Why Thom is wrong...

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 874
Like?
Re: Why Thom is wrong...
In reply to Red5TX, 10 months ago

Red5TX wrote:

olliess wrote:

Commonly for some quick-and-dirty fill flash or to trigger an off-camera flash, yes.

By the time I've set up off-camera strobes, it's not a great difficulty to have also attached the E-M1's flash.

Look, I recognize that DSLRs have plenty of advantages, but the pop-up flash issue is a silly criticism. Handy? Sure. Deal killer? I would hope not.

Of course it isn't a deal killer, it's just an inconvenience. People have been saying the same thing about the D700/800 vs. the 5D series for years. BTW, the NEX-6/7 have it, so it isn't as if only DSLRs can shoehorn a "convenience flash" in there.

Plenty of very pro cameras don't have pop-up flashes, either.

Obviously.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Beach Bum
Contributing MemberPosts: 815
Like?
Re: Flange focal distance and the death of the mirror...
In reply to ZorSy, 10 months ago

ZorSy wrote:


Also, you claim Canon and Nikon are smarter than this and can improve their contrast detect autofocus, yet I've seen no evidence of this whatsoever. Ask yourself why Panasonic and Sony can be so good here yet Canon and Nikon so poor. The answer is quite simply the availability of resources. Panasonic and Sony are far larger than Canon or Nikon and have far more resources available to them to develop tech. It's really the same reason Panny and Sony are so good at video while Canon and Nikon (especially Nikon) are not so good.

Clueless to a degree again: Sony uses translucent mirror, hence full-time PDAF at the cost of half a stop of light (actually more than a stop, but let's settle without arguments). Panasonic, again, uses smaller sensor, DOF kicks in and generally you get "sharper" images due to a less focus error. Yes, Nikon lags with CDAF or on sensor PDAF on the current offering of their DX/FF range, hence video isn't as good as on Canon DX.So we do agree about one thing - Nikon is not good in video.

Not really. Panasonic doesn't have good CDAF because of a larger DOF. Have you tried any of their compacts, camcorders, or mFT with fast glass? It doesn't matter which of these types of cameras you use, their CDAF blows everyone else away, including Canon and Nikon by a pretty wide margin.

Same with Sony (I'd call them a close second). Olympus, in the past, wasn't noted for quick autofocus, but they've upped their game dramatically with their latest mFTs. I'm not sure about their compacts now, as I haven't tried one for a while, but I know their mFTs are excellent.

This is the reason why Panasonic and Sony are so consistent in quality across their line-up while Canon and Nikon have to cut corners in some models.

In short, I don't believe either Canon or Nikon are "smarter" in any way, shape, or form, and, in fact, are outgunned in a number of ways. My belief is that Panny, Sony, and/or Olympus will eventually overtake CaNikon in overall autofocus when they develop on sensor PDAF to perfection (combined with their already stellar CDAF). The mirror is going to be rendered obsolete eventually, and camera manufacturers with already established marketshare in cameras with short FFDs will have the edge.

Once they develop on sensor PDAF they will eventually overtake - well, lots of conditional wordings here, right? Both of these two "big" ones have demonstrated they are capable of doing it, don't you think? It's a matter of implementation: at this stage, neither system is "good enough" to be implemented on mass scale. Reputation is thing you loose in a split second and half baked products may just hurt it. Panasonic, if we speak about it, is ignorant about criticism, which reflects in sales numbers. Olympus is better in that regard but they are pushing it hard. Pen series (numerous models) was as unsuccessful as One series - lots of noise, not much sales. Low cost consumer stuff. It definitely lost to bottom range Rebels or low end Nikons (as they actually deliver). I admire Pentax (not being user) for recognising that 1 inch of flange distance does not actually make camera that much smaller - still not fitting in the pocket. We'll put design on the side here. I wouldn't mind or be surprised if Nikon introduces ILC based on DX with mirror box removed, still using F mount: even without mirror box it still wouldn't fit it the pocket and the lenses wouldn't magically shrink in size. At least on the consumer level , it would make more sense without major re-work on the imaging chip itself. But all this hypothetical ramble is made under assumption the on-chip PDAF actually works on par to PDAF speed, which is only the wishful thinking. For most people, the world is not standing still - it moves much faster than ever (still spinning at the same pace, luckily) and focusing speed still matter. Both for videos and photos - the only thing is that in video you can't zoom to a full 24MP resolution, as not there, to see all the flaws current V-AF suffers from, so it all looks "good enough" - just.

