you pointed out, the NEX is APS-C.

i'm not going to touch this one, because this can easily devolve into a FF vs APS-H type discussion which needless to say will turn into a matter of personal opinion over facts on either side.

$649 Sony NEX-5 (kit) = 229G
$399 15mm Heliar = 113G
$579 35mm Nokton = 200G
$499 50mm Nokton = 255G
$329 75mm Heliar = 226G

Total (retail) cost: $2455
Total weight: 1023 Grams

$899 Canon T2i (kit) = 530G
$719 15mm Fish = 330G
$319 35mm f/2 = 210G
$389 50mm f/1.4 = 290G
$419 85mm f/1.8 = 425G

Total (retail) cost: $2745
Total weight: 1785 Grams

NEX-5 = 111x 59 x 38mm
T2i = 128.8 x 97.5 x 75.3mm

The T2i is nearly twice as tall, and twice as deep as the NEX-5.
Both are APS-C, however the NEX-5 flange is designed with Full Frame in mind.

Just giving an Apples to Apples, for you guys to continue arguing over...

nick.. please don't pretend you're posting statistics without a bias. there is nothing apples to apples about anything on either list that you have there. so in the interest of making direct comparisons, you chose the NEX5 kit with the 16mm lens instead of the 18-55mm lens to compare against the T2i's 18-55mm kit? ..just a $50 difference, but i think it's pretty telling of how you're coming up with these numbers. we'll ignore canon's rebates for now, but these two combined would close the gap by $100 easily.

then you decided to compare a bunch of glass that isn't even part of the system you're pairing with.. i really don't see where you're going with that. the NEX series only has two lenses built for it at the moment: the 18-55mm and the 16mm. to stay within the alpha system for consideration (if not, then i'm sure we could spend all day finding cheap and lightweight sigma, tokina, rokkor, tamron, etc equipment that is compatible with the canon EF mount), you'd have to shop sony's SAL and zeiss series offerings.

regardless, my point is that once you start adding lenses with similar capabilities, these cameras/systems will be too bulky to fit into a pocket. if you're carrying your gear in a bag, a 32.5mm taller camera and 37.3mm deeper body will not be significant. i think EVIL (or whatever these small micro cameras are called) are attractive for what they can do that DSLRs can't: fit in your pocket. outside of that purpose, they just don't serve the purpose of making photos as well as a DSLR. i think the best way to explain it would be to ask you to imagine pairing a T2i in live view mode with a 70-200mm f/2.8L and asking whether it is really as effective as using a 7D through the viewfinder with the same lens. the weight and size advantage quickly become a handicap in itself and the point of having something small and light is lost.

as i said earlier, this is all simply a matter of compromises and tailoring the system to each individual's needs.

Tom W

6th of July 2010 (Tue), 06:05

I won't join the argument.

I just want Canon to make one with a fast electronic viewfinder.

And they probably will...

ShadowVlican

6th of July 2010 (Tue), 06:17

i, too, want canon to produce something like the NEX but compatible with EF/EF-S lens

it'd be nice to have dSLR-like performance in the size of a compact P&S

CanonGarcon

6th of July 2010 (Tue), 08:04

i, too, want canon to produce something like the NEX but compatible with EF/EF-S lens

it'd be nice to have dSLR-like performance in the size of a compact P&S

Not possible with current technology.

toxic

6th of July 2010 (Tue), 10:33

which i suppose was my mistake, as the EP2 and the 5D2 are just about as different as cameras get. however, if you're going to try and correct the market's terminology, i think some consistency on your part would be the first step. perhaps googling a model which you think embodies the definition of an EVIL camera would have been more relevant to the discussion.

There is no EVIL camera in the market. The first I heard of it was actual some rumors about Canon making a mirrorless camera w/EVF.

In the end, if there is no EVF, it can't be EVIL by definition. An LCD is not a viewfinder, and I don't think many (if any at all) would confuse an LCD as one. If EVIL does become the term, it will be from popular use of the term and not because it's correct.

I think it should be noted that both Olympus and Panasonic make no mention of "EVIL" (or anything reminiscent of it) anywhere in the press releases or websites. Both of them are just called "interchangeable lens cameras."

And while I'm on the subject, the E-P1 is plainly in the same category as the GF1 and E-P2...but it has no EVF, add-on or otherwise.

regardless, my point is that once you start adding lenses with similar capabilities, these cameras/systems will be too bulky to fit into a pocket. if you're carrying your gear in a bag, a 32.5mm taller camera and 37.3mm deeper body will not be significant. i think EVIL (or whatever these small micro cameras are called) are attractive for what they can do that DSLRs can't: fit in your pocket.

This is where we have a misunderstanding. You think the mirrorless cameras should be pocketable...I don't, and I don't think they were intended to be. Neither the Canon G nor Panasonic LX3 are pocketable, but they sell perfectly well as P&S's. Get a slightly larger body - the biggest difference between the GF1 and LX3 is the former is 1/3 thicker, both excluding lens, while the G11 is actually taller and thicker - and you get a big improvement in image quality.

