Would you go for a Canon mirrorless system?

[WT21]

Like m43 or Sony NEX, would you purchase a Canon mirrorless system?

I've got an Olympus EP1 right now, and it's great, but it has some limitations. It's not great with telephoto, and the ISO is great to about 1250, and great in B&W through 1600, but that's about it. I'm finding I'm missing my DSLR for some circumstances, and may pick one back up.

I would LOVE a compact, mirrorless full frame from Canon, even assuming that it would only work with a couple of lens types (e.g. wide angle through maybe normal range). Then, I could have a Canon DSLR and the Canon compact, and share lenses.

Aside from the idea that such a system might kill off other Canon lines, I'm just wondering -- would you buy into a Canon compact mirrorless system, and assume you could use your Canon lenses with an adapter, but they would focus as slowly as LV does now on DSLRs.

[hpulley]

I voted no because I like the SLR concept. However, if they brought out the 1DV with a fixed pellicle mirror that could shoot 20 fps at 10MP I'd buy one in a heartbeat :-D

[ken_vs_ryu]

yes, traveling with a dslr is a big pita.

[timnosenzo]

I vote for maybe, depending on the specs, the price how it performs...

[banpreso]

if by "mirrorless" you mean rangefinder, sure! i think it'd be awesome to have a rangefinder based on the FD system, hahahaha i can dream can't i...

other than that, you have the G series

[WT21]

if by "mirrorless" you mean rangefinder, sure! i think it'd be awesome to have a rangefinder based on the FD system, hahahaha i can dream can't i...

other than that, you have the G series
A rangefinder has manual controls. I don't assume that either way.

G series has a tiny sensor. I'm talking a large sensor mirrorless.

[kjj512]

Yes but only for a walk around camera. I can't see any major improvements on the ergonomics of the SLR. Yes, button placements and such but for the most part the shape of SLR is nearly perfect in my opinion for taking pictures. If canon made one for EOS mount, imagine a 70-200 or even the 24-70 on it. That alone would make it difficult to take pictures with. In that case you would have to come out with a new line of compact lenses which would probably be hard pressed to compete with any of the EOS lenses. That's why I would only really want it for a walk around camera for snapshots on the days you don't feel like carrying around a SLR.

[squirrelking101]

If I could get the processing power for some crazy FPS, you better believe it. I like the concept of both an SLR and a 4/3, they take great pictures!

[WT21]

I would think speed would be slower, not faster, than a DSLR. Just based on the other compact cameras out there, contrast AF speed, etc.

[bohdank]

If it had a real viewfinder (optical is fine) and 1.6 or larger sensor..... yes, interested. Still, a lot of other factors there that would peak or lessen my interest.

[Tom W]

Absolutely - if it has a eye-level viewfinder, a couple of small, fast lenses, a suitably-sized sensor, and the ability to use an adaptor that allows mounting of EF lenses.

It would be a great addition to my SLR system, but not a replacement.

[hpulley]

If it had a real viewfinder (optical is fine) and 1.6 or larger sensor..... yes, interested. Still, a lot of other factors there that would peak or lessen my interest.

How do you have a 'real' optical viewfinder without a mirror? Rangefinder or scale-based focusing (was just given a 1952 Optina 24x36 scale focus camera this week from a friend) is the only way to have an optical viewfinder without a mirror. Otherwise you need one mirror in an SLR or two in a TLR.

[bohdank]

Sorry not clear.

In a nutshell... a viewfinder of any kind, rangfinder type or, if they ever can make an EVT that can refresh fast enough and have realistic images and refresh rate.

Something other than an LCD on the back.

[WT21]

More "no interest" results than I would have expected, actually.

[sth_]

Having taken ~200 pictures with a Lumix G2 I have to say that a mirrorless system has it's pros and cons. You can get used to the EVF and you can do some things that you can't do with an optical viewfinder (e.g. aperture AND shutter speed preview, what-you-see-is-what-you-get).

BUT, Panasonic's current implementation is pretty bad for sports / fast moving subjects, therefore I prefer an optical system for now. The technology is new and will take some time to evolve.

I think mirrorless will be the future for the mass-market, but I can't see "real" DSLRs going away anytime soon.

For the moment, I'd choose a "real" DSLR.

[dolina]

I would go for it if it supports EF lenses and EOS accessories.

[photoPanda]

If Canon had beaten Olympus to it then I would have bought their system; as it is I use an E-P1 along with my DSLRs and am extremely happy with it. I don't see me purchasing a Canon one in addition to that.

