Non Canon, Canon Mirroless Concept

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by FranchiseJuan, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. FranchiseJuan

    FranchiseJuan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,172
    Location:
    Somewhere Exotic
    I saw this over at canonrumors, and dam does it look sexy! I hope Canon is watching. I would get one.

    Link
     
  2. chilloutbuddy

    chilloutbuddy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,494
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Nice project but it would be shot down at least three levels below Canon's CFO.
    0.1% potential market share, new lens mount, new lens range, massive R&D.
    Forget it :(
     
  3. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    11,971
    Location:
    melbourne
    Reminds me of my non-Leica, Leica interchangeable concept:

    [​IMG]
     
  4. onrelas

    onrelas Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,363
    Location:
    Sydney
    Awesome... Seems to combine the two least liked features of the OM-D and X-Pro1

    Faux mirror prism plus brick design wrapped into a body wider than a DSLR. Thanks Canon :thumbup:

    (yes I know the "prism" is removable, but whats the point)
     
  5. OP
    OP
    FranchiseJuan

    FranchiseJuan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,172
    Location:
    Somewhere Exotic
    But look at the design of that popup flash! I want that!

    I love one of the comments of kickstarter. How much do people think it costs to develop a camera and bring it to market?
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
  6. cleary

    cleary Mental in the Face

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Griffith NSW
    Does anyone else find it strange that these cameras are coming out in this shape which is well suited to fitting film spools either side?

    Personally, I'd like to see a mirrorless interchangeable system based on something like that 41MP nokia circular sensor.
    And not in a body shaped (and sized) like it's designed to take film.

    If you could capture the entire view of the lens onto the circular sensor instead of cropping the lens view to fit a rectangular sensor, suddenly it open up some interesting composition options and frees up your aspect ratio options.
    Rotating a slightly off horizon in post would no longer require cropping edges for example.
     
  7. hlokk

    hlokk Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,208
    Location:
    WA
    I can actually imagine this coming out. I'm being serious. It will have one very minor change though:

    The spelling mistake where they spelled Leica "Canon".


    Its really just the leica's and the x100/x10 though. Retro chic I guess...

    Though the camera bodies setup usually works that the guts are in a square on one side, and the battery takes up a block on the other side, so really the rectangular format is what is the norm, some manufacturers just very much rounded the edges, so its not that much of a departure from other modern digitals. Maybe there is some other format change in general that could be done though..



    Problem is that image quality would suffer based on pixel size though. You'd get a 'final output' say APSC sized, but a pixel (and noise/IQ performance) closer to a tiny chip.



    Go get a leica X1 then. It looks practically the same down to the circular pop up flash :lol:
     
  8. Remote Man

    Remote Man Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    1,035
    Location:
    Melbourne.vic.au
    Not a massive camera nut but... ergonomically this form-factor is pretty practical, thinner it would be hard to hold and the width and height also work well.
     
  9. phreeky82

    phreeky82 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    9,734
    Location:
    Qld
    Stupid retro designs. What's with the obsession with plain brushed aluminium?

    The same basic rear and top layout of a current Canon DSLR (i.e. 5D), place the sensor as rearwards as possible, scrap the built-in flash idea but give it a hotshoe, and give it a FF sensor and an EF-mount that just requires a ~12mm (or whatever it takes) extension tube to use regular EF glass.
     
  10. cleary

    cleary Mental in the Face

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Griffith NSW
    I didn't mean to use the nokia chip, the emphasis was meant to be on the shape not the brand or the mp count. Do a circular chip with same pixel density as the D700 sensor for example.

    Why are rectangular sensors the norm? Probably another hangover from the film days. Make a round sensor to capture the whole image presented by the lens, and you can do panoramas wider than your 4:3 shots. Horizon rotation would be lossless (to a degree, you'll still get artifacting at a per pixel level if done in post), you can get higher res square crops than is possible on the equivalent rectangular sensor.

    Imo there is a lot of merit behind a circular sensor - I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone to do it.

    [​IMG]

    I'm thinking why not make the lens the main part of the camera (ricoh GXR style?)? the body doesn't need to be large if the lens' are designed to be the bit you hold. I have an image in my head of a screen on the back, (probably square and not very thick), with the circular lens image displayed in the centre, aspect ratio overlay for composition help, and controls in the corners where the circular image doesn't display, and/or on the thin edge of the body.

    I dunno - these guys are letting their imagination run free on these conceptual mockups, and they're running all of 1 or 2 steps. I'm trying to dive off the cliff a bit
     
  11. hlokk

    hlokk Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,208
    Location:
    WA
    Say the circular sensor makes sense in theory, there are still a few things to consider re it being practical.

