[dnas]

So by this thinking, the basic SLR design with a mirror box that is already more than 50 years old will continue on into the future dominatiing the non P&S market for the next 50 years??

Nothing is more certain than that. Optical viewfinders cannot be beaten. They are the real thing. Just like we will continue to have optical binoculars and windows instead of LCD panels. Removing a feature is not a plus; it is a minus. Optical viewfinder can be augmented with electronic ones in every way imaginable.

Tag this one to look back on in ten years, is all I'm sayin'.

Indeed!!!

[falconeye]

Tag this one to look back on in ten years, is all I'm sayin'.

Maybe not ten. But twenty.

People tend to underestimate the benefits in existing technology and to overestimate the benefits of future ones. Because they see the potential.

Think of the paperless office or artifical intelligence

Paperless offices will come. But not before desks become screens with 300dpi and high e-ink like contrast.

AI will come. But not before computers have a computational power which at least matches that of a rat. I think, we now have reached the level of a spider or so

And EVF will replace optical VF. But not before contrast, resolution and response time meet certain criteria which are beyond today's technology.

[johnmflores]

Maybe not ten. But twenty.

People tend to underestimate the benefits in existing technology and to overestimate the benefits of future ones. Because they see the potential.

Think of the paperless office or artifical intelligence

Paperless offices will come. But not before desks become screens with 300dpi and high e-ink like contrast.

AI will come. But not before computers have a computational power which at least matches that of a rat. I think, we now have reached the level of a spider or so

And EVF will replace optical VF. But not before contrast, resolution and response time meet certain criteria which are beyond today's technology.

We may not have 100% paperless offices yet, but I bet many offices are close. One of the unforseen consequences of digital communications is that it has enabled an explosion of communications. Imagine this forum, for example, via paper and pen!

And AI as depicted by popular media 30+ years ago may not be here, but expert systems are woven everywhere into our daily lives, deciding how much fuel to send to your car engine, how to distribute braking forces, how to expose a photo, how to maximize the battery life of your laptop, etc...

And while EVF may not be better than optical, and some might argue it may never be better than optical, history is littered with technology that was replaced by something that was cheaper but not quite as good. Typographic standards took a nosedive with the introduction of desktop publishing, but that didn't stop the traditional typesetting industry from collapsing. Likewise, the first dSLRs were inferior to their 35mm counterparts in terms of IQ, but they still marched forward.

At the end of the day, the market often settles for "good enough"

[yoshizuki]

m4/3 format just died with sony's newly announced NEX series...

[song_hm]

m4/3 format just died with sony's newly announced NEX series...

Not quite. The m4/3 is an industry consortium with multiple players, with shipping products that are interoperable (ok at least the mount). NEX is a proprietary system from one vendor, using a new proprietary lens mount, proprietary flash interface.

[dnas]

m4/3 format just died with sony's newly announced NEX series...

Not quite. The m4/3 is an industry consortium with multiple players, with shipping products that are interoperable (ok at least the mount). NEX is a proprietary system from one vendor, using a new proprietary lens mount, proprietary flash interface.

If we used that same logic, then micro 4/3 died when the Samsung NX was introduced!!!!

micro 4/3 has an established base 18 months old..... it's NOT going away!!!

[Aristophanes]

m4/3 format just died with sony's newly announced NEX series...

Sony has a way of shooting itself in the head lately, especially with the retail end. As a professional supplier of many products and as a design manufacturer, it has legs, but it's "brand" has become long in the tooth. Sony hasn't the entrenched user base in photography to garner enough critical market, and its high-cost attitude will keep it from going after pros in this sector the way Nikon and Canon do. So the NEX is really going to be a limited system, proprietary to Sony, over-priced, and not really a 'lens system' (because Sony knows better than you).

[nosnoop]

So the NEX is really going to be a limited system, proprietary to Sony, over-priced, and not really a 'lens system' (because Sony knows better than you).

NEX-3 with 16mm is $549, and with 18-55mm is $599. So that's a very competitive pricing for initial launch. After a few months, the price could drop close to high end P&S category. I don't think it is overpriced.

So for being a proprietary system, doesn't it apply to everything apart from 4/3?

[thibs]

NEX-3 with 16mm is $549, and with 18-55mm is $599. So that's a very competitive pricing for initial launch. After a few months, the price could drop close to high end P&S category. I don't think it is overpriced.

So for being a proprietary system, doesn't it apply to everything apart from 4/3?

Micro 4/3 IS proprietary. 4/3 is not however.

[pxpaulx]

Micro 4/3 IS proprietary. 4/3 is not however.

Err, no? both m4/3 and standard 4/3 are open mounts, for which only 2 manufacturers participate, Panasonic and Olympus.

To the above price comments, I also agree those are quite aggressive, especially being the MSRPs. They will be below $500 at some point (depending on demand, which will be interesting to watch for sure!).

[falconeye]

Micro 4/3 IS proprietary. 4/3 is not however.

Err, no? both m4/3 and standard 4/3 are open mounts

AFAIK, the FT specification is the intellectual property of Kodak and Olympus. And µFT that of Panasonic and Olympus.

You have to obtain a license in order to develop and offer compatible products.

So, it is as proprietary as any other lens mount out there. M42 is the only open standard actually.

