I think smaller lenses are perfectly possible. However, I think the squarer format used in the G1X (and of course Four-Thirds) is just so much smarter. The wide, 3:2 aspect ratio is just wasteful when dealing with a round lens projecting a round image circle. The lens has to be made to expose across the entire width of that wide sensor (either that or allow vignetting), but all the potential exposure on the top and bottom is simply getting thrown away and not used. So why not just use a 6:6, 4:3, or 5:4 aspect ratio sensor which is as long as APS-C but oversized in both directions instead of just one? The lens dimensions won't have to change, yet you would have a much bigger sensor for the same lens.

__________________
Olympus E-3 | Olympus E-PL2 PEN | Olympus E-PM1 PEN | Zuiko ED 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD | Zuiko 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 | Vivitar 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 | Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.4 | Konica Hexanon 85mm f/1.8 | G.Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 | Zuiko 35mm f/3.5 Macro | Zuiko 25mm f/2.8 | KMZ Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 | E.Zuiko 200mm f/4 | Zuiko 75-150mm f/4 | Olympus EC-14 teleconverter | VF-2 and VF-3 Viewfinders | EMA-1 Mic Adapter | Olympus FL-36R and FL-50R speedlights

cyclopsphoto.ca

I wouldn' be so sure about that. I actually doubt the EF mount will have full functionality with another mount. Look how poorly they handled FD to EF.

T4i/650D already has on chip PDAF. All they have to do is pop that sensor into a mirrorless body.

__________________
Olympus E-M5, Sony A65, lenses.

The question is more whether full lens functions will be retained with an adaptor, I know lots of people enjoy manual focus but I simply don't.

As for being compact... well... it'd only be slightly more compact but more importantly it'd probably be significantly lighter (which is more important IMO).

I'm not looking for micro 4/3rds compactness.

__________________
| Olympus OMD EM-5 | Olympus HLD-6 | Olympus 12-50mm | Olympus 75-300 II | Panasonic 14mm f2.5 | Sigma 30mm f2.8 | Olympus 45mm f/1.8 | Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro | Samyang 7.5mm f3.5 fish eye | Olympus FL-36R | Olympus EPM-1 | Olympus 14-150 f4-5.6 | Olympus EPL1 | 14-42mm IIR f3.5-5.6 | 40-150mm |

Its all perspective,... Canon abandoned and started on a clean slate leaving legacy FD users behind but that was the single engineering decision that gave them an early lead inthe marketplace, technology and performance.

Another case in point.

pentax was the first to release a 35mm/135 auto focusing SLR by the name ME-F. In was a modified ME with tacked on AF capabilities and full backwards compatibility with K mount lenses. It was a complete and utter failure.... Minolta released their AF camera shortly after and it was a Complete success!!! It was the first successful 35mm/135 AF integrated body.... yup you guessed it.... a completely ground up design that left legacy behind.


Often, good business and engineering sense and decisions have to be made with eyes looking forward rather than one looking backwards.



Personally, I hope Canon does a ground up design..... That would make it more interesting and not just a half hearted attempt.

__________________
Reminder to Myself: Aggressively Apply Smilies

The incompatibility from FD to EF was due to a physical constraint with both mounts having a similar flange distance to clear the mirror. History shows that while painful it turned out to be one of the best decisions they ever made. In the case of a mirrorless body an adapter is nothing more complicated than a spacer and some electrical contacts, as per the genuine and third-party 4/3-m4/3 adapters. I think there should be a provision for legacy support of DSLR lenses, but it shouldn't form the basis of the system.

__________________
Nic
E-M5, GH1
Flickr Photostream
>> Insert quote here <<

I agree. If it's just a half-arsed attempt to leverage the existing EOS system lenses, I'm not interested.

__________________
Nic
E-M5, GH1
Flickr Photostream
>> Insert quote here <<

with aps-c size sensor and shorter flange distance in a relatively small body, we have all seen what the nex system has to deliver and suffer from, they are smart because they know with bigger sensor it's easier to gain customers' identity and Canon might try to use differentiated parameters other than Sony's, it's still a choice between compactness and IQ, which is why I'm seeing m43 as a perfect balance.

but i question myself sometimes if i really need compactness? i love my gf3 for it's compactness and convenience over any other choices i could've made, but with the lenses i'm using it's not pocketable any more, and i guess that's what i feel like to sacrifice for the image.

__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jyc860923/
Panasonic DMC-GF3
Olympus PEN E-PL5
Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm f/1.4
Lumix G Vario 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH/MEGA O.I.S.
Lumix G Vario 45-200mm f/4-5.6 MEGA O.I.S.
Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 ASPH
M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 II
mecablitz 44 AF-1 digital

EF was wiping Nikons butt for 5 years until the rebel adertising campaign saved it. Martketing ftw, and even then they were lucky, Agassi, who knew. Oh and I can still use K mounts. I can still use Pentax 645. I can still use Nikon mounts. I can still use mamiya mounts. I see no reason for Canon to do this. It's a cheap ploy to sell more lenses, and fleece their loyal users. I love the quality of their products, but how they treat their consumer rubs me the wrong way.

That pic has nothing to do with Canon. It's a photoshop mockup done by some photog with no insight into Canon. It's just something he thought was cool, no more.

__________________
I'm not lazy. I'm energy efficient.