    First of all, how do you fabricate it? I assume the chips are made in wafers? You couldnt have really small wafers with one chip per wafer as it it would be too expensive, but if you put lots on a wafer you would probably square cut them anyways. So why not just go with a square sensor the OD of the circle?

    So if doing that, why not just go a square sensor in the first place. All pixel density issues for that square would be the same as a circle, but with 40% more size in the square aspect ratio. You'd get viginetting of course, but then you could still artificially restrict it to fitting a circle?

    But really, with the current size sensors, cropping them a bit still gives you heaps of megapickles. So who really would it be catered to? There'd be too many trade offs for a top of the line high end dslr. You may as well just increase the pixel density of the sensor (assuming the sensor size is similar) if you need more cropping with high megapickle output.
    And if for general users, what exactly is the point of it? Manufacturing expense would have to be justified. For the extremes, portrait to landscape, you can just rotate the camera. From landscape to super wide landscape you dont really gain a huge amount...

    So, say we reduce it a bit and get a sensor that does 16:9, 3:2, 4:3 and 1:1. The rest you just rotate the camera? Would this be a big hit?


    Because the GH1 did that, but it hasnt proliferated to a lot of cameras. So really, is the demand there?
     
  12. cleary

    cleary Mental in the Face

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Griffith NSW
    Leaving off manufacturing considerations (nokia have done it, it's doable), a circular sensor's surface area is smaller vs equivalent X*Y rectangular (or square) sensor, leaving room for circuitry/battery etc allowing for a smaller body.

    Why consider your orientation at all? If the sensor is circular you don't have to worry about it. It doesn't matter what orientation you shoot, you don't even have to worry about your horizon being straight (it always is).

    Throw a more granular orientation variable in your exif data, add a suggested crop variable too, based on the viewfinder helper. Keep the raws circular, make the jpegs cropped out of camera.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
  13. phreeky82

    phreeky82 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    9,734
    Location:
    Qld
    You can't really leave manufacturing considerations aside though, they're part of life. Furthermore the mirrorless bodies so far (all of them?) have a physical shutter, and I'm not sure a circular one would work out to be more compact.

    Either way once you get too different to existing other bodies your cost will go up. The ability to dive into the parts bin disappears, whether it's the sensor, the shutter, or the processor(s) - they'd all be impacted.

    The round sensor is a good theory, but from a practical standpoint it probably doesn't add up.

    The use of some existing glass would also be effected, as some lenses block light outside of the sensor area (i.e. the opening in the rear of some telephoto lenses).
     
  14. cleary

    cleary Mental in the Face

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Griffith NSW
    asides from the shutter, every issue you've brought up is a legacy issue. The past doesn't *have* to limit the future possibilities. As mentioned above, this is one of the issues I see with camera design today. Canon have completely broken legacy lens compatibility before. They could do it again.

    Realistically, nothing that I've proposed is impossible with today's technology. Costs will be higher, definitely. But with new manufacturing that's always the way. It never stopped apple making that ridiculously high res retina display for their tablets...
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
  15. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    11,971
    Location:
    melbourne
    It's not a circular chip, its like minecraft. it has staircase edges.

    So, you can imagine you could make them in an array and snap them apart into "circles"
     
  16. oculi

    oculi Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    11,795
    I think this idea is pretty dumb, but i'm really not a fan of "mirrorless" cameras at all. i TL;DR the whole article but it seems it doesn't do anything that the current crop of mirrorless things do besides have a canon logo on it.

    I still just want a budget concious true digital rangefinder either FF (or crop to the same equivalent) basic 40-50mm f/1.8 pancake lens.

    I like the idea of a cirular sensor too, with a basic in camera selection for square/verticle/horizontal bright lines and RAW capture of the whole feild, could be useful occasionally.
     
  17. vindicator

    vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    6,458
    Canon doesn't have the social currency to pull off building a fun camera.
     
  18. phreeky82

    phreeky82 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    9,734
    Location:
    Qld
    Translation: Canon does not have a sufficient band-wagon following pack of insecure sheep that would be interested in a camera because it looks retro and makes them feel "cool".

    I'd expect no less from a post from you vindicator.

    And in reply to that, yes the ownership of Canon cameras stretches to all sorts of pathetic people that they'd probably sell tonnes of them, but Canon are too slow to identify such markets and exploit them anyway.
     
  19. vindicator

    vindicator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    6,458
    Get upset.
     
  20. phreeky82

    phreeky82 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    9,734
    Location:
    Qld
    Hardly. I find it quite amusing.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: