backtop


Print 23 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Jul 24 at 1:43 AM


  (Source: CanonWatch)
Pic claims to be first shot of new Canon mirrorless

An image has turned up of what is claimed to be a new Canon mirrorless camera and one of its lenses. These are apparently leaked images and very little about the camera is known at this time.
 
On the front of the camera is an EF-M 22mm f/2 lens. You can see a hot shoe on the top for connecting a flash as well. The camera looks very clean and simple with what appears to be an unmarked knob on the top for controlling settings and functions.
 
Rumored specs for the camera indicate an APS-C sensor. The top of the camera also shows a model number EOS-M and there appears to be an HDMI logo on the left side. The camera should be able to record HD video and output through that HDMI port to your TV. 

The camera will reportedly  launch on Monday, July 23 at about 7 AM London time.
 

Source: CanonWatch





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By teldar on 7/20/2012 9:23:55 AM , Rating: 2
Not really anything interesting to see here.




By Brandon Hill on 7/20/2012 9:47:03 AM , Rating: 3
I actually jumped on the micro 4/3 bandwagon with an Olympus E-PM1, so I'm very interested to see what Canon brings to the table.


By RamarC on 7/20/2012 11:54:17 AM , Rating: 3
I doubt that camera will be micro 4/3. Just like Sony's NEX line and Fuji's X-Pro 1, Canon will likely design its own mount. They never jumped on the four-thirds wagon so I don't expect them to hop on the micro 4/3 wagon either.


By quiksilvr on 7/20/2012 4:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
I hate that. We need to stop this proprietary nonsense before it gets out of hand. If we can force cellphone makers to use microUSB on all of their devices (with the exception of some rotten fruit and ASUS with their tablets), I don't see why we can't force standards like this as well.


By Samus on 7/21/2012 9:14:09 PM , Rating: 3
MFT is a closed standard so there are lens compatibility issues (even with adapters you usually lose autofocus and other lens controls.)

This camera aims to use four-thirds lens compatibility while being a mirrorless micro-four-thirds size. So it is exciting in the open compatibility it brings to the table.

...and even if it WASN'T based on an open standard, I'd take a Canon lens over a Olympus/Panasonic MFT lens anyday.


By nafhan on 7/20/2012 9:49:24 AM , Rating: 3
APS-C is an approximately 40% larger sensor than MFT. I think that's interesting, if it's true.

Also, curious if these will work with Canon DSLR lenses. I'm guessing they will - with an adapter. That's also interesting.


By bug77 on 7/20/2012 10:25:55 AM , Rating: 2
What's interesting in pairing a smaller camera with bulky lenses? At least with a DSLR you have a good grip.


By futrtrubl on 7/20/2012 11:44:44 AM , Rating: 2
What's interesting is still being able to use the lenses I have while migrating to a new system, or the ability to use any of their current lenses should I not find a EF-M lens that fits a particular situation.


By mcnabney on 7/20/2012 12:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
adapter = losing most of the functions of the lens

Sure, you can clip it and and light passes through it, but everything has to be done manually.


By nafhan on 7/20/2012 1:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
You may be thinking of adapters that let you do stuff like use a Nikon lens on a Canon camera or one of those $10 "macro" adapters that are just a metal tube. The "EF-M" lenses will almost certainly be electrically identical to the normal EF lenses and this camera shouldn't have a problem interfacing with them.


By Silver2k7 on 7/22/2012 5:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
"one of those $10 "macro" adapters that are just a metal tube."

Atleast my little stack of 4 kenko *extension tubes* does have electrical contacts on them. But perhaps there are cheaper ones without contacts..


By nafhan on 7/20/2012 11:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
Well... for one, it means you have a great lens selection right out of the gate. For instance, take a look here's the page from Olympus' online store:
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digi...
It's got about 12 MFT lenses followed by an adapter for an entire page of SLR lenses.

Other things to think about: some of the smaller high quality prime and zoom lenses might not have an equivalent mirrorless camera lens. Also, someone replacing an SLR or using a mirrorless alongside and SLR will probably appreciate not having to completely replace/duplicate their lens collection.


