Is Micro FourThirds Raining on Canon's Parade?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by yakim_peled|1, Feb 23, 2010.

  1. In the last 2 months Nikon execs have publically talked about a "surprise" coming later this year. Almost everyone thinks it willl be a compact mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. Sony is showing a mockup of theirs at PMA right now. Sigma execs also talked about doing the same. Ricoh has their sliding lens/sensor combo system. Samsung just released their NX system. There are rumors of Fuji releasing a Micro 4/3 camera. I haven't read anything about Canon getting into this market but basically by the end of the year virtually every camera company will be there. Olympus and Panasonic deserve credit for pioneering the market but we'll see if they can maintain it.
    As for mirrors and shutters I think they will disappear even quicker at the low end. Maybe they'll be gone in 5 years. Contrast AF is still much slower than phase detect AF and phase detect isn't standing still. You also have the slow EVF refresh times but I think in 15 years both of those will be solved.
     
  2. I haven't read anything about Canon getting into this market​
    Look at my last post in this thread.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  3. To me, nothing compares to looking through the optical finder of an SLR. I had a G1 and I'm seriously considering an E-PL1. I'd like something smaller to carry around, with good IQ. But I'm not replacing my Canon 5d. There seem to be enough people out there that will continue to buy the higher end, larger SLR cameras.
    Micro 4/3 is cutting into the lower end SLR sales, but Canon keeps dropping their prices on the Rebels. So that's where the bargains are.
     
  4. My personal guess is that within 10-15 years there will be no cameras with mirrors and shutters.​
    It's very optimistic, Yakim.
    While I do agree that sensors will get bigger in compact cameras, I reckon there is still a good room for mirror and shutter by the next 10 years or so. People love thin DOF from big aperture holes, which means lenses (and camera) will be still bulky.
    It's a 100-years-old technology and I don't see it's completely gone in the near future. Some things don't seem to change. Footballers still expect rain and mud on the pitch for many years to come, as well as photographers will have mirrors in their camera.
    My random thought.
     
  5. I fail to see the relevance between this...
    While I do agree that sensors will get bigger in compact cameras, I reckon there is still a good room for mirror and shutter by the next 10 years or so.​
    ...and this.
    People love thin DOF from big aperture holes, which means lenses (and camera) will be still bulky.​
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  6. Canon can just create a new mirrorless camera based on APS-C sensor and EF-S mount. It won't be as small as the 4/3 format but has bigger sensor. In the meantime if they can just make the Rebel as small as the Olympus 450/430, meaning SLR without that giant grip. I'd jump on it now and ditch the G10.
     
  7. Momma, don't take my SLR away.
    I guess I could get on the boat if someone (not Leica...too expensive) were to introduce a digital rangefinder system. Auto-focus: sometimes convenient. Live View: kind of a cool gimmick. Digital sensor: I'm getting used to it. TTL Composition: preferred. Optical viewfinder: absolutely essential.
     
  8. I think 4/3 is just another avenue to take in photography. I don't believe it's the 2nd coming though. Will we see more of a foothold? Sure. And will all the big players eventually be in this arena? Probably true also. But the idea of 4/3 taking the world by storm and eliminating all players in a few short years or ever I seriously doubt it. It will find it's niche and go from there and the size of that niche may grow or shrink depending on the whim of markets but it will not be the only player.
     