I should note that the Olympus E-420 is similarly larger compared to the GF1 (~1/3 thicker, ~10mm wider), but it has a viewfinder bulge (so 20mm taller), larger grip, and larger lenses. The first two mean the body is pretty bulbuous, as opposed to flat, which makes it feel even bulkier.

Having a flat and smaller body is significant because you can more easily use jacket pockets to transport the camera easily and use another pocket or small bag for a lens or two (and attach the lens and use a strap when you're actually shooting), or you can put more items in the bag you have, or you can use a smaller bag. It all adds up.

So I think cameras like the S90 have their place as pocketable, take-everywhere cameras. But I don't see the point of buying something like a G11 if you can afford an E-P/GF/NEX

alt4852

6th of July 2010 (Tue), 11:13

There is no EVIL camera in the market. The first I heard of it was actual some rumors about Canon making a mirrorless camera w/EVF.

In the end, if there is no EVF, it can't be EVIL by definition. An LCD is not a viewfinder, and I don't think many (if any at all) would confuse an LCD as one. If EVIL does become the term, it will be from popular use of the term and not because it's correct.

I think it should be noted that both Olympus and Panasonic make no mention of "EVIL" (or anything reminiscent of it) anywhere in the press releases or websites. Both of them are just called "interchangeable lens cameras.

isn't the panasonic G2 an EVIL camera by definition?

electronic viewfinder, check.
interchangeable lenses, check.

i understand what you're saying about whether a camera is pocketable, but i think it's pretty valid. take a stroll through the G series subforum here and you'll notice one of the primary reasons people love their G series cameras is the fact that they fit in their pockets. i've been saying from the start that EVIL (ie: cameras like the G2 which i think qualify, feel free to dispute this) cameras are compromises. there is a reason why photographers have been slow to adopt mirrorless models en masse. they are not smaller/lighter DSLR replacements, they are a specific genre that appeals to consumers who value form over function in terms of versatility and image quality in most cases.

there is nothing wrong with that. the old adage that the best camera is the one you take with you is very true. for the people who are unwilling to cart around a DSLR, their options lie solely in point and shoots, bridge cameras, and EVIL models. as i pointed out earlier though, true EVIL cameras have not received as much attention because they are neither extremely portable nor offer the best image quality. the advent of the popular term for EVIL (which you reject) and the buzz around it are all centered around models that are pocketable (ie; EP2, NEX5, etc) so i think the general market agrees with my sentiment that pocketability is indeed an important factor.

ofdphoto

6th of July 2010 (Tue), 19:01

*sigh*

NickSimcheck

7th of July 2010 (Wed), 20:52

nick.. please don't pretend you're posting statistics without a bias. there is nothing apples to apples about anything on either list that you have there. so in the interest of making direct comparisons, you chose the NEX5 kit with the 16mm lens instead of the 18-55mm lens to compare against the T2i's 18-55mm kit? ..just a $50 difference, but i think it's pretty telling of how you're coming up with these numbers. we'll ignore canon's rebates for now, but these two combined would close the gap by $100 easily.

Sorry for the error, you can have your $50 back. :lol:

then you decided to compare a bunch of glass that isn't even part of the system you're pairing with.. i really don't see where you're going with that. the NEX series only has two lenses built for it at the moment: the 18-55mm and the 16mm. to stay within the alpha system for consideration (if not, then i'm sure we could spend all day finding cheap and lightweight sigma, tokina, rokkor, tamron, etc equipment that is compatible with the canon EF mount), you'd have to shop sony's SAL and zeiss series offerings.

Since there are only 2 kit lenses available I ask you;

Why would I choose SLR lenses for the NEX-5, when RF lenses are much better option?

They're smaller, and because of the flange distance they're naturally higher quality on wide and superwide angles.

Basically I choose RF lenses as a preview to the advantages/advancements in photography that mirrorless cameras CAN be in the future.

I still don't quite understand your argument?

alt4852

7th of July 2010 (Wed), 22:17

Sorry for the error, you can have your $50 back. :lol:

the point being that with the regular canon rebate, it's a $100 difference. not that it's a huge deal, but i doubt it was a simple error since searching for prices usually brings up the NEX5's 18-55mm kit first which leads me to believe you simply were trying to maximize the price difference to make a point. nothing inherently wrong with that, just don't claim that it's apples to apples when you have a clear bias.

Since there are only 2 kit lenses available I ask you;

Why would I choose SLR lenses for the NEX-5, when RF lenses are much better option?

They're smaller, and because of the flange distance they're naturally higher quality on wide and superwide angles.

Basically I choose RF lenses as a preview to the advantages/advancements in photography that mirrorless cameras CAN be in the future.

