Rumor: Canon Mirrorless CSC is Coming - What Will It Mean for Micro 4/3 Users?

[Jonathan F/2]

The fact of the matter is this: DSLRs are going to die in the following years. It's just a matter of time to get rid of clumsy 40 year old mirror technology, it's just natural evolution. Canikon are just preparing for the change, the way they consider best. They may have a 5 to 10 year agenda, I can't tell, but officials from both companies have hinted on this several times. For them it's just a matter of consolidating their new technology with legacy ones, and that mainly means lenses. But it has been done before: Canon FD to EOS mount.

Why does everyone who shoots mirrorless, think DSLRs are going to die? Nikon and Canon are poised to release budget oriented FF/FX DSLRs this year which will heavily compete with high end mirrorless cameras. Not to mention PDAF is far superior to CDAF for anything that moves.

 

[dhazeghi]

Why does everyone who shoots mirrorless, think DSLRs are going to die? Nikon and Canon are poised to release budget oriented FF/FX DSLRs this year which will heavily compete with high end mirrorless cameras. Not to mention PDAF is far superior to CDAF for anything that moves.

The loss of the mirror is as much in Nikon and Canon's interest as anybody else's. Analogue components restrict design decisions (not to mention they tend to be more expensive to manufacture and test). How they will go about it remains to be seen, but I don't think there's any question that it will happen, and most likely sooner rather than later.

Not sure what CDAF has to do with the discussion. They can certainly do PDAF without a mirror if they want to.

DH

 

[Chrisnmn]

Why does everyone who shoots mirrorless, think DSLRs are going to die? Nikon and Canon are poised to release budget oriented FF/FX DSLRs this year which will heavily compete with high end mirrorless cameras. Not to mention PDAF is far superior to CDAF for anything that moves.

its funny all this FF vs m43 almost war of whos doing what next. in the old days no one even wondered about their camera, they just picked the one that looked and worked better for them...the sensor was all the same, 35mm or 120mm. and people was more keen in knowing who had better glass. but now....i personally carry both m43 and ff gear, and have learnt something. again, is not what camera, for me personally, its more about having a good sensor for prints and good glass, and for me Olympus and Canon have both.

And in terms of marketing, not sure if canon will out sell everyone here in the m43, olympus and panasonic are well positioned and well respected as Canikon is on the FF side of things. the G10, 11, 12 or G1X is not killing m43 at all, I dont think their new system will...unless, they come up with an OMD sized camera with a FF sensor in it...then thats another story...but thats not going to happen....yet.

 

[With_Eyes_Unclouded]

I've said it before, Canon is having a hard enough time with their DSLR line, why do people expect them to be some juggernaut in the mirrorless arena?

Yes, you said it again, but that does not validate your point. What exactly is the hard time they have? Like, they stopped selling millions of DSLRs recently?

They haven't released their 1DX which was announced last September and on paper specs, the 5Dm3 looks severely outclassed by the Nikon D800/E.

While, e.g. Sony, has cameras in stores about a week after announcement, right?

"Paper specs" may say a lot of things, real world experience of photographers (and videographers, concerning the 5DMkIII) show otherwise. Last time I checked, both those cameras were doing extremely well at their respective customer base.

Also what's the big deal with Sigma and Tamron making lenses for M43? I don't really see them making anything more significant that Panasonic or Olympus is producing. Even in the DSLR format, I'm not too fond of third party glass.

The "big deal" is having third party support that gives more options AND validates the system on the market. "More significant" in what respect? Up to now, from the two, Sigma has only two lenses, adapted from the NEX system. They are both arguably better money for value than any equivalent Oly/Pana lens. This is VERY significant for a whole lot of :43: users.

It's no different in DSLR world. Most third party lenses are surely not as good overall as equivalent "originals". But they are almost always better value for money, for people that find this parameter important. There are also a few that can compete in IQ and performance with the big boys. And there are a few that are unique in features as focal length, size, etc.

I think where it stands, M43 is the best all-around mirrorless system, no need for Canon or third party support to validate the format.

This is something I agree with 100%.

The tiny Nikon 1 sensor is quite capable of decent DoF when mated with fast glass as you can see here...

The Nikon (ehmmm... Sony) sensor in the 1 series seems VERY good for what it is. And it has technical innovations we'll all want to see in :43: sensors.

