Before to start to talk about the new minuaturization step taken by Canon and Panasonic we have three GF deals to report:
1) Brown GF3 + 14mm Gold Box deal at Amazon (Click here).
2) White GF3 with 14mm pancake and free soft case for $299 at Adorama (Click here).
3) GF5 with 14-42mm kit lens for $399 at Amazon (via third party reseller).
4) Plenty of deals on all GF + X lens kits on eBay. GX1X (Slidoo eBay), GF3X (Slidoo eBay) and GF5X (Slidoo eBay).
New Canon SL1 vs Panasonic GH3 size comparison via Camerasize.com.
With the new GF camera that will be announced in early April Panasonic will step out from the miniaturization war like they already did with the GH3. But Canon seems to think that the miniaturization is still the way to go and as you see from the size comparison on top the new Canon SL1 APS-C DSLR is smaller than the Panasonic GH3. Yep, the world turned up side down and we have DSLR cameras that are smaller than Mirrorless cameras 🙂
That said I prefer a DSLR or “DSLR styled” like the GH3 to be big enough for ergonomic reasons. For me the SL1 size makes no real sense. It still doens’t fit in a pocket like a GF5 with pancake lens and you miss the usual advantage of a DSLR like having a nice grip and clear and easy to access button layout. That said I want to hold the Sl1 in my hands before to draw any conclusion.
109 Responses
From the front, it’s also about the same size as the E-M5, and I think it is capable of housing a full-frame sensor. Hmmm…
The bottom line for me is image quality; and in that case, I would suspect that the SL1 won’t do noticeably better than the EM5, as an example of what M43 has to offer.
From what I’ve read, the SL1 grip and button layout work fine; but that lens hole is huge compared to M43, and as someone else said, that’s the important discriminator.
I would love to find an excuse to go back to my DSLR if only for reasons of nostalgia, but I’m afraid to say that would be the only reason. The SL1 is a nice try, but it seems futile to me.
By default, the larger the sensor, the nicer DOF and isolation are, as well as IQ. I guess I don’t follow your logic, if as you stated your priority is image quality. Granted, the sensor Canon put in this body is their older generation, which is “only” equal to the E-M5. You ignore the depth of field benefits. When Canon rolls out the next generation APS-C sensor, which will be within a matter of months, the expectation is it will be on par with Nikon. Even the worst of the next-gen Nikons, the D3200, has massively better resolution and low light performance than any m4/3s camera, including the brand new GH3.
That being said, I can understand wanting to stick with mirrorless. But given the IQ on the NEX lineup and especially the new Fuji XF line (wicked nice glass) I just don’t see the point of m4/3s. In short order we’ll be seeing a NEX full frame as well, and then things will get really interesting.
The Canon APS-C sensor is worse than the Olympus m4/3 sensor. Check DxOMark.
E-PL5 overall 72
EOS 650D (same sensor as this new one) overall 62
I don’t see any reason to go with Canon. No inspiration and no advancement. Big, heavy glass.
Youre just saying what you hear around the web huh? So by that logic the em5 has worse noise performance and resolution than the 5d1 or the 40d?
Nobody has a useful brain anymore, they just regurgitate what they read on wikipedia
I’m afraid you are the one recycling Internet garbage: the 5d classic will stomp all over any olympus or other m43. Also, as an ex owner of both GH2 and 40D, for overall picture quality, I will take the Canon any day of the week.
And to the “canon sensors are crap” crowd: seriously guys, are you the same internet trolls who think that Apple’s success is undeserved and call iPhone users sheeple? You need to stop reading Dxomark and go take some photos!
Hahahahahah
To be more clear, im not even gonna bother with the 5d and 40d stupidity, my 5d doesn’t come close to just about any other new camera I have. And the 4 year old 7d sensor was outdated 2 years ago.
And apple stuff are massively overhyped, theyre for the “I have one too” crowd.
GH2 is easily less noisy than 5D
basically you are full of chit
Is noise the only quality metric for you!?!
I bet your photos are indeed full of chit – but remarkably noise free 😀
What a silly comment. The GH3 and E-M5 have better IQ than any of the canon APS-C cameras do, including the 7D. They even have better low light performance than the canons do. Canon sensors suck. Their image quality hasn’t improved for 10 years. I doubt that’s going to change soon. And about NEX and Fuji, the AF is slow, the quality isn’t that much better, and DOF is only 33% more than M43. But the bigger sensor size results in bigger (and much less) lenses. There are a lot of reasons to go for M43. You just don’t see them because of your bias.
I keep hearing and seeing how a shallow DoF is supposed to be a better and a reason to chose larger format cameras. For me, the opposite is true. I am doing landscapes and architecural shots, I don’t need shallow DoF, f5.6 is plenty for my purposes. And being able to use a faster aperture for exposure while not having razor thin DoF is a big advantage for me for night shots. And the quality is there for m4/3 cameras. I have several instances where I printed posters of shots, taken with my E-P1, that came out great and garnered plenty of compliments. The larger fomnrats are more capable, but does that matter when the printed difference can not be seen with a person’s eye?
It’s NOT full frame.
Read it again. He/she didn’t say it was full frame, but that it (body) seemed to be capable of housing a FF sensor.
As with any other crop-sensor DSLR???? “It appears that”????….so what is the point?
Have you tried comparing a DSLR and a mirrorless from above ?? Therein lies a critical difference to me…
http://camerasize.com/compare/#448,167
Oh, and here in Denmark, the Panasonic 14 mm routinely sells for the equivalent of 600 USD. Without a camera body 🙁
Poor danish. I will sell only for you my used 14mm for 400,- $. 🙂
600? ridiculous pricing! But hat 14mm is a fine lens, I do feel sorry for you man…..
Soeren, you’re in the EU. Drive across to Germany and buy the P14 for 240 €!
@Søren, why not buy on e-bay from abother EU country like the UK – there are hundreds of ex-kit 14mms (no box but new), they all go for around £130, many with metal hood included!
You can get way cheaper 14mm on eBay : they results from splitted kits apparently. They can be found for about 170-190$ with free shipping. You may have to pay for the custom and the VAT. I got one for 190$ and it was marked as a gift by the seller, so I got no VAT to pay : given the light weight, there was no problem at the custom.
The lens didn’t come in the original package and I got no warranty .. But there was no problem with the lens itself and I paid 45% of what it would have costed me here (our VAT is way lower).
Well, small DSLRs are nothing new. The EOS 100D has the same size
as the Olympus E420.
The critical difference between DSLRs and Mirrorless Cameras is the thickness, which makes them more bulky. And of course lens size. A E-M5 with 45mm f/1.8 fits into a Jacket pocket, a EOS 100D with 50mm f/1.8… forget it.
I wonder if the EOS SL1 suffers from a tiny viewfinder (I recall hearing 0.87 as a number), similar to the size of the E-420 viewfinder in comparison with the E-1. I found the E-420/E-520 viewfinder too small and dark to use while the rest of the body was fine.
It’s only slightly smaller than the Olympus E-620. We all know that the E-620 is loved, not only by Olympus owners. If only Olympus would make a E-630. They can make it much better than this Canon.
Panasonic needs to have a camera line which is the miniature of GH3 without EVF but still retain the excellent video. In same way as EPL5 is the miniature of EM5. That’s the gap that I can see in the Panasonic line. GH3 imo is too big and too bulky in my opinion.
The GX line sort of fits that bill.
In term of video quality and control, GX series is still far away from GH series. But hopefully, GX2 changes that, although I’m very pessimistic about it.
Most all cameras are a distance in video quality from the GH line, all the Oly’s included.
The GX1 video quality is comparable to the GH line. Same sensor and performance as the GH2. And you can hack the bitrate for a quality bump.
The only think the GX1 lacks is manual video control. Actually, you can sorta get aperture in a special mode or with manual lenses, and you can lock the shutter speed, but you can’t control the ISO.
Otherwise, the video in the GX1 is great. And there’s not limit on clip length in AVCHD mode.
ever hold it in your hands?
fits perfectly, wouldn´t want it smaller – even 5% bigger would still be acceptable.
There´s the DSLR design, and there´s the pocket design… both have their reasons, I don´t see why you would want something in between.
I do have a small hand. It’s quite big because I’m used to OMD. It’s surely smaller than the Nikon D90 and D7000 that I used to handle, but m43 is supposed to be about the size and weight. GH2 was perfect size imo.
There is more to m4/3 then being as small as possible, actually being as small as possible was never part of the idea, offering a good compromise between size and image quality however is.
Also, there is more to size then the camera body, and lenses for a m4/3 camera will be smaller then equivalent lenses for a larger format, even more so if that larger format also must accommodate a mirror.
