[boriscleto]

But why would anyone want to use a Canon OVF? It's not like their DSLRs have an OVF that anyone wants to use.

[RobA_Oz]

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”.

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.

[clickclick]

Mirror-shaming: a new form of bullying for immature minds in adult bodies, dressed up as “tech-savvy”.

Love my fat DSLR!

[K-Three]

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.

[StiffLegged]

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.

[Kunzite]

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?)

[StiffLegged]

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!

[BigMackCam]

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...

[BigMackCam]

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.

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...

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...

[normhead]

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.

[RobA_Oz]

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.

[photoptimist]

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.

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.

[Fogel70]

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.

[pentaxus]

They can't call it a visoflex.