I still don't quite understand your argument?

you're comparing autofocus lenses to manual focus ones. given the fact that any new lenses will most likely include autofocus, they will undoubtedly be bigger and heavier than what you have listed. your comparison doesn't make any sense because not only are you basing your weight comparison against lenses which will have little in common with what this series may expect to see, but also listing the price of old manual focus RF lenses is completely useless in estimating what the cost of a system like this would be. it's like looking at canon FD prices and using them to guess the dollar amounts of how much their EF counterparts are worth. it simply doesn't make any sense.

if autofocus is not a big deal, there are plenty of m42 to EF adapters out there which would allow our hypothetical DSLR user to use $20 a 50mm f/1.4 that weighs a fraction of what the EF version does. there are so many variables and speculating the weight and price of lenses that don't exist to the gram and dollar is a bit ridiculous.

i defended you earlier because i thought that it was interesting to speculate about what industry trend we may see, but your comparison has gotten downright absurd.

NickSimcheck

9th of July 2010 (Fri), 15:54

you're comparing autofocus lenses to manual focus ones. given the fact that any new lenses will most likely include autofocus, they will undoubtedly be bigger and heavier than what you have listed. your comparison doesn't make any sense because not only are you basing your weight comparison against lenses which will have little in common with what this series may expect to see, but also listing the price of old manual focus RF lenses is completely useless in estimating what the cost of a system like this would be. it's like looking at canon FD prices and using them to guess the dollar amounts of how much their EF counterparts are worth. it simply doesn't make any sense.

1 - If they still made autofocus zeiss RF optics (like the Contax G series) I would have used them for the comparison instead.
2 - See #1, autofocus rangefinder optics are TINY.
3 - All my prices are for new lenses, some even newly released in the last couple of years.

I hope you can understand that my original topic has little to do with where the current discussion has drifted to.

To elaborate on what I'm envisioning...

Think of a 5D MKII, only it's as small as a T2i's body. This size combination can easily be made simply by removing the mirror box.

Now think that it doesn't have a bulge for the viewfinder, cause it's an accessory. You can use it as a standard viewfinder, waist level, you could press a button for to crop for critical focus, hell it could be wireless and shoot remotely.

The optics naturally shrink because of flange-back distance.

More interesting subjects...

Shutter speed, do we even know a theoretical limit? Seriously, I bet it could be a lot faster than an SLR's 1/12,000 second (Minolta 9Xi).

Flash sync? A thing of the past...

Mirror lockup? No more...

Shutter noise? None...

So my original topic... USE YOUR IMAGINATION!

NickSimcheck

9th of July 2010 (Fri), 15:56

You can mark my words;

The SLR will be for (all intents and purposes) replaced by the mirror-less camera within 15 years.

If I'm wrong, in 15 years I will give you a cookie.

alt4852

9th of July 2010 (Fri), 16:45

1 - If they still made autofocus zeiss RF optics (like the Contax G series) I would have used them for the comparison instead.
2 - See #1, autofocus rangefinder optics are TINY.
3 - All my prices are for new lenses, some even newly released in the last couple of years.

that's all i was saying. comparing the size, weight, and price of lenses against ones that do not exist was a bit ridiculous.

I hope you can understand that my original topic has little to do with where the current discussion has drifted to.

To elaborate on what I'm envisioning...

Think of a 5D MKII, only it's as small as a T2i's body. This size combination can easily be made simply by removing the mirror box.

Now think that it doesn't have a bulge for the viewfinder, cause it's an accessory. You can use it as a standard viewfinder, waist level, you could press a button for to crop for critical focus, hell it could be wireless and shoot remotely.

The optics naturally shrink because of flange-back distance.

More interesting subjects...

Shutter speed, do we even know a theoretical limit? Seriously, I bet it could be a lot faster than an SLR's 1/12,000 second (Minolta 9Xi).

Flash sync? A thing of the past...

Mirror lockup? No more...

Shutter noise? None...

So my original topic... USE YOUR IMAGINATION!

i have no doubt cameras will improve over time.

You can mark my words;

The SLR will be for (all intents and purposes) replaced by the mirror-less camera within 15 years.

If I'm wrong, in 15 years I will give you a cookie.

i have my doubts. the reason why i don't think mirrorless has a chance at unseating SLRs anytime soon is primarily rooted in the efficiency of our present-day autofocus sensors. it's been almost 10 years since i bought my first digital point and shoot camera. the newest models this year don't seem to focus any faster or accurately. contrast-detect off of data from a sensor simply is not as quick and efficient as contrast-based light sensors.

if the past ten years are any indication of the next fifteen, i'll take my cookie now.

Tom W

9th of July 2010 (Fri), 18:54

You can mark my words;

The SLR will be for (all intents and purposes) replaced by the mirror-less camera within 15 years.

If I'm wrong, in 15 years I will give you a cookie.