  9. Michael Reichmann has just posted an interesting evaluation of the E-P2 on Luminous Landscape. There's evidently potential in this sort of design, but no-one seems to have put all the bits together properly as yet, whether Olympus or Panasonic. Having an EVF that blocks up the accessory shoe and may not stay too firmly in place is clearly not a clever piece of design.
    I can't say I found the article linked to by Yakim particularly impressive, although I was glad to be pointed towards it (thanks, Yakim). It used an awful lot of words to say not all that much. My own view is that EVF will have a big impact in the quite near future, although there is still a lot of development work to happen to it, and also to contrast-detect AF, for it to become a complete replacement for a reflex system. There may well be some applications for which a reflex system will continue to be advantageous for a very long time. I am sure we shall very soon see DSLRs with an output to drive an accessory EVF (we are almost at that point already, except that the "EVF" has to be a PC running EOS Utility), and bodies with a built-in EVF and no reflex system, but there's no logical connection between those developments and using the 4/3 sensor size. Although image quality continues to improve at each sensor size, it may well be that the Law of Diminishig Returns is setting in with regard to pixel count, and the relative advantage of the larger sensors has certainly been maintained at higher ISO settings up to now. My best guess is that we shall see an APS-C EVF body from Canon, with EF-S and EF lenses usable with an adapter, within twelve months.
     
  10. Who is the target market?
    For the overwhelming majority of camera owners, shutterless, mirrorless cameras are the standard. Sure, there’s a lot of room for quality improvement…but they’re already plenty “good enough”
    For us gearheads? Well, there’s a continuum to be considered. For many, small and pocketable is still a very desirable thing. But those who haul around half their own weight in gear aren’t going to care very much about something with a sensor the size of a fingernail.
    I’m personally looking forward not to a future of microscopic shutterless cameras, but one of affordable large format systems. In less than 10-15 years, medium format digital should be in the price range of today’s 135 digital and large format digital should be in the price range of today’s medium format. There’s good reason to hope that, in 15 years, you’ll be able to buy a large format digital camera for under $10K. Now that’s something to get excited about!
    Cheers,
    b&
     
  11. My G9 died a few days ago after some research I decided to get it repaired until the next time it dies, then it is a 4/3rds, to use my fd lens with, they (fd lens) are so nice and small and great optics. Thanks for the link
     
  12. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    You can only "rain on someone's parade" with a consumer product if consumers actually buy the product. The article completely ignores this and offers the usual technoid camera argument in place of anything that shows a real understanding of market dynamics. I remember when RISC processors were going to kill off Intel...
    I have never seen a 4/3 camera and I'm out all the time.
     
  13. Micro four-thirds is just another format, like Nikon's 1.5x crop, Canon's 1.6x crop, and 35 mm fullframe. Now, smaller sensor formats require smaller, cheaper, and more compact lenses. So, all things being equal, you could design a system around a smaller sensor more cheaply. But the difference between micro four-thirds and 1.6x crop isn't that big.
    I think it's very likely we'll see Canon introduce very cheap EVIL bodies with an EF-S lens mount. Think Rebel 100000D.
    So, fast-forward a few years into the future. I'm a consumer looking for a camera. Do I pick the micro four-thirds system, or for a few bucks more do I get the Canon, where I can use the same lenses on a prosumer body with a pentaprism (7D mark 8, hehehe).
     
  14. To me it comes down to image quality vs convenience. With todays small pocket size digital camera you can take some nice photographs within certain limitations (speed rate of shots, noise, print size). Most people are satisfied with their results from these small cameras. As a photographer I'm looking at the best image I can capture as to have nice artwork to place on the wall. As I see it you can't get past certain laws of physics - the smaller the sensor, the larger the enlargement factor for a given size print. Yes software can add sharpening or noise reduction, but it impacts the quality of the pixels. Years ago with film technology nobody would argue the merits of sheetfilm or medium format over smaller 35mm, APS or 110 size film. To put it in perspective listed below are todays popular sensor sizes.
    Full frame 36x24mm 864 sq mm
    Canon APS H 28x19mm 548 sq mm
    Nikon APS C 24x16mm 370 sq mm
    Canon APS C 22x15mm 329 sq mm
    Four Thirds 17x13mm 225 sq mm
    1/1.8" pocket 8x5mm 38 sq mm
     
  15. This is very interesting. I have a 5D2 and while its a great camera there are times I would like something smaller for travel or casual use. Micro FourThirds, Pani LX3, G11, S90 etc all sound good but I cannot make up my mind so I buy nothing and end up either using my 5d2 with a small prime or taking my cheapy Pentax underwater P/S.
    I agree that something will change but probably more on the consumer end, I cannot see any of the above matching a full frame DSLR.
     
  16. I have been using an E-P1 almost exclusively for several months now. The only downsides I have found are the lack of fast primes and the omission of a simple optical viewfinder, which I find to be a major disadvantage.
     
  17. Olympus Pen half-frame cameras didn't replace 35mm because really they weren't small enough to warrant a changeover and the quality was noticeably worse. This was especially true when cameras like the Rollei 35's, the Minox 35's etc came out. Here was a camera smaller than the pen with BETTER image quality. Similarly we already have cameras like the Sigma DP-1/2 and the Leica X1 which show that in time we'll get those larger sensors in bodies almost as small as the half-frame micro-4/3 body -- not to mention the Leica M8 and M9. And good enough is the enemy of the good. So a camera with a larger sensor which is nearly as small as the micro 4/3rds will keep them from getting traction in the market.
    And remember APS cameras didn't succeed either, because small 35mm cameras were small enough -- just remember the APS SLRs next to a Canon Rebel or an Olympus OM-1. If size really matters to you (as it does to me) buy a Leica M8 used. My M8 and a few lenses fit into a small, lightweight bag and give me all the benefits of a system camera with equivalent quality (the M8 has an APS-H sized sensor and the M9 is full frame). Of course Leica won't start a trend either because of what it costs but it shows that it is possible to make a small camera with a big sensor. I like the Micro 4/3rds cameras but I doubt Canon is worried.
     
  18. The entire article is based on the premise that smaller is, of course, better and it will win. It evens ends with OM-1 in 1972.
    I fell safe in saying Canon and Nikon always outsold Olympus by a wide margin. They had the pro stuff and the wannabes wanted to emulate them.
    Small size can be an advantage but it's not universal. As long as men have testosterone. We will want a "pro one"and bigger cameras will sell.
    Seriously, for advanced amateurs and wannabees, i believe small size is not that important.
    P.S. I have owned 4 OM-1s and OM2s through the years. I now shoot with a Nikon D300 because, among other things, I like it's weight in my hand.
     
  19. I have never seen a 4/3 camera and I'm out all the time.​
    I had never seen one until I went to Yellowstone last September. I think I saw about 10 Panasonic G1's every day. I think everyone that had one was European or Japanese. I don't think any of the American tourists had them.
    According to Thom Hogan's numbers Olympus and Panasonic combined have 11.5% of the Japanese market in interchangeable lens cameras.
    http://www.bythom.com/2009%20Nikon%20News.htm
    I have read some comments that say due to the bad exchange rates Panasonic and Olympus were targeting Japan and Europe and limiting shipments to the US. Because of the limited supply the sites dedicated to 4/3 cameras are full of "this item is in stock here" and the next day they are out of stock.
     
  20. Sure, I'd love to lose the mirror and shutter, so long as the electronic viewfinder is decent, and the AF is reliable. We're not there yet -- not even close. However, imagine a camera in which dust specks no longer plague us! Imagine the end of mirror slap! Imagine a camera in which almost any flimsy tripod will do fine! Sure, I'm game!
    What I don't see happening is the disappearance of larger formats. The evolution of digital formats has been towards larger, not smaller, as evolution in our manufacturing capabilities brings costs down. People prefer larger formats because they yield lower noise and greater latitude in aperture/DoF. A friend of mine just bought his first DSLR for these benefits. We can't easily compare to the evolution in film formats from larger to smaller. After all, smaller film formats meant more frames between reloadings, and I suspect that was a major factor behind the success of the 35mm format. There is not any similar consideration in digital photography. I'm not saying everyone will want a full frame sensor. That's not even the case right now. However, I think there will continue to be a divergence between the needs of the serious photographer and the casual one.
    I especially don't see large cameras disappearing from the landscape of professional gear. Big has always been impressive. I think that's half of the reason people mount vertical grips on their cameras. The smaller consumer cameras get, the more the uninformed consumer will be unduely impressed by a big camera. As it is, the thing that impresses most people about my camera/lens is that it's so big, and it's so heavy. (Therefore it must be good.) Nobody really cares about the optics or the sensor. I think the name on the camera is important, and my cameras would be even more impressive if they said "Nikon." Interestingly, my 40D is more impressive than my 5D. Although both are approximately the same size, my 40D has a bigger number. Although professionals don't select their gear by these criteria, I think they certainly don't mind having big, noisy cameras, at least while they're on the job.
    If the mirror and shutter ever go, I can see how it will be possible to adapt between the old EF mount to the new compact mount. I pray that Canon will have the decency to manufacture such an adapter and to keep the electronics backwards-compatible. I think they will lose their professional devotees if they do not. There are so many full-frame EF lenses in the gear collections of professionals that I don't see the abandonment of this format (that offers important benefits to the photographer). If anything, we would go larger into the MF realm, but I don't see that either. Our lens investments are simply too vast. So I think the upper-end photographers will remain entrenched in the 24x36mm format, which will be improved with whatever technical advances the coming years give us.
     
  21. Sarah - You qualify those who may be disappointed without a backwards-compatible system as the professionals using Canon today, and I am sure that would be true about that group. However, as a dedicated amateur with a limited recreational budget the impact would be HUGE is Canon did not take us into consideration in any future systems. We have built up our systems one expensive accessory (read "this year's discretionary toy money" here) and I'm sure that the market represented by amateurs is by far the largest group Canon would need to consider.
    I am sure that just like the film vs digital and nikon vs canon arguments that we will have some new format opinions and raging debates emerge here. What I hope is that my plan to continue to build a lens system, and to use that for years to come, will not be derailed. I suspect there are others would would concur.
     
  22. I'm not disparaging the amateurs, David! I'm just speaking from my own perspective. I can see how a break in compatability would be devastating to amateur photographers too! It's very plain from this list that many, many amateurs are often just as serious as the pros, and I think what I say probably applies to them too.
     
  23. My personal guess is that within 10-15 years there will be no cameras with mirrors and shutters.​
    DOF, DOF, DOF... Where it will be gone?! My 35mm on a APC has too much DOF compared to the 50mm on full format.
    And, also, who wants a video picture when you can have the real one?. The mirror is the reason everybody and his dog have a reflex and not a rangefinder. I am sure that people will keep wanting the "real thing".
     
  24. I don't think these cameras will ever fully replace DSLRs. Currently the only way to focus without a mirror is to use a contrast detection system. While this works it doesn't tell the camera if the object is fare away or if it is close. So the camera has to guess which way to turn the focus motor. DSLRs use phase detect which can in many situations tell the camera which way to focus even if the image is out of focus. This advantage means phase detect will probably always be faster then contrast detection. So for sports or action photography, DSLRs will be prefered.
    Also when the m4/3 cameras take a picture there is a period of time right after exposure in which electric view finders will not update due to the cameras downloading the image data from the sensor and processing it. Once that is done the shutter is opened and then the system can restart the viewfinder updates and refocus the lens. DSLRs only blank out the view finder for the period when the shutter is open. The mirror returns to normal position and then the system downloads and processes the data. While the sensor download is in progress the other half of the camera can focus and adjust exposure. So for a DSLR the blank out time is very short. So if you are trying to follow rapidly moving action and taking pictures as fast as you can a DSLR can take pictures much faster (frames per second) than any electronic viewfinder can.
    Some have mention that large cameras have an advantage of being able to generate images with very narrow depth of field. This is true. However many consumers arn't interested in depth of field. They just want the entire family in focus. This gives the m4/3 cameras an advantage over full frame and to a lesser extent over APS-C sensors. The m4/3 crop factor of two means your lens focal lenght is shorter and your depth of field is larger. A m 4/3 cameras should have an easier time getting the entire family in focus.
    Also there are a lot of serious photographers that find it inconvienent or impractical to carry the DSLR everywhere due to its size and weight. A cecond small cameras with small lenss addresses the need. I fit in this group and I think the m4/3 is slightly better suited for that need then an electric view finder camera with APS-C sensor.
    So for the forseeable future I think we will continue to see electronic viewfinder cameras as well as DSLRs. large and medium formate were not exterminated by 35mm and people still use 35mm film even though digital dominates the market. likewise Electronic view finders will not elliminate DSLRs. The market will just get more fragmented.
     