[othomas]

I would go for it if it supports EF lenses and EOS accessories.

Me too Can just see a Canon equivalent of an E-P1 size body with th EF 800mm f/5.6L IS attached :lol:

[TweakMDS]

I could be tempted if they do it under the following conditions:
- APS-C sensor size (only due to my current lenses).
- Can take EF-S lenses - possibly with an adapter, but with AF.
- Has a lens mount that allows pancake-size lenses, and at least a 24mm f/2 or something close to it is available.

[WT21]

Having taken ~200 pictures with a Lumix G2 I have to say that a mirrorless system has it's pros and cons. You can get used to the EVF and you can do some things that you can't do with an optical viewfinder (e.g. aperture AND shutter speed preview, what-you-see-is-what-you-get).

BUT, Panasonic's current implementation is pretty bad for sports / fast moving subjects, therefore I prefer an optical system for now. The technology is new and will take some time to evolve.

I think mirrorless will be the future for the mass-market, but I can't see "real" DSLRs going away anytime soon.

For the moment, I'd choose a "real" DSLR.

I meant would you get one, not would you make it your only system.

But I do agree. I just sold my 45-200 zoom lens, and have become convinced that at the current state of the technology, it's a great travel cam for wide to normal and short portrait situations. It gets unwieldy past 100mm, IMO. I'm actually shopping to get back into a DSLR after selling my gear 5 months ago to go straight m43.

[airfrogusmc]

My next camera is probably going to be a Leica M9.

[dolina]

Me too Can just see a Canon equivalent of an E-P1 size body with th EF 800mm f/5.6L IS attached :lol:

That would be bw!

[J_TULLAR]

My next camera is probably going to be a Leica M9.

ditto!

[EL_PIC]

Yes - in addition to mirror SLR systems.
The SLR mirror causes weight and camera shake and those got to go.
The big SLR is often intrusive to PJ and other work.
There is also so much oil they put on mirrors these days and it drops on your sensor.
A cleaner oil is being investigated... but why just get rid of the mirror {weight and shake}.
The alternative to slow live view is also rangefinder, hybrid, others.
You may also have to buy new lenes and all that Camera manufactures really care about is new and slightly improved products to make more and more profits.

21 st Century Digital photo is all about slight improvement with marketing scam and they laff all the way to the bank.
LOL !!!

[ShadowVlican]

yes, traveling with a dslr is a big pita.
+1

i'd love to purchase a "canon nex" :lol: if they made it EF/-S compatible, i'd even pre-order one!

[CanonGarcon]

I meant would you get one, not would you make it your only system.

But I do agree. I just sold my 45-200 zoom lens, and have become convinced that at the current state of the technology, it's a great travel cam for wide to normal and short portrait situations. It gets unwieldy past 100mm, IMO. I'm actually shopping to get back into a DSLR after selling my gear 5 months ago to go straight m43.

I see you found out the big disadvantage of runt mirrorless cameras.

[hpulley]

I see you found out the big disadvantage of runt mirrorless cameras.

Nothing new either, the same problem with rangefinders from so long ago! The SLR really seems to be the best for focusing with long lenses and for fast action. Until the focus problem is solved it is going to be difficult. I would love to see Canon solve it, some way to use the existing AF sensors with a fixed partially silvered (pellicle) mirror or something like that but as I just said above I can't see it being done with just the main sensor unless...

Hmm, perhaps I should patent it but that is unless they can fab a sensor chip with fast AF sensors built right into it. Interesting indeed, I did my grad work in VLSI 15 years ago and am extremely rusty but you never know ;-)

[MintMark]

I thought the original comment was about handling... you can make the bodies small but a long lens still has to be a certain size.

Can you elaborate on the focus issues please? Is there something that is particularly a problem with long lenses?

[MARK1992]

Waheyhey!

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

[sth_]

No surprise here... ;)

[TweakMDS]

Can you elaborate on the focus issues please? Is there something that is particularly a problem with long lenses?

Afaik, the advantage of the current DSLR (pentaprism) system is that it's able to detect whether or not something is in focus, and more importantly, if something is not in focus, which way to start moving the focus.
The contrast detect system is only able to find focus by alternating it and seeing it it's sharper than the previous step.

