Something else….Canon goes APS-C with the new mirrorles system.


As you remember Canon is using a Four Thirds sized(!) sensor on the Canon G1X (here at Amazon) which is a tiny bit larger than our Micro Four Thirds sensor. Consequently there were many rumors supporting the idea that the new mirrorless system from Canon may use that sensor. According to my trusted sources this may not be true. They will almost certainly opt for a classic APS-C sensor. Whether this is good or bad news for us I can’t judge now. Certainly it will be a challenge for Canon (like it is for Sony) to create compact lenses. Here lies the advantage of the m43 system.

  • EASY

    Competition is great!
    I am looking forward for new prices from Olympus and Pana (especially glass.)

  • Farrukh

    At Farnborough air show there were many with HUGE Canon/Nikon lenses. While MFT still needs to catch up and provide good telephoto lenses (the 75mm is a fab addition), when the options are there I simply do not see a future in APS-C… In my opinion of course ;)

  • If Canon goes APS-C, they will find it hard to justify maintaining their APS-C SLR line… will it be entirely replaced? Little by little like Olympus did it?

    • Mr. Reeee

      In a sense, Canon’s mirrorless APS-C camera makes economic sense in that Canon doesn’t need to release yet another lens mount and line of lenses.

    • Esa Tuunanen

      Mirrorless body is cheaper to make because it lacks most of SLR’s mechanical complexity so so with enough advance in EVFs and integrated PDAF I could see both Canon and Nikon replacing most of their DSLRs with mirrorless bodies…
      Of equal ergonomics and not some Powershot S with lens mount in it.

  • Don’t know why, but I feel relieved to learn this. Let Canon and Sony have a good fight about sensors while we indulge ourselves with those fantastic little lenses.

    • There are a couple of things we know for sure:

      (1) Sensors will keep getting better and better, and the larger APC size will slowly lose its advantage for any regular picture taking.

      (2) Canon and Nikon will never support 4/3 or m4/3. Much greater profits can be made if you have a proprietary format and no competitors. Their APC cameras are highly profitable. They aren’t going to do anything to disrupt that, except come out with something just as profitable. Nikon’s mirrorless was designed to not appeal to any of their APC customers. But only to bring in new customers upgrading from P&S.

      The 4/3 format will appeal to second tier companies that don’t have the aura in the pro realm that Nikon and Canon have.

      Now I consider Sony a second tier company. In the distant past Minolta may have been first tier. But that is long gone. Sony should be supporting m4/3. But historically Sony has always gone for proprietary formats. Some they lose, like Betamax.

      • Lindsay

        donwiss: “Sensors will keep getting better and better, and the larger APC size will slowly lose its advantage for any regular picture taking.”

        APS-C will always be ahead of 4/3 by the same margin, just as FF will always be ahead of APS-C by the same margin. All the different sizes of sensor are getting better at the same rate, you know…

        The advantage APS-C holds over 4/3 (and FF holds over APS-C) is aperture, and that advantage is governed by the laws of nature. It will never go away.

        • ronnbot

          Like donwiss said, “Sensors will keep getting better and better” regardless of size/format, and m4/3 (and other similarly sized sensors) will have IQ that was previously only available on larger formats, like APS-C. Even though larger sensors will always have an edge on IQ, shallow DoF and etc., smaller sensors like m4/3 should be good enough for typical use, especially when an ultra thin DoF is not required.

        • JimD

          If you look at the above chart you are forced to see that there is bugger all difference between a Canon APSC and a m43, save that the m43 dos not have wasted out of focus wings down each side and corners.
          Don’t endow a Canon APSC sensor with the attributes of a 135. It is closer to the m43 than the 135.
          Improvements will mean that m43 and APSC will be be able to surpass the quality needed for the vast majority of photographers, (including professionals) so the marginal size difference between m43 and APSC will be an irrelevant photographic factor. But, it will be a cost factor.

  • Well, look at the latest 40mm pancake from Canon. It covers the full frame sensor (with pretty good optical performance) and it is not much bigger than the panny 20mm f/1.7. Yes, the 40mm Canon is f/2.8, but that would be equivalent to f/1.4 on 4/3rds, so it’s even faster.

    The size of lenses not just depend on the sensor size, they also depend on max.aperture (and other variables), so what you gain with a small sensor, you lose it with the need of faster aperture. For example, to compete with the panny 20mm, assuming Canon uses its 1.6 crop sensor, they would need to make a 25mm f/2.1 that covers their APS-C sized sensor. I’m sure they can do that lens a bit smaller than their current 40mm f/2.8 for full frame sensor. So in the end, lens size won’t be an issue, I think.

    • I smell an equivalence discussion coming here… *runs away*

      • E-1

        No, b/c we’ve now learned all not to feed the trolls here.

        • Indeed.

        • Lindsay

          I get the distinct impression that around here “the trolls” are the ones whose arguments are supported by the laws of physics. Is that a fair assessment of the situation?

          • ronnbot

            No, trolls are typically stubborn people with a narrow view of what ‘equivalent’ means. The OP is a perfect example, particularly:
            “the 40mm Canon is f/2.8, but that would be equivalent to f/1.4 on 4/3rds, so it’s even faster”

            So, 40/2.8 is ‘faster’ than 20/1.7?

