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

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

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

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

How about this interview with a Canon senior:

( taken post-Photokina 2008 )
http://www.dpreview.co​m …100302_canonint​erview.asp

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

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

Tom W wrote in post #8141456
I don't see anything to be gained by doing so.

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

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

Tom W wrote in post #8148071
Personally, I don't see much of a market share issue - the APS-C format is larger, and Canon's 1.6X cameras exibit better noise and detail characteristics then their 4/3 format competitors. I'd stack Canon's rebel or XXD series against any 4/3 body of comparable price.

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

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

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

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

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

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #8150888
Canon won't do Micro 4/3. Not a chance. It sounds like they're closely watching the fledgling mirrorless interchangeable lens market, and they might eventually come up with their own "Micro EF-S" standard (I hope they do!), but I don't see them joining an existing standard. Not enough in it for Canon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #8150888
Have you seen the high ISO comparisons of the new Olympus E-P1 vs. Canon T1i (among others)? If you haven't yet, the short version is that image quality has come a very long way for 4/3:

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

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

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

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

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

roli_bark wrote in post #8151883
"Micro EF-S" ? - Sounds interesting !, Let me dive into further speculative question:
Will it be feasible for the 2 BIG guys (Canonikon) to launch in a foreseeable future a Mirror-Less/Prism-Less Micro-APS-C and Micro-FF Cameras ?

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

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

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

Tom W wrote in post #8153073
Olympus has made a technological stride - apply the same technology to the APS-C sensor and it will be even better.

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

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

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

Tom W wrote in post #8153135
Why "micro" anything? I've got a Yashica T4 35 mm film P&S that's barely over an inch thick.
...
I really think that an APS-C sensor in a rangefinder with 3 or 4 interchangeable, fast lenses would make a great camera. Low noise, true aperture control, and compact size.

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

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #8153634
I think there's just some misunderstanding here. The "Micro" terminology is just being adopted from "Micro 4/3", which as you know uses the same sensor size as regular 4/3. So a "Micro APS-C" would still use an APS-C sensor and a "Micro FF" would still use a FF sensor. "Micro" is just a lot quicker to type than "mirrorless interchangeable lens", which is what I'm calling it until somebody comes up with a standard acronym for it. I believe that's what roli_bark was referring to as well.

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

Thanks for straightening that out.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #8153634
I think there's just some misunderstanding here. The "Micro" terminology is just being adopted from "Micro 4/3", which as you know uses the same sensor size as regular 4/3. So a "Micro APS-C" would still use an APS-C sensor and a "Micro FF" would still use a FF sensor. "Micro" is just a lot quicker to type than "mirrorless interchangeable lens", which is what I'm calling it until somebody comes up with a standard acronym for it. I believe that's what roli_bark was referring to as well.

Exactly ! - by the term 'Micro' I meant == Mirrorless, Prismless, interchangeable lens Camera.

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

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