Canon Unveils Unprecedented "Analog Concept Camera"

[Andrew O'Neill]

I Google translated this from CNET Japan...

Canon unveils unprecedented "analog concept camera" - waist-level digital camera, commercialization yet to be decided
The exterior design will come in two varieties: a retro design reminiscent of old analog cameras, and a simple box-like design. Various design directions are being considered.

Canon is conducting a survey at the venue regarding the design, price range, etc. This model is merely a reference exhibit, and no decision has been made as to whether it will be commercialized, but the survey asks people what price range they would be willing to purchase it at if it were actually sold, with the lowest price range being "under 30,000 yen" and the highest being "over 100,000 yen."

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Some new digital camera designs would be great but they need to get away from the 2:3 hegemony. We have 60mp sensors now, I see no reason why they should not be square. In fact, in theory all existing 135 lenses should cover a 36x36mm sensor.

 

[4season]

Surprised to see Canon explore "retro", but they do have a recent history with toy/novelty type cameras (which this seems to be) such as Ivy.

 

[polaromar]

Nice to see some creativity in this space. Hasselblad has done well with its retro themed MF cameras so there's definitely interest in this. Looks like it's a fixed lens concept though, if I'm not mistaken?

 

[mshchem]

As Mr. Spock would say. Fascinating.

 

[Dan Fromm]

In fact, in theory all existing 135 lenses should cover a 36x36mm sensor.

Hmm. The diagonal of 24 mm x 36 mm is 43 mm. The diagonal of 36x36 mm is 51mm. Why do you believe that 51 = 36?

 

[spookyphoto]

A Rollie 3003 with a digital back would be perfect

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Flip the articulating screen 90 degrees to the half up position on your existing camera and you have a waist-level digital camera.

 

[Vaughn]

A square sensor is an interesting idea. One could choose landscape or portrait without rotating the camera.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Some new digital camera designs would be great but they need to get away from the 2:3 hegemony. We have 60mp sensors now, I see no reason why they should not be square. In fact, in theory all existing 135 lenses should cover a 36x36mm sensor.

A square sensor is an interesting idea. One could choose landscape or portrait without rotating the camera.

It appears to be a square format. How else would you use the viewfinder if you turned the camera if it had a rectangular sensor to switch between landscape and portrait mode?? There's no revolving back like a Mamiya RB67 or RZ-67.

 

[Dan Fromm]

A square sensor is an interesting idea. One could choose landscape or portrait without rotating the camera.

It is called cropping.

 

[Sharktooth]

More info here https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...-finder-and-manual-focus-is-unveiled-in-japan

It's a digital camera, so there's nothing analogue about it. It would probably be better described as a "retro" appearance camera. Kind of a cross between a Kodak box Brownie, and a Bronica ETR, but in appearance only.

 

[Dali]

Hmm. The diagonal of 24 mm x 36 mm is 43 mm. The diagonal of 36x36 mm is 51mm. Why do you believe that 51 = 36?

Because if a lens covers 36mm in one direction, it also covers 36mm in the perpendicular direction.

 

[xkaes]

There have been some digital cameras in retro designed bodies, such as a Nikon SLR to a Yashica rangefinder, but I don't know if those products actually "panned out" for the makers.

 

[xkaes]

Because if a lens covers 36mm in one direction, it also covers 36mm in the perpendicular direction.

You mean lenses have image circles and not image ovals?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Because if a lens covers 36mm in one direction, it also covers 36mm in the perpendicular direction.

I'm sorry, you don't understand what coverage means.

Coverage is the diameter of the image circle. It is also the diagonal of the largest rectangle that can be inscribed in the image circle. For 35 mm cameras, the rectangle is 24 x 36 mm, diagonal 43 mm. A 36 x 36 mm square's diagonal is 51 mm. It won't fit in a 43 mm circle.

 

[Pieter12]

Hmm. The diagonal of 24 mm x 36 mm is 43 mm. The diagonal of 36x36 mm is 51mm. Why do you believe that 51 = 36?

Because the lens projects a circle. Hence 36mm in diameter would cover 36x36.

 

[Pieter12]

It appears to be a square format. How else would you use the viewfinder if you turned the camera if it had a rectangular sensor to switch between landscape and portrait mode?? There's no revolving back like a Mamiya RB67 or RZ-67.

The Hasselblad 907x.100c (or 50c) Has a horizontal sensor the rear screen does not rotate. Either you rate the whole camera or you choose to crop square.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Because the lens projects a circle. Hence 36mm in diameter would cover 36x36.

How many times do I have to say it? How many ways are there to say it? The diagonal of a 36 mm square is 51 mm. A 36 mm circle will fit inside a 36 mm square but won't cover its corners.

Did you have to learn geometry in high school? In college? Ever?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The Hasselblad 907x.100c (or 50c) Has a horizontal sensor the rear screen does not rotate. Either you rate the whole camera or you choose to crop square.

How do you out of the Hassie's waste level viewfinder?

 

[Pieter12]

How many times do I have to say it? How many ways are there to say it? The diagonal of a 36 mm square is 51 mm. A 36 mm circle will fit inside a 36 mm square but won't cover its corners.

Did you have to learn geometry in high school? In college? Ever?

High School? That's a lifetime ago. I do stand corrected, I failed to visualize the issue.

 

[MattKing]

How do you out of the Hassie's waste level viewfinder?

Instead of an earlier deleted response, I'll just say: "Uhhh????"

 

[djdister]

You mean lenses have image circles and not image ovals?

an Anamorphic lens has an image oval...

 

[Dali]

Dan Fromm, I think you are right and I am wrong.