            • Booe

              40/2.8 on FF has aperture 14.2 mm while 20/1.7 has only 11.7 mm. Same angle of view. Said that, 40/2.8 can obtain same SNR ratio 1.5 times faster…

              • ronnbot

                So, the 40/2.8 can’t use a faster shutter speed than the 20/1.7 w/o raising the ISO to have a properly exposed image. In other words, the 40/2.8 is not ‘faster’ than the 20/1.7 Thanks the for the clarification.

                • Booe

                  ISO is just a silly legacy number from film and does not matter.
                  On FF, 1000 ISO looks *better* than 400 ISO on MFT.

                • bart

                  And a delta 100 looks much better then most other bw iso 100 films.

                  And ISO 200 on a 5dmk3 looks much better then on a classic 5d.

                  ISO values are about response to brightness (light/area) and not about quality, no matter how much the equivalence police dislikes that.

    • david

      It also has the space from the mirror box to work with; on a mount with shorter flange focal distance, the same design wouldn’t be a pancake. I’m not saying that a small design couldn’t be made, just that the 40mm tells you nothing.

      • agreed, same goes for the ‘worlds thinnest’ 40mm pancake from Pentax recently… the K-01 is mirrorless but it fits SLR lenses without an adapter hence the bulky body which is the same size as if it had a mirror box

      • Probably you are right (I really don’t know much about lens design), but in the case of 4/3 and m4/3, lenses got smaller when the flange focal distance got reduced. So in practice it seems that it’s not really an issue.

        • Esa Tuunanen

          Question is about focal lengths close to flange back (sensor to mount) distance allowing smallest lens size inside system because available optical designs have least aberrations to correct and flange back distance acts as part of lens tube.

          Longer focal lengths need longer lens tube so that focal plane of the lens is at same position with film/sensor. (and fast f-ratios force long focal length lenses to have big front elements)

          Focal lengths shorter than flange back distance again need design which moves focal plane of the lens farther from rearmost lens element than focal length. Design which is called as retrofocus or reverse telephoto because it uses negative light spreading front element and positive rear element to direct light back towards focal plane. Downside of it are multiple and severe aberrations which even change with focus distance making increasingly complex optical design necessary to keep them under controls when focal length is decreased.

          This should be mandatory reading in every book about cameras and photography:

          As many m4/3 lenses have focal length reach over ~40mm flange back distance of 4/3 mirror mount it should be obvious that their size decreases weren’t enabled by change of mount to mirrorless but by other changes in design and looser optical standards.
          And that compromising of optical quality includes also shorter focal length lenses benefiting from shorter flange back distance: For example supposedly premium 12mm prime has lower corner to corner sharpness than lot more demanding 12-60mm 4/3 zoom.
          If all APS-C and FF lenses had been made to similar standards as 4/3 lenses many of them would be lot bigger than currently.

      • Gabriel

        Samsung make quite small APC-C body and small yet fast lenses, so if Samsung can, Canon too if they want. The 20-50 zoom is quite small, but with a smaller range.

    • safaridon

      I believe the 20mm lens in real world use is primarily used for scenics and low light interiors where greater depth of focus is beneficial not the other way around as shallow DOF is for portraits etc? Using that rational then the Canon 25mm lens would have to be F1.4 to be “equivalent” to the Pany 20mm F1.7 making it larger!

      • How is that? If you want larger DoF you need to close the aperture, so why would you need f/1.4 on the 25mm for APS sensor to match the f/1.7 on the 20mm 4/3 sensor? I think there’s something wrong in that logic…

    • tom

      A 40mm on APS has equivalent field of view to a 60mm on 24x36mm, or to a 30mm on m43.

      • Yes, but that 40mm pancake is designed for a 35mm sensor (full frame), so in APS terms (Canon APS) it’s 25mm equiv., and 20mm in 4/3.

      • JimD

        That depends on whose APSC you are talking about. That’s why m43 is easy. its a 2 for 1 conversion.

  • Zonkie, f/2.8 is f/2.8 for the lens whatever the sensor you use…

    • Camaman

      There is always one with the urge to educate others…

    • True, and 20mm focal length is 20mm focal length, no matter what sensor you use. And ISO 3200 is ISO 3200, no matter the sensor size either.

      But I’m a person who cares about how pictures look like, not about numbers. And no matter how much I look at pictures taken at the same ISO on cameras of quite different sensor size, they just don’t look the same. And the same happens with focal length. And with lens aperture. They just look different to me.

      But maybe it’s just me…

  • Sunny

    I don´t beleive in a small mirrorless Canon system like Sony NEX, GF or PEN. I think they´ll just integrate an evf in a small DSLR like Sony SLT.

  • Cedric L

    Off topics.
    Gx1 body 395$ amazon today only.

    • Anonymous

      That’s amaz(on)ing! ;)

  • Miroslav

    -good news for m4/3:
    the system will keep its size advantage

    -bad news for m4/3:
    third party lens manufacturers are less likely to make m4/3 specific lenses

    -good news for Canon:
    the owners of existing Canon APS-C lenses will be able to use them at their native focal lengths

    -bad news for Canon:
    the mirrorless lenses won’t be much smaller than DSLR lenses ( see Sony lenses … )

    • Booe

      >-bad news for Canon:
      the mirrorless lenses won’t be much smaller than DSLR lenses ( see Sony lenses … )

      Bullshit. Only thing your “see” proves that Sony isn’t good at designing lenses.