Short FFD will not have the edge with the current sensor design. Nor will make wide angle lenses cheaper to make. Not will help with long telephoto lenses as the body will eventually follow the flange size and became diminutive, compromising ergonomics. Short pancake prime, yes - but is that what buyers (consumers) really want?

We agree to disagree. The short FFD, aside from removing an inch (give or take) from the overall depth of the camera, my understanding is that it allows for smaller and cheaper lens designs, while maintaining image quality.

If you have a link to an article showing any downside to a short FFD, I'd be happy to read it. But I haven't seen one.

And, yes, the whole body/lens package will look smaller and sleaker with a smaller FFD. And, as you mentioned, this will be especially true with a pancake. People naturally go for sleeker, more svelte designs, and I believe this will eventually be true of cameras as well. Just give it time.

My understanding is the only reason CaNikon have a long FFD is because of the mirror box, and they wouldn't have done it otherwise. But, if you have a link to something stating otherwise, I'm all ears (or eyes).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Woland65
Regular MemberPosts: 364
Like?
Re: Why Thom is wrong...
In reply to Richard, 10 months ago

The difference between dslr and mirrorless will become unimportant as technologies merge.

The lasting difference between system will be the lenses.

Do you want large, and heavy, lenses that give you good low light noise and short dof: go with ff lenses

If you want a camera that is easier to bring along: go with m43

To me the difference between ff and apsc lenses seem a bit too small to be meaningfull when ff cameras come down in price. So I think apsc is in a bad spot. FF and m43 have clear and meaningfull niches.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PK24X36NOW
Contributing MemberPosts: 741Gear list
Like?
Re: Why Thom is wrong...
In reply to Richard, 10 months ago

Thom (and all of the mirrorless cheerleaders here) are wrong because the mirror provides something no mirrorless camera can EVER provide - a real time, lag free, eyestrain inducing flicker free view through the taking lens that consumes NO battery power. This unique aspect of the SLR/dSLR makes it a superior photography instrument that will not be bettered by the best electronic viewfinder in the world.

Flange distance? Not only a non-issue, but actually beneficial given the angles of incoming light caused by short flange distances, coupled with the nature of digital sensors.

Size/weight are only arguments because you're comparing smaller sensor cameras with larger sensor cameras for the most part, and becasue you're not comparing cameras with equal image capabilities (i.e., including DOF control). If they make a FF MILC, the lenses will be just as big as for FF dSLRs, and the FF MILC + lens will be an awkward, front-heavy combination when you have a small, thin camera body.

If you're willing to sacrifice the ability to isolate subjects from background, are willing to sacrifice (high ISO and overall) image quality, are willing to sacrifice tracking autofocus for moving subjects, are willing to sacrifice battery life, and are willing to suffer with akward ergonomics/poor controls because the camera bodies are too small to allow enough room for extensive on-camera controls (or because the controls are so small they can't be easily used), then mirrorless cameras may seem like a good "alternative," but when those limitations are taken into account, they provide no compelling reason to move away from dSLRs. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mike_PEAT
Forum ProPosts: 10,030Gear list
Like?
SLRs were E-M5 sized decades BEFORE digital!
In reply to Richard, 10 months ago

Richard wrote:

Mike_PEAT wrote:

Both Canon and Nikon used to produce FF (35mm/135 format) SLRs that are close in size to the E-M5.

I don't think that will happen, there is something called ergonomics and balance. You don't make things large or small for no reason, you make it so if fits your hands and balances and is comfortable within the design spec of the camera and lens.

Have people's hands suddenly become gargantuan?  What makes FF cameras of the past (like Canon AE & Nikon FM) fine 20 years ago, suddenly too small?

The only reason originally for the bulk and weight of dSLRs was they couldn't fit the discrete electronics inside a standard sized SLR body...but today it's been proven that the electronics can be fit into a normal sized body, even with a mirror (Olympus E-4xx series dSLRs).

 Mike_PEAT's gear list:Mike_PEAT's gear list
Lytro Light Field 16GB
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Beach Bum
Contributing MemberPosts: 815
Like?
Re: Why Thom is wrong...
In reply to PK24X36NOW, 10 months ago

PK24X36NOW wrote:

Thom (and all of the mirrorless cheerleaders here) are wrong because the mirror provides something no mirrorless camera can EVER provide - a real time, lag free, eyestrain inducing flicker free view through the taking lens that consumes NO battery power.

All things I don't need BTW. Maybe when I'm 70. And, BTW, I've read some posts from pro Photogs here who actually like the Sony A99 EVF a lot more than the traditional OVF.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51571477

And people choose smaller electronics all the time even if the larger ones offer better ergonomics. None of what you've said is any reason that DSLRs will remain popular among the average consumer. Maybe among the pros, but we're talking about a generation that's growing up on the iPhone, actually using that to type. Talk about poor ergonomics.

The difference between an OVF and EVF won't make any difference to these people. In fact, an EVF may be a bit too luxurious for them. Perhaps if you removed all the hand grips from the camera and made all the operations touchscreen, then it would be something they could embrace.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Yxa
Yxa
Regular MemberPosts: 297Gear list
Like?
Re: SLRs were E-M5 sized decades BEFORE digital!
In reply to Mike_PEAT, 10 months ago

Mike_PEAT wrote:

Richard wrote:

Mike_PEAT wrote:

Both Canon and Nikon used to produce FF (35mm/135 format) SLRs that are close in size to the E-M5.

I don't think that will happen, there is something called ergonomics and balance. You don't make things large or small for no reason, you make it so if fits your hands and balances and is comfortable within the design spec of the camera and lens.

Have people's hands suddenly become gargantuan? What makes FF cameras of the past (like Canon AE & Nikon FM) fine 20 years ago, suddenly too small?

The only reason originally for the bulk and weight of dSLRs was they couldn't fit the discrete electronics inside a standard sized SLR body...but today it's been proven that the electronics can be fit into a normal sized body, even with a mirror (Olympus E-4xx series dSLRs).

I would like a digital Olympus OM-1 not a gigantic FM

 Yxa's gear list:Yxa's gear list
Canon PowerShot G11 Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Nikon D800 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 11,671Gear list
Like?
Why you are reading Thom wrong
In reply to Richard, 10 months ago

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now. [...]

2. Canikon already have EVF, on the back of the camera for live view. [...]

3. Canikon can make smaller dslrs with APS-C that will be able to compete with mirrorless [...]

None of these are arguments against mirrorless, e.g, a Digital Rebel with an EVF and hence no mirror.  This is where I think Thom is making his prediction - that "soon" the mirror will be dropped for low-end EF-S and Nikon DX bodies.   On the other end of the price spectrum could be a 1DHS or D5HS (High Speed) body with an EVF and extreme frame rate.  What's left is to quibble over the definition of "soon" for the first model to appear (next year, two years, five years?) and how long will actual DSLRs with mirrors/optical finders be in the lineup (five years, ten years, or more?)

At this point mirrorless has no advantage and has disadvantages compared to Canikon solutions.

The difference between you and Thom is that you are thinking of mirrorless as only Fuji/Oly/Panny/Sony.

-- hide signature --

Erik

 Erik Magnuson's gear list:Erik Magnuson's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 450D Sigma SD10 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Nikon D3200 +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 874
Like?
Re: SLRs were E-M5 sized decades BEFORE digital!
In reply to Yxa, 10 months ago

Yxa wrote:

Mike_PEAT wrote:

Have people's hands suddenly become gargantuan? What makes FF cameras of the past (like Canon AE & Nikon FM) fine 20 years ago, suddenly too small?

The only reason originally for the bulk and weight of dSLRs was they couldn't fit the discrete electronics inside a standard sized SLR body...but today it's been proven that the electronics can be fit into a normal sized body, even with a mirror (Olympus E-4xx series dSLRs).

I would like a digital Olympus OM-1 not a gigantic FM

Notice how people were putting on the accessory grips even then?  

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MichaelKJ
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,065Gear list
Like?
Re: Why Thom is wrong...
In reply to PK24X36NOW, 10 months ago

PK24X36NOW wrote:

Thom (and all of the mirrorless cheerleaders here) are wrong because the mirror provides something no mirrorless camera can EVER provide - a real time, lag free, eyestrain inducing flicker free view through the taking lens that consumes NO battery power. This unique aspect of the SLR/dSLR makes it a superior photography instrument that will not be bettered by the best electronic viewfinder in the world.

Why would I want an eyestrain inducingview?

Thom noted that power consumption is the EVFs main disadvantage, so you can't claim he is wrong about that.

EVFs are improving at a very rapid rate. Flicker is becoming a non-issue and lag time soon be a fraction of the time interval from when your decide to shoot and when you depress the shutter (that lag will always exist).

As others have noted, EVFs offer things that OVFs will never provide. Thus, while EVFs will continue to improve in the areas in which they trail OVFs, OVFs will remain what they are.

Flange distance? Not only a non-issue, but actually beneficial given the angles of incoming light caused by short flange distances, coupled with the nature of digital sensors.

Size/weight are only arguments because you're comparing smaller sensor cameras with larger sensor cameras for the most part, and becasue you're not comparing cameras with equal image capabilities (i.e., including DOF control). If they make a FF MILC, the lenses will be just as big as for FF dSLRs, and the FF MILC + lens will be an awkward, front-heavy combination when you have a small, thin camera body.

Leica M9 is a FF MILC.

What makes you think Canon and Nikon won't eventually release FF mirrorless cameras that take their current FF lenses and are similar in size and weight to their current DSLRs?  Sony will soon release a FF NEX and they won't be the last company to do so.  Personally, I don't think professional cameras need to be as large and heavy as they are to accommodate FF lenses, so I think we will see something closer in size to the SLRs of the past.

If you're willing to sacrifice the ability to isolate subjects from background, are willing to sacrifice (high ISO and overall) image quality, are willing to sacrifice tracking autofocus for moving subjects, are willing to sacrifice battery life, and are willing to suffer with akward ergonomics/poor controls because the camera bodies are too small to allow enough room for extensive on-camera controls (or because the controls are so small they can't be easily used), then mirrorless cameras may seem like a good "alternative," but when those limitations are taken into account, they provide no compelling reason to move away from dSLRs. Quite the reverse, in fact.

The future is mirrorless, regardless of sensor size. Users will pick the format(s) that best meet their needs.

 MichaelKJ's gear list:MichaelKJ's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 11,671Gear list
Like?
Re: SLRs were E-M5 sized decades BEFORE digital!
In reply to Mike_PEAT, 10 months ago

Mike_PEAT wrote:

Have people's hands suddenly become gargantuan? What makes FF cameras of the past (like Canon AE & Nikon FM) fine 20 years ago, suddenly too small?

It depended on the lenses you used. If you only shot with small primes, the size was fine.  A 70-210mm f/3.5 zoom was pushing it.  By the time you mounted a 300mm f/4, almost everyone preferred to use the motor drive with grip which made them larger than today's cameras.  The grips also improved portrait handling a lot.

but today it's been proven that the electronics can be fit into a normal sized body, even with a mirror (Olympus E-4xx series dSLRs).

You do realize the E-4xx sensor is the same size as 110 film?   Not a good comparison to an FM.

-- hide signature --

Erik

 Erik Magnuson's gear list:Erik Magnuson's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 450D Sigma SD10 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Nikon D3200 +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Beach Bum
Contributing MemberPosts: 815
Like?
Except...
In reply to Erik Magnuson, 10 months ago

Erik Magnuson wrote:

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now. [...]

2. Canikon already have EVF, on the back of the camera for live view. [...]

3. Canikon can make smaller dslrs with APS-C that will be able to compete with mirrorless [...]

None of these are arguments against mirrorless, e.g, a Digital Rebel with an EVF and hence no mirror. This is where I think Thom is making his prediction - that "soon" the mirror will be dropped for low-end EF-S and Nikon DX bodies. On the other end of the price spectrum could be a 1DHS or D5HS (High Speed) body with an EVF and extreme frame rate. What's left is to quibble over the definition of "soon" for the first model to appear (next year, two years, five years?) and how long will actual DSLRs with mirrors/optical finders be in the lineup (five years, ten years, or more?)

At this point mirrorless has no advantage and has disadvantages compared to Canikon solutions.

The difference between you and Thom is that you are thinking of mirrorless as only Fuji/Oly/Panny/Sony.

-- hide signature --

Erik

What advantage does removing the mirror from CaNikon bodies give them if they continue using the same mount? I don't believe this offers much size or weight savings. It just makes the camera cheaper and less functional, IMO. Again, you have the same flange distance, which means the bodies are still going to be large.

If they change the mount, will they have market penetration for a camera/lens system that's not compatible with their existing DSLRs?