 

[With_Eyes_Unclouded]

Why does everyone who shoots mirrorless, think DSLRs are going to die? Nikon and Canon are poised to release budget oriented FF/FX DSLRs this year which will heavily compete with high end mirrorless cameras. Not to mention PDAF is far superior to CDAF for anything that moves.

I can't answer for others that shoot mirrorless. This is my personal opinion and I consider this turn of events a natural evolution. Marketing decisions and legacy issues shall determine WHEN it will happen. But it will.

PD-AF is already available in mirrorless sensors.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

The loss of the mirror is as much in Nikon and Canon's interest as anybody else's. Analogue components restrict design decisions (not to mention they tend to be more expensive to manufacture and test). How they will go about it remains to be seen, but I don't think there's any question that it will happen, and most likely sooner rather than later.

Not sure what CDAF has to do with the discussion. They can certainly do PDAF without a mirror if they want to.

DH

If mirrorless is cheaper to manufacturer, why is it that most high end mirrorless lenses are still more expensive than their DSLR counterparts? Shooting a Nikon D3 at 9fps with minimal viewfinder blackout while AF tracking your subject is something I've yet to see done with a mirrorless camera. I don't see how that's a limitation. Why reinvent the wheel, when it already works?

It's like sports cars...a hybrid sports vehicle might be cool, but a fully souped up gas powered sports will smoke it every time.

 

[With_Eyes_Unclouded]

If mirrorless is cheaper to manufacturer, why is it that most high end mirrorless lenses are still more expensive than their DSLR counterparts? Shooting a Nikon D3 at 9fps with minimal viewfinder blackout while AF tracking your subject is something I've yet to see done with a mirrorless camera. It's like sports cars...a hybrid sports vehicle might be cool, but a fully souped up gas powered sports will smoke it every time.

Actually, a lens for a mirrorless camera with THE SAME optical performance of a DSLR lens, will always be cheaper to manufacture, and easier to design if you start from an empty page. ATM, lenses for DSLRs are produced at a much higher rate.

Agreed that EVF performance is something that has to improve more, if they are to replace OVFs for every application.

Oh, and, literally speaking, in digital world, it's the reflex camera that is a "hybrid" technology. On mirrorless you always see (within tech limitations) what the sensor sees. On DSLRs this is not the case in almost ANY situation, while using the reflex mechanism.

 

[Luckypenguin]

its funny all this FF vs m43 almost war of whos doing what next. in the old days no one even wondered about their camera, they just picked the one that looked and worked better for them...the sensor was all the same, 35mm or 120mm. and people was more keen in knowing who had better glass. but now....

Ah, yes. Before the internet!

 

[Art]

If mirrorless is cheaper to manufacturer, why is it that most high end mirrorless lenses are still more expensive than their DSLR counterparts? Shooting a Nikon D3 at 9fps with minimal viewfinder blackout while AF tracking your subject is something I've yet to see done with a mirrorless camera. I don't see how that's a limitation. Why reinvent the wheel, when it already works?

It's like sports cars...a hybrid sports vehicle might be cool, but a fully souped up gas powered sports will smoke it every time.

I think that perhaps on-sensor pdaf (e.g. nikon 1) will introduce effective tracking and continuous AF to mirrorless cameras. Mirrorless is not all about size, it has other important advantages: video AF (again, should be better with pdaf), much better LiveView (DSLR can only dream about touch screen focusing/shutter). Basically, DSLR's only long-term advantage is optical viewfinder. But OVF is not a proper substitute for LiveView whereas EVF can successfully substitute OVF.

 

[Brodie337]

... video AF (again, should be better with pdaf), much better LiveView (DSLR can only dream about touch screen focusing/shutter)...

Canon's recently announced T4i/650D would beg to differ...

The EOS 650D is the first-ever EOS to feature a dual AF system, which ensures exceptional detail in stills and continuous autofocus tracking when shooting movies.

Touch control adds a different dimension to Live View shooting. You can select AF points, track faces and objects, and fine-tune image settings via the camera's Quick Control screen.

Source: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/06/08/Canon-announces-EOS-650D-Rebel-T4i

 

[heedpantsnow]

If mirrorless is cheaper to manufacturer, why is it that most high end mirrorless lenses are still more expensive than their DSLR counterparts? Shooting a Nikon D3 at 9fps with minimal viewfinder blackout while AF tracking your subject is something I've yet to see done with a mirrorless camera. I don't see how that's a limitation. Why reinvent the wheel, when it already works?

It's like sports cars...a hybrid sports vehicle might be cool, but a fully souped up gas powered sports will smoke it every time.

