Ever since we heard that Nikon was
joining the league of mirrorless cameras, the whole world's been waiting for its arch rival to make the next move in the battle of
smaller prosumer cameras. Today,
Canon finally gave away some hints about which camp it'll side with -- probably just sticking with traditional
DSLRs, but smaller. Canon's Masaya Maeda didn't share any specific details, but here's how he dodged
Reuters' inquiry: "It's not a question of whether or not you have a mirror. There is a consumer need for good-quality cameras to be made smaller. We will meet this need." And to add some icing to that bland statement, Maeda reinforced that it wouldn't be a challenge for his company to retain a mirror (hence a viewfinder, which is essential for obtaining better results and higher shooting rates) in a smaller design, and that they've made very small SLR cameras before (likely in reference to the film era). Whatever happens, here's hoping that Canon's new toy won't be any bigger than the much-loved
G11.
posted July 20th 2010 6:11PM
I would buy a canon dslr in a g11 rangefiner form factor.
But let's hope it's great out of the gate. The Olympus 4/3's are not there yet with lens speeds. Godbless sigma dp1/2 for trying. But the fast and powerful class leading camera needs to unleashed. No thanks Sony nex
engadget does not appear to understand what a viewfinder is. a viewfinder is whatever you use to compose the image. every digital still camera has a viewfinder.
the term engadget should be using is *optical viewfinder* (in contrast to an electronic viewfinder).
@nihaoyao
We do need a way to distiguish the electronic viewfinder you put your eye up to, and the LCD (which you can say is an electronic viewfinder too) that you look at by holding out in front of you.
I'd argue the article's statement that a (optical) viewfinder is "essential for obtaining better results". This is really a matter of preference. I love my Lumix DMC-GF1, which does not have an optical viewfinder. It washes a bit in direct sunlight, but on the other hand it also gives me a 100% preview of the image, allows me to compose without putting the body up to my eye, and allows me to simulate certain settings before I shoot...
@acslater017
Agreed... It's all very subjective/preferential.
@acslater017
"but on the other hand it also gives me a 100% preview of the image, allows me to compose without putting the body up to my eye"
If you need to do this you can use 'liveview' on the vast majority of DSLRs, it is not an either or decision..
I agree with the article that optical viewfinders are essential. As a photographer i couldnt imagine using an *electronic* viewfinder. All semi-pro to pro level cameras offer 100% viewfinder coverage. All of my shooting setting including my exposure are right there in my view finder. I personally have never used on of these electronic viewfinders but how well could it work say in super low light. Your view finder would have to have a backlight of some sort that would mess with you night vision im guessing and shooting sports wouldnt there be some kind of "lag" from what your lens sees to what you see? I shoot a canon 5dMKII and a Canon 7D, both 100% viewfinders. And the 7D shoots 8fps and you really dont need (or get) much faster than that!
All be it i could see a good place for these camera's for the back yard photographer who wants more than a P&S but doesnt want to spend 1500 or more on a body, because face it, if you want great features in a camera and want to have good results you have to spend the dough, no too ways about it. A sports photographer will not get the shot with a Nikon D40 nor will a concert photographer get amazing low light pictures with a Canon XS, its just not going to happen regardless what glass is sticking out the front.
Bring it on Canon.
Millions have their money waiting to jump on this.
Please release some nice pancake primes too.
They better get their ass in gear, I'm gonna get one in august for my birthday and that Sony NEX5 its calling my name...
A viewfinder does not mean faster shoting rates. It infact slows things down because the camera has to wait for the mirror. electronic viewfinders do not have this problem as the only moving part is the shutter curtan. There is also a problem with the mirror itself as it takes room to swing up and down. This means all lenses made for this system need to work at a certain distance and that makes dslrs bulky. Sony chose a new type of lenses which can be closer to the sensor to make bodies smaller. Canon cannot do this without a set of new lenses or a bulky adapter like the one used by sony for alpha lenses. It's just physics.
second, the quality of electronic viewfinders is far superior to what it used to be and no longer a reason to avoid them. electronic viewfinders also have the advantage of providing more accurate depth of field view (since you see whtat the sensor sees) compared to the optical view finders.
Lastly what made the sony mirrorless cameras so atractive to consumers is their size which is a direct result of removing the mirror. NO matter how much smaller canon makes their dslrs, mirros and viewfinder prism take room. that will turn away consumers looking for small and portable. In other words, canon is missing the point. It is ALL about the mirror and size.
As a profesional photographer I prefer nikon over cannon any day.
isn't this a bit pointless.....why would they make smaller DSLR's to compete with point and shoots, while they also make point and shoots themselves?
@darkmax
for the record, google define searches are taken from sources such as dictionaries, but, just in case you still want to be belligerent;
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0667880#m_en_gb0667880
Na Hoffentlich hat sie wenigstens dieselben Funktionen wie die EOS 550D und Preislich dürfte sie durch den fehlenden Spiegel auch eher günstiger sein da weniger Mechanik verbaut werden muss...
hopefully :D