Beyond The Mirror

[mountainvisions]

<p>Not a lot of news here but a definite hint that while Pentax is once again late to the party, it intends to compete in the mirrorless camera market of EVILs or compact DSLRs.<br /><br />http://bit.ly/cNG2nK<br /><br /><br /></p>

[pbarnes]

<p>I read a review of the Samsung NX10 which stated that Samsung can supply a K mount adapter for it. Has anyone used this, or seen it written about?</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Peter, I've also read that Samsung was releasing a K mount adapter, but I haven't seen one for sale, and in any case they said it wouldn't provide AF or aperture control.</p>

<p>Novoflex do have an adapter available with a ring that permits manual control of diaphragm size so it can be used with lenses lacking an aperture ring (DA and FA-J).</p>

<p>You can read Part 1 of my on-going 3-part Samsung NX10 review by searching Google for "Enticing the Light Samsung NX10 review part 1" (without the quotes). I'd link directly, but the powers that be forbid me from doing so. Part 2 should be coming up within the next week.</p>

<p>I should be receiving a Novoflex adapter within the next 2 weeks and will report on it in Part 3. I've used their Pentax-to-micro-4/3 adapter and found it to be of very high quality and built to tight tolerance...but rather pricey. Results with my Ltd lenses on the 12MP micro-4/3 sensor were extremely good, and I can't wait to see what they can do on the NX10 sensor (and its 1.5x crop factor, which is more forgiving that the micro-4/3's 2x).</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>As an aside, I've been saying it a lot lately, and I'll probably still repeat it a few times: MILCs are the near future of low-end DSLR cameras, and will eventually become the future of high-end DSLRs too. Of course, they won't be called DSLRs once they've been MILC'd :-)</p>

[parv]

(Nice to see "MILC" used elsewhere even though I went for "MIL-C".)

[miserere_mei]

<p>Parv, I came up with "MILC" on my own a few months ago, although other people must've thought about it independently because I've seen it used in places where I doubt the writer has come into contact with my articles. I wonder who the very first person to use the term was? I use it instead of EVIL because it is all-encompassing: All EVILs are MILCs, but not all MILC's are EVILs.</p>

[sleahy73]

<p>Just to be clear, Miz, are you suggesting that MILCs are the root of all EVILs?<br>

:-)</p>

[sleahy73]

<p>Sorry, it had to be done.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Sean, you appal me :-p</p>

<p>By the way, I lost the link to your Zenfolio gallery and it's not in your p-net profile.</p>

[sleahy73]

<p>I was just wondering when you became so lactose intolerant, Miz.<br>

(Yeah, I went there. Sometimes I have to do things just to amuse myself!)</p>

<p>Just sent you an e-mail with the link.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Sean, if anything, I am highly lactose <em>tolerant</em> — I've spent the last 2 months shooting with MILCs and haven't had any gastrointestinal distress.</p>

[pbarnes]

<p>You will have to help me out folks, I have no idea what MILC or EVIL stand for.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Electronic Viewfinder Interchangable Lens...personally while EVIL sounds cool, I like the compact DSLR moniker better.</p>

<p>I think you can directly link, the idea of photo.net's policy is to reduce the amount of "look at me" post. Also, there is no professional advertising, and if a site has ads, it's hard to argue it's not for profit.</p>

<p>If it's pertinent, put a nice low key link in. If it's every post, then maybe just take out an ad in the side column.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Justin, my site doesn't have ads <em>per se</em> (although I'd happily accept them), but it does have banners for my affiliate stores. Josh slapped me on the wrist once for linking to one of my articles, so I don't do it anymore. It's not like I'm trolling for visits, but if I've written an article on a given subject I'd rather just link to it than rewrite it here on the forum. In fact, that's exactly why I started my site, to write down my thoughts so I could just link to them when the discussion came up on the forum (and they always do).</p>

<p>But I don't make the rules around here :-)</p>

<p>And as for Peter's question: MILC = Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera. Not all MILCs have an EVF (Electronic ViewFinder), which makes EVIL an inadequate name for this group of cameras. The Oly E-P1 and the Panny G1 are both MILCs, but only the Panny is an EVIL. To further complicate things, the Oly E-P2 and E-PL1 are not EVIL, but can become one with the addition of an optional EVF. That's why I'm sticking with MILC.</p>

<p>Justin, I don't want to call them "compact DSLRs" because there's nothing "Reflex" about them. In fact, the whole point of the camera is to not have a reflex element (mirror). I know where you're coming from for the name, but I just don't think it's correct. After all, SLRs where called Single Lens Reflex to differentiate them from TLRs (Twin Lens Reflex), and neither of them were called Compact View Cameras to differentiate them from their larger predecessors :-)</p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>Okay, so with these MILCs is the sensor active the entire time in order to generate an image onto an LCD on the back panel or an EVF? These LCDs/EVFs would have to be freakin dense (pixel wise) in order to be able to focus manually. Is the sensor going to hear up and cause noise in the final captured image if it's been active the whole time the camera has been on? If that's the case: count me out. If I want a noisy image I'll use my Oly FE-100.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>An issue Justin and I have discussed around this forum is legacy lens compatibility with MILCs. The micro-4/3 are pretty good about this, with Olympus offering an adapter that provides AF and aperture control with standard 4/3 lenses. Samsung has provided nothing of the sort, which is a shame seeing as Samsung's DSLRs use a Pentax mount. Will Pentax offer some kind of adapter? The difficulty here lies in the K mount having mechanical linkages for aperture and screwdrive AF, while all MILC mounts are being made fully electronic. Olympus has the advantage here because the 4/3 mount is fully electronic also, so the adapter is easy to make.</p>

<p>In order to Pentax to provide a minimum of legacy support, the adapter would require a mechanical lever to control aperture. I can't see them also providing a motor to autofocus srewdrive lenses, but they could very well provide contacts to autofocus SDM lenses. That a mechanical adapter is possible has just been demonstrated by Sony, who will be releasing one to mount Sony alpha and Minolta lenses on their Nex MILCs with E mount:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sonynex5/Images/LA-EA1adapter.jpg">Sony Nex adapter for E mount.</a></p>

<p>No autofocus, but aperture control is available. A similar adapter by Pentax would allow us to use SMC-A lenses just like we do on DSLR bodies, in any exposure mode, but with manual focus. I think it would behove Pentax to release such an adapter if they want current Pentaxians to buy a Pentax MILC.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>By the way, the Sony's E mount register distance is a crazy short 18mm! For comparison, the Samsung NX is 25.5mm and micro 4/3 is 20mm. For those who care, Leica M is 27.8mm.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Jeremiah, yes, the sensor is ON all the time in order to provide live view. The Oly Pen E series MILCs have 231k LCD screens and they're perfectly fine for manual focusing. You also have the advantage of being able to magnify the image, making manual focusing even easier than with an optical VF.</p>

<p>I haven't seen any extreme cases of heat ruining MILC images, but it is true that MILCs so far have been <em>slightly</em> below their DSLR brothers with same sensor when it comes to high ISO performance. At low ISO there is not apparent difference.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>The Sony NEX is cool, but it's a childs camera. If Engadget notes it's limited when in the hands of enthusiast, than to me that means it's a glorified point and shoot.</p>

<p>The other thing is the camera is tiny but the lenses are huge. </p>

<p>I realize this is because sony is using APS-C combined with in lens IS, but this makes no sense to me. The whole system has to be compact to make sense. A tiny body and giant lenses is not ideal.</p>

<p>I agree though, for these to take off, Pentax/Samsung (even though clearly they are not collaborating on this) needs to release a K-mount adapter with aperture control (if not AF). </p>

<p>Since teleconverters can AF a lens, I am confused on what would prevent an adapter from doing so? <br /><br /><br>

But regardless, as long as the aperture would work, allowing DA lenses to work then most people would probably be mostly happy.</p>

<p>These cameras to me should largely appeal to DSLR shooters who want a very compact option without the crap IQ of a point and shoot. And I suspect they might appeal to point and shoot shooters too.</p>

<p>I do however agree with the idea compact DSLR is wrong, but truthfully most people (even seasoned photographers) don't actually know why a DSLR is called a DSLR. I do think naming them that would at least make the marketing easier in terms of drawing consumers attention, rather than teaching them that there is a whole new world of not really point and shoot, but not exactly a DSLR and then having 10 companies throw out 7 different names for such technology.</p>

<p>Marketing is probably 80% of any products success. Many good products fail to make it past gen 1 because they didn't catch on. </p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>I think I'm the only a-mount shooter still excited about the EX-1 :)</p>

[ricardovaste]

<blockquote>

<p>The Sony NEX is cool, but it's a childs camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, even if i wouldn't us those words exactly :). The system shows great potential, clearly, but as it is it's nothing more than a large P&S or a 'P&S' upgrade camera. You have to use the rear pad to control aperture, there is no viewfinder - game over! Clearly, higher spec versions will appear and will solve that problem, but they're not here yet - 'potential'. Still, I think Sony will sell a LOT of these. The prices in the UK even look a appealing to myself - don't think I've ever said that about any brand new Sony Alpha product ?</p>

<p>What surprised me is that, even though both the NEX-3 and NEX-5 are clearly aimed 'lower' down the 'skill level' (I'm sure you know what I mean, I don't mean to sound condescending) the NEX-5 has a magnesium alloy - like my 7 series SLR. Even the cheap kit lens has a metal casing. I think they are slowly going to try and grab rangefinder users.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p> I think they are slowly going to try and grab rangefinder users.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I hope so! Someone in this EVIL/MILC/ultra compact DSLR will get my money at some point since I refuse to use point and shoots. </p>

<p>Since I'm not planning on investing in a ton of lenses (that is more than 1) I really don't have a brand preference. <br>

<br /></p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Do you have a lot of rangefinder glass? I've only ever shot SLR, but I see the attraction of course. <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3561/4599219986_35d2704745_o.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="471" /><br>

Problem, as some have noted, is that the lenses will have to be very telecentric to work without very soft edges and a heavy vignette. Like the M8, which apparently uses small lenses on the sensor to help negate this issue? Something like that, I'm not really familiar. The point is that rangefinder glass designed for film may not work so well on a FF sensor like this. But I guess they would work pretty well on APS-C.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Rich, it's the M9 that has offset lenslets above the outermost pixels in order to improve edge performance. This mitigates the issue, but doesn't fully correct it. At some point someone will design a sensor that's sensitive to light coming in at almost any angle and there'll be no need for tricks.</p>

<p>Where did you get that picture of the Sony mount from? Is someone claiming that Sony are looking ahead to creating a FF version of the NEX system? That would be a bombshell if true. However, I am not a FFO (Full Frame Obsessive) and would actually prefer these cameras to stay APS-C in order to save size in both bodies and lenses. On the other hand, if Sony makes a FF NEX, they would be marketing it to the advanced photographer, and one would imagine that camera won't have a virtual mode dial.</p>

<p>I'm with Justin, I want a small APS-C camera for my street shooting, for which I'd probably buy no more than 2 small primes (3 at the most if they're really worth it), so I'm not brand picky. I'd prefer it to be a Pentax because I like them and know they'd make great lenses and an ergonomic camera, but I'm not going to wait 2-3 years if that's Pentax's timeline, nor will I settle for an inferior product that doesn't meet my needs just because it's Pentax.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>I think they are slowly going to try and grab rangefinder users.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The reaction on RangeFinderForum.com has been lukewarm at best. I suspect Sony released these entry-level models to grab P&S upgraders, make some sales, get brand recognition, and convince the suits that the concept works and sells. Then they'll get the go-ahead to make a more upscale version for advanced photographers, which will sell in much fewer numbers and get them a much lower return on investmenr. If you are on this forum, then the NEX3/5 are not aimed at you.</p>

<p>I wonder if Sony will announce a NEX7 at Photokina...</p>