[glanglois]

I remember that scene well. And it raised a question in my mind that remains to this day.

Where can I get that gentleman's suit?? I don't think a proper bespoke tailor would touch it with a barge pole .....

[tsammyc]

For what it's worth I've never really understood the ergonomic nightmare argument so many people make when talking about large lenses on small cameras. My NEX-3 was perfectly comfortable to use with a Pentax-A 50mm 1.4 + adapter. I just held the lens from the underside with my left hand and used my thumb on the shutter. Worked just fine. Besides, I carry a camera around more then I'm actually taking photos with it. So weight matters to me more than ergonomics. Heck, I spend more time reviewing photos on them then I do in actually shooting mode, so if anything the camera should be comfortable to use for that purpose.

Exactly! The "stomach shot" using the right thumb is a pleasure to use and when an average sized lens is supported by the left hand, the left thumb and forefinger naturally fit around the focus ring. You view through the articulated LCD. It's an ergonomic delight. That the NEX C3 has the K5 sensor and peaking focus, its a small package that can get K5 quality and focuses easily in the right hands. Personally, I don't care for all the funky modes. I'm an aperture priority guy for the past 40 years and plan to remain that way.

[Aristophanes]

I remember that scene well. And it raised a question in my mind that remains to this day.

Where can I get that gentleman's suit?? I don't think a proper bespoke tailor would touch it with a barge pole .....

Plaid is bad.

Falconeye, are you from the future?

[Aristophanes]

Here's a nice article from DP Now summarizing what us camera nerds have been talking about for, oh, 3 years now:

Camera reviews - Are the days of the SLR camera numbered? - Digital Photography Now

Also a similar post from Digital Camera Info:
Why Compact System Cameras Will Rule The World - DigitalCamerainfo.com

Via: 1001 noisy cameras

The gist of the article is that mirrorless will supersede, if not actually replace (lots of cold dead hands wrapped around the OVF an it's 100% DR vision) the DSLR!

Duh.

Basically the article says that only if EVF's get close enough to OVF functionality and the industry cranks out some larger, more robust pro bodies with grips will we see DSLR market erosion, especially amongst the elite shooters for money projects.

Generally I agree, but the timeframe will be long. Smaller bodies in unconventional forms have done poorly in market tests, and mirrorless will require 10 years of lens development to equal what Canikon offers now. M43 hasn't got the chops or sensor to replace, so we wait for the Big Two hoping Pentax can slip on a zinger.

I just got my MZ-S today. A pro APS-C mirrorless in that form factor would be a market-killer. Yes, a new mount and smaller lenses, but the size, fit, and control wallop any mirrorless or SLT on the market now. A totally tricked out, all tactile control model with a 50-135/2.8 @ 40% smaller than the current DA* offering would drop a bombshell on the market. No more of these purse-ready PEN's and G's!

[froeschle]

Samsung's point of view: Interview

with an interesting aspect:

We are also working on an adaptor for Pentax lenses although it currently does not support autofocus.

So, in future there could be a Pentax AF adaptor for the NX (the Samsung "versions" of the Pentax lenses had screw drive) -> K-mount mirrorless

[falconeye]

Plaid is bad.

Falconeye, are you from the future?

To be honest, I am born in the past

At least, this is what I've been told

Seriously though, digital hasn't changed cameras in the past ten years. It reminds me of what happened to cell phones: Over ten years, they became smaller and got more gimmicks but fundamentally, didn't change. Industry was so keen to embrace micro progress. Look at Nokia. It required somebody to sit back and think it over, starting from some point in the past. It became the iPhone which WAS a change. It was a change because it is fun rather than pain to use. So, I am not convinced that the winning digital camera type has emerged already. One thing I know for sure: None of the existing camera types creates a "yes, this is it" emotion within me.

Note that the iPhone is 10% vision only. But 90% execution. Which is why a better camera type would require somebody to actually obsessively believe and bring to perfection before presenting it. Which is what makes such things so hard and rare and difficult to finance. But it could make somebody take over the camera industry ... Because the real thing isn't marketed yet. Also, it is still too early because sensors and electronics still is a significant portion of cost.

[Class A]

IMHO, Leica is actually more like Porsche, not like Ferrari or Rolls Royce.

Just one of the many statement I liked in this post.

Aristophanes, how do you reconcile the recent Leica profits with your "kept on life support by a wealthy philanthropist" story?

And just to reiterate a point Falk made: Leica gear is not only bought for its prestige. The lenses are nothing short of fantastic and the rangefinder experience may not be for everyone but it has advantages you'll never get with a conventional DSLR. So yes, you get people buying Leica gear as status symbols but if it didn't have the quality, Leica wouldn't be were it is today.

[Blue]

Here's a nice article from DP Now summarizing what us camera nerds have been talking about for, oh, 3 years now:

Camera reviews - Are the days of the SLR camera numbered? - Digital Photography Now

Also a similar post from Digital Camera Info:
Why Compact System Cameras Will Rule The World - DigitalCamerainfo.com

Via: 1001 noisy cameras

And the top link starts out with photos of dSLR and mirrorless with 4/3 sensors.

[Art Vandelay II]

And the top link starts out with photos of dSLR and mirrorless with 4/3 sensors.

Why shouldn't they start out with that? m4/3's was the first mirrorless system (if you don't count the Leica M). 4/3's was also the first DSLR system to be replaced by a mirrorless version. Given, superior APS-C DSLR's played a big part in that; but, I believe Olympus fully intended on producing DSLR's until they saw how popular m4/3's was. Now classic 4/3's is all but a memory to them. Which is kind of the point that article is trying to make...that CSC's will soon replace most all DSLR's.

[Blue]

Why shouldn't they start out with that? m4/3's was the first mirrorless system (if you don't count the Leica M). 4/3's was also the first DSLR system to be replaced by a mirrorless version. Given, superior APS-C DSLR's played a big part in that; but, I believe Olympus fully intended on producing DSLR's until they saw how popular m4/3's was. Now classic 4/3's is all but a memory to them. Which is kind of the point that article is trying to make...that CSC's will soon replace most all DSLR's.

Because 4/3 isn't going to push the dSLR to extinction. The post was about the days of the slr being numbered. The SLR has always been about pushing performance and the "compact" has been about pushing pocket size cameras with the best possible IQ. That dichotomy has been there every since Kodak et al. whipped out the vest cameras etc. My P&S is an e-p1 (not counting the phone cam and W90).

[thibs]

Why shouldn't they start out with that? m4/3's was the first mirrorless system (if you don't count the Leica M). 4/3's was also the first DSLR system to be replaced by a mirrorless version. Given, superior APS-C DSLR's played a big part in that; but, I believe Olympus fully intended on producing DSLR's until they saw how popular m4/3's was. Now classic 4/3's is all but a memory to them. Which is kind of the point that article is trying to make...that CSC's will soon replace most all DSLR's.

So Oly screwed up with 4/3 and salvaged (well commercialy at least) its ass with m43 and you generalize with Mirrorless will replace DSLR ?
Conclusion may be right in the end but certainly not for that reason alone. This is wishful thinking IMO

[RioRico]

Ah, yes, the demise of the (d)SLR. A sturdy prediction.
I remember it well. The prediction of demise, that is.
(d)SLRs have been reportedly near-extinct for quite awhile.
Just like the Xian tEotW (the End of the World) is near.
Why, tEotW has been near for almost 2 millennia now.

In 1987, the NYSE stock market crashed badly.
Prof. Robert Reich had predicted it accurately!
He predicted it publicly just one week before the crash.
And the week before that. And the week before that.
And for ten years before that. Every week. Every week.
It was an economist's joke. But eventually he was right.

Predict something often enough, long enough, repeatedly.
Eventually you might be right. Unless you're dead wrong.
The world hasn't ended yet. The (d)SLR isn't dead yet.
Keep predicting their demise, and you may be right someday.
Unless you are dead wrong. But who cares if you're wrong?
Pundits are wrong most of the time. Nobody cares. Feh.

I predict: Pentax will release a MILC with a 6x9cm sensor.
But I don't know when. Who cares about when? I don't.
And who know, eventually I may be right. That happens.

[falconeye]

Ah, yes, the demise of the (d)SLR. A sturdy prediction.
I remember it well. ... Predict something often enough, long enough, repeatedly.
Eventually you might be right. ...

A true contribution to the discussion.

Personally, I call it the hype-shaped advent of things.

1. Something is new and promising but nobody cares about (like the digital lens rear cap idea). The idea is on the table but it is too early for it.
2. All of a sudden, the new idea makes sense. Lot of (rushed) products. Hype. Driven by early adopters. Demise and "End of world" declared for the preceeding technology.
3. Deception. Because the new technology turns out to be not so good. Worse than the old one actually. "End of world will never happen" declared for the preceeding technology.
4. Silence. Almost like stage 1. Because new and old technology are considered on par and not worth heated discussions.
5. Unexpectedly, the new technology breaks through backed by new and now convincing products, outperforming the old technology.
6. Old technology disappears. Demise and "End of world" declared for it. New technology is the mainstream now.
7. The old technology survives in niches were it may prosper for decades. But it no longer rules.

Mirrorless is at stage 2-3. SLR is at stage 6. Rangefinder at stage 7.

Sometimes, technologies die at stage 4, sometimes not. I think mirrorless will make it into stage 5. But it may not be as fast as some people guess. I also think that SLR will survive in stage 7. But with only 1 or 2 makers.

[thibs]

DSLRs at stage 6 right now? No way.
In a year or two maybe but now, I really don't think so.

[Zygonyx]

I would put SLR at stage 4, if it were that prism hasn't yet been successfully challenged by EVF, were the next technology break-out should happen.

Otherwise as already beeing said, none of the EVIL/Compact camera systems has yet a sufficient lens-line nor ergonomical skills to represent any real threat to SLR.
That might eventually come, but will at least take a few years.