The problem is that there are not many equivalent lenses made for larger formats as when you give a FF lens the same actual performance { DOF, AOV ,total light} as an mFT lens it doesn’t sound quite so attractive.
12-35 F2.8 would do the “exact ” same as a say Nikon 24-70mm F5.6
35-100 F2.8 would do the “exact ” same as a say Nikon 70-200mm F5.6
25mm F1.4 would do the “exact ” same as a say Nikon 50mm F2.8
A 50mm F1.8g weighs in at 186g and an F2.8 could probably be made weighing nearer 100g assuming there was a market for such a slow piece of glass. It is always funny how so many seem to remember to double the effective AOV while conveniently forgetting to double the effective aperture.Truly “equivalent” lenses would be far smaller than the non-equivalent lenses that ill informed people compare with.They would not be “as small ” but they would be a fraction of the size of the faster lenses .The Nikon 70-200mm F2.8vr weighs 1540g , the 70-200mm F4 850g ,an F5.6 would weigh ?
What matters is the light they gather and the shutter speed youre in. The dof morons are hilarious
A FF sensor would obviously fit, but there’s no way you could keep a FF camera this small without an EVF as the pentaprism is huge, unless Canon is dumb enough to do something like the idiotic Pentax K-01.
If k-01 had properly implemented on-sensor PDAF (absolutely critical for using DSLR lenses not optimized for CDAF), optional EVF (very necessary to have it as an option) and specially made kit zoom protruding inside the throat where mirror used to be instead of outside (necessary for overall size, and still could be used on K-mount DSLRs with special extension tube), it would not be a failure. But omit any critically important part – and the failure is inevitable.
Of course there were the issues of style being way too funky for mass market and initial price being higher than higher-cost Pentax DSLRs (i.e overpriced, just like GH3), which also where mortal sins of k-01, of non-technical kind.
The pentamirror doesn’t have to be huge, if a dimmer viewfinder is acceptable. Just look at the cheap EOS film cameras (EOS 300 is of the same height as SL1).
Indeed the Olympus OM-1 weighed in at 500g with one of the largest best viewfinders ever in a 35mm camera.In fact it is huge in comparison to even the best current VF in full frame cameras. I wonder could the fit the electronics where the film canister went and the sensor and LCD where the back plate went lol sign me up for one
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/624487-a-comparison-of-viewfinder-sizes/
I wouldn’t be surprised if the GFx was only marginally bigger than the GF5. It could be a little higher, have a little bigger grip, but otherwise may be even slimmer!
It is no point to downsize the body if you don’t do the same with lenses. It’s just marketing.
They have a couple of “STM”-labelled lenses which are smaller than normal, but yes, the typical EF-S lenses are rather large.
Even the new 18-55 kit zoom, which is STM, is slightly larger than my Fuji 18-55 f/2.8-4, and that lens is a full stop faster…yet a little smaller. Put it on the thinner body and that’s a tiny package. And, if you want to go straight to super small…my OM-D with 14-42 is MUCH smaller.
The SL1 is only slightly smaller than the old Rebel XT, and there’s the rub. It’s too small to handle really well with the very large SLR lenses, and since the lenses are so big, it makes little point. That’s why I switched to shooting mirrorless only. It’s about the small lenses.
If I want a DSLR that’s as small as possible, I’m going to get a Pentax K5 II with the tiny Limited lenses…not a small Rebel with big honkin’ lenses.
On the contrary, the new 18-55 STM kit lens is even bigger than the previous 18-55 IS.
Hey, Canon, that’s great! Now let’s see them with equivalent lenses on them… oops.
Seriously, though, Canon obviously realizes that this camera was needed to give their salespeople a talking point. If a customer comes in and says, “I want a mirrorless camera because a DSLR is too big,” the salesperson can say, “Wait, look at this…”
But Panasonic and Olympus have two obvious counter-punches: overall system size (set the camera body and two equivalent lenses on the counter and see the difference) and the advantages of an EVF over a DSLR viewfinder: for example, it can brighten the view in dim light, and it can give you a preview of how your exposure settings will look. (I almost never use my E-M 5’s meter; I stay in M mode and go by how the EVF looks.)
DSLRs still have an advantage in focus tracking, but that’s changing as mirrorless makers figure out how to make on-sensor PDAF work (Nikon already has, Canon hasn’t, others TK…)
For sure, the GH3 size increasing was a bad move : now Canon marketing can tout it has a size advantage over MFT cameras which I’d bad news for the whole system because new potential customers unknowing of the other offerings will be more easily turned away.