Make it a fresh cookie. In fact, by that stage in my life, I'll probably want a prune instead. :)

Realistically, 15 years is a long time, and yes, it very well could happen. The primary reason that the SLR design is so well liked is the optical viewfinder. The electronic viewfinder will be up to speed in a few years, and the mirror/pentaprism will not be critical. If they can get the AF system to work as well as the phase-detection systems of today. we're there!

elysium

12th of July 2010 (Mon), 12:24

Obviously he fell into the same trap, using a convenient acronym even though it isn't correct. It wouldn't be the first time a term is used incorrectly.

"EVIL" might turn out to be the official label for the category, but it certainly isn't right now.

Trap? Well personally I don't really give two cents what a camera is or what it does providing it does what I ask it to do.

The fact that the LCD screen replaces a conventional viewfinder in my eyes is the definition of "electronic viewfinder". Apologies if this contradicts your infinate knowledge but I have come to think that "EVIL" stood for "Electronic Viewfinder Interchangable Lens". I must be wrong and the other 14,600,000 results via Google.

It is just simple stated, EVIL or whatever you want to call it, it takes pictures on par with a DSLR and that is not an understatement.

Ive used a 400D, 5D and 1D's through my time all bringing in publications and the fact that a Sony "EVIL" delivers the same results does say something.

Once again, my knowledge and experience doesn't seem to be on the same level as yours so I must be doing something terribly wrong.

alt4852

12th of July 2010 (Mon), 12:39

Ive used a 400D, 5D and 1D's through my time all bringing in publications and the fact that a Sony "EVIL" delivers the same results does say something.

surely this is an exaggeration? if i recall correctly, in the past you've stated that the 5D's autofocus was not sufficient for some of your work and that's what necessitated your 1D-series purchase. combined with the fact that you've also used the 200mm f/1.8L, is it really possible for you to say that the NEX5 delivers the same results?

perhaps you're in a different line of work now?

elysium

12th of July 2010 (Mon), 15:31

surely this is an exaggeration? if i recall correctly, in the past you've stated that the 5D's autofocus was not sufficient for some of your work and that's what necessitated your 1D-series purchase. combined with the fact that you've also used the 200mm f/1.8L, is it really possible for you to say that the NEX5 delivers the same results?

perhaps you're in a different line of work now?

Exactly that, Af speed is back on the shelf since it is not needed anymore. Low light sports are not something I have chased to continue hence the big trade off. Since running those specific bodies, I can still firmly say, the IQ is what matters and the NEX range hold their own.

Ok, the 1D range would still take the top spot for speed, IQ wise, it was never something that blew me away

alt4852

12th of July 2010 (Mon), 16:05

Exactly that, Af speed is back on the shelf since it is not needed anymore. Low light sports are not something I have chased to continue hence the big trade off. Since running those specific bodies, I can still firmly say, the IQ is what matters and the NEX range hold their own.

Ok, the 1D range would still take the top spot for speed, IQ wise, it was never something that blew me away

so are you shooting professionally at all anymore? i'm having a hard time fathoming a line of work where a NEX5 would be preferable to a full frame DSLR. for personal use or travel, it's completely understandable, but how were you able to replace all of your equipment needs with a body that doesn't even have dedicated dials for aperture and shutter speed control?

(not trying to be confrontational, this is genuine curiosity speaking.)

brian00321

12th of July 2010 (Mon), 22:13

You can mark my words;

The SLR will be for (all intents and purposes) replaced by the mirror-less camera within 15 years.

Excluding the professional world (which is small to begin with), I'll be bold and say 5 years.

CanonGarcon

12th of July 2010 (Mon), 22:25

You can mark my words;

The SLR will be for (all intents and purposes) replaced by the mirror-less camera within 15 years.

If I'm wrong, in 15 years I will give you a cookie.

Unless camera manufacturers are able to significantly reduce the size and weight of fast lenses, the chance of this of happening is about the same as a chihuahua or pug being the most popular choices for guard dogs.

ofdphoto

13th of July 2010 (Tue), 01:31

Unless camera manufacturers are able to significantly reduce the size and weight of fast lenses, the chance of this of happening is about the same as a chihuahua or pug being the most popular choices for guard dogs.
Perhaps you haven't been introduced to Leica? ;)

CanonGarcon

13th of July 2010 (Tue), 07:02

Perhaps you haven't been introduced to Leica? ;)

Does Leica have 400mm 2.8 primes or 24-70mm 2.8 zooms? Are they priced where they are in reach of the average Joe?

elysium

13th of July 2010 (Tue), 07:35

so are you shooting professionally at all anymore? i'm having a hard time fathoming a line of work where a NEX5 would be preferable to a full frame DSLR. for personal use or travel, it's completely understandable, but how were you able to replace all of your equipment needs with a body that doesn't even have dedicated dials for aperture and shutter speed control?

(not trying to be confrontational, this is genuine curiosity speaking.)
Still shooting for publications yes but the needs have changed. Since I work more in the automotive industry again, when working with car rigs, a DSLR is far too heavy to mount without running the risk of damage or more chance of camera shake. To be honest, I have seen thousands of publicated images over the years with point and shoot cameras but with a skilled user behind it so on paper, a DSLR would be your best option, in the real world, it may not.

A camera such as the EVIL range fits in perfectly with my needs in that respect. Well this is the thing, the NEX-5 doesn't have a lot of buttons because it does not need them. In manual mode, you use the rotating dial to set your shutter speed, press down and then you can adjust your aperture.

If me and you were both to shoot side by side, it would take me no longer to set my aperture and shutter speed than it would do with you. In that respect, very fluid. More serious settings like ISO or WB is menu based so that would take longer. Usually on a day, I would set that once and then never really need to touch it again.

Since the cars I shoot are not going anywhere, not the end of the world. Only trade off, no external flash support. May have to resort to optical triggers for that.

It is a very tough choice especially for Canon/Nikon shooters since there is no EVIL available in their brand family....yet. As I see it, if I stripped the EXIF from my photos and posted one from a 1D mkII, a 5D and the NEX-5, it would be very hard to tell the different so its abilities are there and have to say very solid. Living with it has been more enjoyable than I thought especially in clubs/bars and restaurants, so much more transportable.

NickSimcheck

13th of July 2010 (Tue), 16:02

Does Leica have 400mm 2.8 primes or 24-70mm 2.8 zooms? Are they priced where they are in reach of the average Joe?

I don't think you understood the point he was making.

Yes there are such things as small optics.

And removing a mirror box will only help to reduce the size of optics even more.

I'm curious, do you have a Dog fetish?

alt4852

13th of July 2010 (Tue), 23:19

I don't think you understood the point he was making.

Yes there are such things as small optics.

And removing a mirror box will only help to reduce the size of optics even more.

yes, and no.

theoretically, removing the mirror box will reduce the size of the lens bodies necessary, but does that translate into appreciable differences in real world designs? not really.

when you compare similar lenses, the difference is not all that dramatic. for example, my rangefinder with it's short flange distance has an equivalent to a 50mm f/1.4 lens. the same focal length and aperture lens on for example, my FD camera is roughly the same size, despite the latter having a mirror box. they're smaller, but not by much.

NickSimcheck

14th of July 2010 (Wed), 12:10

yes, and no.

theoretically, removing the mirror box will reduce the size of the lens bodies necessary, but does that translate into appreciable differences in real world designs? not really.

when you compare similar lenses, the difference is not all that dramatic. for example, my rangefinder with it's short flange distance has an equivalent to a 50mm f/1.4 lens. the same focal length and aperture lens on for example, my FD camera is roughly the same size, despite the latter having a mirror box. they're smaller, but not by much.

And that's different from what I said how?

It's not like I said it was gonna set the world on fire with lenses the size of bottle caps. I was simply pointing out that it is a matter is mathematics, and a shallower flange will naturally reduce the size of optics.

You should see the distance between the rear element and the film plane on my 120mm Zeiss Apo-Makro for the Contax 645, it's a solid 5-6"!

Tom W

14th of July 2010 (Wed), 12:43

yes, and no.

theoretically, removing the mirror box will reduce the size of the lens bodies necessary, but does that translate into appreciable differences in real world designs? not really.

Yes, it actually does translate into an appreciable difference in lens designs, at least at the shorter focal lengths. Think about this - the distance from the plane of the lens mount to the sensor on a Canon DSLR is 44 mm. EF-S lenses allow a few mm shorter backfocus distance (distance from rearmost lens element to sensor) with the rear of the lens protruding slightly into the mirror box, which helps in designing shorter focal length lenses such as the 10-22 or 15-85.

Anyway, think of a wide-angle lens - say a 24 mm lens. Wider-angle lenses tend to focus their "output" (second principal point) at a distance much closer to the back of the lens compared to longer lenses. Obviously, it's going to take some optical trickery to make a lens who's focal length is shorter than the distance from the back of the lens to the sensor, and that trickery is accomplished by the retrofocus type lens assembly. Essentially, it is an inverted telephoto lens attached to the front of a wide angle lens that serves to allow it to focus the captured image on the sensor plane, rather than several mm in front of the sensor. This adds complication and size to the lens, and introduces more opportunity for abberations, distortions, and such.

Now, if the backfocus distance is shortened appreciably, as it would with a mirrorless body, then the need for a retrofocus lens group is lessened. A wide angle lens like the 24 mm can be considerably shorter and less complicated if the retrofucus ruquirement is reduced or eliminated.

