Camera Labs

From Canonrumors:


It's rated CR1 which to me basically is junk, but I thought it might be fun to consider the options.

Easy one first: not EF mount but EF mount compatible. That's practically a given as it would take something really radical for that not to be the case. Mirrorless means shorter mount distance means not EF, but it can be made electrically compatible as far as is possible allowing the easy use of adapters for EF lenses.

The two sensor sizes doesn't make sense to me. The micro4/3 fanboys love to say theirs is the ideal sensor size as it can allow smaller lenses from the reduced image circle, and for practical purposes the G1 X is the same size, give or take some marketing exaggeration... to make it *also* APS-C on some models would negate that possible advantage. Unless the APS-C mode would be limited to EF lenses only and it goes into a crop mode for native lenses? Similar to the variable aspect ratio sensors Panasonic use in some models.

24MP would be ok if they can avoid the NEX7 effect of degraded corner performance due to off angle light. I have to wonder if going to a BSI sensor might help there?

And to finish I'll revisit the old chestnut that's also thrown around by 4/3 fanboys a lot: would it make sense for Canon to join micro4/3 standard? Previously I have thought absolutely not, but I think my position has softened a little now. Canon are big enough to go it alone, and corporate pride I think would steer them in that direction regardless. But that would be on the assumption they can still do something different and not make just another "me too" product. Nikon's differentiator was to go smaller sensor, although they have some work to do on the miniaturisation to realise its benefits. I think the APS-C market is too crowded now. You have Sony, Samsung, Fuji, and to a lesser extent, Pentax. I felt a possible Canon differentiator might be to go large, and aim for the Leica segment. But that was always going to be a high risk high cost option and would still leave them without something at the very low end.

But if this rumour is even partially true, I'd think it is a sign Canon aren't going to do something radically different and are doing a "me too" product. In that case, the value from doing your own thing is reduced, especially this late in the game as we're reaching 3 years since the launch of the E-P1, and Panasonic released some bigger models before that. What would it mean if Canon joined micro4/3? They could hit the ground running concentrating on bodies initially, leveraging off the 3rd party native lenses that already exist so taking pressure off the system and EF lens adapters. In the longer term, imagine if they could bring a set of native L lenses to the system?

I think the stumbling block for that is what would a Canon body bring that we don't have already? And I'm struggling to think of something there. Olympus have body IS, and Panasonic have nailed the video AF side. What's left?

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

If this is true, my guess at an explanation would be that they are developing two cameras, and one or two lenses to go with each body, to see if the trade off in size is worth the trade off in IQ.

Personally, I think Canon would be best served by leveraging their EF-S lenses and video cachet of the 5D, C300, etc. into a "micro APS-C" system, if you will. Similar to how micro 4/3 is a 4/3 sensor with a shorter flange distance so it can use 4/3 lenses with an adapter, make a micro APS-C that's an APS-C sensor with a shorter flange distance so it can use APS-C (EF-S) lenses (as well as FF EF lenses, although doing so will negate some of the size advantage) with an adapter. Further, instead of the G1 X's smaller 1.5" sensor, capitalize on the fact that Canon's APS-C sensor has nearly the same image circle as Super 35 film by "borrowing" the multi-aspect concept from the GH1-2 so you have a 16:9 mode with essentially no crop factor relative to Super 35. Add in some of the video improvements of the 1D C, price the body only under $1,000, and that would be a strong challenger to the GH3.

Mark

Hi folks,


Fuji have shown one possible way forward. Check out this comparison page. Select RAW and ISO 1600 in the options at the top left of the X-Pro1 image and then drag the selection box (which starts life near the bottom of the Martini label) around. Look at the rear of the VW Beetle and include some feathers and compare sharpness and noise with the 5D Mark III. The X-Pro1 output isn't so saturated which will reduce the appearance of chroma noise but this is the first time we've had a chance to compare the X-Pro1 and 5D3 output using the same RAW converter - the latest beta version of ACR now supports the X-Pro1.

Am I off-topic? No, I don't think so. Fuji have shown it is possible to build an APS-C sized sensor which delivers extraordinary performance. Canon could capture the high end CSC market at a stroke if they could match the performance of the X-Pro1 sensor (or buy the rights to it or even buy the company ) and pair it with the handling of the latest NEX or m4/3 models. Fuji should be doing this themselves but so far as I am concerned (personal opinion and I don't mean to start a flame war) the X-Pro1 is dead in the water unless one can live with its reported failure to AF well in all but the kindest of conditions.

You'd think Canon would easily be up to the task but maybe not. Was there ever a resolution to Gordon's comments here where he offered that:

The PowerShot G1 X may have a large sensor that's similar in specification to a DSLR sensor, but in my tests its RAW files proved quite different to work with. Open one in Canon's supplied Digital Photo Professional software and you may be surprised to find the default Unsharp Mask setting at its highest value of 10, compared to, say, 3 for a typical EOS DSLR. And yet with these default settings they deliver final images with a similar degree of sharpness. Reduce the G1 X sharpening on the RAW file and the image quickly becomes very soft, and conversely increasing the sharpening on the EOS RAW file introduces undesirable artefacts.