      That’s a bad news for m43’s overall. Only good thing in m43 over NEX of X1 pro is completness, not compactness. Serious photogs and enthusiasts will choose Canon’s mirrorless over small-sensored m43 and incomplete Sony’s.
      For compactness issue, m43 cannot beat RX100.

      • JimD

        OK. Explain the Canon APSC sensor size over m43.

      • FredA

        Yes, completeness is the big m43 advantage. But price of lenses reduces this advantage.
        Price makes it a “replacement system”, more than a “second system” for DSLR users (except those willing to spend 3-4000$ on a second system).
        If Canon manages compatibility right, they have a card to play…

        • Booe

          m43 has size advantage over aps-c dslrs, but not over 1.6 crop mirrorless.

          • FredA

            I tend to agree, in theory, but that remains to be proven (only Samsung tried until now)…

            (btw, was your post a reply to mine ?)

  • E-1

    Good news for m43 as it keeps the best balance of size and IQ (and yes the Canon 40 is nice).

    • Patrick

      the nex system has a tiny flange distance which made the lenses big, having a bigger flange distance also allows lenses to be smaller… the problem is how much…

      • Miroslav

        Not necessarily. NX 18-200mm lens is bigger than NEX 18-200mm lenses:

      • ljmac

        Actually, a shorter backflange theoretically allows smaller lenses as well – look at 4/3rds vs. Micro. However, it makes them harder to design at a good quality level (also look at 43rds vs. Micro). It has made NEX wide angle zooms virtually impossible to design (that’s why there still aren’t any), and even wide angle primes are poor quality (e.g. the 16mm).

        Like everything, it’s all matter of balance. The original 4/3rds arguably went a little too far in going all out for optical quality, at the expense of the lenses being bigger than they could be. Micro is a little harder to get good optical quality out of, but not too hard – it is probably the best balance between ease of optical design and lens size. Any APS-C Micro system will be optically difficult, as the sensor size and ratio does not lend itself to micro

  • Tinta

    Size matters.

    A ran away from chunky DSLRs because of their uncomfortable size for my usage (as a casual, nonprofessional, “just for fun” photographer who doesn’t want to carry >1kg pack for a tiny better picture quality (if at all)).

    So if it’s bigger than the PEN-line, Canon has to push very hard for getting near the m4/3 systems.

    • Martin

      Uncomfortable size was exactly the reason why I run away from m4/3 to Sony’s SLT + RX100 setup. The portability of m4/3 is pure BS – you need a bag for it exactly as you need one for reflex camera while it’s crippled in many ways (controls and AF being most notable).
      Portable is RX100. Ergonomic is A77. M4/3 is very, very poor compromise between these two.

  • Bob B.

    This NOT a camera I would buy. I have a FF Canon. I have MFT. An APS-C mirrorless just doesn’t fit into my groove. I guess there will be a market for it though.
    Running around with a mirrorless camera body, with an adaptor, with one of my big hunkin L lenses just kinda in silly. WTF? Defeats the point of a small, portable, excellent system. Got that now with MFT. Canon…you missed the boat!!!!!! LOL!

    • I agree… probably good news for m43. The size+weight/IQ ratio does it for me, and they won’t best that with an APS-C sensor.

    • Exactly. People mention that by being able to mount EF lenses canon has a great advantage. I’d think that mounting a big fat L fast prime or zoom on a small mirrorless camera defeats the point of the mirrorless camera to begin with. I mean, its *nice to have* but i wouldn’t think that’s THE feature that would define the system as successfull or not. I hope Canon launches the system with a handful of primes and with a nice camera with emphasis on ergonomy and direct access to controls, a la Fuji X-Pro (only better).

      • Diane B

        Right. I’m a long time Canon shooter, from film to the first digitals, FF and APS-C and when I added m4/3 when it first came out with the G1 I tried my EF lenses. I don’t use them just because you can’t change settings but because they are big and heavy. Even my fast smaller primes just seem unwieldy when I can use native m4/3 primes. I can’t see any interest on my part in a Canon mirrorless if they are going the NEX route.

      • Bob B.

        Don’t get me wrong…I love my FF camera (5D MARK III) when I need it or want it ..nothing can substitute…but when I don’t need it …MFT Is the BOMB. I also like that all the equivalent lens ratios are exactly 1/2. It simplifies previsualizing and choosing lenses.
        For once…I don’t car what Canon does now with mirror less. :-)

  • 4543543543

    m43 has absolutely no advantage when size does not matter for you.

    all m43 cameras i like are way to big to put in a pocket… so what?

    i trade some size “advantage” for a bigger sensor all day.

    and tiny cameras are not always an advantage.. they are often s*it to handle.

    give me a professionell FF mirrorless canon!!! :)

    @bob b.

    when will you start using your brain?
    you are 24/7 here brabbling nonsense.

    not all customers out there want a tiny sensor!!
    that´s why NEX sells very well.

    canon missed the boat?
    no… you missed to switch on your brain!!

