Donnie G: My guess is that Canon's research into the MILC camera market is showing that not only aren't there enough customers entering that market, but of those who do enter, not enough of them will buy a lens other than the one the camera came with. Canon makes the majority of their imaging profits from lens purchases, so there's not a lot of incentive to produce a gaggle of MILC bodies or lenses that are mostly destined to be a collection of warehouse orphans. That's why the highly successful large sensor, fixed lens PowerShot line of cameras exist and is still growing. They are the compact camera and lens combo that sells, and there's not an orphan in the bunch. :))
And what proportion of people that buy a Rebel ever buy a second lens? It's a tiny amount. Being able to buy all sorts of second lenses might be part of the appeal, but most people never do.
Not selling the M3 in America makes perfect sense.
At the moment, Americans as a nation don't like CSCs. The various theories of why they prefer DSLRs have been debated many a time on DPR and other sites. Here are a few... CSCs are too small and fiddly. DSLRs are larger, but at the same time cheaper so seem better value for money ("more" for less). Canikon have retail locations locked up tighter than a Nuns front bottom. CSCs are too discrete, so you can't show how much money you spent (cognitive dissonance with the second reason I know). American culture is advert saturated, so they only buy what someone tells them to. "Proper" photographers only use big cameras so if you aspire to be a proper photographer, you must buy a big camera.
Of course, due to their retail site lock in, Canikon could promote their CSCs in the US, raise awareness and show off the benefits of CSC designs. And I'm sure they are scared to do this, because it would raise awareness of all CSC systems, and opens the door to those "we're not playing the DSLR game any more" competitors to steal market share. You say Canon needs to make a Leica M for people who can afford Leica prices, but they are too late. Fuji already did.
Suzanne D.: I have an OMD EM-1 which I love, love, love. How does the new EM 5 II compare? The prices will be very comparable. My main interest is the smaller size of the EM5 II compared to the EM-1.
@Eugene32 I'm sure for people starting out new, and who could afford the lenses *cough*, a Sony A7 would be very attractive. But we're not talking about people starting new, we are talking people with a substantial Four Thirds/Micro Four Thirds lens investment. An A7 would be next to useless to them.
Anastigmat: The 4/3 sensor was invented when sensors were very expensive. The smaller 4/3 sensor cost a lot less than APS-C sensors so it allowed 4/3 format manufacturers a much higher profit margin. Nowadays there is hardly any difference in cost between an APS-C and a 4/3 sensor. Even FF sensors are fast becoming commodity priced. That puts 4/3 format cameras at a disadvantage because they are destined to be low volume compared to the APS-C models, and the low volume forces the makers to raise prices above APS-C models. That means a smaller, noisier sensor must be sold at a higher price than a larger sensors with more pixels. For this reason, the 4/3 format is doomed, in much the same way that half frame 35mm film cameras were doomed.
When the G1 came out, blowhards like you spouted the "M43 is doomed" line for whatever reason. And as the facts refuted each claimed reason, blowhards like you switched to other reasons. Here we are, six and a half years later, and in the face of plenty of evidence against it, such as the Mirrorless market is established and M43 has nearly half of it, blowhards like you are STILL spouting the "M43 is doomed" line.
Give it up. It just makes you look insecure (or a loony...)
Peiasdf: Are you guys posting article on London time? It is not even 2 in New York and your article has a time code of Feb 5, 2015 at 06:00.
Regarding the camera, I don't think it is a big enough improvement over mk1. Wondering if m4/3 sensors are limited by its size and cannot get much better. A7S, NX-1 and the upcoming 50mp FF all have exciting sensors but there is nothing on the m4/3 side since the switch to SONY 16mp.
What I'm looking forward to seeing applied to m43 is any tech that will improve how the sensor make use of the light it has available. Like Back Side Illumination, Panasonics beam splitting tech that gets rid of the Bayer filter, or something Foveon like.
Athonline: One question: How does it compare with the E-M1? In terms of both handling and overall performance (with m4/3 native lenses).
Even the original E-M5 is better at noise control than the E-M1, if you take the word of the Astrophotography guys on another forum I go to a lot.
johnsmith404: Why did you think a 200$ lens would resolve 64mp? And on top of that at f5.6 where diffraction is already visible at 16mp on m43?
I bet you'd get better results using something like the Nocticron at f2 or f2.8.
As it is, the RAW comparison with the D810 shows that the high-res mode has just recorded high-res blur with very little added detail. If you resize the RAWs to print mode, even the a6000 shows more detail.
@johnsmith404 "soft lenses"?! You berk! Diffraction occurs due to the very narrow diameter of the aperture in the iris at high f stops. It's a similar effect to the light though a narrow slit experiments you might remember from your school physics lessons. It's got sod all to do with the glass in the lens *sigh*
No mention of the "non modal" shooting displays that the E-M5II just got *sigh*. I'd quite like to have live histogram on permanently, and then switch between Level Guide and the Blinkies.
I think the limit on megapixels of any format is going to be diffraction limits - you hit the diffraction limit at a bigger aperture every time you push the megapixels higher. Theres no point stuffing more pixels in, if the extra res is completely negated at typical apertures. Those 50mpx FF behemoths can't use any of that extra res beyond f/8 because of diffraction, and yet you still have the storage and processing overheads of 50mpx images.
16mpx is about as far as is usable on m43.
Diffraction on 16mpx m43 at f/5.6? I don't think so. At f/7.1 it starts getting visible, but at f/5.6 it's fine. Plus the Zuiko 45mm has really sharpen up across the frame once it's stopped down to f/5.6, I'm not sure that employing a Nocticron is going to give you much.
UnderDriven: Olympus may want to consider implementing a 4-image mode which does not increase resolution, but does provide full color sampling at every pixel...
Tim, check out this preview again, the high res mode currently does higher res by half pixel offset AND full colour sampling. Hence it uses 8 shots (the first four are full colour sampling at the normal sensor position, the last four do full colour at a half pixel offset).
The requested suggestion (hopefully for a future firmware update) is to just do the first four shot, so not doing the offset to get 40mpx, but still full colour sampling at 16mpx, so you get the benefits of full colour but the exposures take less time, hopefully meaning less subject in motion artifacts.
Damn, this camera has given me GAS!
Cipher: Any word on IBIS?
Unlikely, the GM1 didn't have it either. The mechanism of the GM1 shutter was also a bit odd to fit in, so if there wasn't even room for a normal shutter then I really doubt there's room for IBIS too.
One part of the Nikon 1 system design that is pretty much guaranteed to put enthusiasts off? Not having a focus ring on the lenses. Although it looks like the 32mm prime and the supertelephoto zooms have rectified this, but really most of the other existing lenses need a redesign to add a focus ring, especially the other primes. It always gave the impression that Nikon expected the 1 system to be used by "auto everything" types.
joeyv: Good companies plan for the future. Maybe it is hard to see what CX is all about right now. but as sensors improve the CX format advantages will be more obvious. For sure, Nikon will also come out with FF mirrorless someday. I suppose Nikon hopes that having FF + CX will effectively bracket the other formats in-between. I use Nikon Dslrs and I sure am glad CX is there. I can can put my 85/1.4 in the V3 and have effectively a 230 mm/1.4. Or the 200/2.0 and effectively have a 540 mm/2.0. How cool is that!
@T3 - at the moment, the reason the Nikon 1 sensors have such fast burst rate is because of heat dissipation. The smaller sensor generates less heat when being driven at rates as high as 15fps. Heat dissipation is a big problem in the small bodies of Mirrorless cameras. And if the makers of 4/3 or APS-C sensors come up with a solution, that same solution can be applied to a CX format sensor to drive it even faster (it's a good candidate for 4K video for example).
Plus at the moment, 1" sensor is the largest that can be built using Backside Illumination, which ameliorates some of the downsides of being the smallest sensor on the ILC block.
Johannes Zander: 4k is not enough! I wait for 16k.Until then I I am happy with HD.With me not resolution is lacking but the skil and the crew and additional gear. For me as an Amateur the Nikon V1 is just fine.This modular camera is for the pros with crew.
NHK have already stated that they see 8K as "the final standard", with no need to go to any higher resolution beyond that. This is the reason why they aren't really looking at 4K which they see as a short term thing.
What they will do (and are already working on) for after 8K is High Frame Rate 8K (120 fps!)
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".