1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

New Canon Rebel near E-M5 size?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Fmrvette, Jul 26, 2013.

  1. Fmrvette

    Fmrvette This Space For Rent

    May 26, 2012
    Detroit, Michigan
    Jim
    DP Review has some ins-and-outs on the new 100D Rebel:

    Canon EOS 100D/Rebel SL1 Review: Digital Photography Review

    Of note are the physical dimensions:

    Weight (inc. batteries) 407 g (0.90 lb / 14.36 oz)
    Dimensions 117 x 91 x 69 mm (4.61 x 3.58 x 2.72″)

    Which compares to the OM-D E-M5

    Weight (inc. batteries) 425 g (0.94 lb / 14.99 oz)
    Dimensions 122 x 89 x 43 mm (4.8 x 3.5 x 1.69")

    Of course it's the lenses that make the difference in total size :)43: glass being, on average, considerably smaller than APS-C glass). Still the new Rebel must be pretty doggone small :wink:.

    Canon has also announced a 40mm pancake to go along with the new Rebel.

    I don't want one, not in the market for one, don't want to rent one, don't want to borrow one - but it's interesting to read about anyway.

    Regards,

    Jim
     
  2. monk3y

    monk3y Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 14, 2013
    in The Cloud...
    Steven
    Yes I saw this one 2 weeks ago... it is tiny by DSLR standards. :smile:
     
  3. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    Perhaps this is Canon's way to compete with mirrorless, shrink the DSLR? :16suspect1:
     
  4. monk3y

    monk3y Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 14, 2013
    in The Cloud...
    Steven
    They already the the Canon M for that actually :biggrin: But of course the 100D's handling is much better.
     
  5. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 5, 2013
    Dan
    I know I may be in the minority here, but I still really like the output from my OLD APS-C camera. What I don't like is the size on the lenses. So, the problem for me with the new Canon is that the camera may be small, but the lenses are still big. And while people may complain about the price of the Pan 2.8 zooms, check out the prices of the Canon 2.8 zooms and get back to me.
     
  6. picturewow

    picturewow Mu-43 Regular

    39
    Jul 16, 2013
  7. dino8031

    dino8031 Mu-43 Regular

    111
    Jan 27, 2012
    Boulder, Colorado
    DynaSport hit the nail on the head. The body may be small but the lenses are still monstrous compared to m4/3 lenses.

    Try slapping a 70-200 f/2.8 on that body and it gets big fast.

    Even a relatively small lens like a Tamrom 17-50 still weights over a pound and is five inches long.

    Size does matter. I'm not sure what Canon's up to here. Looks like smaller cameras are starting to take a big enough chunk of their market share for them to sit up and take notice.

    Personally I'd love to see Canon come up with a series of decent APSC pancakes. It's about the only thing that would lure me back to DSLR's.
     
  8. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    This is nothing new. Way back in the spring of 2007 Olympus had the E-410 DSLR with the following weight/dimensions:

    Weight (inc. batteries): 435g (15.3oz)
    Dimensions: 130 x 91 x 53mm

    The Rebel beats that only in length but is the same height and thicker. The Rebel is lighter, but that's not a good thing when you feel the difference between the cheap build (judging from other Rebels) compared with the solid construction of the Olympus. For what it's worth, I find the thickness of the camera to be one of the most meaningful dimension when trying to pack it into a small bag. Length is a close second, and height not so important.

    So in conclusion... I do think Canon is doing a very good thing here. They are differentiating their entry-level model in a meaningful way which gives it an advantage over other models - a real advantage, other than just price. However, they're only just catching up to where Olympus DSLRs were over 6 years ago! lol.

    And this camera later came bundled with the new Zuiko 25mm/2.8 pancake lens as well, which was the first ultra-slim pancake lens I remember seeing in the digital era. The entire package fit in the palm of your hand (which is how it was often displayed in Olympus ads), and this was still a DSLR kit in 2007. Great job Canon, but you're still late to the game. ;) Of course, Olympus has now completely dropped out of the small DSLR game (only keeping their much bigger big pro-grade models) so Canon can neatly take their spot. I expect the new Canon 100D to be miles ahead in technology from a 6 year old Olympus. xD
     
  9. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    What about the mirrorless shooters that primarily shoot with adapted lenses and have little or no native lenses?
     
  10. blotto

    blotto Mu-43 Regular

    68
    Jan 8, 2011
    Houston, TX
    That's their choice, with a canon they dont have a choice to go with smaller lenses if they wanted to.
     
  11. entropicremnants

    entropicremnants Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 16, 2012
    John Griggs
    Exactly. Compare a Canon 70-200mm to the Panasonic 35-100mm equivalent. Wow, that's a huge size and weight difference.

    Like with the EOS M, Canon shows they don't get it. I'm sure it's a nice camera, but really, what does it do unless you shoot kit zooms and small primes? Nothing really.
     
  12. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    However...

    That Canon 70-200 with the Canon APS crop factor is a 91-260
     
  13. entropicremnants

    entropicremnants Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 16, 2012
    John Griggs
    True dat. But it's still HUGE, lol. I had the Nikon version and it was a beast comparatively.
     
  14. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    :biggrin::wink::biggrin:
    Lots of DLSR shooters prefer their APS bodies rather than full frame precisely because of that crop factor. (There's a group of Nikonians that really want a D400 to illustrate this)
     
  15. bluzcity

    bluzcity Mu-43 Veteran

    361
    Jul 17, 2012
    Memphis, TN
    Brent
    I held one in Costco the other night. My hands are medium size and it felt comfortable and familiar. Having shot Canon for over 30+ years I have a shelf full of lens, many of them primes. I might pick up one of these, used of course, just for fun and dust off some of my primes.
     
  16. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 5, 2013
    Dan
    If that is what you want to do, then more power to you. I don't really understand it (at least with M43), but that is just me. I didn't come to M43 because I was disappointed in the performance of my Canon or the selection of lenses I could attach to the front of it. I came because I wanted something smaller, but with better performance than I could get in a point and shoot.

    Obviously, people who only use large adapted lenses on mirrorless cameras came to them for a different reason than I did. Would those people be interested in the SL1 because it is smaller? I guess I just don't see the thought process behind that.
     
  17. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 5, 2013
    Dan
    Pretty sure my 70-200 on my Canon APS is 112-320.
     
  18. STR

    STR Mu-43 Veteran

    222
    May 16, 2013
    The gray market/import prices for the Panny zooms are fair, but the extra $200-300 premium to buy domestically is outrageous. There shouldn't be THAT much of a difference.
     
  19. shutterduster

    shutterduster Mu-43 Regular

    144
    Feb 8, 2013
    Keremeos, BC. Canada
    Dave T
    Then what Canon lens would you put up as a direct or near direct comparison to the PZ35-100:confused:
     
  20. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    I don't think the demographic this camera is targeted at will be attaching big L lenses on it. I see tons of Canon Rebels when I'm out and about. 99% of the time it has the kit lens on it.