    • The love you spread around you brings tears to my eyes.

      • Tinta

        I love that gentle sense of humor:)

    • T-L

      Go play to your FF pro-Canon sandbox, trollie. ;)
      I doubt you can snap a good picture at all, with this approach..

    • Just because you can’t place the camera in your jeans pocket doesn’t mean there’s not a size or weight advantage. In fact, I DONT WANT a camera that fits in a jean. I want a camera that strikes the right balance between size, weight and ergonomy. I want a system where I can carry a high end body and possibly a smaller backup one, 3 fast primes, batteries and accessories in a billingham digital hadley bag. Guess what. The only one that meets that criteria is m43 right now.

      • Miroslav


        Jeans pocket is not a place for a camera.

        • bidou

          My ricoh GR1 W fits perfectly in my pocket and is FF. Still waiting for a digital equiv.

    • MikeS

      Lugging around my D800 and fast lenses is a pain (literally) when I’m not doing a location shoot. For street and casual shooting, I can more easily and discreetly carry two m4/3 bodies with fast lenses due to the drastic reduction in weight and size.

      FF snobs are hilariously dumb.

    • Bob B.

      I guess the troll reads my “brabblings” 24/7! HOW COOL!!!!!!! :-)

  • TomTom

    I don’t think the lenses for this system have to be as big as those of the NEX system.
    If they make their body (and flange-distance) a bit larger they could keep the lenses relativily small… and maybe become a real competitor for m43 (and let’s be honest: competition is always a good thing).

  • slave

    i don’t think that it is a challenge to create compact lenses for APS-C sensor, Fuji have proved it.

    • I don’t think Fuji lenses are that small? Apart from the 18mm pancake maybe. The other ones look quite chubby. Have you seen the 60mm macro with hood? Its ridiculous!

      • Brod1er

        Agreed. All systems have one small lens but it is how small you can make the lenses across the range that matters (inc AF, OIS etc). All mft lenses are small and some uniquely small – Panny 14f2.5, Panny 14-42x, Oly 14-150, Panny 12-35f2.8 etc.

      • David

        I really don’t understand this sentiment. The Fuji 35 1.4 is about the same size as the Panaleica 25 1.4, the 60mm is huge with hood, but you don’t need the hood, and the upcoming 18-55 is about the same size as the Pana 12-35mm. I think the body size is also greatly exaggerated. The fuji looks huge, but objectively it’s not much bigger, and for some feels better in the hand.

        I measured out how much bag space I would need for an x-pro, the 18-55, and the 35 1.4, and it is about the same as an e-m5 with 12-35 and 25 1.4

      • slave

        if compare pana-leica 25/1.4 and fuji 35/1.4 you will see that fuji’s lens is even smaller

      • Nico: Wait until you see upcoming the Oly macro, it is as big as the Fuji. Fuji comes with lenshood, but probably Oly will not.
        Actually the Fuji lenses are compact and lightweight. Also Pentax shows it is possible to make compact lenses for APS-C. Just up til now compactness has not been a priority for CaNikon……

    • Miroslav

      No, Fuji body is big, that’s why lenses look small:

    • Riley

      It seems likely that they will depend on the existing lenses of EF and EFS, with the addition of a number of new lenses to properly furnish the system.

  • Have to agree with Bob B, Canon are way behind the market and this camera looks likely to be a poor option given all the mirror less choice now.

    • janjan

      you don´t know a shit about the camera.. only that it´s aps-c.. you are such a clown.

      you have an opinion without any facts.. great.. your made for the internet!!!

  • gummyrabbit

    So Canon will most likely use one of there existing APS-C sensors or at least base the sensor on an existing one. I wonder if they’ll improve the DR this time…

    • I’m a Canon user as well as m43…and my bet is…they won’t. They’ve been behind sony sensors for a while, and i don’t think that’s changing anytime soon.

    • Chez Wimpy

      If they stick with APS-C, you can bet the farm they start with the exact same sensor they plopped into the 650D… their re-hashed 18MP with PDAF on chip. APS-C would mean Canon is banking on “legacy” EF and EF-S lenses to tide the system over until a full range of compact lenses can be made. With PDAF, they have a fully featured camera system “out of the box” regardless of how ridiculous the reality is (a few ounces and mm south of using the 650D in full-time LV mirror-lockup mode). With Sony sensors in m43 and all this great (matching) glass, you would have to live downstream from the kool-aide factory to even consider going with this Frankenstein solution, waiting for Canon to sort their (sensor, lens lineup) shit out.

      • Booe

        It’s good that there will be a serious mirrorless camera, with PDAF on-sensor.
        And of course, Sigma/Samyang/Tamron and all other manufacters will quickly re-release their lenses for new Canon mount (unless Canon wants them not to), so users will have a range of lenses.

      • Esa Tuunanen

        Slapping lens mount into some Powershot S model and then claiming that as new advanced system camera is what would be ridiculous.

        Retaining old SLR lens mount like Pentax K-01 seriously limiting design choises for optics would be also ridiculous especially if they do Pentax strip down of controls.