  25. If you keep the sensor size the same you do not gain much in terms of system size or system weight. The main advantage would be that you could reduce the registration distance which would help on the wide end. For telephoto lenses this would not help. Another advantage would be that you could seal the sensor box so that no dust could get in (there is no shutter any more that would produce some dust by itself).
    The drawbacks are that the electronic viewfinder will not be as sharp as an optical one and that you cannot use dedicated AF sensors any more but would have to rely on contrast based AF.
    Only if you use smaller sensors, you can create a smaller lighter system. But then you have to build a totally new line of lenses, at least for the wide end. And the crop factor also has some effects on DOF which may be good or bad depending on what you shoot.
    There might be a market between point and shoot cameras and cheap DSLRs, but I think this one is very small and I doubt that it would be worth while for Canon to invest in it.
     
  26. I tried a Panasonic G1 a few months ago, and I found one thing quite a surprise. The EVF (though very good in terms of resolution) is, I believe, a flat image on a screen just a few millimetres in front of the eye. I don't believe it has real optical depth in the way that the VF in an SLR (35mm or Digi) or a rangefinder has. For me, with very poor close-distance eyesight, this was a real problem. I've never been able to use a conventional digital compact with any sort of convenience at all; to see the screen I need my glasses on, but for anything else (like actually looking at things) they obscure my vision. So it's a 'glasses on, glasses off, glasses on' thing, and I fear that the EVF was quite close to that. There must be millions of people who will continue to find that a real VF is much, much easier to use.
     
  27. I prefer small and light cameras, still own and use Olympus Pen F and OM equipment, and I like the m4:3 cameras......but. Whatever Olympus and Panasonic can do, well, Canon and Nikon can do also, and with built in name recognition even among the great unwashed. If Pan-Oly m4:3 starts to cut into the bottom line then sure, Canon will respond. Personally, I'm waiting for the EP-x sized body with a built in and excellent EVF. Wouldn't want a big lump sitting on the camera all the time, looks too fragile and compromises being able to slip it into a pocket.
     
  28. I'm not interested in an EVIL / mirrorless body until somebody builds one with the following:
    * An optical viewfinder. Yes, that's right, an optical viewfinder. A big, bright, nice one that zooms to cover a short range (i.e. 24-105 equivalent in 35mm terms) and is therefore usable with the lenses that one would most often use with an EVIL body. I would accept a shorter viewfinder zoom (i.e. 24-70) for better quality. Sorry EVIL fans, but EVFs are just not there yet, and they suck for some of the situations which otherwise call for a compact body. (For lenses outside the viewfinder zoom and for precise framing one can use the screen or an attachable EVF.) Every 35mm P&S of the 80's and 90's had a big, bright viewfinder. What's wrong with designers today that they can't add one?
    * Infrared AF to assist the contrast detect AF. Many 35mm P&S bodies had IR AF. It is extremely fast, precise, and reliable for short focal lengths. When an incompatible (read: long focal length) lens is attached the body could use contrast detect. When a compatible lens is attached, it should use the IR to achieve focus even in the dark. I don't need movable AF boxes on an EVIL body nor do I need useless gadgets like face detection AF. I need fast performance. Give me one center point that's linked to the IR rangefinder so I'm not stuck with a camera that hunts back and forth.
    * Fast, fast, fast operation. In near total darkness I should be able to lift the camera, look through the optical viewfinder, put my IR AF point over the subject, squeeze the shutter, and get a shot as fast or faster than I can with my SLR. No games. No screen that blinds me in the dark yet simultaneously fails to show me the subject. No fumbling with modes or styles or gadgets or junk. No focus hunting. Just a RAW file on a card. And I should be able to shoot the next one fast to. I'm not expecting 8 fps, but give me 2-3 fps.
    * P / Tv / Av / M. Three dials under my fingers to control shutter, aperture, and ISO in M. And a spot meter.
    * Some weather resistance would be nice.
    I don't see a single EVIL / mirrorless body which meets these requirements. And until I do I couldn't care less.
     