Thats just not ginna happen, people arent that stupid. The gh3 has a ton more features and buttons than the 100d, and it manages that being a fraction bigger
The size of the GH3 is great. There is finally a micro Four-Thirds body that can use great zoom lenses, instead of pitiful micro Four-Thirds zoom lenses.
Professional users needed a better body, not the same, old, casual user-oriented body and the GH3 is it.
No matter how small the new Canon may be it still has a mirror and an optical finder. Panasonic and Olympus need to emphasize the advantages of mirrorless design and EVF/LCD viewing – it shouldn’t be just about size.
pointless to compare body sizes without taking lenses into account, lets get real,
John, I’m totally with you. So what if the Canon camera is a bit smaller than a GH3. I’m a birder needing long bright lenses. Although m4/3 doesn’t have many good sporting lenses, what they do have, as compared to canon/nikon, are around 1/5 the size/weight and quite a bit less expensive – and, just as good. People don’t seem to be getting the whole system size thing. The whole time since m4/3 came out I could see the incredible advantages for us sports/outdoor photographers. No longer do I have to lug around a shotput or two in the field, as well as take out a second mortgage just to have a descent fast lens. If people would just give the m4/3 a chance in the market place and put their money there, the Olympics and Panasonics will be able to afford to invest more heavily into needed R&D and speed up the development. Besides, the body is only 1/3 of the equation – lenses are where the power of a system is told. It seems like people just are not getting the size/cost advantages of m4/3. It’s so frustrating listening to guys above trying to defend the DSLR. Even the NEX and Fiji arguments, with their FF and APSC talk is so misguided. m4/3 has incredible sensor technology now. And when the fast lenses get built, the overall system’s ability to gather light will be so much more cost effective and so much lighter than a comparable DSLR system. Why are people not getting this? It’s crazy! Somebody needs to present a physics paper on this whole camera design issue and show the incredible advantages of m4/3. This lack of being able to show the advantages is where Panasonic and Olympus has failed, not in their products.
Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself, John. I’m Waiting To Trade In My 7Lb 500Mm Lens As Soon As M43 Has An Equivalent.
To be honest Man, the 500mm F4 does the same job as a 250mm F2 would do on mFT ,or conversely a 250mm F4 FF lens with an 2XTC would do exactly the same as a 250mm F4 lens would on mFT , by exact I do mean same DOF, same AOV and same total light, worst case scenario even if I had to stop down my D4 by 2 stops I would still have the same noise performance. I love my mFT gear but the equivalent lenses mentioned here are nothing of the sort .I am also a keen nature/ wildlife shooter and use a D4.
I imagine a high quality 250mm F2 would be a pricey bit of gear if it was ever to exist.Especially when the longest fast lens in our system is on the 35-100mm where getting 100mm at f2.8 cost me $1500, the fastest FT lens in that kind of range the Olympus 300mm f2.8 costs $7000 .
Where is the invention? I owned a DSLR of that size 5 years ago (it was an E-410): http://camerasize.com/compact/#448,206,ha,t
This was my thought too on seeing this — “look, Canon’s invented the E-410”.
That had a smaller sensor ,and it sucked in every way possible with no doubt the worst ever VF in any digital camera
The real competitor is the G5, which has almost the same dimensions http://camerasize.com/compare/#448,347 . But while Canon cannot be made any smaller, Panasonic has been on purpose made that big and has an articulated LCD. With the lens on, Panasonic always win, so m4/3 is not under threat. It’s Sony, Samsung and Fuji that should fear this Canon the most.
Yes the G5 is a fairer and better comparison with the new SL1 and with less height and smaller lenses is even less bulky. I think this move by Canon to a smaller body size will help people realize just how good the G5 design is and draw more attention to it as comes with many more advanced features ie swivel screen, full HDV with 60P, electronic 1st shutter. Add to that the coming G7 model is predicted to have the new GH3 sensor.
Interesting looking at the pictures the G5 4/3 sensor seems to be about same height of that of the 3/2 SL1 sensor so when shooting and printing at 4/3 ( ie printing 8×10) the resolution of both at 16 MP should be just about the same as the SL1 has to crop off the sides. If printing any smaller size ie 4×6 a higher resolution is not needed as exceeds the ability of most common printers and few people have large format printers.
I think you shouldn’t compare the new Canon with the GH3, which is a top-specced model. Compare the Canon with the G5 or some Oly model.
And yes, like other commentors already mentioned: Important to remember that lenses for mirrorless cameras can be smaller generally regardless of sensor size.
Yeah, the G5 is a better comparison. The thing with Canon though, is most all the primes are made for full frame, so everything is bastardized. It’s either a big 5D to get correct focal lengths or make do with 56 mm for a 35 mm and 38 mm for a 24 mm, 45 mm for a 28 mm. I like having a 28 mm and a 50 mm lens in the 14 and 25. I also like silent shutter mode. Lets see Canon do that with a mirror. I didn’t see a movie button on that SL1. Does it even do movies?
SL1 has a movie button on the rear panel to the right of the viewfinder. And on the top 3-way ON/OFF selector switch. You can see it in the posted camerasize link. Just change the camera orientation by clicking the respective icon in the left options panel.
Well, I am sure there is a market for bigger mirrorless, as big as GH3, although the market is sufficiently reduced by the large size any APS-C DSLR can have and ridiculously high prices for both body and Panasonic f/2.8 zoom. I mean full-frame Nikon 80-200/2.8 can be bought 30% cheaper than Pana 35-100! The system of GH3+12-35+35-100 is more expensive than D7100+Sigma 17-50/2.8+Sigma 50-150 (or even Sigma or Tamron 70-200 or Nikon 80-200), while being not as capable, especially at shooting sports. Lack of the prism and mirror and smaller shorter lenses provide sufficient savings in costs (there are barely 1/5-1/4 of the glass in that 35-100 compared to 70-200 or even 5-150), but Panasonic refuses to pass those cost savings to customers, and as a result customers refuse to buy their products in any significant numbers.
I agree with what most have said above. I do not think that the GH3 is a large camera, in general, but I do think that it is too large for an MFT camera….but, as has been said…with the MFT lenses, the camera is much smaller than the Canon…
Also…take a look at the over head view of these too cameras…with their kit zooms, if you do that you can see how misleading the photo above is….now…put an OMD there (include the grip, without the battery comp., if you like!)…there is no size contest at all with canon..and these are the larger MFT cameras. I would imagine that the Canon is pretty unbalanced with most of Canons lenses.
I wonder, why is the GH3 ‘too large’ for a m4/3 camera?
There are a gazillion smaller m4/3 cameras to pick from, its not like that part of the market isn’t covered. However, what m4/3 did lack so far is a somewhat bigger camera with more room for buttons and dials. Having enough room for those simply means needing a bigger camera body. The GH3 addresses this very well, while still allowing for a relatively compact setup. I totally fail to see how the GH3 is ‘too big’, rather, it looks like a very good size compromise that makes m4/3 a more interesting system for those who need all those buttons and need them to be larger then what for example the E-M5 offers.
Is it too large for my personal use? Yes, but that depends on my requirements, and not on m4/3 as a system.
Because Canon can make a camera just as small as that, but with a larger sensor and PDAF !
And without 1 dial, about 4 buttons less , one mode dial less, half the battery life, no wifi or customization at all.
Just my opinion. Too large for me…I have a full-frame camera kit…MFT is a complement to that for me. I want to leave the big stuff behind (also the big results) and go play and have fun with my MFT kit….so for me the GH3 is not what I came to MFT for….but I know that it may be “right” for others.
Lets compare Apples to Apples – SL1 vs G5 http://camerasize.com/compare/#448,347 Your camparing an entry level Canon against a Pro mirrorless.
and attach a lens http://j.mp/WZLrOp
@ Igor, What’s your point?? A small M4/3 camera, with small m4/3 lrnses, will always be smaller than an APS-C camera with their larger lenses.
All canon have to do is make EF-S 15-45 f/5.6 to match the Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 in size and DOF 😀
Actually, if Canon would want a match for the 12-35 f/2.8, they would have to make a 15-44 f/3.5 (and not 5.6; use the right crop factors…) such a lens would be huge on the SL1 !
And your shutter speeds would be 2/3 of a stop slower
Nikon D3100 owners won’t be as easily impressed by the SL1’s “smallness”: http://camerasize.com/compare/#448,3
I think this is an very interesting comparison,
http://camerasize.com/compact/#448.289,289.336,ha,t
I still think M43 has an advantage size wise!
Stating the obvious.
That comparison is with a lens that gives a 38-112mm focal range when what you actually want to compare with to get the same comparison would be a 15-44mm F3.5 ,which doesn’t exist but I am prepared to bet it would be a fraction the price and size of a FF 24-70mm F2.8
The biggest problem with the SL1 is is the fixed LCD screen. I can’t believe the powers that be at Canon signed off on that. Articulating LCD screens are now a de facto standard on DSLR’s and higher-end mirrorless.
And to not add functional bells and whistles that could actually provide useful like wifi and gps is a huge mistake for a camera like this. This is the second time canon has sh*t the bed by completely dumbing down a camera to try and force it into a corner of the marketplace that doesn’t compete with their established (and arguably outdated) product line. This is a crippled Rebel on a diet. Had they just replaced the current rebel line with this (including 9x X type AF, 5-6fps, articulating screen, etc), included their digic6 and actually built an APS-C sensor to be worth something, I think this could have been a pretty big wave maker. As is, it looks like a smaller and more hindered version of the same exact crappy camera they’ve been pushing out year after year. What, because you’ve made it smaller, that somehow excuses being the same underperforming crap? Canon please.
Congratulations Canon, you reinvented the 6 year old Nikon D40 !
http://camerasize.com/compare/#448,189
Why just compare the bodies? You need to add the lenses and that’s where m4/3 wins hands down. Try the 12-35mm f2.8 Panasonic vs the Canon 24-70 f2.8 and you’ll see and feel the difference.
No as someone mentioned above a mythical 14-44mm F3.5 would do the same on Canon APS as the 12-35 F2.8 does on mFT .Have you guys never heard of equivalence !!!
G5 + 14-42 PZ is still small than 100D without lens…
ANd articulated LCD for g5…
And g5 was released last year.
Too bad the GH3 and the E-M5 has better image quality and smaller lenses, not to mention a flip out screen and loads of other features the SL1 doesn’t have. People don’t want to shove their face into the back of a camera anymore. These mirrorless cameras are fast and allow you to shoot at different angles without using the viewfinder. The SL1 is a horrible camera.
well.. for serious photography there´s no other choice than shoving your face into the back of the camera… I love my GH3, but I really miss the optical viewfinder..
Not true at all. AE and AWB are good enough these days that in most situations you don’t need to manually adjust them. That means the only think you need to worry about is composition. You can do that using the LCD in most situations. I find it funny when people shoot the E-M5 indoors using the EVF when using the LCD would be much easier. Using a viewfinder is associated with being more professional because using an LCD has been the key way of shooting with point and shoots for many years. But that’s different now that we have mirrorless cameras that are better than DSLR’s. Old ways of thinking don’t apply anymore. And an EVF that shows you everything you need to know and can see better than your eye in low light. It’s better than an OVF in almost every way.
“And an EVF that shows you everything you need to know and can see better than your eye in low light.”
Your OMD must have a different EVF than mine coz I can’t see sh!t in low light.
When shooting non static subjects and needing to assess critical focus while doing so, a bright OVF looking through a fast lens, for me, absolutely kills any of the EVF’s or LCD’s with comparable optics that I’ve used, not to mention the potential benefits of PDAF in these situations. In low light, I will agree that exposure simulation electronically is great, but in those situations, CDAF has a higher likelihood of failure as it requires stronger contrast and without contrast where you may need it, can prove to be tricky. Both have their merits, but those merits are entirely situational. I’m glad we have a variety of choices. It pushes every company to advance their systems.
Using the viewfinder means the camera is stabilized at 3 instead of 2 places. A more stable camera means less blur from camera shake. That alone is a good enough reason for often using one. Your rambling has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it.
While Panasonic and Olympus might not be concerned about miniaturization anymore, I’m sure that Nikon and Canon are. If the SLR market is shrinking, the primary factors would be cost and size. And if Nikon and Canon aren’t going to make a new FX mirrorless system, they’re trying to make their cameras smaller and lighter so they don’t lose more of the fold.
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/dancing-with-elephants.html says it for me. Its a great move as Canon can now market (with huge budget) that they can be smaller than mirrorless (vs GF3 an thats all that matters) and offer compact with a bigger sensor. Clearly they have seen mirrorless as a massive threat to future revenues and their response is clear – take part and learn, squeeze its margins (more difficult to charge premium compactness prices when a DSLR is “smaller”), then focus all your attention on Nikon who are the only competetor you are bothered about.
