Canon Canon Introduces EOS Rebel SL1 - World's Smallest, Lightest APS-C DSLR

Amin

Hall of Famer
Jul 3, 2010
Canon's new Rebel SL1 is close to the size and weight of an Olympus OM-D E-M5 or Panasonic G5 and introduces a new version of Canon's hybrid AF system, covering a greater portion (80%) of the frame.

Should make for a very compact system with Canon's smallest lenses like the 40mm f/2.8 STM.


Left: Rebel SL1, right: Rebel T4i
 

Archiver

Top Veteran
Jul 11, 2010
Melbourne, Australia
Before the Canon G1X was released, a Canon executive stated that they were not considering mirrorless cameras, and were going to further develop small DSLRs. As we know, Canon released the EOS M camera somewhat later. But this new DSLR seems like what he was talking about. I welcome smaller DSLRs, but I'd like to see smaller DSLRs with higher end features. This is clearly aimed at a new entry level point.
 

JJJPhoto

Regular
Jun 12, 2012
I welcome smaller DSLRs, but I'd like to see smaller DSLRs with higher end features. This is clearly aimed at a new entry level point.
I'm really surprised that Canon didn't bump the specs on the T5i and SL1 over the previous generation Rebels. The modification to the on-sensor PDAF layer isn't a major advancement (initial hands-on reports suggest the live view AF is just as slow as the T4i) and other than the new STM kit lens we aren't seeing any real technological advances here.

It seems like the Sony sensor are getting better and better while Canon is basically standing still. I would have been more impressed if Canon added faster burst rates, more AF points and maybe even weather sealing just to make these new Rebels stand out as solid updates with something significantly new to offer.
 

entropic remnants

Hall of Famer
Mar 3, 2013
John Griggs
I'm really surprised that Canon didn't bump the specs on the T5i and SL1 over the previous generation Rebels. The modification to the on-sensor PDAF layer isn't a major advancement (initial hands-on reports suggest the live view AF is just as slow as the T4i) and other than the new STM kit lens we aren't seeing any real technological advances here.

It seems like the Sony sensor are getting better and better while Canon is basically standing still. I would have been more impressed if Canon added faster burst rates, more AF points and maybe even weather sealing just to make these new Rebels stand out as solid updates with something significantly new to offer.
I agree but it could suddenly change.

I'm thinking of Olympus and Panasonic in the micro four thirds world: Olympus bailed on using the Panasonic sensors for the Sony ones and all of a sudden Panasonic made a leap on the 16 mp sensors that are now as good (or nearly as good at the very least) as Sony's.

My guess would be that Canon has something in the works, but it just isn't ready yet.

EDIT: One other point to make is that you can make the body smaller, but there are limits to how much smaller you can make the lenses -- pancakes aside. I don't think they can get down to micro four thirds levels in terms of overall carry size by just reducing the body. A kit of APS-C or full frame lenses is still going to be heavier and larger most likely.

EDIT 2: One other thing: although height and width of the body is equivalent to the E-M5, it's about an inch DEEPER (2.72 vs. 1.69 inches). Add APS-C lenses to that and for most situations it's not what I would call a particularly compact camera.
 

ean10775

All-Pro
Feb 13, 2013
Cleveland, Ohio
Eric
EDIT: One other point to make is that you can make the body smaller, but there are limits to how much smaller you can make the lenses -- pancakes aside. I don't think they can get down to micro four thirds levels in terms of overall carry size by just reducing the body. A kit of APS-C or full frame lenses is still going to be heavier and larger most likely.
Also, I don't see Canon ever making fast (sub f2) EF-S lenses because they'd compete directly with the more existing EF mount offerings for those using APS-C sized sensor cameras (which will still be needed for Canon full frame users). Yes the 40mm f2.8 is small and sharp, but its still f2.8. That's about a stop and a half slower than the Panasonic 20mm f1.7. With the advancements in m43 sensors as of late and the resulting increase in high ISO performance, I'd go the m43 route if size was a concern.
 

Yeats

All-Pro
Jul 31, 2012
New Jersey, USA
Chris
I agree but it could suddenly change.

I'm thinking of Olympus and Panasonic in the micro four thirds world: Olympus bailed on using the Panasonic sensors for the Sony ones and all of a sudden Panasonic made a leap on the 16 mp sensors that are now as good (or nearly as good at the very least) as Sony's.

My guess would be that Canon has something in the works, but it just isn't ready yet.

EDIT: One other point to make is that you can make the body smaller, but there are limits to how much smaller you can make the lenses -- pancakes aside. I don't think they can get down to micro four thirds levels in terms of overall carry size by just reducing the body. A kit of APS-C or full frame lenses is still going to be heavier and larger most likely.

EDIT 2: One other thing: although height and width of the body is equivalent to the E-M5, it's about an inch DEEPER (2.72 vs. 1.69 inches). Add APS-C lenses to that and for most situations it's not what I would call a particularly compact camera.
IMO, the problem with the Panasonic sensors - and this includes the LX7 & FZ200 - is that they don't compare well with the competition in terms of dynamic range and color sensitivity at higher ISO. It's not they are terrible, it's just that Sony sensor combined with the imaging pipelines of Olympus (M43) and Canon (P&S) is better.

Amin has an interesting article here: https://www.photographerslounge.org...-sony-rx100-olympus-e-m5-panasonic-gx1-13379/
 

entropic remnants

Hall of Famer
Mar 3, 2013
John Griggs
IMO, the problem with the Panasonic sensors - and this includes the LX7 & FZ200 - is that they don't compare well with the competition in terms of dynamic range and color sensitivity at higher ISO. It's not they are terrible, it's just that Sony sensor combined with the imaging pipelines of Olympus (M43) and Canon (P&S) is better.

Amin has an interesting article here: https://www.photographerslounge.org...-sony-rx100-olympus-e-m5-panasonic-gx1-13379/
Do agree. The falloff as ISO increases does seem to be a problem. Still, Panasonic has improved them dramatically (not sure that applies to the LX7 but I still like it, lol) and Canon has even more sensor development experience so it's reasonable to assume they can up their game quite a bit.
 

Gary

All-Pro
Aug 19, 2012
Southern California
Gary Ayala
If I hadn't dived into mirrorless ... this would be a very appealing camera to compliment my 1D's and 5D's. Wouldn't make any sense to walk around with a 70-200 2.8 L on the front, but a nice smallish prime, like my Sigma 1.8 20mm would make a nice fashion statement and a great length for street shooting.

Gary

PS- It does seem that Canon has slowed way down in sensor development. When I first entered interchangeable lens digital market, Canon was on top by a lot, tons. Nikon only had CMOS on their flagship camera the rest had CCD which went to hell at higher ISO's. Every year I watch Nikon get better and better by leaps and bounds while Canon was just taking a stroll in the park. Now, the only reason to buy Canon over Nikon is that they're cheaper, and they don't have Ashton Kutcher as a spokesperson.
G
 

entropic remnants

Hall of Famer
Mar 3, 2013
John Griggs
Also, I don't see Canon ever making fast (sub f2) EF-S lenses because they'd compete directly with the more existing EF mount offerings for those using APS-C sized sensor cameras (which will still be needed for Canon full frame users). Yes the 40mm f2.8 is small and sharp, but its still f2.8. That's about a stop and a half slower than the Panasonic 20mm f1.7. With the advancements in m43 sensors as of late and the resulting increase in high ISO performance, I'd go the m43 route if size was a concern.
Thom Hogan talks a lot about that sort of thing and rags Nikon in particular for not serving APS-C shooters better. These big manufacturers seem to feel (as he states it) that to make alternatives to full frame in APS-C would somehow poach sales of full frame lenses or encourage people to stay with APS-C.

He says however that this is foolish and the Apple model should apply: Apple doesn't care if you buy the cheapest iPod to the most expensive iMac, iPad or iPhone. They offer a range of interoperational products and support them all in a way that encourages folks to stay "in the ecosystem" and buy at whatever level they like. A sale of your product is a sale no matter what "business unit" it comes out of.
 

bartjeej

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2010
bart
For me, camera depth is probably the most important metric when size is concerned, because that's what determines whether or not a camera can reasonably fit in a jacket or cargo pocket (height and/or width is usually less of a problem). DSLR's will never be as thin as CSC's simply because, by definition, they have a mirror inbetween the lens and the sensor.

But, if depth isn't important to you and you carry your camera in a camera bag anyway, then I can see this being a nice development - although the lenses will still be larger than CSC lenses.
 

bartjeej

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2010
bart
Totally off-topic, but it just occurred to me that the Pentax K-01 could be built to have a Metabones SpeedBooster-like lens inside of the body (because there's enough room in between the lens and the sensor now that there's no mirror), and that would allow you to have very fast effective lenses, at their FF equivalent field of view and depth of field, and you could use all of those wonderfully small Pentax primes on it. Now THAT would have me interested...
 

serhan

All-Pro
May 7, 2011
NYC
Canon is still using the previous generation chip technology. They talk at FM about it, couple quotes from Dec 2012:

Sony, Panasonic are down to 60nm technology and the APS size are right now at 90nm from this two companies and Canon use 180nm at APS size but often 250nm". Canon is producing small sensors for one line of cameras (S100) with its 180 nm line.

Sony and Nikon full frame sensors, D800, are "still only 180 nm technology" vs all Canon's full-frame DSLRs (since 1Ds CMOS production in 2002) have been made with 500 nm technology.

Canon has today capacity to make small sensors with smaller cells = what they use in the compact cameras but no equipment to do the same with larger sensors surface like APS ,24x36, if they today shall make a larger sensor with high resolution its means stitching together small sensor areas to one bigger and that is expensive and slow process compared to equipment's who can handle and expose a larger sensor area in one exposure and also at the same time go down in smaller cell sizes.

Canon has with other words no equipment with such accuracy that they can produce larger sensors in one piece and with smaller cells= higher resolution with out heavily costs. Thats one of the reason why they have stopped at 20-21 Mp today and 24x36mm sensors.
Sb with more knowledge can chip in, but I guess this might be one of the reasons with slow liveview focus speeds with Canon mirrorless cameras also. We'll see how good the new sensors in these cameras are. Leica/Olympus/Panasonic managed to change their sensor tech and I am sure Canon will be too... Competition is good for us, consumers. More on chip architecture:


http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/25...nsor-philosophy-if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it/

http://www.chipworks.com/blog/techn...ll-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

PS- It does seem that Canon has slowed way down in sensor development. When I first entered interchangeable lens digital market, Canon was on top by a lot, tons. Nikon only had CMOS on their flagship camera the rest had CCD which went to hell at higher ISO's. Every year I watch Nikon get better and better by leaps and bounds while Canon was just taking a stroll in the park. Now, the only reason to buy Canon over Nikon is that they're cheaper, and they don't have Ashton Kutcher as a spokesperson.
G

Canon has even more sensor development experience so it's reasonable to assume they can up their game quite a bit.
Yes, they need more pancakes (or crepes) with the smaller camera:)
 

Fiddler

Veteran
Dec 5, 2010
Edinburgh, Scotland
Colin
It's good in that people have the choice of using a smaller camera, but it's really the same old thing in a smaller can. Canon and Nikon are going so slow that they look like they're going nowhere in comparison to Panasonic, Sony, Olympus and Fuji.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom