Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
5 Days Ago   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,451
But why would anyone want to use a Canon OVF? It's not like their DSLRs have an OVF that anyone wants to use.

5 Days Ago - 2 Likes   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,391
QuoteOriginally posted by clickclick Quote
Beyond the aspect of it being an interesting technology, find the author's last comment about non-mirrorless adopters being Luddites pretty myopic, but typical..
Mirror-shaming: a new form of bullying for immature minds in adult bodies, dressed up as “tech-savvy”.

QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
So what Leica did from the mid '30s to the '80s...

Leica M Visoflex System
What I was thinking, except I wasn’t aware that they were still producing the Visoflex in the 1980s.
5 Days Ago   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2016
Location: East Coast
Posts: 1,795
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
Mirror-shaming: a new form of bullying for immature minds in adult bodies, dressed up as “tech-savvy”.


Love my fat DSLR!
5 Days Ago   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pugetopolis, WA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 427
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
So what Leica did
Exactly my thought too, and the old Leica's were starting from an arguably better viewing/focusing system than the current Canon is.

4 Days Ago   #20
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 139
Where did this wizard idea, this solution to all our dreams and hopes (ha ha) spring from? Don't tell me, a straw poll of the most happening, up-to-the-bleeding-edge gear sites on the Interweb, the guys who really know what's what... Sheesh.
4 Days Ago - 1 Like   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,686
A SLR converter for a MILC... there's a patent, the idea is intriguing but... can it actually work?

I find that hard to believe, and the reason is physics; particularly lack of physical space.
The Pentax K-1 - with a register distance of 45.46mm - had to employ a floating mirror structure, otherwise the mirror wouldn't fit. The adapter would be at a disadvantage here, by having to accommodate the MILC's register distance, and fit everything in some 24mm.

IMO they'd either compromise the optical viewfinder (e.g. poor coverage), or use it to adapt medium format lenses (whose?)
3 Days Ago   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 139
Let's be honest here, this isn't going to fly. If someone wants to build an ILC that uses both optical and electronic viewfinders, there are just two likely ways to do it instead of building the Rube Goldberg devices mentioned above. (1) a viewfinder camera like a Leica M-series rangefinder with an additional EVF built in, or (2) a DSLR with an EVF which can be swapped with the pentaprism.

Option (1) already exists, sorta, with Leica's add-on OVF for the M10 variants. Option (2) doesn't, but is at least feasible: an EVF which can be swapped out with an OVF, with the mirror deploying or swinging out of the way as necessary. I imagine there are at least a dozen people fighting to be the first to own such a camera — perhaps some day they'll have their wish.

The likely progression of manufacturers to the mirrorless format is because it makes cameras mechanically simpler, therefore reducing engineering costs - the reverse of option (2). The next step will be when sensors can be read at a single step, rather than scanned. Then the gearheads and fashionistas will be able to boast of moving to a shutterless camera (no doubt at the usual premium), as they make the same images over again!
3 Days Ago   #23
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 13,144
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
A SLR converter for a MILC... there's a patent, the idea is intriguing but... can it actually work?

I find that hard to believe, and the reason is physics; particularly lack of physical space.
The Pentax K-1 - with a register distance of 45.46mm - had to employ a floating mirror structure, otherwise the mirror wouldn't fit. The adapter would be at a disadvantage here, by having to accommodate the MILC's register distance, and fit everything in some 24mm.

IMO they'd either compromise the optical viewfinder (e.g. poor coverage), or use it to adapt medium format lenses (whose?)
Although I hadn't thought it through as much as you, Alex, I had similar concerns. I wonder, though, given that the R-mount is much wider than the old EF mount, would there be room for the mirror mecanism to slide back into the camera's mount opening as it moved up and out of the way? I haven't taken measurements, but it seems to me that might alleviate the limitations of the 24mm adapter depth...

3 Days Ago   #24
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 13,144
QuoteOriginally posted by StiffLegged Quote
Let's be honest here, this isn't going to fly.
Being 100% honest, I think it really can - if the mirror can be accommodated somehow without the limitations @Kunzite refers to above.

QuoteOriginally posted by StiffLegged Quote
If someone wants to build an ILC that uses both optical and electronic viewfinders, there are just two likely ways to do it instead of building the Rube Goldberg devices mentioned above. (1) a viewfinder camera like a Leica M-series rangefinder with an additional EVF built in, or (2) a DSLR with an EVF which can be swapped with the pentaprism.

Option (1) already exists, sorta, with Leica's add-on OVF for the M10 variants. Option (2) doesn't, but is at least feasible: an EVF which can be swapped out with an OVF, with the mirror deploying or swinging out of the way as necessary. I imagine there are at least a dozen people fighting to be the first to own such a camera — perhaps some day they'll have their wish.
We've had long discussions before on these forums regarding a hybrid viewfinder, and how it might practically be implemented. I think something like this is just as likely as the options you mention, and arguably more attractive...

QuoteOriginally posted by StiffLegged Quote
The likely progression of manufacturers to the mirrorless format is because it makes cameras mechanically simpler, therefore reducing engineering costs - the reverse of option (2). The next step will be when sensors can be read at a single step, rather than scanned. Then the gearheads and fashionistas will be able to boast of moving to a shutterless camera (no doubt at the usual premium), as they make the same images over again!
Frankly, with camera sales plummeting, I'm not hugely confident of on-going large scale developments. The cost of such developments will have to be recouped through sales, which means new, innovative gear (as opposed to mild updates of already-developed models) is going to be expensive. Much as I genuinely like Canon's idea, and I do think there's a market for it (me, for instance, if I was a Canon DSLR shooter), I suspect it's going to be an expensive solution, making an already fairly limited market even smaller due to cost...
3 Days Ago   #25
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,299
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Frankly, with camera sales plummeting, I'm not hugely confident of on-going large scale developments.
The market has to level off before companies can even estimate what their return on investment might be. You can't plan for 100,000 units knowing you might only be in a position to sell 70,000 when the market levels off.
3 Days Ago   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,391
The report on which the article was based specifically said that the viewfinder would allow the use of DSLR lenses (presumably Canon’s), and the patent diagram shows no additional optical element in the sensor path, so they obviously think they can confine the converter to the difference between the two mounts’ registration distances.

Given that the new camera is due out in 2021 and that Canon appears to be committed to the body, at least, they must have decided on a sales target by now. Being in the 1-D category, it won’t be cheap and sales won’t be large, so, one way or another, part of the sales price should have an allowance for the market uncertainty. They undoubtedly won’t expect to sell an optical viewfinder with every body, so its price will be accordingly high, with a similar allowance for uncertainty – I can’t see them pricing it as a loss leader, just to pick up some sales to keep DSLR users in the fold.

Last edited by RobA_Oz; 3 Days Ago at 04:50 PM.
3 Days Ago - 1 Like   #27
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,449
QuoteOriginally posted by StiffLegged Quote
Let's be honest here, this isn't going to fly. If someone wants to build an ILC that uses both optical and electronic viewfinders, there are just two likely ways to do it instead of building the Rube Goldberg devices mentioned above. (1) a viewfinder camera like a Leica M-series rangefinder with an additional EVF built in, or (2) a DSLR with an EVF which can be swapped with the pentaprism.

Option (1) already exists, sorta, with Leica's add-on OVF for the M10 variants. Option (2) doesn't, but is at least feasible: an EVF which can be swapped out with an OVF, with the mirror deploying or swinging out of the way as necessary. I imagine there are at least a dozen people fighting to be the first to own such a camera — perhaps some day they'll have their wish.
There are other options -- true hybrid VFs that inject, project, or reflect an electronic image in place of the optical one. Ricoh even has a patent for one such design.

QuoteOriginally posted by StiffLegged Quote
The likely progression of manufacturers to the mirrorless format is because it makes cameras mechanically simpler, therefore reducing engineering costs - the reverse of option (2). The next step will be when sensors can be read at a single step, rather than scanned. Then the gearheads and fashionistas will be able to boast of moving to a shutterless camera (no doubt at the usual premium), as they make the same images over again!
Actually, the engineering costs for MILC are higher because the EVF demands the highest possible frame-rate and lowest possible latency. It makes all the data handling code between the sensor and the display much harder to write and get right. In contrast, the reflex mechanism is well developed and really does not have to change from model to model as long as the sensor format is the same. MILCs also require higher-spec sensors, CPUs, memory buses, graphics hardware, and displays than DSLRs so those per-camera costs are higher.

You can see it in the prices for MILCs which are higher than those of comparable DSLRs.
3 Days Ago   #28
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,071
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
The report on which the article was based specifically said that the viewfinder would allow the use of DSLR lenses (presumably Canon’s), and the patent diagram shows no additional optical element in the sensor path, so they obviously think they can confine the converter to the difference between the two mounts’ registration distances.

Given that the new camera is due out in 2021 and that Canon appears to be committed to the body, at least, they must have decided on a sales target by now. Being in the 1-D category, it won’t be cheap and sales won’t be large, so, one way or another, part of the sales price should have an allowance for the market uncertainty. They undoubtedly won’t expect to sell an optical viewfinder with every body, so its price will be accordingly high, with a similar allowance for uncertainty – I can’t see them pricing it as a loss leader, just to pick up some sales to keep DSLR users in the fold.
We do not know what the purpose of this patent is. Most patents never get to market, and that may not be the purpose of these patents. It could just as well been made by Canon to protect themself from someone else trying to make this type of adapter. Or just to be able to get money from someone else trying...

There is just a lot assumption made by the author of the article from one sentence made by Canon.
"We are also developing a converter that can join a mirrorless camera to an interchangeable lens for a single lens reflex camera."

They already have adapters like this, and this may just be a new version that is intended for professionals. It could FI just be that the new adapter have professional level of weather sealing. But it most likely have nothing to do with the "DSLR adapter" patent.

Last edited by Fogel70; 3 Days Ago at 09:58 PM.
2 Days Ago   #29
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Seaside CA
Posts: 534
They can't call it a visoflex.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adapter, canon, canon mirrorless, eos, flagship, mirrorless, photo industry, photography, technology
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mirrorless sales collapsing worse than -30% in Japan the homecountry of mirrorless beholder3 Photographic Industry and Professionals 21 04-05-2017 04:58 AM
Optical IS (in lens) vs optical SR (body sensor shift) vs DS (pixel tracking) rburgoss Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 10 10-20-2014 07:07 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Q kit with optical viewfinder, m42 adapter, & extras *WORLDWIDE* cheekygeek Sold Items 5 10-14-2012 10:02 AM
spec appeared on viewfinder optical path montreal.eric Pentax K-5 3 07-02-2011 07:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:59 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top