Brooklyn Studio: This format in general is not quite big enough. The cameras are blazing fast and small and of excellent quality. But the big question is where is the 4k? I feel like that is what will put this format in to the next level. The GH4 was a step in the right direction. As for stills the 16mp looks good when using food glass and With a little photoshop work they can be really amazing. But again. VIDEO.... The mirrorless apc-s bodies coming out in the near future are going to put micro 4/3 out of business if they don't advance.
Firstly, check out the Panasonic m43 cameras if you want 4K video (either the GX8 or the G7. The G7 is a bargain).
Secondly, WHAT APS-C mirrorless cameras? Samsung have pulled out, Sony seem to only care about the A7 range, and don't make me laugh about using the Fuji cameras for video! They can't even do HD right, a Fuji with 4K is years off.
endofoto: New Graphene sensors are on the way. The advantage of full frame will be over soon. For birding this will be the format.
Blackcoffee17, this is the "good enough" argument. If you consider that the Image Quality of Full Frame today is "good enough", then yes, when future technology moves that same good enough IQ to smaller sensor systems, the Full Frame systems using the same tech will still be out in front with an IQ advantage. But if the small sensor system is now "good enough" it weakens the argument for putting up with the extra size and weight to get the same reach on Full Frame (which birders hiking across a nature reserve to the hides *really* could do without!).
Personally, I think the IQ of Full Frame was "good enough" for the vast majority of people years ago, and what we are getting now is "more is better" for the sake of selling cameras. The advances in number of AF points, AF speed and FPS rates in newer Full Frame cameras is far more important than the IQ upgrades.
blackcoffee17: Is the clutch MF means there is no full time manual focus in AF mode or just an easy way to switch to MF mode?
The issue m43 has is there is a core standard, so the mount and the electronic contacts, and the whole focus by wire thing... but then beyond that Olympus and Panasonic add their own features as kind of competitive differentiators, which ONLY work properly if you have a lens and body combo from the same company. So these focus ring clutches only work properly on Oly cameras. And some Panasonic lenses have aperture rings, that only work on Panasonic cameras. And then you have Panasonics Depth by Defocus and CA correction that only works with Panasonic lenses, and they have BOTH come up with Dual IS systems (Optical + Sensor Shift) that are incompatible with each other! A lot of us owners wish they'd work together more often.
Blackcoffee17 , all m43 lenses that have AF are "Focus By Wire", the focus ring is controlling the focusing motor, there is no mechanical connection, and no end stops on the focus ring. On Oly cameras, you can choose your Focus mode in camera to have AF only (so the focus ring does nothing) or AF+MF (so you can override what AF chooses, much like the way full time MF works on other systems with mechanical focus rings). I'm certain Panasonic cameras give you the same AF or AF+MF choice, but how you set it up in the menus is different.
The clutch moves the focus ring onto a calibrated focus range with end stops, and electronically tells Olympus camera to go into MF mode... but it's STILL all done with Focus By Wire.
HEVC still uses DCT as it's transform, which is a floating point transform. Since most codec implementations of DCT are written with integer maths (fixed point) for speed, it means with each pass through the codec, information is still lost even if you don't do the quantisation step for lossy compression. It's not what maths geeks call "reversible".
Whereas JPEG XR uses a completely different transform that is integer from the start, so you can turn off the lossy compression steps, and the image you get back after decompression will be pixel for pixel identical to the one you fed in.
It's about time the industry started using JPEG XR and got over that Microsoft invented it.
57even: It is not perhaps surprising that mirrorless does not replace DSLR...yet.
To gain market share, mirrorless majored on the big flaw of DSLRs - size and weight. A lot of the compromises more or less derive from that. Less room for buttons, less room for large batteries, and less reserve power for really fast processors.
So, they appeal to people who want the same IQ in a smaller size, but can live without the continuous shooting, all-day battery performance, such as photojournalists, travel and street photographers. Sony's venture into FF has also offered solutions for landscape and studio photographers.
But the bulk of the pro market is involved with events, sport or advertising, and these issues are a big deal, as well as lens range, flash etc. But breaking into this market would require breaking the dominance of Nikon and Canon, which is a whole different challenge.
We are in a state of transition, waiting to see what the big two may do. Who will blink first?
@Paul B Jones. I never found a DSLR that was comfortable in my hand. Never. Not one. Not even that attempt by Canon to miniaturise a Rebel. Even that was too big where it mattered, the grip.
There was a "sort of DSLR" that I got along with. The original Sony SLT, the A55. Sadly, they scrapped that body size and went big before they'd worked all the bugs out of SLT.
The EM1 I have now is bigger than the Rebel SL1 in all but depth, and heavier (but then the Canon is plastic fantastic so that's not surprising), but somehow fits my hand just right.
steve ohlhaber: Mirrorless vs DSLR is about the shooting experience, not the final image. Since you can get a full frame in both designs, and its possible they could have the same exact sensor in both, and you could use an adapter to use the same lens on both bodies, you WILL get an identical image from both. Its really about how you got to the point where you made the capture.
I am not excited about looking through an electronic finder, but I am excited about a shorter lens to sensor distance that allows lenses to be better, smaller, and cheaper. So, in that regard, mirrorless has the ability to produce a better image if you spend the same money on a camera and a lens built for each system. It has that ability, I am not saying they have done it yet, but technically, it should be easier to make a better lens just because of that shorter distance. That should make the vast majority of pros excited.
When you shrink a lens, you also have to shrink the manufacturing tolerances by the same amount. So you either have to use more accurate and presumably more expensive manufacturing processes.... or your quality control has to throw a whole lot more of what you do produce into a skip.
Neither option is a recipe for "cheaper lenses", sadly.
The Mirrorless vs DSLR debate really comes down to viewfinders.
I think we are now at a point where even die hard DSLR fans will say that entry level EVFs are a better experience than entry level OVFs, and even mid range EVFs are a better experience than mid range OVFs.
That just leaves the high end, full frame DSLR OVFs as an example of the best of viewfinder tech.
Someone mentioned they like OVFs because they have full dynamic range. Well I would have thought that was a DISADVANTAGE. The DR of your eyes is over 20 stops, whereas even the best camera are more like 15 stops. So the camera will "see" less than you will, you just don't get a representative idea of the exposure through an OVF.
Plus EVFs can show some much additional information. And an SLR OVF is just dead weight if/when you shoot video.
OVFs (the top end, good ones) have just 2 advantages left AFAICS. No lag. And they are solar powered so save on your batteries!
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.
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.
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".