I'm asking a serious question here. What kind of changes can they make if they remove the mirror but maintain the same mount? And what point is there in going to mirrorless if you have no major size/weight changes, aside from money savings?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,567
Like?
The future's so bright .. I gotta wear shades..
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

MarkJH wrote:

Seems like a reasonable look at one possible future to me, Richard. That said, after pondering the logic as you'd suggested, I had a few thoughts.

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now. They push the mirror out of the way when they go into live view. The first objection is that the AF is faster on mirrorless, sure using on sensor AF on a DSLR. Right now that is true but if you think Canonikon is going to sit on the hands and not improve live view to the point it is better than current mirrorless, I think they are smarter than that. It will happen or Canonikon will die. Mirrorless will lose the AF advantage in live view.

I'm missing the evidence for your CaNikon confidence, here. It's true that both companies are clearly putting r&d into better on-sensor focus systems, but neither is yet coming away with a clear victory.

The Nikon V1 has a very fast on sensor AF system.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NIKONV1/NIKONV1A6.HTM

They have the ability to put it on sensor, it is only a matter of time it will be on a DSLR sensor, the tech is already there at lease for Nikon

The Canon 70D's "dual-pixel" phase sensor, as a case in point, really does dramatically improve live-view performance, but it's still not as fast or as confident as Olympus's contast-detection for stills. And, in time Canon took to develop it, Olympus cooked some improvements into their system such that the new EM-1 now offers true phase-detect continuous performance.

Oly was there before Canon, Canon will improve, if they don't they will die but realize that Canon and Nikon are financially in much better shape to improve than Oly.

So, it looks (to me, anyway) like all the parties are inching forward, and the relative advantages among them haven't decisively changed. Olympus is still the fastest single-shot AF in town. I guess we'll have to see things like EM-1 vs. 70D continuous video AF results to really judge more.

Of all the players, it seems at the moment that Nikon is really lagging in this area. But maybe they've got something in the works that we don't know about?

2. Canikon already have EVF, on the back of the camera for live view. They also can use a laptop, tablet or smart phone as a remote. They have had this for some time. Mirrorless has no advantage there.

Well, except that Olympus cooked a remote wi-fi implementation into the OM-1, and most Nikon DSLRs require an extra off-camera dongle to do similar stuff.

To add a usb wifi to any device it easy and cheap. I think we will see it more on Canikon in the future.

3. Canikon can make smaller dslrs with APS-C that will be able to compete with mirrorless or they can produce better EOSM and V1 units. Again, they cover Pro, Advanced amateur, beginner, small size DSLRs. (they both produce point and shoots too.)

The new tiny EOS SL1 definitely gives mirrorless cameras like the OM-D and GH series a run on size, but the OM-D and GH cameras are so much better specified. The SL1 uses the ancient 18 megapixel sensor, doesn't have an articulated screen, doesn't offer AF fine-tune (so that wide-aperture shooting is gonna be tough). I can't imagine anyone choosing an SL1 over a GH3, for example, for video.

SL1 costs 699 at with lens right now at b&h, the OMD is 1299. I would hope the OMd is a better camera. The SL1 only shows what is possible, give it a price tag off 1299 and see what they put inside of it.

And the Nikon 1 cameras really do silo you into their sensor size: you have to be cool with limited shallow DoF options to like them, though certainly there's plenty of great photography for which that'd be OK.

It is not about sensor size, it is about quick AF on sensor.

I guess what I am saying here, again, is that I see valid CaNikon competition, but I don't any real advantages, andi don't see any real evidence that any are coming. As with your other two points, it seems like they've left a door or two open for competitors to exploit, and competitors have.

SL1 Size, V1 AF on sensor for speed. They are moving right along

At this point mirrorless has no advantage and has disadvantages compared to Canikon solutions.

Well, I can think of a few. Micro 4/3 has a wonderful lens system right now, with exceptional primes. CaNikon do, too, but only for FX and at a serious cost premium.

But all FX lenses fit on Canons APSc cameras so there is a huge number of lenses for canon or nikon

Well, the rumor mill tells us we will have a full-frame Sony NEX mirrorless in a few days, so there's the end of that CaNikon exclusive.

But will it be a pro camera? That is the Canikon exlusive.

I think most camera people know these points already and if they are honest with themselves, they already know mirrorless in its present form is not where it is at.

Being honest with myself, I find the latest round of mirrorless products to be well-specified, capable, and pretty desireable. I don't know that I would want one for photographing sports or events, but for fine art, portraits, fashion, I think they might actually be the better tool at the moment for many different styles.

When I am honest with myself, I see myself shooting APS-C or FF for all the things you mentioned above but for anything portable, pocketable I would carry a smart phone, or for pocketable, something like a an Sony RX100

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
paulkienitz
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,715Gear list
Like?
Re: Why Thom is wrong...
In reply to Richard, 10 months ago

Richard wrote:

Thom can predict, but so can I. I think that cell phones will only get better and be good enough for the masses, and Canikon will take up the rest of the market with some mirrorless being niche while other disappear.

I would question the part about cell phones only getting better.  Cell phones and tablets compete strongly on thinness, and the only way to make a cell phone camera significantly better is to make it thicker.

-- hide signature --

Q with 02 zoom and Nikkor 180/2.8 ED for birding
K10D, Sig 17-70, DA 55-300, FA 50/1.4 "billy bass"
discards: DA 50-200 "zipper", F 100-300, Sigma 135-400 "piglet", M 400/5.6 "the Great Truncheon"

 paulkienitz's gear list:paulkienitz's gear list
Pentax Q Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Pentax smc DA* 300mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 11,671Gear list
Like?
Re: Except...
In reply to Beach Bum, 10 months ago

Beach Bum wrote:

What advantage does removing the mirror from CaNikon bodies give them if they continue using the same mount?

Changing the mount only helps with making cameras thinner.

I don't believe this offers much size or weight savings. It just makes the camera cheaper and less functional, IMO.

Either you think there are functional advantages to an EVF or your don't.  Most of the people in this thread are arguing about more advantages than than body thickness.

Again, you have the same flange distance, which means the bodies are still going to be large.

You mean large like the SL1?  So far, smaller bodies than that have not proven to be a market advantage.  Why is the A3000 the largest NEX?   But if you insist, Canon could also create an EOS-M based body with an EVF and EF-S lens compatibility instead of an EVF Rebel.

If they change the mount, will they have market penetration for a camera/lens system that's not compatible with their existing DSLRs?

Why would it be incompatible?  At least Canon doesn't have to worry about screw-drive AF lenses.

I'm asking a serious question here. What kind of changes can they make if they remove the mirror but maintain the same mount?

They could remove the SLR hump and move the EVF to the side.  I doubt they would though.

And what point is there in going to mirrorless if you have no major size/weight changes, aside from money savings?

Money savings is enough - I think you overestimate size as a factor (very little of the difference would be weight.)   But they would do it either for cost, features (like FPS), or for a more integrated video experience (e.g. eye-level video.)

-- hide signature --

Erik

 Erik Magnuson's gear list:Erik Magnuson's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 450D Sigma SD10 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Nikon D3200 +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 11,671Gear list
Like?
Re: Why Thom is wrong...
In reply to paulkienitz, 10 months ago

paulkienitz wrote:

Cell phones and tablets compete strongly on thinness, and the only way to make a cell phone camera significantly better is to make it thicker.

That depends on your definition of "significant".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/24/samsungs_new_image_sensor_promises_better_snaps_in_smaller_devices/

-- hide signature --

Erik

 Erik Magnuson's gear list:Erik Magnuson's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 450D Sigma SD10 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Nikon D3200 +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
robert1955
Senior MemberPosts: 1,619
Like?
Re: Why Richard is wrong...
In reply to Richard, 10 months ago

Seems you give no reasons why the mirror should or will be kept. And a DSLR without a mirror ...

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now. They push the mirror out of the way when they go into live view.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 2,425
Like?
Re: Why you are reading Thom wrong
In reply to Erik Magnuson, 10 months ago

Erik Magnuson wrote:

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now. [...]

2. Canikon already have EVF, on the back of the camera for live view. [...]

3. Canikon can make smaller dslrs with APS-C that will be able to compete with mirrorless [...]

None of these are arguments against mirrorless, e.g, a Digital Rebel with an EVF and hence no mirror. This is where I think Thom is making his prediction - that "soon" the mirror will be dropped for low-end EF-S and Nikon DX bodies. On the other end of the price spectrum could be a 1DHS or D5HS (High Speed) body with an EVF and extreme frame rate. What's left is to quibble over the definition of "soon" for the first model to appear (next year, two years, five years?) and how long will actual DSLRs with mirrors/optical finders be in the lineup (five years, ten years, or more?)

