[boriscleto]

No doubt Samsung has shipped a lot of NX1s...

Samsung ships a lot of Galaxy Tab series tablets. Doesn't mean the retailer actually sells them...

[stevebrot]

Anyway, how many camera styles have actually died?

Good question. Of the major types, I can't think of any that has completely disappeared, except maybe 35mm p&s and 35mm fixed lens rangefinder. Even pinhole is still viable and Rolleiflex sales are still strong.


Steve

---------- Post added 11-21-14 at 09:30 AM ----------

"Who needs all that extra bulk [of a DSLR] when it doesn’t translate into better image quality?"

That is what rangefinder shooters have been saying for the last 50 years, but the SLR won out in terms of features.


Steve

[northcoastgreg]

I've noticed that when a fairly large m43 camera is introduced. like the Panny GH4, there are people who criticize it for being too large, that it is somehow a betrayal of its m43 heritage or something.

The problem with the larger m43 products is not so much that they're a betrayal, but that they could end up sinking the system, in the same way that the large HG and SHG lenses sank the 4/3rds DSLR system. The bigger m43 cameras and the Oly f2.8 zoom lenses are around the same size as the Sony A7* system and the Zeiss zooms; and yet the Sony system is using a sensor that's four time larger. If you had a choice of two systems, both nearly of the same size, yet one featured a sensor four times larger, which one would you choose? In short, since the primary reason for accepting all the trade-offs of the smaller m43 sensor is that it potentially enables a smaller overall system, shouldn't keeping things as small as possible be a very important goal for m43?

IMO, discussions about mirrorless verses DSLRs are way too camera-centric. In the long run, it's all about the glass. If the future really is mirrorless, that future is going to have to accommodate the Nikon F mount and the Canon EF mount. There's simply been too much money invested in high-end Nikon and Canon glass for people to make a switch to compact mirrorless. At some point, we'll probably see Canon and Nikon start making mirrorless EF and F mount cameras, and then it will merely be a question as to whether consumers prefer OVFs or EVFs.

[monochrome]

Maybe I'm a throwback, but I just don't understand the real advantage of small since it seems to force so many other compromises. I really don't care so much, though, what image capture device is attached to the rear of my lenses since I sort of know it will become obsolete relatively quickly. What matters to me is my lenses, which I expect to own for at least ten years, if not forever.

When I become convinced an adapter is not a compromise, when I become convinced an EVF is not a compromise, when I become convinced the ergonomics of the typical mirrorless form is not a compromise, perhaps then I will be more open-minded about this, but for now I remain deeply skeptical and unwilling to change my entire equipment list to accommodate a camera whose half-life will be 30 months at best.

[luftfluss]

The problem with the larger m43 products is not so much that they're a betrayal, but that they could end up sinking the system, in the same way that the large HG and SHG lenses sank the 4/3rds DSLR system. The bigger m43 cameras and the Oly f2.8 zoom lenses are around the same size as the Sony A7* system and the Zeiss zooms; and yet the Sony system is using a sensor that's four time larger. If you had a choice of two systems, both nearly of the same size, yet one featured a sensor four times larger, which one would you choose? In short, since the primary reason for accepting all the trade-offs of the smaller m43 sensor is that it potentially enables a smaller overall system, shouldn't keeping things as small as possible be a very important goal for m43?

IMO, it makes the most sense for there to be multiple options. There's room for small and large m43 cameras, as there are some advantages to a larger body for some people.

---------- Post added 11-21-14 at 01:35 PM ----------

Maybe I'm a throwback, but I just don't understand the real advantage of small since it seems to force so many other compromises. I really don't care so much, though, what image capture device is attached to the rear of my lenses since I sort of know it will become obsolete relatively quickly. What matters to me is my lenses, which I expect to own for at least ten years, if not forever.

In other threads, you argue for Ricoh by saying that the North American market may not be their top priority. Perhaps the same is true for small m43 bodies - you (and I) are not the target demographic.

I had an Oly PEN in addition to my Pentax, and while the Oly delivered good images, it was just to damn small for me to use optimally. That's not the camera's fault, its mine.

When I become convinced an adapter is not a compromise, when I become convinced an EVF is not a compromise, when I become convinced the ergonomics of the typical mirrorless form is not a compromise, perhaps then I will be more open-minded about this, but for now I remain deeply skeptical and unwilling to change my entire equipment list to accommodate a camera whose half-life will be 30 months at best.

Everything is a compromise relative to the alternatives, each of us must simply choose the best set of compromises for our selves.

[Rondec]

Maybe I'm a throwback, but I just don't understand the real advantage of small since it seems to force so many other compromises. I really don't care so much, though, what image capture device is attached to the rear of my lenses since I sort of know it will become obsolete relatively quickly. What matters to me is my lenses, which I expect to own for at least ten years, if not forever.

When I become convinced an adapter is not a compromise, when I become convinced an EVF is not a compromise, when I become convinced the ergonomics of the typical mirrorless form is not a compromise, perhaps then I will be more open-minded about this, but for now I remain deeply skeptical and unwilling to change my entire equipment list to accommodate a camera whose half-life will be 30 months at best.

I think the whole point of "small" is portability. The problem in the past is that small meant lots of compromises -- poor image quality due to smaller sensors -- bad high iso, lousy dynamic range.

To me, there are sort of three sizes of camera -- pocketable, small but not pocketable, and big. Most large sensored cameras fall into that middle category. That said, a camera like the OM-D EM-5 is quite small and combined with a pancake lens like the 17mm f2.8 it really is probably something that more folks are likely to take out with them than say, a K3 with any lens, even the DA 40mm.

Problem with little cameras is that when you look at zooms, they can get pretty unwieldy. But Pentaxians are all about primes anyway, aren't they?

The biggest reason I don't shoot with a system like the Q, is I am not willing to deal with the decreased image quality. But it seems like large sensor mirrorless gives better image quality, still with small size.

[osv]

I'm sorry, I don't agree. You need an SLR for an optical viewfinder and LCD viewfinders are simply not in the same league.

evf does not use an lcd, it uses an oled screen, like on the back of a modern cell phone... big difference.

the dr on an evf isn't the best, but i haven't found that to be a problem.

---------- Post added 11-21-2014 at 11:49 AM ----------

IMO, discussions about mirrorless verses DSLRs are way too camera-centric. In the long run, it's all about the glass. If the future really is mirrorless, that future is going to have to accommodate the Nikon F mount and the Canon EF mount. There's simply been too much money invested in high-end Nikon and Canon glass for people to make a switch to compact mirrorless. At some point, we'll probably see Canon and Nikon start making mirrorless EF and F mount cameras, and then it will merely be a question as to whether consumers prefer OVFs or EVFs.

emount adapters will fit all canon glass, with electrical connections if you need it, and there are adapters for most nikon lenses.

lots of people are using canikon glass like that.

dslr people need to stop thinking about everything in terms of proprietary mounts... it's an obsolete concept.

[northcoastgreg]

IMO, it makes the most sense for there to be multiple options. There's room for small and large m43 cameras, as there are some advantages to a larger body for some people.

The problem is there really aren't that many options, and those that exist don't make a huge amount of sense. With Olympus, if you want a pro caliber camera and a pro caliber zoom, you have no choice but to accept a large m43 camera and large m43 lenses. The Oly 12-40 is the best standard lens in the m43 line-up, yet it weighs more than three of the four zoom lenses I use for landscape photography with my K-5iis -- and two of those zoom lenses are FF! If it really was about choices, why not make some compact pro quality zooms, to go with the EM-5? Then one could have a small, versatile kit that provided pro-level quality.

Problem with little cameras is that when you look at zooms, they can get pretty unwieldy.

That's my number one issue with compact mirrorless. I don't have any issues with cameras the size of DSLRs; it's large lenses that give me headaches, because it's hard to carry a bunch of large lenses around (especially for those of us who hate camera bags and camera backpacks). If compact mirrorless can't make high quality zoom lenses significantly smaller than what you get with an APS-C DSLR, then I don't find the format all that compelling in terms of smaller size.

Curiously, right now, the smallest high-end WR zoom lens currently offered by any of the ILC manufacturers is the Pentax DA 20-40. The mirrorless manufacturers seem too far stuck in the old "quality glass must be fast glass" paradigm to understand the best strategy of developing the main advantages of their systems.

[IchabodCrane]

Maybe I'm a throwback, but I just don't understand the real advantage of small since it seems to force so many other compromises. I really don't care so much, though, what image capture device is attached to the rear of my lenses since I sort of know it will become obsolete relatively quickly. What matters to me is my lenses, which I expect to own for at least ten years, if not forever.

When I become convinced an adapter is not a compromise, when I become convinced an EVF is not a compromise, when I become convinced the ergonomics of the typical mirrorless form is not a compromise, perhaps then I will be more open-minded about this, but for now I remain deeply skeptical and unwilling to change my entire equipment list to accommodate a camera whose half-life will be 30 months at best.

Those are my barriers to change, too. What I do recognize, however, is that a change to a different and presumably MILC system doesn't mean the lenses you have to buy are only going to be useful for 30 months.

Frankly, most MILC systems are going to continue to get better. EVFs will get better. Focus tracking will get better. Focus speed will continue to get better. Focus accuracy already surpasses DSLRs under most conditions (only in very low light does it fall short).

It's the whole MILC ancillary world that is still way behind DSLRs but that gap will narrow some day, too (I think). It seems Sigma and even Tamron are starting to figure out who will be the winners and losers and have at least made a small start to support some likely MILC winners.

Lastly, right now there's a real-world price premium for good MILC systems over DSLRs which makes the traction they've gained all the more remarkable. Just look at the price of a K-3 opposite an X-T1 and it's blindingly apparent.

None of this is to say Ricoh must go all-in with MILCs... just that I expect the portion of the ILC market that they current play in will decrease over time.

[RobA_Oz]

Samsung ships a lot of Galaxy Tab series tablets. Doesn't mean the retailer actually sells them...

We need an irony smiley…

[stevebrot]

Samsung ships a lot of Galaxy Tab series tablets. Doesn't mean the retailer actually sells them...

We need an irony smiley…

They use the boxes stacked as monitor stands.


Steve

[Nicolas06]

If you could get an A7r for five hundred dollars cheaper than a D810, wouldn't you consider it?

Honestly ? Not with today Sony vs Nikon echosystem. Maybe in 5 years. But even I might prefer the equivalent Nikon offering then.

While some love Sony, for me, they don't have the echosystem but more their overall behavior is more geek oriented and they don't seems to value long term echosystem and standards. I really feel they could tomorrow go for a totally new different system and don't give a shit to their previous customers.

[VisualDarkness]

I'm also going the mirrorless route:


Add in a couple of rangefinders and a Q to prove that I'm already there.

With this I just want to say that even though the mirrorless are often talked about as a new thing, it's not a new battle. The whole 20th century is a battle between mirror and mirrorless designs fighting back and forth in the pro/enthusiast market. The only difference is that slr design has been completely dominating the market for almost 15 years due to mirrorless cameras not coping as well with the change to digital, we are now seeing them finally fighting back.

[luftfluss]

The problem is there really aren't that many options, and those that exist don't make a huge amount of sense. With Olympus, if you want a pro caliber camera and a pro caliber zoom, you have no choice but to accept a large m43 camera and large m43 lenses. The Oly 12-40 is the best standard lens in the m43 line-up, yet it weighs more than three of the four zoom lenses I use for landscape photography with my K-5iis -- and two of those zoom lenses are FF! If it really was about choices, why not make some compact pro quality zooms, to go with the EM-5? Then one could have a small, versatile kit that provided pro-level quality.



That's my number one issue with compact mirrorless. I don't have any issues with cameras the size of DSLRs; it's large lenses that give me headaches, because it's hard to carry a bunch of large lenses around (especially for those of us who hate camera bags and camera backpacks). If compact mirrorless can't make high quality zoom lenses significantly smaller than what you get with an APS-C DSLR, then I don't find the format all that compelling in terms of smaller size.

Curiously, right now, the smallest high-end WR zoom lens currently offered by any of the ILC manufacturers is the Pentax DA 20-40. The mirrorless manufacturers seem too far stuck in the old "quality glass must be fast glass" paradigm to understand the best strategy of developing the main advantages of their systems.

The Oly 12-40 is 2/3 the weight of the Pentax 16-50 and 15% shorter. To some people this is important, to others not. The Oly is also just over half the weight of the Nikon 16-85/4.

Are those "three of the four zoom lenses" WR like the Oly?

I don't consider any of the Oly bodies to be "large". The E-M1 is about the same size as the Pentax K-01.

I agree with you that the larger (pun intended) issue is with lens size. I have no interest in hauling around a backpack filled with lenses.

[Nicolas06]

Those are my barriers to change, too. What I do recognize, however, is that a change to a different and presumably MILC system doesn't mean the lenses you have to buy are only going to be useful for 30 months.

Frankly, most MILC systems are going to continue to get better. EVFs will get better. Focus tracking will get better. Focus speed will continue to get better. Focus accuracy already surpasses DSLRs under most conditions (only in very low light does it fall short).

It's the whole MILC ancillary world that is still way behind DSLRs but that gap will narrow some day, too (I think). It seems Sigma and even Tamron are starting to figure out who will be the winners and losers and have at least made a small start to support some likely MILC winners.

Lastly, right now there's a real-world price premium for good MILC systems over DSLRs which makes the traction they've gained all the more remarkable. Just look at the price of a K-3 opposite an X-T1 and it's blindingly apparent.

None of this is to say Ricoh must go all-in with MILCs... just that I expect the portion of the ILC market that they current play in will decrease over time.

Well EVF as technology will mature and likely penetrate the high end market. It need a few years - maybe 5 - to be at same level and a few more - maybe 5 years more - to be the technology most the pro use.

As for the size, I still think some of the paid pro and enthousiast will get heavy, big camera with their big sensors and lenses. Because they want the best of the best.

The other will take even more photo with their phones who will become even better. They grow their sensor size, benefit of most the research, make even faster lenses. The biggest problem in the end is the zooming capability.

But mirrorless as the same zooming problem. You go mirorless for replacing you phone or compact with high quality but still get a small camera. But all mirorless tele are quite big, even more if they are reasonably fast, something that is really important for a tele lense...