Plastek: " We have done some studies where we presented consumers with a DSLR and a mirrorless camera and ask them if the image quality was the same, which one they would chose, and generally they chose the DSLR." - I would answer in exactly the same way. Simply because DSLRs offer by far wider choice of lenses many of which are superior to mirrorless glass. And then there are whole systems of accessories, flashes, and well: everything else that in the end creates a photograph.
So: Yes, DSLRs DO offer better final image quality, but reasons for that go beyond body itself.
A far wider choice of lenses is not the rationale that these Joe Public types are giving when they tell the Nikon Market Researcher they prefer the DSLR.
And why should it be? The lens attach rate for APS-C DSLRs is less than 2! How often do you see people toting a DSLR at some tourist destination? All the time, right? How often do you see someone toting a DSLR at some tourist destination that hasn't got the kit lens mounted? Hardly ever!
These Nikon guys told Barney what their customers told them, in the US it's the "bigger is better" belief, in Europe it is a prestige thing. Which suits Nikon just fine, they've got loads of DLSRs on the market already, loads of market share, so there is no need for them to do any expensive work inventing or perfecting a new camera system, they can keep churning out what they've always done with little R&D and therefore lots of profit margin, and Americans and Europeans will keep buying them.
rich889: The sense that I came away with in this interview that Nikon is extremely complacent. For instance, Nikon does NOT want to create a high quality mirror-less camera because it might detract from their DSLR revenue so instead they blame the American public. Denial to cover mediocrity. They ignore the fact that the move towards mirror-less is a growing market, and that the picture quality of Nikon 1 v1 and v2 is indeed INFERIOR to APS-C and even Micro Four Thirds. Nikon has not been an pioneer in the digital age for over 15 years, but the recent falling-off of quality (as shown by problems with the D600) is troubling, and is a shame for those of us who have used Nikon equipment for decades.
It is my opinion that the sweet spot for mirrorless is shorter focal lengths, medium tele downwards. The key strength of mirrorless is small size, less weight, more portable, once you start making a super tele lens for a mirrorless camera, it will still be pretty large, so you need a larger body with a larger grip to balance it well, and then you've removed the one major advantage of mirrorless. For this use case, super telephoto, DSLR still makes the most sense.
For this same reason, using existing DSLR lenses with mirrorless cameras is pretty pointless. To get the advantages of mirrorless, the whole system, body and lenses, needs to be small.
I personally don't have any need for focal lengths longer than 200mm equiv, so mirrorless cameras suit me much better than a DSLR.
@rich889 Being truthful about US customers, their beliefs and preconceptions isn't "blaming them" for anything. Perhaps Nikon should have done the research first before designing a mirrorless camera!
Matthewson: I really don't understand the push for mirrorless cameras. The latest installments from Olympus look like SLR's from the outside, with a "pentaprism" of sorts sitting on top. I'd vote down anything that adds cost, complexity, and battery draw. Peering at a tiny video of your scene serves only to separate the photographer further from his subject. The original OM line had reflex mirrors, and were compact. The only gripe I had back then, in the 80's, was the strap lugs dug into my palms. From the look of it, they're still putting those nasty strap lugs on their cameras.
An EVF gives you the sensors view of the world. An OVF gives you the mirrors view of the world. It is the sensors view of the world that ends up on your memory card. You also get all that live feedback rpm40 mentioned, instead of having to check that stuff after you've taken the shot.
Markol: What I don't get is pricing- The first 3 generations of PENs were sold at a 50% discount some 6 months after they were released, the P5 is still at the original price after 9 months, the PL5 dropped by less than 15% in much over a year. Compared to many competitors, they are just too expansive and the policy is confusing. I understand that for lenses, but cameras?
@Scottelly "when something is miniaturized, it is supposed to be cheaper."
Since when? Miniaturisation, putting the same capabilities into a smaller space, is more difficult to design, and more difficult to manufacture. This extra difficulty always cost more, not less. Always. ALWAYS.
You agree with MichaelKJ a little earlier that it's a Stereotype that all Americans believe "bigger is automatically better", then you REINFORCE the Stereotype with this "something made with less stuff should cost less than something made with more stuff" stupidity.
"That is why full-frame is so popular, vs. APS-C sensor cameras"
As pointed out by Thorgrem, this is utter nonsense, APS-C cameras far outsell Full Frame.
To counter people like you, we need an add on to "Flag as inappropriate", something like "Flag as just plain Dumb".
Brandon Milner Photography: I can only speak to why I personally have been reticent to invest in mirror less and M4/3 systems. 1) If I'm going to have to carry a large-ish camera around (as in bigger than say a Sony rx100ii) then I want it to have very high image quality, especially in low light (I tend to but out the big camera to shoot shows, or natural light evening events). Apsc and full frame meets those needs. 2) 4/3rd cameras were supposed to be the next bigthing... But the IQ wwasn't so hot and then it all got abandoned when micro4/3 came along. I'm hesitant to invest in a system that might evaporate in 5yrs. Full frame and Apsc are proven. 3) why are lenses so expensive on m4/3? Aren't 50mm 1.8 lenses equivalent still like $300 compared to less than half that on crop-sensors? 4) I don't often need zoom, but when I do, like for a wedding, having a 34mm to 210mm equivalent is what I need. You can't even get a lens like that for m4/3 (can you?)
I'm really drawn to the small size, the hybrid viewfinder (focus peaking), touch screens and built in image stabilization of the omd series though. I'm *this close* to making the jump. (or to the new fuji stuff.
3) Why do the DSLR 50mm f/1.8 primes have to be stopped down 2 stops before they are even close to as sharp as the m43 25mm primes (oh, and thereby loosing all light capture & DOF advantages)? Because they are OLD. Why are they half the price of the much sharper m43 lenses? Because they are OLD.
It is about time Olympus came up with a entry level EVF m43 cam to go head to head with Panasonics G6
Hmm... I thought JK Imaging's gameplan was to focus (no pun intended) on the Chinese market, where Kodak is still a well known brand (and an American brand at that), and there is a lot of anti Japanese sentiment? The idea being to hoodwink the Chinese public into believing they are buying an "American" camera and none of that nasty Japanese stuff, when in reality they are selling either a modified Japanese camera made side by side in the same factory that said Japanese company uses, or a Chinese knockoff of something that was a Japanese idea in the first place.
ybizzle: I'm going to assume this will come in around the $499 mark with kit lens. But then the question is, why by this off brand camera vs say a Fuji X-A1 that will most likely yield better IQ and looks better to boot?
I don't agree, $499 is too much for what is essentially a cut down E-PL5 (it may have gained WiFi over E-PL5, but it's supposed to be slow to operate, meaning they've cost cut on the processors driving the UI, and the screen doesn't seem to be the touchscreen you get on the Oly).
peevee1: The camera (S-1) is basically Oly E-PL6 in different body and with slower processor, right?
But the all-new lenses... 12-45 looks like a very nice kit lens, 12mm certainly more attractive than all those small kit zooms starting from 14mm, while seems a little shorter than Oly 12-50.
Regards the camera, pretty much, yes. No Oly accessory port, and the screen isn't described as a touch screen anywhere (and if it was, you'd think they'd mention it, wouldn't you?)
Treeshade: They are working on the right focal length, size and styling. Nice try on putting a 400mm telescope on m4/3 to grab attention (but does it really has to be that long?) Every other things, however, require much testing and verification.
Well, they do say it's a teleSCOPE lens (as in Refracting Telescope) and not a Telephoto lens. Refracting Telescopes have just 2 glass elements, one at each end, and their 'focal length" is pretty much their physical length.
I would not be surprised if this lens is totally manual focus and maybe even fixed aperture (it is a modified telescope after all). In which case, you're probably better off with that Tokina Catadioptric lens.
Paul Farace: Too bad Kodak can't have a decent funeral with a stately graveside ceremony... it was a great American company that passed into history (it's photographic div. at least). No, instead we have to deal with this zombie "Walking Dead" creature that looks a bit like our dear friend, but isn't. Will someone please put a round through its decaying brain... or maybe a bolt from Darrel's crossbow?
Remove The Head Or Destroy The Brain?
Since this camera is packaged very small and tight (for what it is), I can see one good reason why it has no Video. Heat Dissipation. Those big imaging sensors run hot when they are going at 24 frames a second...
flynnstone: Maybe I am missing something here but I dont understand how you can get a sharper image out of a 16mp ff sensor then you can out of a 16mp crop sensor with the same features. You have the same # of mp spread over a larger area. It almost seems like a step backwards to me. Now if you are talking about 24 or even 36mp on ff you should see a good improvement. It seems like a marketing ploy to me.
The answer is - it's not strictly speaking anything to so with the sensor, but the lenses. There are very few first party "native crop" lenses for DSLRs, most Nikon lenses are designed for Full Frame. Sharpness of a lens/camera combo is measured in Line Pairs/Picture Height. But the "native" picture height for the image circle of a FF lens is 24mm. Use that lens on a Crop Sensor DSLR, and you are only using the middle 16mm of that picture height. You've basically thrown away a third of the visual acuity of the lens.