Now, with a telephoto lens, this generally isn't a problem. Look into the back of your 135 mm, 300 mm, or 100-400 lens and you'll see that the rearmost element is not right at the back of the lens, but is some distance into the lens body. This is because the telephoto lens provides a longer backfocus distance by the nature of its design.

when you compare similar lenses, the difference is not all that dramatic. for example, my rangefinder with it's short flange distance has an equivalent to a 50mm f/1.4 lens. the same focal length and aperture lens on for example, my FD camera is roughly the same size, despite the latter having a mirror box. they're smaller, but not by much.

The difference would be greater at shorter focal lengths, and might not exist at all when you approach short-telephoto and longer lenses. Note that the EF-S lens design is only used on lenses that are wide angle, or provide wide-angle within their zoom range. Why? Because the shorter backfocus distance is only beleficial at the wider end of the focal length spectrum.

alt4852

14th of July 2010 (Wed), 14:44

Yes, it actually does translate into an appreciable difference in lens designs, at least at the shorter focal lengths. Think about this - the distance from the plane of the lens mount to the sensor on a Canon DSLR is 44 mm. EF-S lenses allow a few mm shorter backfocus distance (distance from rearmost lens element to sensor) with the rear of the lens protruding slightly into the mirror box, which helps in designing shorter focal length lenses such as the 10-22 or 15-85.

Anyway, think of a wide-angle lens - say a 24 mm lens. Wider-angle lenses tend to focus their "output" (second principal point) at a distance much closer to the back of the lens compared to longer lenses. Obviously, it's going to take some optical trickery to make a lens who's focal length is shorter than the distance from the back of the lens to the sensor, and that trickery is accomplished by the retrofocus type lens assembly. Essentially, it is an inverted telephoto lens attached to the front of a wide angle lens that serves to allow it to focus the captured image on the sensor plane, rather than several mm in front of the sensor. This adds complication and size to the lens, and introduces more opportunity for abberations, distortions, and such.

Now, if the backfocus distance is shortened appreciably, as it would with a mirrorless body, then the need for a retrofocus lens group is lessened. A wide angle lens like the 24 mm can be considerably shorter and less complicated if the retrofucus ruquirement is reduced or eliminated.

Now, with a telephoto lens, this generally isn't a problem. Look into the back of your 135 mm, 300 mm, or 100-400 lens and you'll see that the rearmost element is not right at the back of the lens, but is some distance into the lens body. This is because the telephoto lens provides a longer backfocus distance by the nature of its design.

The difference would be greater at shorter focal lengths, and might not exist at all when you approach short-telephoto and longer lenses. Note that the EF-S lens design is only used on lenses that are wide angle, or provide wide-angle within their zoom range. Why? Because the shorter backfocus distance is only beleficial at the wider end of the focal length spectrum.

i understand the physics of it perfectly well. it seems like you're preaching to the choir in that regard. i think the point i'm trying to get across is that i don't see the evidence of a major shift anytime soon. of course, the 22mm flange distance difference will allow the construction of slightly smaller lenses, but take a look at the history of how this translates into real world equipment. my FD lenses are not much larger than the leica mount rangefinder lenses that people seem to like to bring up.. and they're certainly much smaller than the lenses being created for the m4/3 mount at the moment despite having a flange distance of 42mm as opposed to the 20mm for m4/3. with the exception of pancake lenses, m4/3 lenses have essentially been DSLR lenses on a diet.

you take a look at the canon kit 18-55mm and the olympus kit 14-42mm, and they don't seem all that different. the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 300mm f/2.8 for the m4/3 are smaller, but they're still big enough to require a camera bag to carry them from location to location. coupled with the fact that they balance so poorly with the coveted size advantage of the bodies.. and it seems like more of a hassle to use than a DSLR. these EVIL cameras (or whatever you want to call them) serve a great purpose, but replacing DSLRs doesn't seem like a likely one at the moment. it isn't the flange distance, or the sensor size that will change this, it'll be the advent of more advanced EVFs and focusing algorithms that would potentially nudge us in the direction that nick is suggesting.. and for now, it doesn't really look like any company is trying to do this (hence my skepticism with five or fifteen year predictions).

take note about what the current market looks like. it was rumored a few months ago that m4/3 cameras would go completely mirrorless in a few years, and olympus quickly stepped in to dispel the myth. as for the actual mirrorless cameras on the market, only the samsung nx10 and the panasonic g1 seem to represent anything that is poised to replace a DSLR, and the g1/gh1 have clearly been less popular than the gf1. it seems as though mirrorless is moving in the direction of the ep1/ep2/epl1, gf1, and nex3/nex5: compact cameras with high image quality. these models seem to be built to complement DSLRs rather than replace them. (hell, i'm seriously considering buying a gf1 myself to go along with my 5D's.)

at the risk of starting a tangent flame fest, i think it's sort of like saying the ipad will replace desktops/laptops someday. yes, these bridge products are getting better, but i don't think they replace the workhorse designs of the present day.. nor do i think they're even meant to for that matter. aside from the technology not being ripe, they're built for different purposes and are not mutually exclusive in the market by any right.

