reasons canon wont do a small SLR?

Shadowblade wrote in post #12658922
I could certainly see a market for a full-frame EVIL camera and a corresponding series of small (since there's no mirror and minimal AA filter) extremely high IQ lenses to go with it - it would be a fantastic travel/discreet camera. At present, there's nothing in the market like it - you have the Leica M9, which costs 8k and has no AF, and you have the myriad crop-sensor compromise designs, but nothing with the IQ of a full-frame DSLR and a decent AFsystem, but a fraction of the size.

Afte all, if you think about it, a DSLR is needed only for action shots, which demand fast, accurate AF. For this, it pays a huge premium in size and weight over rangefinder-like designs, which have the same (if not slightly higher, due to the weaker/absent AA filter) IQ, which are just as capable for landscapes, portraits, macro and, indeed, anything else apart from fast action. A travel photographer, for instance, could carry a slew of compact bodies and lenses, to cover every situation, in the same space it would take to carry a single 5D2 or 1D4, 24-70L and flash - if you aren't shooting action, this would be a far bette use of space. At present, though, there is no digital option to do this, so, for the moment, we are stuck with big, bulky cameras and lenses whose action capability we seldom use.

I agree and disagree

I agree a FF EVIL-style camera would be VERY nice to see,and you forgot Fuji's X100 by the way, which despite its crop sensor and lack of interchangeable lens has proven a well-done premium camera of this type CAN sell and do well in the marketplace (Oh and what about the new Leica 25mm f/1.4 for Micro 4/3? Theres also a nice Olympus 12mm f/2 coming as well....)

The only thing I can speak for personally of course, is that most EVF viewfinders (I've tried the Panasonic and Olympus ones as well as the Sony a55 for the record) kinda irritate my eyes, And holding the camera out at arms length to use the rear screen, at least for me, interferes with having a properly braced shooting stance, I still find an optical viewfinder the most pleasing to look through and use on a day to day basis...

Heck, I would TOTALLY be on a nice EVIL camera anyways, ignoring these points....but....

Well I really like the Panasonic GF2, and I like the m4/3 lens selection, But...i dunno about the 4/3 sensor and if i'd really enjoy the images coming out of it

The Sony NEX-5 I really like the feel of and everything, but the AF is a bit...klutzy from what I saw....

The Olympus Pens I havnt looked at in a while, Forgot why i ruled them out

The Fuji X100 is REALLY expensive to me and the fixed lens simply doesnt interest me...if it was a 40mm or 50mm equivalent id be behind it, but 35mm equivalent im just unsure id realistically use

The Samsung NX100 is the absolute loser in my book, Horrid ergonomics, lower build quality than the others on the body (it just FEELS cheap im sorry) the IQ isnt that outstanding from what I've seen (Despite being APS-C not better than the m4/3!) and the lenses are really..weird.... (Sorry Tkbslc i know you were looking at it) Though i gotta admit the i-function is a cool thing.....I will also say however, anything I've ever owned made by Samsung crapped out after a year or had a lot of problems, their service sucks and I know quite a few people who've had equally bad luck with several of their products, So I'd say they fail my "Reliability" test.....

KenjiS wrote in post #12665695
The only thing I can speak for personally of course, is that most EVF viewfinders (I've tried the Panasonic and Olympus ones as well as the Sony a55 for the record) kinda irritate my eyes, And holding the camera out at arms length to use the rear screen, at least for me, interferes with having a properly braced shooting stance, I still find an optical viewfinder the most pleasing to look through and use on a day to day basis...

Totally agree on the shooting stance here. It's why I'm probably going to offload my E-PL1 (unless Olympus does indeed bring out a new, cheap EVF). One thing I wonder is how possible a zooming, non-through-the-lens OVF would be. The G-series cameras have one, as did some of the older S-series...but they well and truly suck. A large, high-quality one that would zoom automatically with system lenses and be manually set for adapted lenses would be pretty sweet.

IQ with the M4/3 cameras is pretty good shooting RAW with the right glass. Plenty of detail, and ISO performance is more or less on par with the current lowest-end Rebels. The big problem, of course, is the extra-wide DoF...but for many applications that's actually a good thing.

I don't like the ergonomics, but the IQ on the NEXes is awesome!

I like my E-PL1, but it's not small enough to merit the lack of VF in my opinion. And the in-body stabilization is disconcertingly loud.

There's some potential with the NX cameras, but the IQ is just plain terrible for an APS sensor. I do like the i-function though!

KenjiS wrote in post #12665695
I agree and disagree

I agree a FF EVIL-style camera would be VERY nice to see,and you forgot Fuji's X100 by the way, which despite its crop sensor and lack of interchangeable lens has proven a well-done premium camera of this type CAN sell and do well in the marketplace (Oh and what about the new Leica 25mm f/1.4 for Micro 4/3? Theres also a nice Olympus 12mm f/2 coming as well....)

I was specifically referring to full-frame models, with no IQ compromise vs the full-sized DSLRs. If they could release one in a digital 617 format, even better!

To each their own, I guess - after all, everyone's eyes are different. Electronic viewfinders also tend to be better than optical viewfinders in low-light illumination, since the viewfinder's ISO can be adjusted on the fly. And, for landscapes, etc., it doesn't matter anyway, since you'd be using live view. In any case, as a travel/landscape photographer, I'd be more than willing to live with an electronic viewfinder and lack of fast-action AF capability if it meant I could carry three cameras in the space of one DSLR, with smaller lenses to boot... (keeping the DSLRs in reserve for specialised wildlife expeditions)

I want a digital Canon P!

A Canon executive mentioned a couple of months ago that they are considering making a smaller SLR but that it didn't necessarily need to have its mirror removed.

cptrios wrote in post #12665807
There's some potential with the NX cameras, but the IQ is just plain terrible for an APS sensor. I do like the i-function though!

most of the tests online are from samples shot JPEG. It's got the Pentax K7 sensor, which yeah, it's no k5, but it is not the garbage it is made out to be. I've seen some RAW shots that were quite good.

x_tan wrote in post #12667734
I want a digital Canon P!

if only..

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #12671553
A Canon executive mentioned a couple of months ago that they are considering making a smaller SLR but that it didn't necessarily need to have its mirror removed.

I'd be really interested in seeing this pulled off

I mean there are some old film SLRs that are quite tiny, like the Olympus OM series and that which proves tiny CAN be done in an SLR package

KenjiS wrote in post #12672422
I'd be really interested in seeing this pulled off

I mean there are some old film SLRs that are quite tiny, like the Olympus OM series and that which proves tiny CAN be done in an SLR package

One of the things in the way of this concept are the huge LCD's on the back of cameras these days. If you want a 3.5 inch wide screen LCD on the back of an SLR, it won't be a small camera.

All I use the LCD for is checking composition (after recording), histogram, and menu items.

cptrios wrote in post #12665301
This is pretty much what we're all waiting for...a mirrorless for the serious enthusiast/semi-pro market. The NEX system is geared toward P&S users and, while the IQ is good, the controls and lens selection suck. The m4/3 cameras sacrifice too much IQ for size, and as they're not really targeted at an audience that much more advanced than the NEX's, their lens selection is far too zoom-oriented. Literally the only current m4/3 lens in which I have any interest is the Panny 20mm pancake.

The camera bodies available for m4/3 say otherwise. NEX cameras are mostly touchscreen with minimal buttons and dials. With m4/3 you can pick whether you want that or something with more physical controls. In fact m4/3 started very enthusiast-oriented and have since come out with more consumer-oriented models to round out the product range.

Lens-wise there's now a 25mm f/1.4, and Olympus are about to announce a 12mm f/2 "high grade" lens and a 45mmm f/1.8. It's taken a while, but they're starting to fill out the primes too now.

As for sacrificing too much IQ for size, maybe for some but not me. I still have my 5D for when IQ is paramount, but for my personal shooting I've found the lower IQ of m4/3 a reasonable compromise for always having a camera with me. I've gotten a lot of shots I wouldn't have otherwise because I wouldn't have had my camera with me otherwise. Noisy shot trumps no shot any day. Said this before, but to me m4/3 is a goldilocks system--right size, right image quality. None of the other mirrorless systems have gotten their lenses this small, and smaller sensor size puts you in P&S range, which isn't great. Would I love to have better image quality at the same size or the same image quality at smaller sizes? Sure, but neither of those options are available.

Can't argue with that. Wake me up when it happens Meanwhile I'll continue to enjoy my smaller sensor mirrorless system.

tkbslc wrote in post #12671980
most of the tests online are from samples shot JPEG. It's got the Pentax K7 sensor, which yeah, it's no k5, but it is not the garbage it is made out to be. I've seen some RAW shots that were quite good.

An APS-C sensor should have a clear advantage over m4/3 like Sony's NEX does. Samsung's NX sensor doesn't, which means it's squandering its main advantage over m4/3. NX is definitely a system to watch, but they've got to get that sensor up to par first.

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #12672800
One of the things in the way of this concept are the huge LCD's on the back of cameras these days. If you want a 3.5 inch wide screen LCD on the back of an SLR, it won't be a small camera.

All I use the LCD for is checking composition (after recording), histogram, and menu items.

This is an important point. While I use the LCD to check for sharpness and occasionally for Live View (both because I use several MF lenses), a large size isn't really necessary for either of these things. Resolution is important...but I'd gladly take a 2" scren if it meant a smaller camera.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #12672936
The camera bodies available for m4/3 say otherwise. NEX cameras are mostly touchscreen with minimal buttons and dials. With m4/3 you can pick whether you want that or something with more physical controls. In fact m4/3 started very enthusiast-oriented and have since come out with more consumer-oriented models to round out the product range.

Lens-wise there's now a 25mm f/1.4, and Olympus are about to announce a 12mm f/2 "high grade" lens and a 45mmm f/1.8. It's taken a while, but they're starting to fill out the primes too now.

As for sacrificing too much IQ for size, maybe for some but not me. I still have my 5D for when IQ is paramount, but for my personal shooting I've found the lower IQ of m4/3 a reasonable compromise for always having a camera with me. I've gotten a lot of shots I wouldn't have otherwise because I wouldn't have had my camera with me otherwise. Noisy shot trumps no shot any day. Said this before, but to me m4/3 is a goldilocks system--right size, right image quality. None of the other mirrorless systems have gotten their lenses this small, and smaller sensor size puts you in P&S range, which isn't great. Would I love to have better image quality at the same size or the same image quality at smaller sizes? Sure, but neither of those options are available.

Yeah I was perhaps a bit harsh on the m4/3's...but while their cameras are definitely more enthusiast-oriented, their currently-available lenses aren't. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing how the 12mm and 45mm turn out (the Leica is way too expensive and frankly too big). The best thing for me, and something (along with the rumored "cheap" EVF) that might make me keep my e-PL1, would be if Oly updated their 17mm pancake and kept it at the same price point. The Panny 20 is more than I want to spend, and I like the 35mm FL a lot better. A 17mm f/2.8 (or f/2) with serious IQ would be great.

And for the record, I actually do like the m4/3 IQ a lot (beats the tar out of even the best compacts), but the "IQ sacrifice for size" to which I refer is mainly the lack of DoF control. It sometimes results in shots that look rather P&S-y when viewed at web size.

cptrios wrote in post #12673215
Yeah I was perhaps a bit harsh on the m4/3's...but while their cameras are definitely more enthusiast-oriented, their currently-available lenses aren't. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing how the 12mm and 45mm turn out (the Leica is way too expensive and frankly too big). The best thing for me, and something (along with the rumored "cheap" EVF) that might make me keep my e-PL1, would be if Oly updated their 17mm pancake and kept it at the same price point. The Panny 20 is more than I want to spend, and I like the 35mm FL a lot better. A 17mm f/2.8 (or f/2) with serious IQ would be great.

35mm is my favorite focal length, so I hope a better option in that length becomes available at some point. I have both the 17mm and the 20mm--17 for angle of view, 20 for large aperture. I'd love to combine them into a high quality 17mm f/2 or larger.

If you're shooting with the kit lens that might explain why Slow lens + small sensor = huge DOF. The 45mm f/1.8 should fix that right up!

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #12673366
If you're shooting with the kit lens that might explain why Slow lens + small sensor = huge DOF. The 45mm f/1.8 should fix that right up!

Yeah, it will be nice, but you are still talking the equivalent of 90mm f3.6 bg blur compared to his 5D.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #12672954
An APS-C sensor should have a clear advantage over m4/3 like Sony's NEX does. Samsung's NX sensor doesn't, which means it's squandering its main advantage over m4/3. NX is definitely a system to watch, but they've got to get that sensor up to par first.

I totally agree, and that is why I haven't jumped in yet. Still waiting to see if m4/3 can get enough fast lenses or if NX gets a killer body. Maybe they should just swallow some humble pie and buy that Sony sensor everyone else is rocking.