  29. Original Poster wrote:
    "My personal guess is that within 10-15 years there will be no cameras with mirrors and shutters."


    Sure! And we'll all be getting around in Solar Powered FLying cars too! And have shiny new Android bodies to put in them....
    What about journalists who need a camera without the obtrusive glowing screen to focus on? Or surveillance & law enforcement? No doubt there is a place for Micro 4/3 "imaging Devices". But there is a reason that the basic shape, form, and function of the SLR has remained unchanged since Exakta pioneered it in 1936. It works and it's ergonomic, and it's accurate for focusing abd previsualization. I cannot tell you how many of my students who don't use SLR cameras Think their shots are in focus until they blow up to A4 letter size....there are lots of people scratching their heads and re-doing assignments.
     
  30. Photography needs stability and balance. Two hands can hardly achieve this. Third point is the head. Three points give stability. Photography needs knowing where to look at. Gazing a screen is not ideal for composing. If one needs calculating exposure, DOF, AF, speed in seconds staying on one line should be out of concern. Multi parameter shooting needs a SLR machine.
     
  31. Small size can be an advantage but it's not universal. As long as men have testosterone. We will want a "pro one"and bigger cameras will sell.​
    Actually I know a few women who like the heft and feel of bigger cameras. They are beginners and said they think that larger means better.
     
  32. With all this technical mumbo jumbo, for stuff of potentially very limited usefullness for serious amateurs and pros, it makes me want to say screw it all and go back to 4 x 5. Those are REAL cameras, not tekkie toys.
     
  33. I don't know whether all cameras will be mirrorless and shutterless in 10 years or not, but why is that related to whether they have a VF? 10 years is a loooong time with regards technology. Reality is, as long as there is a market for OVF, EVF and LCD we'll have all three!
    EVF/CDAF technology may well catch up (and even surpass) OVF - maybe not - but we can't say for sure yet, so why not keep an open mind? Personally, if they come out with a bright, responsive EVF that lets me see things in a helpful way that the OVF can't, that sounds like a good thing.
    The great thing is, there's room for all these formats. I shoot with an Olympus 4/3 camera and I'd love a m4/3 and full frame as well. They all do different things. Then I wake up and realise I still need to feed my family.
     
  34. I can't think of much more to add to my statements in the fredmiranda thread concerning GH-1, HD Kit lens and 7-14mm: A $2,288 package I consider buying & then not buying inleiu of wanting to add another Canon lens to my kit instead.
    A good thread to read along with this one for those interested in the m4/3 platform:
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/870804/0
     
  35. Another advantage would be that you could seal the sensor box so that no dust could get in (there is no shutter any more that would produce some dust by itself).​
    Sorry, m4/3 cameras still have shutters. Not sure about Sony or the Samsung NX10. But my guess is that they will also have shutters.
    If you keep the sensor size the same you do not gain much in terms of system size or system weight. The main advantage would be that you could reduce the registration distance which would help on the wide end.​
    m4/3, cameras do have a significantly reduced registration distance over regular DSLRs. Samsungs MX10 also has a reduced registration distance when compared with APS-C DSLRs. It looks like Sony is planing the same thing with there new mirrorless design.
     
  36. The all in all problem is the viewfinder. i shoot mamiya RZII & 5DII. in comparison the view into the waist-level-finder of 6x7 and all the advantages included, the viewfinder of the fullframe even with fast primes looks ridiculous.
    i have been working 3 years for olympus - damned good cameras, but my heart beats only by viewing down into the universe of a 6x7 screen..
     
  37. I really doubt that 4/3rds will make any serious penetration into the upper ends of the market. The simple physics of it is that larger sensors are fundamentally better, and while smaller ones give you some benefits in terms of focal length multiplication, the upper-end of the market has always been willing to trade convenience for absolute quality.
    Its more likely that 4/3rds occupies a lucrative middle, between P&S cameras for people constrained by either price or strong convenience preference, while 4/3rds will be for people in the lower segment moving up or the people in the upper segment who want a compact camera for certain occasions where bulk is highly inconvenient. For the lower-end, having interchangeable lenses is simply not an advantage, or they would have bought an SLR already.
     
  38. i've had a panasonic DMC-LX2 a couple years and have been pretty impressed. my first digital, goes everyplace with me. it's good at a certain kind of shot, not super versatile, not very good in low light... shoot almost every time in full-wide and 16x9.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    was admiring a GF-1 at a party this weekend. if i was going to get another digital this would be the one. and i could use M-mount lenses, with an adapter ring. have heard that doesn't work great, but who knows... my 21mm voigtlander might be pretty good as a 42mm prime, and the vignetting would be cut off, right? autofocus sucks. i still want to focus manually by turning a lens barrel. if i have to squint into a screen, still could work, once i was used to it. micro 4/3 is pretty attractive for someone like me. i already have MF gear, and a selection of 35mm SLRs and RFs. a DSLR would be overkill.
     
  39. I think it's very likely we'll see Canon introduce very cheap EVIL bodies with an EF-S lens mount. Think Rebel 100000D.​
    I think so too.
    DOF, DOF, DOF... Where it will be gone?! My 35mm on a APC has too much DOF compared to the 50mm on full format.​
    Take any DSLR and take away its mirror. As long as you do not change the sensor size and the FFD, DoF will stay the same. The reason most people confuse these aspects is because up until now, all products have change either sensor size and/or FFD.
    An optical viewfinder. Yes, that's right, an optical viewfinder. A big, bright, nice one that zooms to cover a short range (i.e. 24-105 equivalent in 35mm terms) and is therefore usable with the lenses that one would most often use with an EVIL body. I would accept a shorter viewfinder zoom (i.e. 24-70) for better quality. Sorry EVIL fans, but EVFs are just not there yet, and they suck for some of the situations which otherwise call for a compact body.​
    You're absolutely right by saying that "EVFs are just not there yet" but that's only because it has more resolution and that is easily solvable with better technology. Once that is solved, you are left with numerous advantages. Here are some I can think of. I'm sure there are more.
    • You can have an ability to detach scene EV from VF EV so you will be able to see in almost total darkness (though of course, making the camera to AF in such low EV is a different matter). You could also put the sun in the frame and part of the EVF will darken to protect your eye.
    • You can have an ability to overlay things on it (e.g. live histogram, grid lines, electronic level etc.). BTW, some cameras today already offer these.
    • You can have an ability to detach sensor size from VF size.
    • You can have an ability to play the pictures you have already took (ever tried to see them in bright sunlight?).
    • You can have an ability to see the actual DoF without the VF goes dark.
    • You can have an ability to have accurate ECF.
    • You can have an ability to magnify part of the scene.
    • You can have an ability to superimpose different colourations/filters like B&W, sepia etc. and see the final outcome before you take the pic.
      Happy shooting,
      Yakim.
     
  40. The camera market is crowded like it never has been before. Everybody owns a camera of some sort and most own multiple cameras when you take cell phone cameras and cheap P&S into account.
    The mirror less/shutter less tend is simply the marketing people seeing an unfilled niche in the market and exploiting it as a way of generating higher value / higher margin sales. Like Lemmings all the major manufacturers will follow Olympus and Panasonic into the niche because they are scared of possibly loosing market share or market mind set or both. The niche will develop, players will increase sales will go up. average price and profit per unit will decline and the marketers will move onto the next unexploited niche which imo will be medium format for the masses.
    I'm sure that these cameras will settle into the market and will quite possibly replace low end DSLR's in most manufacturers product line ups but will they dominate the photography world? No way. The photography world is simply too big and too diverse for any one format to grab more than a reasonable market share.
     
  41. "The all in all problem is the viewfinder. i shoot mamiya RZII & 5DII. in comparison the view into the waist-level-finder of 6x7 and all the advantages included, the viewfinder of the fullframe even with fast primes looks ridiculous.
    i have been working 3 years for olympus - damned good cameras, but my heart beats only by viewing down into the universe of a 6x7 screen.."

    Jacob - I remember many years ago shooting with a Rapid-Omega. It was a 6x7 rangefinder. I wish I had it today. It was reliable, and very quiet since it had no mirror assembly. A stealth camera at weddings. It didn't have the ground-glass focus screen however. I had to use my Mamiya 330 for that large view.
     
  42. EVF's consume power. It will be almost like using live view 100% of the time. Unless battery technology advances at the same pace of display technology I don't think EVF's will be a practical solution, as much as I'd like to see it.
     
  43. Unlike most here I have been actively photographing for over 60 years and have watched the inevitable evolution of cameras. I Initially started serious photography as a U.S. Navy military Photog using a 4 X 5 Speed Graphic and a Graphlex 8 X 10 view camera. Within a relatively short time period the Navy went from the 4 X 5 Speed Graphic to the Nikon SLR 35mm as the official camera. No one at that time would have made me believe that a relatively small, compact SLR could ever replace my photography tool, the Speed Graphic. During the same period I personally bought for myself the new Nikon "S" from the PX in Yokosuka, Japan and enjoyed the ability to pack the camera and accessories around in a small sachel instead of a 40 pound gadget bag...no cut film adapters or film packs or stinking 2 cases of flah bulbs and a monster flash gun. I also bought a Kodak Retina 11A for a pocket cam because the "S" was just too big to fit in a pocket. I since have used a plethora of 35mm camera from 7 diff, manufactures (still have 5) and eventually took the plunge to digital with a Polaroid in '99 (still have it) and then eventually to my present kit of Fuji S2, Nikon D2x, and a D300. I still use all of my 35mm's on occasion (Canon, Nikon, Voigtlander, Olympus, Minolta and even one of my 3 X 4 old Kodak Recomars) but only because I'm retired and have the time and resources.
    I couldn't even imagine a working pro using anything other than a high level DSLR today but watching the evolution of gear throughout he years including the introduction of the transistor and diode in other apparatus I have to believe that with the current advancement of electonic technology that the DSLR will indeed at some point will be obsoleted just as my 1932 Kodak Recomar (still works a treat) was.
    Eventually when the technolgy warrants a working camera will be no bigger than my old Retina 11A but will have the ability to produce prints poster size from a sensor the size of a compact chip available today and it will NOT be a 4/3 sensor, far too big for the task.
    I have watched technology advance from the "mechanical brake" era of the '40 Ford (my first car) to placing a man on the moon so most anything is possible
     
  44. m4/3, cameras do have a significantly reduced registration distance over regular DSLRs.​
    This is not an advantage by itself. For telephoto lenses it should not make a difference regarding total size at all: There is enough room anyways and whether there is a mirror or not does not matter. Sure regarding wide angle lenses you can build smaller lenses by not having to use a telecentric optical design.
     
  45. rdm

    rdm

    I agree with George.
     

Share This Page