        But roughly DSLR like design minus bulky mirror box for shorter flange back distance (or maybe Canon Pro1 like) would be product for well defined market segment missed by m4/3: Fully digital age camera with good ergonomics instead of fashion hype.

  • Anonymous

    The majority of camera buyers does not want compact. They want big. Big is good. If that wasn’t the case, all people would be driving Mercedes Smart cars.

    • Brod1er

      ….except a car carries you around, you have to carry a camera! There are plenty of examples of where miniaturisation has been popular, so I am not sure your analogy works. Portability and lightweight gets your camera out there ready to take pictures. Big has its uses – super low light, fast AF, shallow DoF- but mft has eroded many if these advantages with fast lenses that are sharp wide open and the new OMD sensor. Fast AF tracking remains the final challenge for mft in my opinion.

    • Tinta

      Trends are going back and forth: in the beginning everyone wanted tiny little mobile phone. Now watch out what they are using as phones: pingpong tables.

      • Esa Tuunanen

        Yep, this induced epidemy called as fashion now demands every camera to be unergonomically small and have oversized touchscreen for playing on screen menu games.

  • Yun

    Whatever it is , Canon is too late for this .
    I don’t believe Canon will put it’s best on it’s mirrorless line like what Sony , Pana & Oly did .
    Let it come & feel the pressure from the pioneers .

    • janjan

      if that´s the best.. good night!

  • will

    ..too late, much too late: after behaving like a dinosaur, Canon now falls back behind all positive aspects of the mirrorless concepts.

    after comparing even the LEICA M9 (8), the nex 5 and 5 n as well as the Pana G3 i would claim, that the Oly E-M5 is the BEST COMPROMISE between IQ (sensor), performance (body and also lenses, (where i prefer Pana Zooms because of the sturdier built quality), speed and size.

    pls look at the different tests – the differences compered to APS-C are marginal, if even visible, so the actual 4/3-Oly approach, endorsed by the power of Panas engagement for the mFT application, now after years seems to be the OPTIMUM considering the 3 most important aspects: IQ, performance/speed and size.

    a really great performance of that small and independent camera firm!

  • Michael

    Off topic:
    A great deal for GX1 in today’s US Amazon Gold Box: Panasonic GX1 (Body Only) is $395.00.

    • Riley

      that is a good deal

  • rune

    So goodbye again edge sharpness, for a short time I really thought Canon would bring a new reworked system that could/would be the future, but they like to stay in the past..

  • Should this be true, thank you very much, Canon. You present µFT the market lead on a silver plate – as we say in Germany. But I still can’t believe it. They can’t be that stupid.

    • Brod1er

      APSC is not stupid, it just has different compromises. Nikon’s 1″ sensors are more stupid especially since Sony now offers 1″ in a compact. As many have pointed out, owning a FF and a MFT covers the bases well. The problem with APSC is that it is a half way house. There is not large enough a size/quality gap to make it worth investing in as a second system. APSC performance is not that different from MFT, but you can’t use the small lenses offers by MFT.

      • Booe

        >APSC performance is not that different from MFT, but you can’t use the small lenses offers by MFT.
        Bullshit. You can mount MFT lens on NEX. There are no electronic coupled adaptors (only mechanical ones), but that is not a technical problem.

        • JimD

          You are partly right, but mostly wrong.
          m43 lenses could fit a NEX with an adapter. Fine. But only the manual ones will be usable. The native m43 lenses are mostly automatic/body controlled and will not work at all in manual mode, no function without electrical connection. Only the lenses made for a pure type manual use will work, and that’s not a large %.
          That really is a technical problem. Is it not?

          • Booe

            The problem is, m43 is closed, proprietary standard, as is E-mount.
            Both are political decision, not a technical feature.

            • JimD

              Actually m43 is a standard that anyone can join. Having been established by several manufacturers it is not really proprietary and is open to all who accept the standard. To all intents and purposes it is open.

    • janjan

      the only stupid here is you… you small sensor dick. :)

      mirrorless is more then size.
      but you guys here are just the typical m43 crowd…. to dumb to notice the world around you.

      i have not bought a m43 because i don´t like small sensors. no good DOF….

      i want a FF mirrorless… for half the leica price.

      • Chez Wimpy

        >but you guys here are just the typical m43 crowd…. to dumb to notice the world around you.

        As one of the crowd that spends free time hanging on to a “dumb m43 crowd” rumors page, your own worldview might be ever-so-slightly myopically tainted. Just a hunch.

  • m4/3 has too many advantage: small lenses, IBIS, dustbuster, lens choice, and now no handicap in DR and low light.

    The only area where Canon could be dangerous is if it did price dumping. However even Nikon wasn’t successful. Fuji was stuck wt big lenses and slow AF.

    Please rember that mirrorless was not made in one day: solutions had to be tested, ergonomics improved.

    OTH if Canon helps bringing prices down, it’s all welcome.

    • Booe

      Canon has on-sensor PDAF, that is much more valuable that anything you listed. Has more than a possibility to ruin m43 market, as it did with 43 SLRs.