On the same economies of scale and sensor size, mirrorless would be cheaper to manufacture. However, sales numbers of DSLRs are an order of magnitude higher than MILC's.

I do agree that the best AF tracking in an DSLR is better than the best of the MILCs, but I don't think that ALL DSLR's blow the better MILCs away in this area. For example, my OM-D tracks movement much better than my older EOS body and about the same as my buddy's last year digital rebel.

I don't know about Nikon, as I don't associate with Nikon users (haha, just kidding ).

 

[dhazeghi]

If mirrorless is cheaper to manufacturer, why is it that most high end mirrorless lenses are still more expensive than their DSLR counterparts?

Mirrorless is so far being sold to a different crowd, and in much smaller volume. There's also the fact that being the only game in town (in many cases) they can afford to charge a premium.

That said, the m4/3 Panasonic 7-14/4 and DG 25/1.4 are both considerably cheaper than their DSLR counterparts, the Olympus 7-14/4 and Panasonic D 25/1.4

Shooting a Nikon D3 at 9fps with minimal viewfinder blackout while AF tracking your subject is something I've yet to see done with a mirrorless camera. I don't see how that's a limitation. Why reinvent the wheel, when it already works?

There are very obvious limits to how quickly the mirror can oscillate up and down. Properly damping the mirror is another complication. Mirrorless has none of that to contend with. As to why no mirrorless can match the D3 at tracking, no camera by anybody other than Canon or Nikon has good tracking AF. Not before mirrorless, and not after.

Probably the bigger advantage of mirrorless is that the camera has full imaging data to use to make decisions. For things like AF acquisition and metering, that opens a lot of possibilities which are simply not possible with an SLR. They haven't really taken advantage of that at this point, but they will.

DH

 

[meyerweb]

Canon's recently announced T4i/650D would beg to differ...

Source: Canon announces EOS 650D / Rebel T4i 18MP touch-screen DSLR with Hybrid AF: Digital Photography Review

Unfortunately, if you actually read the DPR preview, you'll see they say the hybrid AF in the 650D doesn't work nearly as well as the PDAF. Canon is still behind in mirrorless AF, it would seem.

 

[meyerweb]

And in terms of marketing, not sure if canon will out sell everyone here in the m43, olympus and panasonic are well positioned and well respected as Canikon is on the FF side of things. the G10, 11, 12 or G1X is not killing m43 at all, I dont think their new system will...unless, they come up with an OMD sized camera with a FF sensor in it...then thats another story...but thats not going to happen....yet.

Outside of a small enthusiast community, m43 is almost invisible in the U.S. In comparison, you'd have a hard time finding anyone over the age of 12 who hasn't heard of Canon and Nikon. m43 sales in the US are tiny compared to Canon or Nikon DSLR sales, much less total DSLR sales. To call m43 "well positioned" seems like a significant overstatement to me.

The sensor in the G1x seems well regarded; most complaints center around the lens and optical VF. But to compare the G series bodies to other market segments doesn't seem meaningful. Those are very much niche cameras, marketed to people who want full control over the camera in a (relatively) small package.

I'm not about to say Canon will dominate the market. But to discount their size, marketing savvy (and budget), market penetration and name recognition would be foolish.

 

[yamark]

No matter what canon does, m43 sales in Asia will keep the m43 market very strong.

 

[Luckypenguin]

The sensor in the G1x seems well regarded; most complaints center around the lens and optical VF. But to compare the G series bodies to other market segments doesn't seem meaningful. Those are very much niche cameras, marketed to people who want full control over the camera in a (relatively) small package.

If Canon could sort out how to do CDAF properly (i.e. make it fast), and used a more EOS-like interface and processing power, the G1X internals could be the basis for a very good ILC. The sensor doesn't have quite the highlight headroom as the E-M5, but it has a similarly light AA filter and very pleasant noise patterns that respond well to noise reduction and help it to convert beautifully to b&w. I would however wonder if a kit zoom would be up to the same standard as the lens in the G1X. Certainly it should have a much shorter MFD, but whether it will have the same sharpness, lack of aberrations, and zoom range as the G1X remains to be seen.

 

[hoggdoc]

"Olympus is barely visible in most of those locations" kinda like Leica? Vast market presences does not always equate to loyal followers, again like Leica. Olympus has a long history of creating and mfg. quality optics and camera bodies.