[toxic]

^ To answer the question more precisely, AF is slower because it's contrast-detect rather than phase-detect, not anything to do with long vs short lenses. Both depend on contrast to focus, but phase-detect is much faster...however, it requires a mirror. So either you make a not-quite-as-small camera with a pellicle AF mirror in front of the sensor, or you make the smallest camera possible without any mirrors.

I would buy one if it's APS-C or larger and it has a VF, clip-on or otherwise. It would replace my SLR if it has a 35mm sensor. An AF version of the RF viewfinder would be nice, but I'm not sure that's possible.

[hsmoscout]

So Canon's mirrorless competitor will be...mirrorful? If Canon can make a mirrorless sized camera that has a mirror like CR says they might, I think a lot of people would buy it.

[k8et]

Yes. I'm looking for a compact camera that's smaller for camping and everyday snaps. I'm looking at the Olympus one, and liking it a lot. If canon came out with one, I'd compare the two and canon would have a slight lead just because it would use the same software/icons and possibly even more things as my dSLR.

I'm also looking to have it do video though, so that would be my other big selling point.

[sth_]

Concerning AF speed: I was very with the speed of Panasonic's contrast-based system. It's much faster than Canon's LiveView focusing. I guess it's about as fast as normal focusing using a non-USM lens on a Canon body. It also allows continous AF in movie mode (if you want it), which works very well.

Servo tracking is not that great, although far better than I expected. What makes it unusable for sports photography is not the servo tracking but the viewfinder blackout (if you can call it like that, it actually freezes the last LiveView image).

[MintMark]

^ To answer the question more precisely, AF is slower because it's contrast-detect rather than phase-detect, not anything to do with long vs short lenses. Both depend on contrast to focus, but phase-detect is much faster...however, it requires a mirror. So either you make a not-quite-as-small camera with a pellicle AF mirror in front of the sensor, or you make the smallest camera possible without any mirrors.

I would buy one if it's APS-C or larger and it has a VF, clip-on or otherwise. It would replace my SLR if it has a 35mm sensor. An AF version of the RF viewfinder would be nice, but I'm not sure that's possible.

Thank you toxic, that's what I was trying to get at. I understand phase detect vs contrast, but I wasn't aware of any long lens vs short lens issues. I wondered whether it might be an issue with the amount of glass that needed moving... or the difference in depth of field at different focal lengths (making focus easier or harder to determine).

Anyway, what if it had a mirror just for AF and a separate electronic viewfinder? Does that mean it wouldn't need a prism and they could fit it into a more rectangular shaped body?

[hpulley]

Yep, quite possible I'd say to use a partial mirror just for AF but EVF for viewing.

[elfenix]

^ To answer the question more precisely, AF is slower because it's contrast-detect rather than phase-detect, not anything to do with long vs short lenses. Both depend on contrast to focus, but phase-detect is much faster...however, it requires a mirror. So either you make a not-quite-as-small camera with a pellicle AF mirror in front of the sensor, or you make the smallest camera possible without any mirrors.

I would buy one if it's APS-C or larger and it has a VF, clip-on or otherwise. It would replace my SLR if it has a 35mm sensor. An AF version of the RF viewfinder would be nice, but I'm not sure that's possible.

i was wondering what was stopping a camera company from putting a phase detect array in an image sensor, and apparently fuji went ahead and did it with their new compact. so it's not impossible. though iirc a phase detect system requires a prism to capture light from the opposite sides of the lens and compare (thereby creating a rangefinder - surprise, your SLR is a rangefinder!).

though phase detect with such a small aperture as on a compact camera is not going to be very accurate. rangefinder base for a phase detect system is equal to the absolute aperture or diameter of the lens.

[EL_PIC]

... surprise, your SLR is a rangefinder! ...



No real surprise on this or that photo and camera systems are economic driven.
Technology is only an excuse for selling and buying more cameras, software, and more lenses.
It will go from back to future and forward to past as long as people pay.
The camera manufactures learned this moving slightly from 8 mm to Super 8, IS 2, APS C half frames, and 20% more pixels
Soon they move 20% less pixels.
Electro Focus is coming but not till you buy all new lenes and then cameras and then ....

[tom s]

no no and nooooooo

[Lightstream]

There is actually an advantage for Canon here. Their EF-S has already got a shorter backfocus/registration distance, which other camera manufacturers with mirrored APC or full frame systems did not take advantage of. That's why EF-S glass has bits and pieces that stick into the mirror box, making it physically impossible to mount on FF cameras like the 5D even if you remove the baffle (been there, done it, smacked a 60 macro on my 5D's mirror). But they could leverage that for their newer smaller cameras.