At this point mirrorless has no advantage and has disadvantages compared to Canikon solutions.

The difference between you and Thom is that you are thinking of mirrorless as only Fuji/Oly/Panny/Sony.

-- hide signature --

Erik

Indeed, I think this is generally the problem with these kinds of discussions, "a move towards mirrorless" is taken to mean "current mirrorless mounts will destroy Canon and Nikon" by those on both sides of s the fanboy argument.

The problem is IMHO that people tend to view the future of mirrorless as being what we see today. I'd argue that because mirrorless is a new tech with disadvanatges over DSLR's its naturally been forced into the small camera market it naturally has an advantage in. That market isn't anything new, its been around for decades, its just taken a bit longer for it to be serviced in the digital market. If mirrorless tech does ever reach a stage where a mirror becomes pointless then it doesn't hold that the entire market will suddenly want very small camera's.

I'd be supprized if we don't see a high end DSLR with a hybrid viewfinder allowing for switching between an EVF and OVF sometime in the next few years.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MichaelKJ
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,065Gear list
Like?
Re: Except...
In reply to Beach Bum, 10 months ago

Beach Bum wrote:

Erik Magnuson wrote:

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now. [...]

2. Canikon already have EVF, on the back of the camera for live view. [...]

3. Canikon can make smaller dslrs with APS-C that will be able to compete with mirrorless [...]

None of these are arguments against mirrorless, e.g, a Digital Rebel with an EVF and hence no mirror. This is where I think Thom is making his prediction - that "soon" the mirror will be dropped for low-end EF-S and Nikon DX bodies. On the other end of the price spectrum could be a 1DHS or D5HS (High Speed) body with an EVF and extreme frame rate. What's left is to quibble over the definition of "soon" for the first model to appear (next year, two years, five years?) and how long will actual DSLRs with mirrors/optical finders be in the lineup (five years, ten years, or more?)

At this point mirrorless has no advantage and has disadvantages compared to Canikon solutions.

The difference between you and Thom is that you are thinking of mirrorless as only Fuji/Oly/Panny/Sony.

-- hide signature --

Erik

What advantage does removing the mirror from CaNikon bodies give them if they continue using the same mount? I don't believe this offers much size or weight savings. It just makes the camera cheaper and less functional, IMO. Again, you have the same flange distance, which means the bodies are still going to be large.

If they change the mount, will they have market penetration for a camera/lens system that's not compatible with their existing DSLRs?

I'm asking a serious question here. What kind of changes can they make if they remove the mirror but maintain the same mount? And what point is there in going to mirrorless if you have no major size/weight changes, aside from money savings?

I think the last four words of you comment provide one serious answer to your question.

Your question is also based on the assumption that OVFs are better than EVFs. Thus, the other serious response to your question is that EVFs will continue to advance in quality and will be eventually be preferred by the majority of users.

This is obviously a hotly debated topic and Thom provides a good summary of where things currently stand and where he thinks they are headed.

The optical (OVF viewfinders) versus electronic (EVF electronic viewfinders) debate is an intense one. Clearly some people prefer one over the other. But let's not lose sight of a few things (pardon the pun): neither OVF nor EVF is perfect. OVF over the years has been optimized for brightness and overlays, which comes at the expense of seeing focus detail. Position of the eye at the viewfinder is also a variable for OVF (try it: while looking at an edge slide your eye from one side of the viewfinder to the other; so much for 100% view). OVFs will be dimmer with slower lenses, too. EVFs need more brightness finesse than they currently have (too easily kill night vision in dawn/dusk shooting). In terms of pixels, we're already at SVGA levels with most EVFs, while a few current ones are at XGA levels. In 2014 we'll have EVFs appear at about SXGA levels (1280 x 1024, or >4m dots). EVFs definitely show 100% view, and they can be as bright for an f/5.6 lens as for an f/1.4 one. Still, today we're in an area where OVFs are mature and accepted, while EVFs are maturing and not as accepted. Within a couple of years, I doubt that we'll see a lot of resistance to EVFs, though.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/dslr-versus-mirrorless.html

 MichaelKJ's gear list:MichaelKJ's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 3,147Gear list
Like?
Think about it...warning, long post.
In reply to Richard, 10 months ago

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now. They push the mirror out of the way when they go into live view. The first objection is that the AF is faster on mirrorless, sure using on sensor AF on a DSLR. Right now that is true but if you think Canonikon is going to sit on the hands and not improve live view to the point it is better than current mirrorless, I think they are smarter than that. It will happen or Canonikon will die. Mirrorless will lose the AF advantage in live view.

2. Canikon already have EVF, on the back of the camera for live view. They also can use a laptop, tablet or smart phone as a remote. They have had this for some time. Mirrorless has no advantage there.

3. Canikon can make smaller dslrs with APS-C that will be able to compete with mirrorless or they can produce better EOSM and V1 units. Again, they cover Pro, Advanced amateur, beginner, small size DSLRs. (they both produce point and shoots too.)

At this point mirrorless has no advantage and has disadvantages compared to Canikon solutions.

So is mirrorless really going to be dead? No, I think M43 because of the number of lenses and market penetration even though small will survived as a niche market camera. BUT I only think there will be 2 major players, Sony and Panny, possibly Sony and Oly but Oly seems to be on its way out or at least to a reduced market share and segment at this point.

Thom can predict, but so can I. I think that cell phones will only get better and be good enough for the masses, and Canikon will take up the rest of the market with some mirrorless being niche while other disappear. Because Japanese culture is different, it is hard for me to predict what they will buy. I am sure budding Asian markets will embrace cell phones, with pros and advanced amatuers buying Canikon.

Canikons strength is not just DSLR, it is lenses APS-C for smaller cameras and FF which mirrorless lacks.

I think most camera people know these points already and if they are honest with themselves, they already know mirrorless in its present form is not where it is at.

I don't think it's safe to make any prediction about death without looking at the markets and consumer behaviour.

- The market was saturated with compacts, many of which were not being used, long before smartphones became a factor. Compacts were bound to decline.

- Consumers are getting tired of the foolish pixel race. They're beyond comparing last year's 5Mp model to this year's 8Mp model. They already own 2 each.

- Smartphones actually fill the need that they've been looking for - one tool that does everything and the ability to toot to the world, immediately, and with good enough image quality. So the declining compact market doesn't taper, it dives.

- Compacts won't die completely, but Nikon have vowed to own what's left while Panasonic have vowed to reduce their compact efforts and focus on higher value/higher end cameras.

- There will be contraction and the market profile will likely look a lot like it was prior the the digital boom. Compacts don't just decline, they dive.

- Camera companies have to go back to what you were before - an enthusiast and pro camera maker. Sony, Panasonic, Fuji and Olympus have all launched higher end stuff recently because of this. A read of Panasonic's 2013 AR indicates to me that they're hanging their camera future on the GX7. And if anything can win people over, it's that camera. I really like it.

- But there will not be enough demand to keep them all in business. Some or someone will exit. The companies who can hang on will dictate what survives. But one thing is likely - Canon and Nikon will survive.

- If the trend is toward more enthusiasts and pros, then the demand for and appreciation for full frame will naturally be a larger portion of the market profile.

So, will mirrorless win? That's not the first question to ask in my mind. The question to ask is, who will survive? Then you can ask if and when things will change and what they will look like. Panasonic and Olympus probably can't cause this change on their own - they might not even continue making cameras. It will take the big three - Sony, Nikon and Canon.

EVFs could become the dominant technology for viewing which can also mean the future is smaller lenses and bodies. Unfortunately, the improvement is only incremental in my mind. A full frame mirrorless interchangeable lens camera would not be significantly smaller to warrant a mass switchover.

So I think that when it becomes economical and sensible for Nikon and Canon to go mirrorless in their big cameras, they will. People who own DSLRs and previous film SLR owners bought into systems and tended to keep them through many marketing / sales cycles. I don't know what that cycle is/was, but it wasn't annual. That included lenses.

Many of us still have and buy/sell old AI-S lenses. But many of us replaced them with AF-D or G lenses. So there is a cycle there and Nikon / Canon know when it is. They will make the move when the time is right. I don't think it's now. Many of us have just invested and aren't looking to jump.

Some DSLR owners are moving because they think mFT or NEX or X-trans are plenty good enough. Some are just adding to their kit. But I don't believe it's the bulk of DSLR owners. I believe the bulk of DSLR owners are still enjoying the investment they have made and will buy something new in a few years.

And you can't take Thom Hogan or Ming Thien or Ken Rockwell as indications of what's about to happen. They're just human and expressing opinions.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads