EOS-1D X Mirrorless - EOS-R Equivlent

[shadowsports]

Just a rumor, but an interesting one for sure.

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-to-announce-eos-1d-x-equivalent-eos-r-system-camera-in-2021/

Make sure it has an articulating screen if/when it comes guys!

[Waddizzle]

---

@shadowsports wrote:

Make sure it has an articulating screen if/when it comes guys!

---

Cameras like the Canon 1Dx II and the Nikon D5 are really designed for the professional sports photographer or wildlife photographer.  I do not see how a fully articulating screen for those shooting scenarios [would be useful.]  

I do some sports and wildlife photography with my 6D2, and I have never needed to use the articulating screen.  For me, the only benefit of a fully articulating screen is that I can fold away the screen for protection and storage.

A fully articulating screen is for s selfie stick, shooting over a crowd, shooting from a low angle, etc.  Those types of shooting scenarios do not occur very often when shooting sports, and even less so when shooting wildlife.  

I think fully articulating screens are great for snapshots.

[RobertTheFat]

A professional-quality mirrorless like the 1D-R might well find a niche in photojournalism, notably for photographing White House events and Congressional hearings. Such occasions are typically characterized by an ear-splitting racket from the cameras used to photograph them. But a mirrorless camera is capable, at least in principle, of absolutely silent operation. There's no mirror flap, and the focal plane shutter is needed only when there's a risk that the sensor may be damaged by inadvertently pointing the camera at the sun. So I can envision a time in the not-too-distant future when today's noisy cameras might be banned altogether from such events.

Incidentally, I don't read the Canon rumor the way the referenced article does. It doesn't sound to me as though Canon plans an adapter to turn a mirrorless camera into a DSLR, but rather that there will be an adapter that will allow all EF and EF-S lenses to be used on their serious mirrorless cameras (which I believe is now already the case).

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

Incidentally, I don't read the Canon rumor the way the referenced article does. It doesn't sound to me as though Canon plans an adapter to turn a mirrorless camera into a DSLR, but rather that there will be an adapter that will allow all EF and EF-S lenses to be used on their serious mirrorless cameras (which I believe is now already the case).

---

I did not see the referenced in the same light as the rumor article, either.  But I did not see it the same way as you described.  Canon has already released EF/EF-S lens adapters prior to the reported date of the patent.  So, I do not think it is a lens adapter.  

I think Canon could be trying come up with a hybrid camera, maybe?  I think Canon is trying a work around the negative effects of a rolling shutter on moving subjects.  But, using a global shutter could mean blanking the viewfinder/sensor to capture the image, which would not be a pleasant experience at high frame rates.

———————————————————————.

One big difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera has to do with how their shutters operate.  A DSLR primarily uses a mechanical shutter, which negates the side effects of a rolling shutter, or reading the sensor line by line.  The shutter opens, the sensor collects light, the shutter closes, and NOW the static image captured by the sensor is read line by line.

If the shutter did not close, then you are sampling a dynamic image.  You introduce a time difference between when you began reading the sensor and when you finished reading the sensor.  This is where the distortion of moving subject originates.   A global shutter reads the entire sensor at once.  It reads a static image, which is effectively what a DSLR does after the shutter closes.

For mirrorless camera to keep its’ EVF active, you must keep the sensor active.  Many mirrorless cameras briefly blank the EVF, so that a static image can be sampled.  If they did not briefly stop the image sensor from sampling, you would introduce the negative effects of a rolling shuttter.  Designers have a choice, briefly stop the image from updating, or briefly delay the image in the EVF, which causes EVF display to lag behind real time.

I think Brand S has solved this problem by double sampling the images, possibly right on the image sensor.  I suspect there are more than one sensing element making up each photosite.  One set of photosites are what get sampled for image capture,   The other set of photosites feed the EVF for an uninterrupted view through the lens.  However they do it, there has to be at leas two image streams, not just one.  I suspect that this is how their flagship cameras takes photos without blanking the EVF.

If this brainstorm reminded you Canon’s Dual Pixel AF sensors, then you are thinking in the same direction I am.  I think the patent is trying to achieve the multiple image streams mechanically, instead of electronically.  

[wq9nsc]

I may be dense but I am still missing what key advantages a mirrorless offers the sports shooter over a DSLR.

At this point, the mirrorless has greater power consumption due to the need for an electric view finder display with continuous sensor operation  and any lag between actual scene and displayed EVF image is a major negative.  I shot a few volleyball games Saturday and realized that I had to up my timing game over shooting football and soccer.  Keeping the sensor powered and sampled continuously increases the potential for high ISO noise from sensor heating and I do a lot of fairly high ISO sports shooting.  With the sensor constantly exposed, it is more subject to damage from laser light and inadvertent sunlight exposure magnified by the lens.

I can see the mirrorless advantage for making a lighter body, at least where long battery life isn't critical and it can provide for a higher frame rate.  It is a simpler setup but the pro series DSLR bodies have been extremely reliable under high duty cycle operation for years.  Wadizzle did a nice job of pointing out some of the technological challenges to avoid additional drawbacks of the mirrorless platform.  At this point, I see it as an alternative approach but one whose benefits don't exceed the drawbacks for many of the current applications of the 1 series bodies.  If I were primarily a studio or landscape photographer, I would look at things differently but for those primary applications I would seriously consider 5 series bodies as the better comparison point against current mirrorless offerings.

Rodger

[ebiggs1]

Rodger,

"I may be dense but I am still missing what key advantages a mirrorless offers the sports shooter over a DSLR."

The main most advantage is you don't need all the mechanical assembly and linkages and very violent action of the shutter.  Less moving parts. Less complicated.  Less manufcturing problems.  The real question is, is mirrorless better than a mechanical shutter with it's associated issues?  In my way of thinking it is not.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Rodger,

"I may be dense but I am still missing what key advantages a mirrorless offers the sports shooter over a DSLR."

The main most advantage is you don't need all the mechanical assembly and linkages and very violent action of the shutter.  Less moving parts. Less complicated.  Less manufcturing problems.  The real question is, is mirrorless better than a mechanical shutter with it's associated issues?  In my way of thinking it is not.

---

I suspect that Canon patent is an attempt to implement an optical viewfinder on a “mirrorless” camera.  An EVF is a power hog.  If you could build a mirrorless camera with an OVF, instead an EVF, then you would have struck gold.

[ebiggs1]

" An EVF is a power hog."

Not to mention they are crappy at best.  

[ebiggs1]

I have not looked at all mirrorless cameras since they don't interest me in the least but, the ones I have looked at still have a shutter.  Its just different than a DSLR's shutter.

[wq9nsc]

At least for the mirrorless techhology with which I am familiar, the shutter is only used during the short time of the actual exposure but the rest of the time the sensor is exposed just like a video camera with the same heightened concern about sensor damage.  Current mirrorless techonolgy seems best suited for the segment of the market where lighter weight and the cost advantage of simpler build take precedence over absolute performance; also those who want a "still" camera more biased towards video capability than the current crop of high end DSLR models will probably also find happiness with mirrorless.

One day it may be the best tool for the job for me but that day hasn't arrived yet.  Really the only change I would really like with my current 1DX and 1DX 2 bodies is even better high ISO performance and it is already extremely good but more always provides for increased versatility in poorly lit venues.  Higher sensor receptor density would allow for even further cropping if it can be provided at the same or greater ISO noise performance.  The current sustained FPS rate is more than enough.  These bodies are still far more capable than most users including me. From the experimental point of view, I would love to see what I could do with a model that has the sensor aspect ratio and receptor density of my old 1D Mark II but using current sensor and AF technology; that could be an absolute killer sports camera for indoor and night field sports but it wouldn't stand a chance in the market because most wouldn't look past its low megapixel count.

Rodger