Personally I dont think it will work but it needs m4/3 to take its place in the market and offer a soccer mom product and most critically get it distributed. Pro support is a small part, its all about the masses
When I see a DSLR, mirrored or not, for my purposes in film making- all I see is an awkward path to the rig that will start with a cage around the body.All this talk about relative form-factors is relevant only to casual shooters. By the time a rig is even modestly accoutered, it weights 13LBs or more and looks like a 21st Century Medusa.
Most people that get a DSLR get it for photography, not making videos and short films. If you get a DSLR for filmmaking, don’t worry about the rig. Get a cheap shoulder mount (or make your own), follow focus, glidecam, dolly, etc. And practice your skills and do low budget projects until you have enough money to upgrade to a better camera. I suggest a BMCC. IMO it’s as good as any of the RED cameras.
It’s the hybrid stills/video aspect where m43 (GH3 specifically) currently still has the biggest advantage over all others. Gh3 body size is the same as D5200, but (other than the Nikon’s higher sensitivity & DR) GH3 is still a far better video tool for handheld in most everynway. Same story vs the rest of the current DSLRs and Sony SLTs. Will the next gen NEX compete? We’ll see, but Sony so far likes to keep a wide gulf of image quality btw their pro videocams and other divisions’ products.
If Pana beefs up /fixes things via firmware (focus peaking, for one) the GH3 might retain its crown past the next challengers…
The SL1 will suffer the same fate at Sony’s A3X series. Just not enough interest when there are mirrorless options with shorter flang distances and compact lenses.
I am sure that canon didn’t not make the camera to suit your hands there is a huge Asian market whose hands are generally smaller than our caucasian mits that love DSLRs
I don’t doubt Canon will sell these, so m43 needs to step up improving their inherent advantages in live view, EVF, video, etc. Personally, I don’t see the new tech features as mere gimmicks; they can be extremely useful, genuine advances, but must be refined and improved to fulfill their promise.
-the GH3’s 4x magnified picture in picture is a prime example of a potentially killer feature that needs fixing, otherwise wasted.
One of the review vids with a female “Canon” rep mentioned that Canon developed this camera largely to appeal to the “female market” which I find strange and a bit of a slap to both the ladies, and to the large market segment of non gender, (or non racially) specific shooters looking for top spec’d, hi performance system cams that shed weight to enable size reduction without compromising quality. The Micro four thirds system understands this, the NEX system kinda understands this, the NX and a few others get this, canikon don’t seem to get this.
…The 16Mpix Oly sensor is better in every way than the Canon 18Mpix senor, so who cares. If the only Canon innovation is to shrink the body, I’m sorry for Canon… .
You must be pleased, The latest Sony {not Olympus sensor} narrowly improves on the output of a 4yr old APS sensor which has the poorest APS sensor on the market. Try that with the current best gen of APS, not even Sony made! The Nikon D5200 easily outperforms the E-M5 by some margin.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/850|0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/793|0/%28brand2%29/Olympus/%28appareil3%29/619|0/%28brand3%29/Canon
the SL1 uses the same sensor as EOS M
which was roundly defeated by the Sony
and D5200 is not 4 yrs old
It really is kind of funny, in an SNL kind of way: a bunch of (primarily) guys, bragging that “mine is smaller than yours!”
MEGAFUNNY!
You discuss 10000 Miles abaout everything but not
about a chip-design worth 2013.
This all is 2008..and all in one new hose and next.
And a horrible cruel marketing nonsens that does nothing
FOR THE PICTURE NOTHING FOR FILM.
2014 10 bit 4: 4: 2 global shutter everything else
is like a DAMAGED PRODUCT YOU BUY.
and not 123 MODELS.
one aps-c one big.
so go on and bla bla bla…. is the camera now the sigmund freud?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHih5fsNKwY
They’re missing the point. Small but still have BIG lenses.
BANG! In your face GH3 !!!
Here is a video of the SL1 size
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5KiXA6Qrk
SL1 is just a low end mass market entry camera. The STM lens is actually bigger than the old kit, so thats going to look goofy. The GH3 buyer probably is invested into m4/3 glass and wants a m4/3 body. Both systems can coexist and there was no reason to release this. Canon needs the 70D/7D2.
Got to say I’m loving the e-pm2 with primes as a complement to Canon 6D. I don’t think I will buy another Canon prime ever again.
Yes, the largest m43 camera is slightly larger than smallest Canon DSLR. BFD