  • David

    Sorry to rain on everyone’s “m4/3 has the market in small lenses and it is impossible with APS-C ” parade but:

    Panaleica 25mm 63×54.5mm 7.05oz
    Fujifilm 35mm 65×54.9mm 6.6oz
    No appreciable difference

    Panaleica 45mm 63×62.5mm 7.94oz
    Fujifilm 60mm 64.1×7.09mm 7.58oz
    Fuji is a little longer, but not much. And it’s exceedingly sharp. No OIS, but then again, I’ve never needed it, and shooting macro you use a tripod right?

    Pana 12-35mm 67.6×73.8mm 10.76oz
    Fuji 18-55mm 65×70.4mm 10.6oz
    Granted, 24mm vs 28mm is a little wider, but not much, just as 82 is a little longer than 70, but not much. We don’t know how this lens will perform yet, but I can’t see Fuji putting out a crappy lens. The Pana is 2.8 constant, but seriously, 1 stop isn’t a big difference given that i can shoot my X-Pro happily up to 3200 without any noise.

    I’m not denigrating m4/3. I love its lens selection, and the E-M5 is fantastic. But the comments about Fuji’s size are always hyperbolic here.

    • pelex


    • Brod1er

      Lack of OIS and a stop of light gathering is quite a big difference. Agree the 35mm Fuji is nicely compact, but we will have to wait to see whether they can match the other MFT lenses for size – I doubt there will be a 50g 19mm pancake for example.

    • bidou

      So true. I personnaly think the big fail of m43 is body&lens size against its APS-c competitors (mostly “subtle”).

      And what anger me the most is when i look at the so small size of body&lens from old pentax auto 110 system, that share the same “sensor” size with m43.

    • avds

      Do you realize your comparison is based on just 3 lenses out of almost 30 native autofocus m43 lenses including 3 pancake primes, the tiny 9-18 zoom, and of course all tele lenses that simply can’t be matched by larger formats due to obvious physical constraints?

      • David

        We only have the specs for 4 Fuji lenses. I didn’t include the 18mm cause it is pretty small. You are right that 4/3 and m4/3 makes many excellent small lenses, including many small telephotos with small apertures (and some BIG telephotos with bright apertures). But it doesn’t follow that lenses Fuji has yet to built will not also be small when up to this point their lenses have been of comparable size. I am not saying the WILL be small, just that you can’t know yet that they won’t.

        • avds

          We can always be absolutely sure that equivalent telephoto lenses will be much smaller and lighter with smaller sensors most of the time. Any telephoto lenses for m43 or 43 that you refer to as “BIG” will still be smaller than equivalent lenses for larger formats.

          • David

            I suppose you are right, kinda sorta. I mean, look at the Pentax 60-250mm. It is thinner than the 50-200mm, and only 1cm longer. 1 cm. Yes of course you will say that it is an f/4 and the 50-200mm is a 2.8-3.5. So they are not equivalent.

            The same argument is made for the 70-200mm vs 35-100mm. The Olympus is bigger, but 1 stop faster.

            Now, I hate equivalency arguments as much as the next guy, mostly because they don’t compare apples to apples. But, the underlying points remain valid. If the strength of the Olympus lenses is that for the same size, roughly, they are giving you one extra stop, then you cannot ignore that the benefits of that extrastop are in some ways obviated by the sensor size. 1 stop DOF is lost to APSC, and in the case of FF, there is still a stop disadvantage. In terms of light, f/2 is f/2, but larger sensors tend to perform better at higher ISOs, usually more than 1 stop. This is why the equivalence argument keeps coming up. Because it is real. An f/2 35-100 isn’t strictly equivalent to a f/4 70-200 FF. BUT, if you are talking about light gathering and DOF, which is what people are usually talking about, then when taken in consideration with the abilities of the sensors, then yeah, they kinda are.

            • JimD

              Can you look at the chart above and really say that the Canon APSC sensor is so much bigger than the m43 it can be attributed with the benefits of a 135 sensor. Don’t forget that the sides of the 3.2 format are a big handicap not seen on m43.

            • avds

              The inherent size advantage of smaller systems comes at a cost indeed, including less background blurring power and lower diffraction limit. In practice this may be irrelevant in some cases and compensated for in some others, but these costs are very real of course. Similarly, systems with larger lenses will have to overcome some issues with larger lenses beyond increased carry weight, such as increased glass costs and power consumption required to autofocus heavier glass.

  • Fabi

    I’ve a question: How thick has a Canon mirror-less body has to be to fit the EF lenses without adapter? and how thick would an adapter be if the mirror-less system gets new lenses? 1cm?

    • SZRimaging

      If it’s going to use EF lenses without an adapter, the mount to sensor distance would have to be the same, so you wouldn’t get an advantage. To do it right, they would need a “new” mount. It could be based off their current mount, it would just have a shorter distance from mount to sensor since you don’t need a mirror. That is where the size (and to some amount IQ) difference comes in. Lenses would have to be re-engineered to accommodate this shorter distance.

      • Booe

        >Lenses would have to be re-engineered to accommodate this shorter distance.
        Unless for telezooms, this means designing completely new lenses than re-engineering old designs.