With the recent release of the OM-D M-C5 they have taken the u4/3 world closer to professional photographers recognition. In fact there already Pros out there signing the phrase of this hot little camera, and not just for Street work. In fact I just recommended this camera and format to Gary Leonard, a well know photojournalist in L.A. because people were complaining to him that his Nikon D3 was making too much noise.

With camera bodies like the OM-D and I'm sure Panasonic's answer to the OM-D the u4/3 market will continue to expand.

Nikon's recent V series offering are not welling well, Sony's NEX are doing alright, but suffer from Sony's "I'm going to do my" syndrome. Samsung will not have a major impact.

Wouldn't be nice to all the major mfgs sign onto the u4/3 system and compete for who can make best use of the format with great lens, and working towards improving the format as a whole. Ya I know, like corporate egos will ever allow that, they would rather re-invent the damn wheel.

Sorry for the rant!

Wayne

 

[With_Eyes_Unclouded]

Wouldn't be nice to all the major mfgs sign onto the u4/3 system and compete for who can make best use of the format with great lens, and working towards improving the format as a whole. Ya I know, like corporate egos will ever allow that, they would rather re-invent the damn wheel.

:43: is one option in the mirrorless world. IMO, it is currently the most complete and promising one. We have already seen that the APS-C format doesn't offer a significant advantage overall, if we exclude the X-Pro1 (for IQ) which is of course a special case of sensor.

I'd like to see variety in the mirrorless world: small 1" sensor cameras, :43: and even a FF camera that you wouldn't need to sell your kids to buy, like it's the case with Leica. Either Sony or Fuji shall get there at some point I believe, except if Canon manages to beat them in their own game.

This is why I don't care if more companies get into the :43: game, except for lenses of course.

 

[bongestrella]

"Olympus is barely visible in most of those locations" kinda like Leica? Vast market presences does not always equate to loyal followers, again like Leica.

Agree, though I'd attribute Leica's less than visible presence to their astronomical prices if anything else.

With the recent release of the OM-D M-C5 they have taken the u4/3 world closer to professional photographers recognition.

What?? There's already a new OM-D model?? lol

 

[meyerweb]

"Olympus is barely visible in most of those locations" kinda like Leica? Vast market presences does not always equate to loyal followers, again like Leica. Olympus has a long history of creating and mfg. quality optics and camera bodies.

Unless you believe Olympus can survive as a niche producer of $6,000 to $10,000 cameras, and multi-thousand dollar lenses, the comparison makes little sense. Olympus needs to sell in much larger quantities than does Leica to remain profitable.

With the recent release of the OM-D M-C5 they have taken the u4/3 world closer to professional photographers recognition.

No argument there at all. But the revenue necessary to keep Olympus' camera division solvent isn't going to come from sales to professionals alone. I'm willing to bet Canon sells more Rebels than 1D and 5D series cameras combined by a factor of 50 to 1, or more. If Canon's camera division consisted only of sales to professionals, Canon would be an also-ran in the photo business. The revenue to support the design and development of high-end cameras comes from bulk sales, not sales to the small number of people who hang out on photo equipment forums. If every member of mu43 switched from m43 to NEX (just as an example) tomorrow, the impact to either company's bottom line would be small.

Nikon's recent V series offering are not welling well, Sony's NEX are doing alright, but suffer from Sony's "I'm going to do my" syndrome. Samsung will not have a major impact.

Data? AS of January, the J1 was apparently the top selling MILC:

Nikon J1 becomes best-selling CSC | News | TechRadar

I can't find anything more recent to support either position. Where did you get your information? On a recent trip to 10 European cities, I noticed more Nex and Nikon 1 bodies than m43, albeit not many of any mirrorless.

Wouldn't be nice to all the major mfgs sign onto the u4/3 system and compete for who can make best use of the format with great lens, and working towards improving the format as a whole. Ya I know, like corporate egos will ever allow that, they would rather re-invent the damn wheel.

Would it be nice? You bet. Will it happen? Not a chance. There have been few, very few, instances of shared standards in photography. The m43 screw mount, to a lesser extent the K mount, briefly, and Fuji and Kodak made Nikon and Canon mount cameras early in the digital age. That's about it. Even today, Fuji and Sigma dedicates their limited resources to unique lens mounts and systems that get no support from anyone else. I can't help but think Fuji's limited R&D funds could have been better used.

I don't think you'd even have seen Olympus and Panasonic collaborate on 4/3 except that Panasonic needed Olympus' credibility in the photo market, and Olympus needed someone to help with the electronics and sensors. A marriage of necessity, not love.