All the top end, sharpest first party lenses are designed for FF, partly for prestige and partly because it is usually easier (and therefore cheaper) to make a "sharp" lens that throws a large image circle, than it is for a lens that throws a smaller image circle (less fancy glass needed, less precise alignment tolerances needed, etc). Trying to market a physically smaller, sharp lens for more than a larger sharp lens is a hard sell. Just ask Olympus.
Jefftan: the whole design concept is wrong. It is too bulky, no IS, weak O-ring seal, low battery life
What is needed is a tough version of Coolpix A, Ricoh GR and RX1R (with IS and wireless charging of battery)that is what the camera market neededeasily sold for $1000 and more
this is a failed first attempt. hopefully more to come
Olympus TG-2 which I own is an underappreciated camera. It is great up to ISO 400There is a trick that I use to get shot at ISO 400 handheld when ISO 800/1600 is required. Use the continuous shooting mode at ISO 400, take about 10 shots and usually at least 1 will be sharp. Best tough camera at the moment
I think tough versions of the Coolpix A, Ricoh GR are going too far (plus wouldn't sell with their single focal length lenses).
Now a tough version of an "enthusiast compact", like a LX-7, with their slightly larger sensors and fast zoom lenses, now you are talking.
Richard Franiec: Still no love for EOS M?Possibly smallest and (currently) least expensive camera with APS-C size sensor.Incredible line up of supported (via adapter) EF/EF-S lenses.You can get the kit with a nice lens for much less than any of the cams mentioned in this round up. In fact it is less expensive than most advanced fixed lens compacts mentioned in "leave the DSLR" section.We all know about the M's quirks but even slight mention would be nice and well deserved.
I think it's right that the EOS-M has been left out. Canon seem to be treating it as an expensive mistake they'd rather forget. The point that it can use EF/EF-S lenses is moot, the NEX cameras can use Alpha lenses, the m43 cameras can use Oly E-System Zuiko lenses, yes, all with adapters. Not that you'd really want to - all these DSLR lenses are badly unbalanced on the various mirrorless systems.
So the EOS-M has just 3 native lenses with no sign of any more (less than m43, or NEX, or NX, or XMount, or Nik1), and even after the firmware update, still focuses slowest of all of them. Oh, and is between Nik1 and m43 for noise and DR.
Yeah, what an absolute bargain!
Hmm, having tried out the "clicking" lens wheel of the S110, and the "clickless" lens wheel of the RX100, it's my personal opinion that the clickless version is nicer to use. But I see Andy and Richard disagree with me, so the Sony and Fujifilm get a negative because of it. I would advise anyone thinking of buying any of these to try them out for yourself, which one of these types of control wheel suits you best is a very personal thing.
Joseph Mama: That looks really cool. I am very surprised they didn't release a pancake prime at the same time. That would do a MUCH better job of emphasizing its small size and making comparisons with a Ricoh BR, RX100, etc in terms of pocketability.Even that kit zoom looks HUGE on it, and its 1.2 inch bulge does detract from its ability to actually pocket the thing.
No need for Panasonic to release a pancake prime at the same time. Since Panasonic already have two out there ready and waiting to be mounted on this baby. Who knows, they might sell another SKU with one of said primes instead of this zoom lens. You could even go "cross brand" and get another one from Olympus.
M0P03: I wonder why Allison compares GM1 and Q7 & RX100? Direct rival is Sony NEX-5R (T) 16-50 kit.I wonder why Panasonic marketologs have cut a grip to make body more slim, if thickest part is a lens, not a grip.
As someone has already said, the difference in sensor area between this and a NEX-5R is SMALLER than the difference in sensor area between this and an RX100.
An APS-C sensor is not 'much' larger. Stop spreading falsehoods.
Raist3d: "Ultimately, despite its authentically semi-pro appearance, the E-M1 is still a pretty small camera, if compared to DSLRs. The disadvantage the previous top-end E-series cameras had was that they ended up being as big as any other DSLR (the E-3 and E-5 were essentially the same size as a full-frame DSLR, at which point it became hard not to measure it against those cameras). The E-M1 may be large for a Micro Four Thirds camera, but it's not big in the grand scheme of things."
SPOT ON. Been saying this for years now :-)
When a company firesale discounts not just the bodies, but the lenses, it's a sign the whole system is on the way out. EOS-M is dead.
DELETED88781: Small sensor is not good regardless of any feature.Entry level FF DSLR has 4 times bigger sensor and only 200g more weight. Cost? Almost the same.
@Danlo - Why? Because not everyone is YOU, that's why. What YOU want isn't the be all and end all. And I think you'll find m43 has a lot of primes to choose from, so YOU could just ignore all the zooms and just buy primes, which might keep YOU happy. But I doubt it.