By Solandri on 7/20/2012 4:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
Also, getting rid of the mirror box helps shrink the size of wide-angle lenses - generally, those with a focal length shorter than the distance from the lens to the sensor. Whenever the lens is further from the sensor than its focal length, you need a retrofocus design, which is basically two lenses in one. No mirror box, and you can mount the lens closer to the sensor, meaning you can go to a shorter focal length with a regular lens design.

It does not help at all with telephoto lenses. So being able to use their existing line of EF telephoto lenses on a new camera would be the smart thing to do.


By BillyBatson on 7/20/2012 1:21:59 PM , Rating: 3
Because we all buy cameras and other devices based on grip right?


By Jedi2155 on 7/20/2012 1:37:15 PM , Rating: 3
Sounds like how women choose their men.


MFT or fcuk off
By EricMartello on 7/20/2012 7:55:20 PM , Rating: 1
Both Nikon and Canon need to pull their collective heads out of their asses and offer a real MFT solution. They don't want to because in doing so they'd not only have to compete with each other, but with Olympus, Panasonic and several small-name lens manufacturers that offer high quality products. This competition would be great for the consumer but it drives the risk up a lot for newcomers.

I use Nikon primarily because they make the D800 and D7000, and in their respective price ranges they are untouchable for still photography...but for MFT I use a Lumix GH2 which produces excellent stills and is unrivaled for video (even better than the D800 or 5D MkIII for video).

The difference in sensor size between MFT and APS-C is a lot less relevant than the sensor's effective dynamic range coupled with the quality of lenses available. Stuffing an APS-C sensor into a compact camera makes for an impressive spec sheet and you can get good results, but you're basically tying your arms behind your back because you are at the mercy of a proprietary format with a limited selection of lenses and no third party options.

Both MFT and full-size DSLRs would benefit from having experienced companies like Canon and Nikon joining the fray and supporting this standard...my guess is corporate politics keeps this from happening.




RE: MFT or fcuk off
By SPOOFE on 7/22/2012 4:13:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Both Nikon and Canon need to pull their collective heads out of their asses and offer a real MFT solution

You want slower contrast-detect autofocus? Really?

quote:
They don't want to because in doing so they'd not only have to compete with each other, but with Olympus, Panasonic and several small-name lens manufacturers that offer high quality products.

There's no competition between Canon/Nikon and Olympus/Panasonic. The micro-4/3s guys have made excellent products, but no. Just no.


RE: MFT or fcuk off
By EricMartello on 7/24/2012 1:43:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You want slower contrast-detect autofocus? Really?


Contrast-detect AF as found on modern MFT cameras is on par with phase-detect, with the added benefit of being a lot more accurate in a wider range of lighting conditions.

Phase detect AF can be faster at tracking motion across the frame, but only the top-end cameras have the best phase-detect AF with enough points to actually be useful for motion tracking.

The cheaper cameras like the D3200 or Rebel have paltry AF which is trounced by what's available in something like the OM-D or GH2...actually, the GH2 AF is incredibly fast even when tracking motion, but not as good as my D7000 or D800. It is probably faster on static subjects because of its increased accuracy.

quote:
There's no competition between Canon/Nikon and Olympus/Panasonic. The micro-4/3s guys have made excellent products, but no. Just no.


Canon and Nikon both sell cameras, lenses and camera accessories - therefore they are competitors. Pana & Oly are also competitors as well as the only major supporters of the MFT standard.

Now follow this and try to connect these dots:

If canon and/or nikon decided to design and manufacture cameras on the MFT standard, they would be competing with both panasonic and olympus who are well-established in that niche.

Did I go too fast for you? I typed that as slow as I could.

quote:
Depends on what you want. There's about a stop of difference between APS-C and m43, in both light-gathering and DOF. m43 starts hitting diffraction right around f/5.6, whereas APS starts around f/8, giving a lot less control with otherwise equivalent gear.


You already said this before and I told you that you were wrong back then, and you are still wrong today.