    • Riley

      The EF / EFS register is 44mm

  • tmrgrs

    I don’t believe this rumor and admin, why no rumors classification this time? is a fairly reliable source for Canon news and they’ve not said anything about Canon using an APS sensor in their new mirrorless camera which is being rumored to be finally announced in 11 days on July 23rd. In fact, they’ve repeatedly said that it was very probably going to be the same sensor as in the G1X.

  • Every APS-C mirrorless camera is a competitor to m43: The NEX-7 is smaller and lighter than EM-5. X Pro1 is bigger, but weighs only 50g more than EM-5. Add the landscape grip to an Oly and size is same as X Pro1.
    I share the view from some above that APS-C DSLR segment will be eaten from both above (cheap FF sensors) and from below (compact versatile mirrorless).
    Within m43 it will be interesting to see wether Pana has an answer to Oly Sony sensor equiped cameras. Imagine Oly replacing E-Px series with Sony sensors and introduce a high end “Pen-style” camera with built-in EVF….. And Pana presents a G3 with own sensor and other updates……
    BTW: Quality EVF are still rare. I do not think any of the is really great. The Epson EVF used by Oly and Leica X2 is quite old. The Sony has higher resolution, but is far too contrasty. Pana and Fuji? They exist – the best you can say about them. A real top class EVF would be nice to see!

  • st3v4nt

    All that fuss for rumors about the possibility of Canon APS-C mirrorless? Why we have to feel being threatened by Canon mirrorless? If Canon will be releasing mirrorless interchangeable lens then we as 4/3 user should be happy it will make m4/3 producer listening us more and hopefully will put feature that we want to future m4/3 camera. The more the merrier.

    • Bob B.

      The Canon offering makes me soooooo happy that I invested so heavily in MFT cameras and lenses. The system is the Micro Bombshell….! small, more lens choices than I can count at this point,fun and great Image quality. No other mirror less comes close!

  • janjan

    m43 is a system for id*ots…. who buys into a system that has such a small sensor?

    i don´t spend my money on m43 lenses when it´s crystal clear that the sensor is a dead end in 3 years.

    • Who buys into a system like that? Uh….Canon (grin)

    • flash


      The smaller sensors are the future. It has always been so in photography. Look at how plates then film evolved. The sensors just keep on getting better and better, with more resolution per inch and more dynamic range. APC sensors in the more important vertical are not much larger, and using a square format gives much more consist edge to edge sharpness for square and 43 sensors.

      There will be some breakthroughs in the next year or two that will come to market and it will make the sensors better by a magnitude in resolution and dynamic range.

      The question in the future is not 43 is big enough its whether it is to big.

      Before you mention the DOF argument for sensor size, the trend to take thin DOF is mostly a style to show of ones camera ability. I personally like thin DOF a lot, but see it done poorly way to often. This popularity of this style is only since the digital age.

      I see where using longer focal lengths in taking portraits and other shoots seems to becoming in vogue in the next decade, an area were a smaller size sensor has the advantage.

  • Boooo!

    Every camera in the near future will be mirrorless. Every single one.

    If you think Canikon will suddenly deprecate their entire lens lineup, create brand new lenses for bodies with a small flange distance and expect people to buy everything they already have for a different lens mount *just* so they have a smaller camera (which not everyone wants, since small size is all about compromises), you’re being silly.

    • Booe

      Canon DID deprecate its FD line.
      Note that with on-sensor PDAF, EF lenses would AF on mirrorless bodies so there’s no need to deprecate them.

  • navi

    Does anybody think that Canon may be replacing its entry level DSLR lineup (ie. 1000D, 1100D) with mirrorless?

    • JimD

      Yes. Only 135 will retain mirrors.

  • Fenton

    My wife travels everywhere with her 7D and two lenses (15-85, 70-300L) she will ultimately have the 8-15 L too. I might just pick up the new mirrorless body, with an adapter and whatever kit zoom it is launched with. That will give me something to play with while she composes her more “serious” shots..
    Seriously, as long as the L lenses will work with the adaptor, the mirrorless body will be a fantastic back-up for the 7D.

    • Riley

      except 7D is bigger than 5D
      that would bother me a little

      • fenton

        A mirrorless APSC body would still be a great back-up in the bag of a Canon FF photographer.. In fact, buying one doesn’t get in the way of Canon’s strategy for 7D users to migrate to FF..

  • Tim

    It would be possible to design new mirroless lenses with the normal Canon mount, but reaching inside the body-like some legacy ragefinderlenses- so the overall camera size stays small.

    Still, i dont care-i m happy with the concept of MFT ;-)

    • Riley

      yes it would
      trouble is people might try fit them to an SLR and break something
      they have to go the same way as everyone else
      make new lenses, adapt older lenses

  • I find it find it funny how consumerist lemmings get all nervous at any new model being introduced.

    Let’s stoke the fire for them, so that they blow their minds once and for all :)

  • For making small APS-C lenses, Canon has one huge advantage over Sony.


    Canon already has a number of these “DO” lenses (with the green stripe) and they could use this same technology to create a number of super small lenses for their new mirrorless APS-C camera as well.

    • Esa Tuunanen

      Canon doesn’t have any miracle tech but lots of marketing hype… and sheeples like you.

      Diffractive Optics is PR BS term for Fresnel lens with its own problems in avoiding image quality degradation which has kept its use in image forming/projecting optics low.

