[Digitalis]

I don't know why people are so obsessed with small mirrorless cameras, they have been around for years(Leica M,Zeiss Ikon,Voigtlander Bessa) and are excellent cameras in their own right, but I can's see how a smaller lighter camera is going to replace the SLR. Light small cameras with cheap slow lenses are all well and good for the garden variety dilettante, but I prefer heavier cameras with fast glass because at the end of the day the image quality from my larger heavier cameras makes it worth all the effort. If it doesn't take some degree of effort in order to get a good image people will be less inclined to create good images.

[stanleyk]

I don't know why people are so obsessed with small mirrorless cameras, they have been around for years(Leica M,Zeiss Ikon,Voigtlander Bessa) and are excellent cameras in their own right, but I can's see how a smaller lighter camera is going to replace the SLR. Light small cameras with cheap slow lenses are all well and good for the garden variety dilettante, but I prefer heavier cameras with fast glass because at the end of the day the image quality from my larger heavier cameras makes it worth all the effort. If it doesn't take some degree of effort in order to get a good image people will be less inclined to create good images.

Well just don't buy one. Problem solved!

"Garden variety dilettante?" Wow......

[johnmflores]

Well just don't buy one. Problem solved!

"Garden variety dilettante?" Wow......

Hey, I resemble that!

[RBellavance]

I think he is just saying that you start seeing the effects of diffraction at smaller apertures. Obviously it isn't a wall, such that you can shoot smaller than that, it is just that photos taken much over that will tend to look softer than those shot wider than that.

I believe that is true only if the images are viewed at 100%. At the same size, the diffraction effect is the same.

[Biro]

I don't know why people are so obsessed with small mirrorless cameras, they have been around for years(Leica M,Zeiss Ikon,Voigtlander Bessa) and are excellent cameras in their own right, but I can's see how a smaller lighter camera is going to replace the SLR. Light small cameras with cheap slow lenses are all well and good for the garden variety dilettante, but I prefer heavier cameras with fast glass because at the end of the day the image quality from my larger heavier cameras makes it worth all the effort. If it doesn't take some degree of effort in order to get a good image people will be less inclined to create good images.

I understand your point but remember, these are still early days for mirrorless. Better, faster glass is on its way. A new Leica 25mm f/1.4 in native micro four-thirds mount was just announced today. And I truly believe those who aren't really interested in creating good images will eventually be drawn to the convenience and gee-whiz factor of better cell-phone cameras that are just over the horizon. The traditional camera makers will have to concentrate on serious amateurs and pros in order to survive - regardless of product format.

[uccemebug]

I don't know why people are so obsessed... If it doesn't take some degree of effort in order to get a good image people will be less inclined to create good images.

Race condition detected.

[eddie1960]

I believe that is true only if the images are viewed at 100%. At the same size, the diffraction effect is the same.

Generally the standard for measuring diffraction effect is printed at 8x10
the smaller sensor has some advantage in that it has more DOF at the same f stop, so some of the effect is offset, mtf on the lens is also a factor
that being said simple diffraction equations have it kick in at f5.8 on say a KR at f5.8 and on a Pana G3 at f4.0
pixel size is the reason

Robin Parmer (from the forum) compiled a nice chart on his blog for some comparisons (It kicks in far lower than you would have thought in most cases

theatre of noise: Choosing An Optimal Aperture To Avoid Diffraction

[thibs]

I'd wait for Falk input on this

[Winder]

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

Here is an example where you can see diffraction setting in at f/11 on an 8MP APS-C body. By f/22 the detail in the fabric is gone. Using their calculator diffraction on a 24MP APC-C sensor would start to be an issue at f/8.

So if you own a super zoom with an f/5.6 max aperture you don't have much room to work. These lenses are already some what soft and they will only become more limited as the MPs increase.

[eddie1960]

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

Here is an example where you can see diffraction setting in at f/11 on an 8MP APS-C body. By f/22 the detail in the fabric is gone. Using their calculator diffraction on a 24MP APC-C sensor would start to be an issue at f/8.

So if you own a super zoom with an f/5.6 max aperture you don't have much room to work. These lenses are already some what soft and they will only become more limited as the MPs increase.

I think that was Robin's original source, the calculator is an interesting way of comparing, if you take the 10" print standard and keep settings at standard setting changing only the megapixels sensor type and f stop it lets you do a comparison of systems

K5 (16.28MP) limited starting at f16
Panasonic G3 (16.7MP) - Limited starting at f13
Canon G12 or S95 (10.4MP) - limited starting at f5.6
KR -(12.4MP) limited starting at f16


the Canon EOS 1d (17MP 1.3 crop sensor) kicks in at F22

645 film comes in at f64 (i think the lens/film combo is more of a limiting factor here in any case)
large format is above f64

[Ash]

Light small cameras with cheap slow lenses are all well and good for the garden variety dilettante, but I prefer heavier cameras with fast glass because at the end of the day the image quality from my larger heavier cameras makes it worth all the effort

Whilst the word choice may have cultivated some ill feeling among the EVIL likers, the point I get out of this is that capability-wise, EVILs just don't come close to matching dSLRs. Technology might be improving in EVILs to bridge that gap, but the same technology will make dSLRs that much better. For the pro, the choice is clear - for the hobbyist/enthusiast EVIL sounds attractive.

For me, I'm with Digitalis - I'm no pro as he is, but I also prefer the quality and responsiveness that the dSLRs have the edge on the EVILs.

[Blue]

whilst the word choice may have cultivated some ill feeling among the evil likers, the point i get out of this is that capability-wise, evils just don't come close to matching dslrs. Technology might be improving in evils to bridge that gap, but the same technology will make dslrs that much better. For the pro, the choice is clear - for the hobbyist/enthusiast evil sounds attractive.

For me, i'm with digitalis - i'm no pro as he is, but i also prefer the quality and responsiveness that the dslrs have the edge on the evils.

+2 . . . and ++ on the blue highlighted text.

[Winder]

Whilst the word choice may have cultivated some ill feeling among the EVIL likers, the point I get out of this is that capability-wise, EVILs just don't come close to matching dSLRs. Technology might be improving in EVILs to bridge that gap, but the same technology will make dSLRs that much better. For the pro, the choice is clear - for the hobbyist/enthusiast EVIL sounds attractive.

For me, I'm with Digitalis - I'm no pro as he is, but I also prefer the quality and responsiveness that the dSLRs have the edge on the EVILs.

I don't think anyone believes that EVIL is ready to replace dSLRs. The technology is just not there. But I don't bet against technology evolving. The mechanical parts of photography have been disappearing one by one every year.

AF was pretty primitive when it first came out. Digital was very limited in the early days. It takes time for technology to advance, but it does advance.

I love a "good" OVF, but you have have to go to a good FF to get a good OVF. It will not take much for EVF to exceed the rather poor OVFs currently found on APS-C bodies. It might take a little longer for them to exceed the OVF that is currently on something like a Sony A900.

[Blue]

I don't think anyone believes that EVIL is ready to replace dSLRs. The technology is just not there. But I don't bet against technology evolving. The mechanical parts of photography have been disappearing one by one every year.

AF was pretty primitive when it first came out. Digital was very limited in the early days. It takes time for technology to advance, but it does advance.

I love a "good" OVF, but you have have to go to a good FF to get a good OVF. It will not take much for EVF to exceed the rather poor OVFs currently found on APS-C bodies. It might take a little longer for them to exceed the OVF that is currently on something like a Sony A900.

my mirrorless e-p1 has an optical viewfinder.

[Digitalis]

or me, I'm with Digitalis - I'm no pro as he is, but I also prefer the quality and responsiveness that the dSLRs have the edge on the EVILs.

which was my point all along, thanks Ash.

the simple fact of the matter is that while technology is a great thing there are still shortcomings (and some of them are pretty major issues). I love it when camera manufacturers come out new models, especially when the new model fixes some flaw that was present in the previous model - it shows that the camera companies are thinking about their user base.

A small light camera needs a small and equally light battery, large LCD screens, large sensors draw power and a high MP count also mean that the in camera processor has to be pretty beefy and again, that draws power, IS systems draw power, add continuous live view on top of that - it's all about how much power you can cram into such a small space. My Panasonic LX5's battery can last for around 350 shots, my D3s can do more than 2200 shots on a single charge, granted the D3s has a huge battery, the size of the Lx5's battery is pretty average for it's camera class but it highlights that smaller isn't always necessarily better. With the limits of Lithium-ion polymer battery technology, when newer battery technologies come out which allow for higher power densities DSLR cameras will get even further ahead of their smaller mirrorless brethren.

A new Leica 25mm f/1.4 in native micro four-thirds mount was just announced today.

quite right, although I don't see what your point is because that lens is bigger than the 8 element 50mm f/1.4 takumar made in the 1960s, even the FA50mm f/1.4 is smaller - Wasn't the concept of m4/3rds to provide it's users with small fast lenses, on a small equally fast camera? as far as i'm concerned the only camera manufacturer that really "gets" smaller sensor lens design is pentax, just take a look at the DA limited lenses - those lenses are actually built for a sensor that is bigger!