[Digitalis]

Strange contraptions that claim to be "digital" but have some analogue relics inside them

With B&W film - a silver halide crystal has only two states - exposed or unexposed. Digital sensors require signal digitization through an ADC before the image can be interpreted by computers - this is a statement that flips the lid on many of my photography students.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 11-27-2014 at 09:13 AM.

[Mikesul]

With B&W film - a silver halide crystal has only two states - exposed or unexposed. Digital sensors require signal digitization through an ADC before the image can be interpreted by computers is a statement that flips the lid on many of my photography students..

This is such a cool observation!! We were digital all along

[rburgoss]

SLR's will die?

That depends a lot on how resistant the market is towards change. It is my belief that since we are still going through the "analog-digital" generation (photographers that learned the craft with film-brass & glass that switched "forced by the market" to digital DSLR's), there may still be market for whatever resembles our old trusty gear. We know nothing feels like a nice LX with motor drive, featuring a SMC K 50 f/1.2 or a 70/210 f/2.8, thus we are not very confortable with a K50 with an all plastic lens (including mount!), that may well produce better pictures than the LX with expensive legacy glass.

I say that in few years, once we -the transition dinosaurs- have left this planet (or at least, stop´playing around), is when the new generations will embrace newer more efficient technologies. Take for example the pentaprism vs a good EVF. Few years back, it was probably a lot cheaper to produce a good pentaprism with all related parts (focusing screen, info screens, overlays, etc) than a regularly featured med resolution EVF. Today, they may cost about the same. In five years ahead, an outstandingly good EVF will probably cost 1/10th of a regular pentamirror system... but as long as some of us dinosaurs are still around, we will still demand the old brass and glass solution.

People resist change. Take for example the electric cars like the Tesla or the Chevy Volt (not talking about hybrids here!). Many people resist change even if they are offered this cars at about the same price of their regular fuel guzzlers from few years back. It if were not for laws and regulations, the market will still be dominated by the muscle car segment, with all V8's bigger than 350 cu/in., rumbling and shaking at every corner. Of course they will have manual trannys with sticks to the floor! That's the way God intended a real man's car! Not a whimpy luxury sedan with not one, but two small electric motors to each rear tire, without transmission and horrors: no shift lever! No matter if this "toy" can make the old "sting ray" bite the dust or get as far but only spending a nickle or less for every dollar of fuel spent with the Trans Am or the Mustang.... and God forbids riding in one of those mystery machines that play dead at every stop, do not shake and rumble and there is no way to announce "here I come" with the throttle pedal!

[astron]

My 2¢ on the subject.

Yes, mirrorless will overtake DSLRs someday. Eventually, even pros will switch to some mirrorless version of a performant, large-sensored camera that might even retain compatibility with current pro lenses to ease the transition and carry over investments.

But, there are a few contradictory trends that I see going on in the imaging market.

1) It's quickly switching to become an enthusiast-orientated industry. Normal folks are using their smartphones more and more, and with the prowess of these devices now at a level that can easily outdo point and shoot cameras from five years ago, it's killed the point-and-shoot almost entirely. So, those people aren't buying cameras unless it's for a very special reason. We're the people who camera companies are aiming for—the people with disposable income and semi-pro aspirations that like shooting with nice, high-quality gear. But, look at the answers from some enthusiasts, even in this thread—EVFs will never be as good; OVF or GTFO. So, some in the enthusiast crowd are screaming and shouting—we want SLRs!

2) In the US, at least, Canon and Nikon still reign supreme (even if the market's contracted). While Nikon had a hit a few years back with the Nikon 1, they're both still selling DSLRs hand over fist. With one of the key advantages of MILCs being compactness, it's hard to sell to these camera shoppers since it's ingrained in their minds—It's gotta be Canikon and it's gotta at least look like a DSLR to convince them of the camera's imaging potential. Samsung might change things with the NX1 and their marketing blitz, and that'll have a halo effect for the entire mirrorless segment of the market. But, in my view, as long as the marketing dollars still rest mostly the coffers of the Big Two, it'll be DSLRs all the way for uninformed shoppers buying a D3200 or Rebel T3i. Canikon are not going to stop making cameras just like those for a long, long time since they have the scale to crank them out at even lower prices potentially into the future.

So, in short...it could be a long while before we see the market really swing mirrorless. Pentax could very well compete as a purist SLR system for us enthusiasts or pivot once again to mirrorless (lessons learned from the K-01, R&D from GXR being specific advantages). Being nimble and under the control of Ricoh is good for the outlook of the Pentax brand.

---

Last edited by astron; 11-27-2014 at 06:36 PM.

[normhead]

With B&W film - a silver halide crystal has only two states - exposed or unexposed. Digital sensors require signal digitization through an ADC before the image can be interpreted by computers - this is a statement that flips the lid on many of my photography students.

Your photography students have lids? Can you just pour knowledge in an open lid? ... what a concept.
If I was cartoonist, I'd draw a cartoon.

[monochrome]

It if were not for laws and regulations . . . . .

traditional gasoline-engine cars would cost 1/3 what they cost today.

[IchabodCrane]

My belief, which I say repeatedly, is that

(1) cell phones have already killed the point-and-shoot market; point-and-shoot hasn't quite realized that yet, but they really are "dead cameras clicking"

(2) over time, MILCs will kill the "crop sensor" market. I think that FF DSLRs will remain for various reasons, one being that professionals will want to be recognized as being "special", and the stealth look pioneered by the Canon T-90 yells "special" to them. On the other hand, I believe that various features of the MILC will speak to the rest of us. If the others don't get their acts together, the high quality EVF that Sony has put on the NEX7 and A6000 will put them in the driver's seat. However, I do have to admit that the MILC market has been growing much more slowly than I had expected; I can't believe that availability is the whole issue (afterall, lots of people buy their cameras on-line these days), but inability to see and touch an MILC in many stores may be slowing down acceptance, but I do still believe that it is coming.

MILC share will remain relatively low as long as the two producers who dominate the ILC market don't sell a serious MILC offering. As soon as Canon and Nikon go "all in" with MILCs, we'll see a radical shift in market share between DSLRs and MILCs.

[Mikesul]

MILC share will remain relatively low as long as the two producers who dominate the ILC market don't sell a serious MILC offering. As soon as Canon and Nikon go "all in" with MILCs, we'll see a radical shift in market share between DSLRs and MILCs.

If Pentax does it there will be two formerly niche (but potentially influential) brands which could take over the the top spots. There is nothing inevitable about Canon and Nikon.

[monochrome]

In the US, at least, Canon and Nikon still reign supreme (even if the market's contracted).

We all forget that the US is now only about 23% of global GDP, versus 67% 40 years ago; on a Purchasing-Power-Parity basis China is the world's largest economy.

In effect, buying preferences in the West no longer control the market - buying preferences in Asia at large control the market. Having little cultural history to overcome, Asian consumers will be delighted with EVF's because they have nothing against which to contrast them.

[Nicolas06]

We all forget that the US is now only about 23% of global GDP, versus 67% 40 years ago; on a Purchasing-Power-Parity basis China is the world's largest economy.

In effect, buying preferences in the West no longer control the market - buying preferences in Asia at large control the market. Having little cultural history to overcome, Asian consumers will be delighted with EVF's because they have nothing against which to contrast them.

Purchasing-Power-Parity means that the china money is under evaluated and that chineses live better than what it appear at first.

When you want to make money you don't give a shit to that. What count is absolute number and you can convert money in any currency you like. Western country together are 60% of GDP so it is still where most money is. More they have more money per person meaning you can sell 1 product at a much stepper price and increase your margin... While in country like china to have a chance to sell you need to decrease prices by a fair amount.

[Nicolas06]

People resist change. Take for example the electric cars like the Tesla or the Chevy Volt (not talking about hybrids here!). Many people resist change even if they are offered this cars at about the same price of their regular fuel guzzlers from few years back. It if were not for laws and regulations, the market will still be dominated by the muscle car segment, with all V8's bigger than 350 cu/in., rumbling and shaking at every corner. Of course they will have manual trannys with sticks to the floor! That's the way God intended a real man's car! Not a whimpy luxury sedan with not one, but two small electric motors to each rear tire, without transmission and horrors: no shift lever! No matter if this "toy" can make the old "sting ray" bite the dust or get as far but only spending a nickle or less for every dollar of fuel spent with the Trans Am or the Mustang.... and God forbids riding in one of those mystery machines that play dead at every stop, do not shake and rumble and there is no way to announce "here I come" with the throttle pedal!

Electric are usually more expensive and have very low autonomy. They also take much more time to refill until the stations where you can exchange your exhausted batteries with one ready to go are as frequent as standard gaz stations. You can imagine having a second or third car eventually if you never need the autonomy and don't care the price difference, but that not compelling reason to choose it, anyway.

But there is more; All over the world most the electric energy is made from Petrol or Gaz.

Main exception is France. Here if you have an electric car, it really run from nuclear energy, that's true. But for most other countries it means it really run from gaz and petrol. Electric car is only ecologic only in France, and only if you consider nuclear energy ecologic. At least it doesn't emit CO2.

There no point to switch to electric car if it is to produce electricity with petrol... It is less practical more expensive and the added steps mean you'll need more petrol in the end for the same result.

On the opposite, just by favorising working from home 1 or 2 days per week you can give back more free time to many, decrease their monthly expense a bit, decrease traffic jam, and reduce your CO2 emissions. Final outcome is that we would sell and make less car reducing global GDP and that's not politically acceptable.

[rburgoss]

traditional gasoline-engine cars would cost 1/3 what they cost today.

Thank God for those laws and regulations. If none existed for safety and pollution related matters (as of late 70's), the death toll on traffic related accidents and respiratory diseases worldwide would be ten fold as of today.

Electric are usually more expensive and have very low autonomy. They also take much more time to refill until the stations where you can exchange your exhausted batteries with one ready to go are as frequent as standard gaz stations. You can imagine having a second or third car eventually if you never need the autonomy and don't care the price difference, but that not compelling reason to choose it, anyway.

But there is more; All over the world most the electric energy is made from Petrol or Gaz.

Main exception is France. Here if you have an electric car, it really run from nuclear energy, that's true. But for most other countries it means it really run from gaz and petrol. Electric car is only ecologic only in France, and only if you consider nuclear energy ecologic. At least it doesn't emit CO2.

There no point to switch to electric car if it is to produce electricity with petrol... It is less practical more expensive and the added steps mean you'll need more petrol in the end for the same result.

On the opposite, just by favorising working from home 1 or 2 days per week you can give back more free time to many, decrease their monthly expense a bit, decrease traffic jam, and reduce your CO2 emissions. Final outcome is that we would sell and make less car reducing global GDP and that's not politically acceptable.

We could debate for days about the "real" ecological benefits of electric cars. This issue has been discussed widely all over. Of course, it all depends on the "where" (country, region, etc) and for "how much" (vehicle cost, government incentives, etc) the numbers could be boiled down. I do understand USA is about the single most important vehicle market in the world, but is not the only one neither a majority among worldwide sales. For example, where I live (Costa Rica), only 3% of electric power is produced from fuel burning and only at peak hours certain months of the year. Here, electricity is produced by hydroelectric power, geothermal, eolic (wind) and solar (photo-voltaic and heat transfer) means. In other countries like Iceland, 100% is geothermal and so on. We can discuss about the battery production and the heavy metal pollution from the battery production, recycling and disposal. Also, about the availability of "recharging stations" for certain markets.

But in the automobile industry there are about only two main considerations to care about: 1) There are still very big interests (oil companies) in keeping their status quo untouched, thus they will do everything and anything at their hands to boicot any "alternative power source" for vehicles, as long as they do not get a share of it, and 2) Oil industry, besides the oil companies, still means a lot of taxes and income for many countries all over and such countries are not ready to renounce to such taxes that easy. Think of it as the tobacco industry, where the biggest business goes to local and national governments by means of taxes.