I'd buy it as long as it took EF/EF-S glass. If it can be adaptered to do so, then by all means. ie. a hypothetical EF-M (micro) mount with EF/EF-S adapters and its own EF-M glass. I'd consider it even if it was a 2.0x or 1.8x crop. So happens, EF-S 15-85 IS USM with a 1.8x imager would fit nicely into my preferred zoom range, being 27-153. And the 10-22 would still be 18-40, still plenty wide.

The nice thing about such a system, if it was compatible with existing EF gear, would mean choice. I could pack a smaller body as a secondary/backup camera and still retain choice of lens. Then when you want to break out the big telephotos you can always take another EOS body.... maybe a 7D or 5D with the Brick Grip (no screws needed, just duct tape a big cement brick to the bottom of the camera. :p)

[Tommydigi]

Yes I would but a lot really depends on how its designed. I had my sights set on the Sony NEX but I would prefer the controls of the G11 with a 4/3 or APS-C sensor. So something of a cross between these 2 would be ideal for me. If nothing comes out by fall I am jumping on a T2i, not really tiny but an amazing camera and much smaller and lighter then a 5d2.

[mknabster]

I voted No, wouldn't a mirrorless DSLR start to chew up the battery a whole lot more? And it wouldn't be called a DSLR anymore would it?

[treck_dialect]

i voted yes just because it would be really handy. although i just realized, if they used the same lens mounts and i was able to use my current lenses, the size of the body wouldnt really matter as much.

[NeutronBoy]

I would hope they keep the EF mounting system

[dontcallmeash]

only if it supports ALL of the EF and EF/S lenses and autofocus.

[treck_dialect]

thats the thing. if they kept the ef and ef/s mounts, the lenses would still be big making the small size of the body pretty useless.

[nuffi]

thats the thing. if they kept the ef and ef/s mounts, the lenses would still be big making the small size of the body pretty useless.


That depends on which lens you're using. I love my Zeiss 50mm, and it's quite compact.

[WT21]

True, BUT the ef/ef-s mount would allow you to use your legacy lenses (with AF, please!) until new, optimized lenses roll out. That's one issue with Panasonic and m four thirds format -- not enough lenses. There are Olympus four thirds lenses, but that is SUCH a dead-end camera branch, that if you have those lenses, OK, but if not -- you're not going to buy new ones just to adapt them. But with Canon, there are so many affordable EF and EF-S lens options, that you could buy the compact body with confidence, knowing that, while new lenses are coming, you have plenty you can use right now.

Canon HAS to do this. SONY can't be the answer -- there's already rumors of them dropping FF. m43 is nice, but incomplete and the sensor technology there is lagging. Canon could kill this market, but they are so conservative in adopting new things, who knows if the will.

[treck_dialect]

True, BUT the ef/ef-s mount would allow you to use your legacy lenses (with AF, please!) until new, optimized lenses roll out. That's one issue with Panasonic and m four thirds format -- not enough lenses. There are Olympus four thirds lenses, but that is SUCH a dead-end camera branch, that if you have those lenses, OK, but if not -- you're not going to buy new ones just to adapt them. But with Canon, there are so many affordable EF and EF-S lens options, that you could buy the compact body with confidence, knowing that, while new lenses are coming, you have plenty you can use right now.

Canon HAS to do this. SONY can't be the answer -- there's already rumors of them dropping FF. m43 is nice, but incomplete and the sensor technology there is lagging. Canon could kill this market, but they are so conservative in adopting new things, who knows if the will.

but wouldnt the new lenses that would eventually be developed still be relatively big since they have to use the ef and ef-s mounts?

[imahawki]

I would, assuming that they released at least a handful of specialized lenses. So if they released it with a very compact walk around focal length zoom but it would take ef/ef-s lenses I would totally buy one. When I want P&S type size, I would grab it with the "kit" very small zoom lens. When I want to go full out I grab my 50D and when I'm in an in-between mode I use the small body with maybe a prime like my 50 f/1.8 or 30 f/1.4.

[WT21]

but wouldnt the new lenses that would eventually be developed still be relatively big since they have to use the ef and ef-s mounts?

Honestly, I don't know enough to comment, but isn't the throat of the opening and the electrical contacts the only thing that has to stay constant? Couldn't new lenses keep the same size and contacts, but be shorter? A number of EF and EFS lenses flar out wide than the metal mount. In a new compact format, couldn't the lens be as wide (and not wider) than the metal mount??

One thing I have decided after a year with micro four thirds (which I'm still shooting) -- mirrorless, contrast-detect AF, LCD shooting is a challeng for anything beyond short telephoto (say, 100mm). Contrast detect AF often grabs the background instead of the subject, is too slow for action, and with the blackout, it's difficult to keep anything in the frame, and also not fun to take even static subjects at long reach (400mm equivalent). So, I would only look to a new Canon system for wide angle to normal, and portrait length. Therefore, the idea of putting a giant telephoto on the front wouldn't be important, IMO.

It's one thing I was excited about the Olympus -- the idea of in body IS might mean compact lenses in this focal length range, but so far they've only produced a 20mm 1.7 and a ultra wide angle zoom. Nice, but where's the 50/1.4, 25/1.4 (or 1.2). There's 45mm macro, but it's not very fast.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Look at what Oly did,. they use a new lens mount, that still allows the standard 4/3rds lenses to work using an adapter.

It's a double edged sword,. if it uses only EF lenses, then we don't get the weight savings,. so it has to have dedicated specialized lenses.

If it does not mount EF, then we as Canon system owners have no reason at all to wait for it, and to invest in it over the Olympus. we have to start from scratch with a new system anyway,. why choose Canon over Oly with it's smart new lenses and in body IS? The only thing stopping us from buying the Olympus now is we would like compatibility with our current system.

IMHO the ideal set up is exactly like Oly has employed.
New dedicated lenses that are much smaller than the current stuff,. and yet maintain the ability, perhaps via an adapter, to use it with existing EF lenses.

Lastly If Canon does this, are they likely to make their small new lenses of the high quality that Oly is? Or will they be "Nifty Fifty - esque" little pieces of... plastic.
Do that, and make it non EF compatible, and Oly walks away with the winner.

[WT21]

"IMHO the ideal set up is exactly like Oly has employed.
New dedicated lenses that are much smaller than the current stuff,. and yet maintain the ability, perhaps via an adapter, to use it with existing EF lenses."

I agree with this. The only place where I think Canon can do it better is the Canon DSLR system was lightyears better than Oly, and now four thirds cameras look deader than a doornail, IMO. Whereas a new compact system would NOT obsolete Canon's DSLRs.

I think also Canon could just do what others are doing -- new mount with an adapter for EF and EF-S lenses. If the adapter allows metering and AF (even slow AF), then it would still be useable. Somehow, though, I don't think Canon will do a new mount. It'll just likely be EFs mount lenses with plastic, if they do anything at all. (could they go with a straight EF-S only mount, and not even EF??)

[hpulley]

True, BUT the ef/ef-s mount would allow you to use your legacy lenses (with AF, please!) until new, optimized lenses roll out. ...
Canon HAS to do this. ...

Canon didn't do this from FD to EF aside from a cheesy adapter that didn't allow for wide open metering or anything. They purposely designed it so that the old lenses wouldn't mount, different spacing (the wrong way to make it harder). No reason they'll make it convenient for people now. They did it for good reason though, to make EF a good lens mount rather than Nikon with all the crazy old lenses that still sort of kind of work with some cameras but not others...

[WT21]

Canon didn't do this from FD to EF aside from a cheesy adapter that didn't allow for wide open metering or anything. They purposely designed it so that the old lenses wouldn't mount, different spacing (the wrong way to make it harder). No reason they'll make it convenient for people now. They did it for good reason though, to make EF a good lens mount rather than Nikon with all the crazy old lenses that still sort of kind of work with some cameras but not others...

Sorry, I may not have gotten my point across. I said Canon HAS to do this, as in build a compact, not as in preserve the EF EFS mount. I am not sure on the latter, and the former was meant to be a statement of hopefullness (as in, "C'mon Canon, you've got to do this. It can't just be NEX and m43 as the options. We need a Canon option") etc.

[bkdc]

You're asking Canon to bring the sensor closer to the lens and then shrink the current lens line-up by about 20% or 30% in size while keeping the same focal lengths? This would result in an entirely new camera which is not compatible with EF lenses. And the new lenses would still be pretty darn big.

If you want to continue using the current EF lenses, you cannot change the distance from the rear lens element to the sensor on the new camera. Thus, if you had an APS-C sized sensor compatible with the current EF lens lineup, you would NOT have any size reduction in any of the lenses.