It may be that it is relatively simply to aquire a FT, Pentax K-mount or Nikon F-mount license. They are all used by several vendors. But they're all proprietary.

FT and µFT are explicitely not open: From Four Thirds:

Details of the Four Thirds System standard are available to camera equipment manufacturers and industry organizations on an NDA basis. Full specifications cannot be provided to individuals or other educational/research entities.

[philbaum]

Several posts in this thread imply that no true dslr owner would want a PS camera as their primary, but i don't know of one dslr owner who doesn't have at least one as a backup.

I would love a quiet DSLR camera like my Canon point and shoot. I dislike loud shutters/mirrors. A guy i shoot with admits his D300s has a loud shutter/mirror and it is. No kidding, from 15 feet away, i can hear all of his focus confirmation beeps, etc. Its annoying.

I think Pentax has a window of opportunity to build a evil camera with an adapter for their existing and legacy lenses, but without an adapter for new lenses. I would buy it today if it was available, just to get that quiet shutter/no-mirror-slap for indoor events.

[aliquis]

No way. These cameras will replace P&S's. Then the buyers figure out that they really only want one lens anyway so their next camera will be a P&S. Cameras without an optical viewfinder will never be a first choice for serious use.

Sure they will, how long will it take until EVF-lag is less than mirror-flip lag?

Btw if Nikon decide this is only some P&S's interesting in detachable lenses and design a camera based on that then that's will be how they will lose out.

[aliquis]

Aren't cell phones pretty much replacing the 'everyday' P&S? these large sensor compacts will shortly replace cameras for people who don't want an slr, but want something better than their cell phones. They definitely are not a niche product, and this sony will do well even up against m4/3. While m4/3 sits squarely between p&s and dslr, this sony line is clearly aimed directly at p&s camera users.

The nex7 seem to be more dslr-styled.

[aliquis]

These people are already buying P&S and will continue to do so. Who wants to buy a tiny camera without a finder with many lenses? Most buyers will buy only one lens and find that the interchangeable lenses is for them a gimmick. Those who want to use a fleet of lenses are still better served with a DSLR.

They people who don't know they want a finder.

Face it, the mirror is a mechanical solution to let people see what the glass sees but also expose the film.

Nowadays we can see what the sensor pick up so there's no need for it anymore.

I assume smaller MILCs come first, and then the contrast-detect focus speed gets updated in the normal lines, mirror gets removed and EVF added and eventually they get redesigned for new lenses since one find ways to redistribute the camera layout which fits better now when the mirror is gone.

That, I think, is a mistaken assumption. Most consumers buy entry level DSLR because they are seen as "real" cameras, not because they need them or even know how to use them properly. DSLR's will still be the real camera and the rest the gadgets.

If the MILC provide the same picture quality, even without the same ability to effect the settings, and a similar lens section / decent kit-lenses then they will pick that up instead because it's smaller.

We will see in the next couple of years whether your assumption or mine is correct.
Entry level DSLR buyers were attracted by the improved IQ, expandability, and quick response; but most of them hate the bulk, and many still cannot get used to the optical viewfinder. And when they can get hold of the minuscule EVIL/SLD cameras, and see how well the AF works in HD movies, they would be sold. Obviously, these are 1st generation EVIL and many things need to be improved to match DSLR, particularly AF speed, and live view (VF or LCD display). But as it evolves, most entry buyer would go for it, and they would prefer an excellent still/HD movie capture device to a "real" camera.

HD video on DSLRs are here to stay.

You can't flip the mirror around all the time during filming so that will lead to faster auto-focus without mirror flips, and sooner or later you will get a global (whole sensor electronical) shutter.

As soon as that happen and that focus work just as well / better than the old methods then the only reason to keep the optical viewfinder would be no lag.

Reasons to remove it would be 100% coverage, magnification for manual focus, DOF-preview, shutter blur preview, WB-preview, bigger and brighter, all sorts of innovative and clever information and AF-designs which may come from the ability to actually get the whole image and calculate things on all the data available.

The people around here which claim they want to see a camera without movie ability don't understand anything either. It's 100% fail to not adapt it.

I agree!!



So by this thinking, the basic SLR design with a mirror box that is already more than 50 years old will continue on into the future dominatiing the non P&S market for the next 50 years??

It was only 10 years ago that many film SLR users said that DSLRs would never replace/outsell film SLRs, and it happened in less than 5 years. Now MOST Pros use a DSLR.

Mirrorless interchangeable cameras with EVF are just 1.5 years old. And the EVF on the Panasonic G1 is STILL the benchmark. It is big, sharp, high resolution, and surprisingly good. It is not perfect, but it's only the first generation.

I think that these types of cameras will replace low end DSLRs within 5 years. And in that time, there will also be HIGH END ones as well, with state of the art EVF.

Entry level replaceable lenses cameras will need to have a movie mode and people coming from P&S may not even care about the viewfinder at all. And hence no need for a mechanical solution.

Nothing is more certain than that. Optical viewfinders cannot be beaten. They are the real thing. Just like we will continue to have optical binoculars and windows instead of LCD panels. Removing a feature is not a plus; it is a minus. Optical viewfinder can be augmented with electronic ones in every way imaginable.

But optical viewfinders can't do everything an electronical would be able to and won't even work during filming.