Was it the lens that required such aggressive defaults, a software glitch or the sensor? Assuming that that the sensor is in good shape that still leaves Canon's ability to produce a competitive body in question. Elsewhere in the G1 X review we have:

The autofocusing on the PowerShot G1 X feels fairly responsive and generally locks-onto a subject in less than a second, although it's not as snappy as the quickest CSCs like the Panasonic GX1. Indeed general handling felt slower overall, ruling it out for very spontaneous or action shots.

"Less than a second". Hardly a ringing endorsement. Then there's the burst speed of the G1 X:

The Canon G1 X may sport a big sensor akin to a DSLR, but its continuous shooting performance is closer to a standard point-and-shoot, and worse, a standard point-and-shoot from Canon, which has a reputation for unremarkable burst speeds. Continuing this poor tradition, the main continuous shooting mode on the G1 X fires at a disappointingly slow rate of 1.9fps without AF, falling to an almost offensive 0.7fps if you'd like autofocus or live view between shots. Yes, that's comfortably less than one frame per second.

Offering some consolation is the High-speed Burst HQ mode which increases the rate to 4.5fps, but only for six shots, thereby grabbing about one and a half seconds of action. It'll come as no surprise then to discover the G1 X does not exploit the additional speed of UHS-1 SD cards either.

OK, it's not very fair of me to pick out just the negative aspects of the nearest thing Canon has to a CSC at the moment (and I did actually consider purchase of a G1 X for a while as the camera does have virtues) but I think the numbers illustrate that Canon, when they do announce a CSC, will have to considerably up their game unless they want to languish at the bottom end of the market.

Canon design and produce some of the finest glass on the planet. They also produce some of the finest DSLRs on the planet but they seem to be about as fleet footed as an Argentinosaurus whose distinguishing characteristics were enormous size, a long neck and a relatively small head. Unfair? Consider Canon's recent history of delays between lens and camera announcements and shipping hardware, a trend memory tells me started before the horrible natural disasters last year.

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that Canon have run scared of the CSC market because they have used their entry level DSLRs as a lever to boost sales of their EF glass. A CSC only makes sense with a new lens mount and my perception is that as each CSC brand matures and gains more native glass the sales of legacy glass to CSC owners will diminish and, with entry level DSLR sales also seriously eroded by the CSC market, sales of semi-pro DSLRs will also be squeezed as they don't fulfil an upgrade role for CSC owners in the way they do for DSLR owners. That squeeze will really hurt sales of mid to high-end DSLR lenses where, if prices are any sort of a guide, Canon make a good profit.

The ecology is changing. Sony have some great CSC bodies but their E-mount lens system is still immature, Nikon appear to be doing quite well with the "1" system but I think they've positioned the cameras, and the few native lenses that go with them, so that they won't squeeze sales of DSLRs and DSLR glass. Fuji and Samsung arguably both have issues with bodies which is a shame. Micro four-thirds didn't impress me until recently but the latest offerings from both Olympus and Panasonic have moved the goalposts and the lens system has matured nicely. Canon still have their chance. Will they choose to go the Nikon route and try to protect their DSLR and EF glass sales (a losing battle IMHO as nobody has to buy a Canon or Nikon CSC)? Will they compete head to head at the top end, on the assumption that DSLRs will increasingly become a niche product and they (Canon) need to be as dominant in the CSC market as they have been with SLRs and DSLRs? Your guess is as good as, or better than, mine! It will be interesting to see.

Bob.

P.S. Sorry Leica fans. You didn't get a mention above. Consider yourself mentioned now!

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Well - I'd love to see Canon join the micro four thirds companies but I doubt it will happen.
But imagine micro four thirds L lenses! Quite a lot of users of other brands would get and love those.
And users who already have lenses could easily buy a fitting Canon camera.

But as I sait: I don't really believe that will happen. IF they introduce a new line of cameras I guess they'd rather release a whole new system - that works just like any other system and so it might be harder for them to sell that stuff as good as the others did years ago. Their new system would have to be pretty good and still it would take some time until their sales would be as good as they'd be when joining an existing system.

But maybe they just introduce the G2 X someday and fix what people didn't like about the G1 X

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Canon EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466

Interesting thought, Bob. Is there something that makes you think Canon would be open to using Fuji sensor tech (or acquiring Fuji outright)? Or are you just spit-balling?

Nothing wrong with spit-balling. In fact, that's what I was doing. Just curious if you have some inside info - Mark

Hi Mark,

No, for some odd reason Canon have never shared their future plans with me.

My entire post, which somehow ended up a lot longer than I had intended, was in response to popo's question of how Canon could differentiate its future CSC from the competition. My reference to Fuji's X-Pro1 sensor was just to demonstrate that there is still room at the top end for a CSC better than anything we've seen so far from anyone else. Whether Canon can accomplish this or even bother to try is something only they can share with us later in the year.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.