Fortunately, in the photo business (the same we are discussing right here), none of the two situations described before happen. There is no "big brother" interested in boicoting new technology, neither third parties (governments) interested in keeping sales up for obsolete products. The only resistance to the market and technology improvement, is our own resistance to change.

For me, for example, I still do not cope with the idea that a camera body is now "disposable", as they become obsolete in just two-three years. I used to believe camera bodies were jewels to be kept as such for ever. OTOH, I have no problem knowing my computer is "jurassic garbage" after 12 to 18 months from original purchase. But that is just because I grew believing such. But not about the camera bodies.

[mrNewt]

Personally I have to admit... I am warming up more and more to mirror-less cameras.

For about 2 years now I've been using nothing but mirror-less digital cameras and film cameras with nice and bright viewfinders.
When I've recently tried an ASP-C format I felt like I am squinting and looking trough a tunnel...
I got to the conclusion that I`d take a mirror-less ASP-C over a D-SLR APS-C camera any time of the day. I guess those K-01, MX-1 and Q spoiled me quite a bit.

The next D-SLR FF camera better have a BIG and BRIGHT viewfinder or else is pointless to me.

[Rondec]

My 2¢ on the subject.

Yes, mirrorless will going to overtake DSLRs someday. Eventually, even pros will switch to some mirrorless version of a performant, large-sensored camera that might even retain compatibility with current pro lenses to ease the transition and carry over investments.

But, there are a few contradictory trends that I see going on in the imaging market.

1) It's quickly switching to become an enthusiast-orientated industry. Normal folks are using their smartphones more and more, and with the prowess of these devices now at a level that can easily outdo point and shoot cameras from five years ago, it's killed the point-and-shoot almost entirely. So, those people aren't buying cameras unless it's for a very special reason. We're the people who camera companies are aiming for—the people with disposable income and semi-pro aspirations that like shooting with nice, high-quality gear. But, look at the answers from some enthusiasts, even in this thread—EVFs will never be as good; OVF or GTFO. So, some in the enthusiast crowd are screaming and shouting—we want SLRs!

2) In the US, at least, Canon and Nikon still reign supreme (even if the market's contracted). While Nikon had a hit a few years back with the Nikon 1, they're both still selling DSLRs hand over fist. With one of the key advantages of MILCs being compactness, it's hard to sell to these camera shoppers since it's ingrained in their minds—It's gotta be Canikon and it's gotta at least look like a DSLR to convince them of the camera's imaging potential. Samsung might change things with the NX1 and their marketing blitz, and that'll have a halo effect for the entire mirrorless segment of the market. But, in my view, as long as the marketing dollars still rest mostly the coffers of the Big Two, it'll be DSLRs all the way for uninformed shoppers buying a D3200 or Rebel T3i. Canikon are not going to stop making cameras just like those for a long, long time since they have the scale to crank them out at even lower prices potentially into the future.

So, in short...it could be a long while before we see the market really swing mirrorless. Pentax could very well compete as a purist SLR system for us enthusiasts or pivot once again to mirrorless (lessons learned from the K-01, R&D from GXR being specific advantages). Being nimble and under the control of Ricoh is good for the outlook of the Pentax brand.

The thing is that if Canon/Nikon went mirrorless -- assuming they choose a different lens mount, they suddenly loose their biggest advantage -- a huge lens portfolio. Sure, they could do the adapter thing, but I just don't buy the idea that most consumers will go for a camera system where there are few native mount choices and most lens options require some type of adapter. It certainly would put them behind Sony and that's saying a lot.

I suppose they could just keep the same mount and lose the mirror -- some decrease in size with that, but the lenses are all the same.

I just don't see Canon and Nikon switching till they absolutely have to. They'll make all the excuses they can, but it really would put them back at square one, with little advantage over the smaller players.

[DDoram]

Well maybe SLRs are not dying yet, but are they the growth area anymore? To me Pentax should be hitching itself to the mirrorless potential growth market as DSLRs don't have that much market excitement anymore. Pentax should follow Sony with a FF like the A7II with shake reduction. A FF DSLR is chasing a market that Pentax lost to the big 2 years ago.