So if you have a mirrorless system and aim for size-reduction in the lenses, you need an entirely new line of lenses not compatible with the EF system.

[Tom W]

IMHO the ideal set up is exactly like Oly has employed.
New dedicated lenses that are much smaller than the current stuff,. and yet maintain the ability, perhaps via an adapter, to use it with existing EF lenses.

Exactly. If they do this, I'll get one. If not, I won't.

Lastly If Canon does this, are they likely to make their small new lenses of the high quality that Oly is? Or will they be "Nifty Fifty - esque" little pieces of... plastic.
Do that, and make it non EF compatible, and Oly walks away with the winner.

That's critical too. If they're going to jump into the mirrorless pool, they need some quality products. Not saying that the nifty is optically poor, but it's built like a paper mache outhouse.

[iancandler]

Actually I would like to see them go the rangefinder style route but on two levels, enthusiast and pro.

Rangefinder style is a daring move, but its a market with only one real contender, but at the same time a market that in film days was very buoyant.
A lot of enthusiasts and pro's found them ideal for carrying around all the time and they have produced some of the iconic images of their time.
Just think of it, off on a quick assignment, no need to lug a couple of 5D's and assorted lenses about. Just stuff a couple of lenses in your jacket pocket, grab camera and run, all in the knowledge that at the end of the day it will still give you the shot you need.
It would also allow you to carry all the time with ease, meaning you can grab shots of unexpected events with little hassle.
And thats just for the pro's

To my mind a model using an APS-C and a full frame model would cover the market and with the right promotion could really see changes in buying, especially from those currently buying M43 camera's as a second camera but finding them coming up short in comparison to their DSLR.


Like it or not Leica as a company are waning, they have just pretty much pulled out of the UK, well scaled down so far that any real work now will involve sending your beloved to Germany and have been selling of equipment.

The optical viewfinder is a must, great as some of the EVF's are, they all suck big time in low light conditions, at least hats my experience with them and lets face it most of us come across low light situations on a fairly regular basis.
They've already done some of the work via the G series camera's with the G11 feeling very much the part in a tactile sense, what would be needed would be to take the best of that experience, marry it with APS-C and full frame sensors as well as the technologies from the 500 series and 5 series.

Mount wise I would say a wise move would be to reduce the size of the current mount and provide an adaptor for current lenses that would retain the auto focus and metering functions.
This is where both panasonic and olympus have fallen down as neither retains both with anything other than a limited selection of basic zoom lenses.

I would suggest two lens ranges to go with the camera's standard for the enthusiast model and L series class lenses for the pro model.

Would I buy into it? yep, I'd sell my granny if I had one.


While we're on about models, how about a medium format? Not so many contenders there either, there is an opportunity to exploit that market as well with the right package

[toxic]

^ MF is too much a niche market. MF sensors are too expensive, there isn't enough to demand, and those who want it will pay for Mamiya, Hasselblad, Phase One, etc.

I am hoping for an RF, but I'm not counting on it.

For those who want EOS mount compatibility: not happening, not if you want a compact. EOS register distance is 44mm. If you want an EOS compact, it MUST be thicker than 44mm to account for this - and then there's the sensor and the electronics behind it, and then it's no longer a compact, just a 1000D without a grip.

Sony E-mount and m4/3 have a ~20mm register distance, which shaves off an inch. The best Canon can do is provide an adapter, like the Sony alpha-E adapter, which doesn't preserve AF and makes the whole setup bulkier.

[cooltouch]

Like m43 or Sony NEX, would you purchase a Canon mirrorless system?

[ . . . ]

I would LOVE a compact, mirrorless full frame from Canon, even assuming that it would only work with a couple of lens types (e.g. wide angle through maybe normal range). Then, I could have a Canon DSLR and the Canon compact, and share lenses.

Aside from the idea that such a system might kill off other Canon lines, I'm just wondering -- would you buy into a Canon compact mirrorless system, and assume you could use your Canon lenses with an adapter, but they would focus as slowly as LV does now on DSLRs.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit recently, especially after handling a NEX-3 at a big box store a couple days ago. A very interesting camera.

I would like to see a full-frame mirrorless camera, but I'm not holding my breath for one. I'd settle for an APS-C, but nothing smaller than that.

Now, my reasons for this wish are not anything that Canon will go out of its way to fulfill: I want to be able to use certain manual-focus lenses on a fine digital camera that has a sensor size larger than u4/3. Specifically my old Canon FD lenses. And M39 (Leica thread) lenses, and Leica M lenses. And perhaps a few others, including lenses for Contax G1 and G2.

Adapters for the above lenses to fit the Sony NEX are already available on eBay. I might just have to settle for a NEX, but I really don't want to.

[WT21]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit recently, especially after handling a NEX-3 at a big box store a couple days ago. A very interesting camera.

I would like to see a full-frame mirrorless camera, but I'm not holding my breath for one. I'd settle for an APS-C, but nothing smaller than that.

Now, my reasons for this wish are not anything that Canon will go out of its way to fulfill: I want to be able to use certain manual-focus lenses on a fine digital camera that has a sensor size larger than u4/3. Specifically my old Canon FD lenses. And M39 (Leica thread) lenses, and Leica M lenses. And perhaps a few others, including lenses for Contax G1 and G2.

Adapters for the above lenses to fit the Sony NEX are already available on eBay. I might just have to settle for a NEX, but I really don't want to.

I purchased a NEX3 recently. It seems prone to over-saturation. At least, they look over saturated in LR upon import (and these are RAW files), so I'll have to figure out an import pre-set to apply.

I've also got an EP1 (m43). They have their plusses and minuses. But after all that, I just repurchased a full frame, because I miss my FF goodness, so I'd still go for a compact FF, knowing that I'd never use it for anything longer than say 70-90mm.

[cooltouch]

but wouldnt the new lenses that would eventually be developed still be relatively big since they have to use the ef and ef-s mounts?

Not necessarily. If the Canon camera is using a smaller sensor, say a APS-C, it can have a reduced opening size to more appropriately accommodate the smaller sensor. And the adapter for EF/EFS lenses can be a step-up style adapter. If the camera uses an FF sensor, then even in that case, it might get by with a smaller throat. Dunno if Canon should though. One of the reasons for the large throat with the EOS line is to prevent vignetting with very long telephotos.

Whatever the throat size, I don't see the adapter size as being tha big of a deal. If you look at a Sony NEX, even with its smaller lenses, their diameter is still greater than the top to bottom dimension of the camera. So it might just be a matter of one learning to live with this characteristic.

[cooltouch]

But after all that, I just repurchased a full frame, because I miss my FF goodness, so I'd still go for a compact FF, knowing that I'd never use it for anything longer than say 70-90mm.

Heh. Well the full-frame goodness I'm stuck with for now is 35mm film cameras. :cool: I keep forgetting, and need to remind myself on occasion that there already is a nice FF camera available that takes superb lenses -- the Leica M9. But only for the price of a clean used car -- or a new motorcycle. Heh. You can see where my priorities lie.

[vondo]

I would love to replace my G10, which I use underwater, with such a camera. I would not replace my SLR.

[pharp]

Maybe, but I would prefer it if Canon just downsized their DSLRs [certainly doable with better ergonomics] and came out with some nice compact, maybe even manual focus lenses [who really needs autofocus on a fisheye or ultrawide?]. For travel/outdoor work a compact, well built, weather sealed body with some equally compact, well built lenses would be nice. Canon doesn't really make [imho] nice compact high [L] quality lenses - more money in large zooms and fast primes I guess. Zeiss seems to do well in this segment.

The mirrorless cameras either just don't feel right to me [m43, nex] or aren't really any smaller [samsung nx] - the lens sizes are the real killer.

If I recall Leica had to do some real work on the FF sensor of the M9 with it's short backplane to mitigate vignetting.

[Village_Idiot]

If Canon made a camera like the Olympus PEN but with one of the APS-C sensors in it, I'd be all over it. I could use my current lenses and a truly compact offering to tote around with me.

I'm currectly debating on whether or not to purchase a G12 for that reason. I want something small that I could carry with me when lugging around a 5D MKII with grip and a bag full of gear is just impractical.

[liupublic]

Recently upgraded to full frame 5d2. I would love to get a Canon mirrorless camera with a crop sensor but it must have an EOS adaptor with AF/aperture control.

I would put a small prime pancake lens on it for my wife to shoot video and snap shots. Put on the adaptor when I need the extra reach of a crop sensor + telephoto. So it needs to be about the same size as Sony NEX. My upper limit would be the size of G12.

Say $500-600 for a camera + 1 prime pancake lens would be perfect.