Coventry, England, United Kingdom
Another mounting type?
So more lenses?
Urgh. I really hate mirrorless designs. Compact systems? Fine. But I purposelly have a battery pack and other things tied to my DSLR body to counterbalance the weight of the damn lenses. Anything too large just makes it unstable - Mirrorless bodies are just even worse.
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: The thing that makes me yawn is that it's yet another camera without a viewfinder. Hooray for shaky pictures!
Not only that. Try to use it on a bright sunny day. You can't see shit on the LED screen. But then of course, users are encouraged to bring along that 4x5 view camera black cloth. They are so dirt cheap now on Craigslist.
K E S L E R wrote: Nice, if they release a high end that uses ef mount i may pick one up
Considering the lens set they have available it would be a huge mistake not to have compatibility.
I keep hoping somebody will come to their senses and release a viewfinderless camera that has a dedicated hood option. I looked at the Hoodman hood that you have to buy a special rubber band to attach and thought "Why is there no mount on the back of the camera to make it easy and stable?"
Tim Little Photography wrote: It needs internal image stabilization but you know Canon won't do that. So we have to hold it out in front of us like a point and shoot. Also, it doesn't appear to have an articulating screen.
My Canon G1 X has a large 14 megapixel sensor, image stabilization and an articulating screen.
Not true, LED screens are like a live preview of your rear view LCD screen, except much more vivid. If you've used a sony A77 you would know this. Its like looking at a live view preview of your image, and all your adjustments are made in real time. Not sure about canon, as both Nikon and Canon are jumping on the interchangeable band wagon in hopes to compete with the Nex-5 and Nex-7. Mirror less is the new wave of SLT's. Sony will most likely release its 36mp FF SLT next year, and it will be a beast of a camera.
But for these, Mirror less designs make for faster shots, if your that shaky when shooting over 1/125 of sec, heck even 1/60, you need help. And for low light, use a tripod or mount it on a wall or whatever.
DOUGLASFOTOS wrote: Nothing exciting about this new Canon Mirrorless Camera. They seemed to play it really safe..and have a dull looking camera.
Agreed and I am really stunned by this. They have waited an eternity while fuji and nikon and Sony and OLY have innovated. As a long-time Canon user, I figured that the wait was so that Canon could really develop and market something very special. Very special. Now this. While IQ is likley very good, If the rumor is true, this camera does not seem to be worth the wait.
I have a G 11 that I love. It give me the functionality of a DSLR with close to the size of a P/S. I can't deal with the restrictions of a normal P/S. If they added the senor from the G1X and button layout of the G 12 and kept the size down with interchangable lenses, I think they could have a winner.
The market for it wouldn't be as wide as for the casual snapper though so I wonder if they'd do it. Though the G series is doing well enough.
I took my G 11 to a Iraq for a year. Horrible conditions for a camera. It held up like a champ. I couldn't have taken shots from vehicles or helicopters with a normal P/S. It's perfect for the tight spaces too. Shooting RAW really helped. Not as good a sensor/zoom range as I would've liked though.
BTW, my avitar was taken in Iraq with my G 11 handheld. Very minimal contrast was all that was done.
I'm just saying that for specific uses, a compact with the functionality of a DSLR are great I think.
This one does not have a speed rating shown in the image. The 22mm (likely 1.6 crop factor sensor so, a 35mm FOV), was a "slow" f2. I guess we will find out in the announcement why they chose not to produce a 1.4.
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: You've never seen how people use the cameras, have you?
Mark Laubenheimer wrote: but how would you use the camera?
I wouldn't. You'd have to put it on a tripod to get much out of this thing, and that kind of defeats the point of a "compact" camera. If I want a camera that I have to use at arm's length, I already have my iPhone.
Give me a high quality EVF already! Fuji is pretty close to what I'd want from one of these cameras. Add in faster AF and ditch the "fly-by-night-wire" manual focus and you're almost there.
Canon isn't even playing the right sport, as far as I'm concerned.
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: Give me a high quality EVF already! Fuji is pretty close to what I'd want from one of these cameras. Add in faster AF and ditch the "fly-by-night-wire" manual focus and you're almost there.
Canon isn't even playing the right sport, as far as I'm concerned.
I will wait to formally read about Canon's new offering but, I must say, I agree with you.
4 R D
Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico
I just want a 28mm. digital rangefinder. It is amazing how such a concept that would be so easy and cheap to implement on any of these compact cameras is being ignored by all brands. No one is looking beyond the large consumer market.
The other thing that bothers me is that they're apparently using a full-sized EF mount, though with a shorter registration distance. Compatibility with SLR lenses is great, but there's no reason they couldn't have made the mount smaller, and created an adapter that works just fine. The lenses are going to be entirely too large.
Now if this were a full frame camera, that would be another matter altogether.
4 R D wrote: I just want a 28mm. digital rangefinder. It is amazing how such a concept that would be so easy and cheap to implement on any of these compact cameras is being ignored by all brands. No one is looking beyond the large consumer market.
It's only cheap to implement if it sells in large quantities.
All this speculation has me wondering what photographers or camera builders have against optical viewfinders (OVF). I have a love/hate relationship with my Fuji X10. The image quality is what I was looking for, it's compact and small enough to carry without a bunch of extra lenses and bulk. The viewfinder is the compromise I don't especially care for. It works, but it's only 85% coverage. I suspect that this is a factor of location and has something to do with the current consumer market. I could live with more coverage and seeing part of the lens in my FOV if I had to. I have been shooting long enough to be comfortable with and am more used to an OVF and using a camera in that way. I could probably live with the 85% coverage if the OVF displayed exposure information. Otherwise, it's all but useless to me. It totally changes the way I have to shoot and, consequently, I use the camera less that I would normally be inclined to. I absolutely hate having to hold the camera out in front of me to compose an image. There is also some degree of lag with electronic viewfinders that makes me lean more towards optical viewfinders. They're still not as fast as your eye.
The current crop of cameras seem to rely more on the electronic viewfinder because that's what a lot of the current generation has grown up on. Maybe that can be a good thing, but I learned to look through an optical viewfinder and pull the camera into my body to provide more stability for it, not hold it out in from of me and try to operate the controls, compose an image and take a picture. It just seems inherently flawed to an old guy like me.
What's your take on optical vs electronic viewfinders?