Tom W

14th of July 2010 (Wed), 15:16

i understand the physics of it perfectly well. it seems like you're preaching to the choir in that regard. i think the point i'm trying to get across is that i don't see the evidence of a major shift anytime soon. of course, the 22mm flange distance difference will allow the construction of slightly smaller lenses, but take a look at the history of how this translates into real world equipment. my FD lenses are not much larger than the leica mount rangefinder lenses that people seem to like to bring up.. and they're certainly much smaller than the lenses being created for the m4/3 mount at the moment despite having a flange distance of 42mm as opposed to the 20mm for m4/3. with the exception of pancake lenses, m4/3 lenses have essentially been DSLR lenses on a diet.

The "pancake" lens is much easier to implement with a shorter backfocus. And that is what would interest me a great deal. A 300 is a 300 is a 300, but a 20 or 35 mm or so lens can be much smaller when retrofocus requirements are eliminated or drastically reduced.

you take a look at the canon kit 18-55mm and the olympus kit 14-42mm, and they don't seem all that different. the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 300mm f/2.8 for the m4/3 are smaller, but they're still big enough to require a camera bag to carry them from location to location. coupled with the fact that they balance so poorly with the coveted size advantage of the bodies.. and it seems like more of a hassle to use than a DSLR. these EVIL cameras (or whatever you want to call them) serve a great purpose, but replacing DSLRs doesn't seem like a likely one at the moment. it isn't the flange distance, or the sensor size that will change this, it'll be the advent of more advanced EVFs and focusing algorithms that would potentially nudge us in the direction that nick is suggesting.. and for now, it doesn't really look like any company is trying to do this (hence my skepticism with five or fifteen year predictions).

I didn't see a 70-200 f/2.8 nor a 300/2.8 lens on the Olympus web site. :) I think you're referring to the 35-100 and the 150 mm lenses, which are obviously smaller and lighter. And shorter. I get where you're coming from - smaller format affords smaller lenses for the same "reach", but this is at the expense of other factors that favor larger sensors.

Admittedly, I'm not that familiar with the Olympus lens lineup, so I can't compare their basic consumer zoom with Canon's. Never looked at them much. A side note - and this has nothing to do with format or mirrorless design - the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM is considerably smaller than its sibling, the 28-135 IS USM.

That said, I suspect that Canon's first entry into the EVIL pond will be an APS-C sensor, though I could be wrong.

take note about what the current market looks like. it was rumored a few months ago that m4/3 cameras would go completely mirrorless in a few years, and olympus quickly stepped in to dispel the myth. as for the actual mirrorless cameras on the market, only the samsung nx10 and the panasonic g1 seem to represent anything that is poised to replace a DSLR, and the g1/gh1 have clearly been less popular than the gf1. it seems as though mirrorless is moving in the direction of the ep1/ep2/epl1, gf1, and nex3/nex5: compact cameras with high image quality. these models seem to be built to complement DSLRs rather than replace them. (hell, i'm seriously considering buying a gf1 myself to go along with my 5D's.)

at the risk of starting a tangent flame fest, i think it's sort of like saying the ipad will replace desktops/laptops someday. yes, these bridge products are getting better, but i don't think they replace the workhorse designs of the present day.. nor do i think they're even meant to for that matter. aside from the technology not being ripe, they're built for different purposes and are not mutually exclusive in the market by any right.

Yeah, I don't see the mirrorless bodies replacing the DSLR too quickly. That's several years down the road. There are many capabilities in the SLR design that haven't been resolved yet in mirrorless designs. Like AF speed and a very realistic, fast=responding viewfinder. But when those obstacles are overcome, I don't see much that will make the SLR favorable over the mirrorless designs for most shooters.

At this juncture, I'd love a small EVIL camera with a couple of very small pancake lenses, plus the ability to adapt and mount my EF lenses when I want to. It would be a great addition to my DSLR/Lens collection.

alt4852

14th of July 2010 (Wed), 16:05

I didn't see a 70-200 f/2.8 nor a 300/2.8 lens on the Olympus web site. :) I think you're referring to the 35-100 and the 150 mm lenses, which are obviously smaller and lighter. And shorter. I get where you're coming from - smaller format affords smaller lenses for the same "reach", but this is at the expense of other factors that favor larger sensors.

Admittedly, I'm not that familiar with the Olympus lens lineup, so I can't compare their basic consumer zoom with Canon's. Never looked at them much. A side note - and this has nothing to do with format or mirrorless design - the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM is considerably smaller than its sibling, the 28-135 IS USM.

That said, I suspect that Canon's first entry into the EVIL pond will be an APS-C sensor, though I could be wrong.

yea, my mistake. i just googled "micro 4/3 lenses" and drew information from the first few sites. the ones i were referring to were sigma lenses that are classified as m4/3 compatible. in any case, the same point stands. big glass will always be big glass. the lack of a mirror will potentially reduce the size, but it won't work any miracles in terms of revolutionizing the form factor of high end photographic equipment.

Yeah, I don't see the mirrorless bodies replacing the DSLR too quickly. That's several years down the road. There are many capabilities in the SLR design that haven't been resolved yet in mirrorless designs. Like AF speed and a very realistic, fast=responding viewfinder. But when those obstacles are overcome, I don't see much that will make the SLR favorable over the mirrorless designs for most shooters.

At this juncture, I'd love a small EVIL camera with a couple of very small pancake lenses, plus the ability to adapt and mount my EF lenses when I want to. It would be a great addition to my DSLR/Lens collection.

despite all of our words, i think you and i are on the same exact page. as i said earlier, i'd love to have a gf1 with a 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens to complement my DSLR equipment. they'd work in tandem with each other. my earlier post was just referencing what you just stated: i don't see mirrorless cameras replacing SLRs anytime soon.

kuwazome

14th of July 2010 (Wed), 21:53

Better start selling my lenses, looks like Canon is about to pull another 1987.

alt4852

14th of July 2010 (Wed), 23:16

Better start selling my lenses, looks like Canon is about to pull another 1987.

that was over twenty years ago, get over it dude. ;)

ofdphoto

20th of July 2010 (Tue), 20:08

Dear CanonGarcon,

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/07/canon-evil-on-the-way-cr3/

That is all.

CanonGarcon

21st of July 2010 (Wed), 07:25

Dear CanonGarcon,

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/07/canon-evil-on-the-way-cr3/

That is all.

Did you see the indications are this new line will be a mini DSLR, not a mirrorless camera?

brian00321

21st of July 2010 (Wed), 08:35

Did you see the indications are this new line will be a mini DSLR, not a mirrorless camera?

It could be either, but it would make much more sense if it was mirrorless. Look at regular 4/3rds. The smallest Olympus could get was an e-420.

davidfig

22nd of July 2010 (Thu), 10:15

Does Leica have 400mm 2.8 primes or 24-70mm 2.8 zooms? Are they priced where they are in reach of the average Joe?

Yep! the average Joe can afford the 400 2.8 and 24-70 2.8.

I don't understand why people are so venomous when talking about mirrorless cameras. I think the OP's comment about autofocus and digital is spot on. Seems like any new idea is met with sheer shock and dismay. Followed by absolute refusal to embrace that new feature (e.g. video). Meanwhile the Pros are devising how it can improve their art and how they can make use of it. I usually look at the new idea and wonder how it can help me in my art.

davidfig

22nd of July 2010 (Thu), 10:17

Did you see the indications are this new line will be a mini DSLR, not a mirrorless camera?

Maybe mini DSLR is because Canon can't move fast enough to make an EVIL.

alt4852

22nd of July 2010 (Thu), 12:46

Yep! the average Joe can afford the 400 2.8 and 24-70 2.8.

I don't understand why people are so venomous when talking about mirrorless cameras. I think the OP's comment about autofocus and digital is spot on. Seems like any new idea is met with sheer shock and dismay. Followed by absolute refusal to embrace that new feature (e.g. video). Meanwhile the Pros are devising how it can improve their art and how they can make use of it. I usually look at the new idea and wonder how it can help me in my art.

i think you have a lot of preconceived notions about what other people are saying. in the last two or three pages of this thread, it's pretty clear that nobody is meeting the concept of EVIL cameras with "sheer shock and dismay". read what people are writing before responding to statements that aren't really relevant to this discussion.

in case you missed it, most of us all think that there is a bright future for mirrorless cameras. however, the disagreement is over whether or not this should be necessarily seen as an imminent replacement/evolution of DSLRs. i think EVIL models serve a currently unfilled gap in the market and will do very well, but i think very few professionals will be replacing their DSLRs for these in the near future. as i said earlier, i think they are much more attractive as supplementary/complementary cameras rather than replacements. no sheer shock or dismay here, just skepticism over what role this developing technology will play in the market.

NickSimcheck

22nd of July 2010 (Thu), 20:11

the disagreement is over whether or not this should be necessarily seen as an imminent replacement/evolution of DSLRs. i think EVIL models serve a currently unfilled gap in the market and will do very well, but i think very few professionals will be replacing their DSLRs for these in the near future. as i said earlier, i think they are much more attractive as supplementary/complementary cameras rather than replacements. no sheer shock or dismay here, just skepticism over what role this developing technology will play in the market.

And to to elaborate my position on this, when I say Mirrorless replacing SLR I mean in the "majority"

As in how the SLR replaced the Rangefinder which as we all know is still made and preferred by many people today.

I think Mirrorless with become the main choice for Snapshooters, Prosumers, Amateurs, Professionals not needing AF speed (Studio, Wedding, etc) whereas SLR will be the choice for the "minority" which are sports shooters, nature photographers, journalists, etc.