      And while Fresnel element might use less material compared to traditional element that doesn’t translate to cheaper price because manufacturing good quality Fresnel lens is surely heck lot more expensive.

      So it’s no wonder that Canon hasn’t released more DO lenses since initial lenses.

    • T-L

      Yeah, but DO lenses are not anything special in terms of IQ (got some serious contrast and sharpness problems) and are VERY expensive. Not really a way for successful CSC..

      By the way, how many DO lenses Canon produces? I can see two..

  • JimD

    Now, just look at the sensor size chart. With the 135 not being shown it makes the BIG APSC sensor boys argument look bloody stupid, especially for Canon APSC when the sides of the image are mostly blurred anyway, the sensors are very similar in size and therefore natural attributes are almost the same.
    Looking at that, the advantage has to be with M43. All designed from the ground up as digital and a larger range of native lenses than a Canon APSC mirrorless will have. Unless they keep the large body and just remove the mirror and prism to make manufacturing cheaper, but still somehow manage to charge more for it.
    10 years time 135 and m43 will be the two main systems.

  • Matt

    It makes perfect sense.

    As the last entering into a crowded marked, in order not to make a “splash” a-la- Nikon, having the camera which could use an existing lineup of lenses would enable canon to kill the biggest advantage m4/3 has on the rest of manufacturers.

    And sooner or later the mirror will go…so having mirrorless aps-c and mirror FF could make sense…

    On the other end, why I should wait (if canon goes smaller than aps-c), years before a new lens system lineup is out?

  • Interesting discussion. You people forget however that Pentax has already introduced a mirrorless system that can take previous lenses seamlessly…and has gone nowhere.

    I remember TOP saying that m4/3 was the Big Kahuna of mirrorless, meaning that it was exactly the rights size, or better the best compromise between size and performance.

    Nowadays, many blogs have at least a m4/3 camera to test the coming stuff. If you want to have a peep at Canon’s future, check NEX or Fuji. They are not quite there, not as cameras, but as a system.

    You have to check the sales in Asia to understand why m4/3 success is quite solid. Cameras and lenses are not as small as an iPhone or a Nikon V, but people and especially women prefer it. APS might linger for a while, but it is already receding into the past.

    It might well be that at the end of the decade we’ll be left with m4/3 and some smaller systems, and smaller FF cameras. Cameras like the E-PM1 show that m4/3 can shrink easily.

    It’s all about the lenses’ size but there is enough flexibility in m4/3 to go from the very small to the very good, *depending on the size you tolerate*.
    That’s the beauty of it, which dSLR centric people still not quite understand.

    • Booe

      m43 bodies with fake pentaprisms are ugly.

    • Esa Tuunanen

      > You have to check the sales in Asia to understand why m4/3 success is quite solid.
      While at the same time Canon/Nikon DSLRs have equally solid sales in Europe and North America.
      Question about APS-C sensor’s future in long term is sure open with mainly only horizontally smaller 4:3 aspect ratio sensors giving very similar performance while allowing smaller optics but there’s no question about need of ergonomical cameras also in future.
      And that’s where m4/3’s concentration of only small has left door fully open for Canon and Nikon.

      So it’s up to is Canon going to utilize that or is their mirrorless body just copy of that Pentax fashion screw up with full DSLR mirror box size but very little of its ergonomics.

  • mocha

    pls, makes it compatible with Leica M lens is good enough. I love NEX-5N but can’t stand the JPEG and need to process in RAW…

  • Leica or leica-like M39 lenses are another problem area for APS mirrorless. They have colour shifts and resolution drops at the edges.

    That is why m4/3 is a winning format. You have small lenses but optimum resolution across the whole image.

    One could have doubts that sensor monopoly by Panny didn’t allow the best performance, but now that you have a choice with Sony it is a system that it is difficult to catch uo with.

  • DUMMIES!! Now that I have your attention. Let me tell you why I wrote that.
    In researching my first, larger that 1-2/3 sensor camera, I came to the conclusion that the SILVER BULLET, the SWEET SPOT for hybrid still/video mirrorless cameras is….. Super 35 AKA ‘S35’.
    At the very least a DX 1.52 crop factor would also be a viable split.
    Why the gamut of manufacturers haven’t jumped on this for professional level development is beyond me. Obviously, Sony with the FS100/FS700, Canon with the C300 have captured a $10,000+ level market but where are the DSLR sized S35 cameras? NOWHERE TO BE SEEN. APS-C is STILL hovering in the amateur domain!
    S35 is the magic sensor size because at 1.39 crop of Full frame is combines some compactness of form-factor with way better than M43 delivery of ‘Bokeh’
    I’m sad to say that the high cost of fast lenses in M43 that STILL can’t deliver acceptably high bokeh; will mean the continuation of M43 as a less than ‘filmic’ format.
    DX or S35 are the MAGIC BULLETS for hybrid shooters

    • JimD

      Bokeh is neither high nor low. It is unmeasurable, in terms of being an individual subjective preference. True some can be irritating to the eye, some very easy on the eye. Then again there are many who do not see bokeh as an essential in a photograph and some who claim it is not a photo without some.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website,, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.