MFT sensors are good up to f/11, although this can vary depending on the lens' optical resolving capabilities. The effects of diffraction are not very noticeably so much in normal shooting (aside from specific scenes with high levels of intricate detail), so unless you're shooting test patterns it's really another pointless thing to mention.

quote:
No, I don't think that's accurate at all. Both Canon and Nikon would be hurting their credibility and dominant positions if they adopted a third-party standard.


No they would not, but there is a perception amongst their upper management that they would hurt their bottom line when in reality they'd just open up to a new market with a growing user base. It's pretty stupid of them to ignore MFT and servicing an industry standard doesn't "weaken" a company.

quote:
M43 is great for those "moving up" from cell phones or compacts, but at the end of the day it really does only offer "less size and weight" with a pile of compromises to take into account. Don't get me wrong, there's a huge benefit to less size/weight, but to claim that the technical image or shooting quality is on par is completely bogus.


There are a lot of camera upgrade options for someone who realized that pictures taken with cell-cams are garbage BEFORE shelling out the bucks for an MFT camera....but that's what's nice about MFT. It has a broad appeal ranging from average consumers that want a "good" camera all the way up to professionals that want the flexibility of a highly portable camera system that does not compromise much on photographic quality.

One of the best MFT cameras still around is the GH2 and it takes better photos than many of the older APS-C DSLRs. In fact, in terms of APS-C, only something like the D7000 is noticeably better...and that means you can show a photo taken of the same subject with the GH2 and D7000, and the D7000 will have a clearly better photo without having to resort to pixel peeping.


RE: MFT or fcuk off
By SPOOFE on 7/22/2012 4:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The difference in sensor size between MFT and APS-C is a lot less relevant than the sensor's effective dynamic range coupled with the quality of lenses available.

Depends on what you want. There's about a stop of difference between APS-C and m43, in both light-gathering and DOF. m43 starts hitting diffraction right around f/5.6, whereas APS starts around f/8, giving a lot less control with otherwise equivalent gear.

quote:
Both MFT and full-size DSLRs would benefit from having experienced companies like Canon and Nikon joining the fray and supporting this standard

No, I don't think that's accurate at all. Both Canon and Nikon would be hurting their credibility and dominant positions if they adopted a third-party standard. M43 is great for those "moving up" from cell phones or compacts, but at the end of the day it really does only offer "less size and weight" with a pile of compromises to take into account. Don't get me wrong, there's a huge benefit to less size/weight, but to claim that the technical image or shooting quality is on par is completely bogus.


Slightly disappointing
By Sivar on 7/20/2012 12:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
I was hoping that Canon would be able to stuff a full-frame sensor into their mirrorless line.

APS-C is the same size used by Sony's excellent NEX series, so it will be harder to differentiate. The only big improvement I can think for the the NEX that Canon can improve upon is to use phase detection auto-focus rather than Sony's mediocre contrast detection auto-focus.




RE: Slightly disappointing
By bsd228 on 7/20/2012 3:17:39 PM , Rating: 3
The primary differentiation (may be) that Canon has 100+ lenses to offer, while the NEX system is still so pitiful that I would opt for the 4/3rds over it, despite the smaller sensor. (And you never know when Sony will abandon a product line)

Full frame goes against the notion of making the camera smaller. Removing the mirror buys you some size savings, but you'd still be rebel sized or larger. People are buying these mirrorless models largely because they want something more portable, yet still offering the traditional SLR advantages.


RE: Slightly disappointing
By SPOOFE on 7/22/2012 4:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was hoping that Canon would be able to stuff a full-frame sensor into their mirrorless line.

Cost is an issue; full frame sensors cost around an order of magnitude more than APS/DX.


it's been announced
By hexxthalion on 7/23/2012 6:16:51 AM , Rating: 2
not sure, to me it's too much money for what it is but few bits stand out:

- Digic5 processor
- both contrast and phase detection AF

the rest is meh and don't like touch controls and don't like the lack of any manual controls, don't like the lack of EVF/or optional EVF as an accessory, for this price I guess NEX-5n is better choice.




"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings










botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki