Panasonic SLR only a month away!

mrfitz said:

The clarity and range is just not there with EVF, sure its ok, but
if you pick use a good optical viewfinder, it dumps all over even
the best EVf out there.

Click to expand...

You're missing that I'm not talking about those that are "out there"
but those that will come in the future (maybe not too distant).

I think there are a lot of people that can accept 75 % or the clarity
and 75 % of the range, if the lag isn't much worse than the mirror
swing and AF is acceptable, given the long list of useful features only a
EVF can give them.

An EVF doesn't have to beat an OVF in every aspect to be viable for
some photographers, it's a matter of compromises and finding the
right tool for the job.

And yes I know how a good viewfinder is to use, I've
used one for 20+ years on my old SLR and the ones on
affordable DSLRs aren't imperssive in comparison, thank you.

mrfitz said:

OVF is here to stay.....

Click to expand...

Yes as a niche, just like film.

Just my two öre
Erik from Sweden, F Z 5 owner
The only free lunch in photography: O I S

stdr said:

What's the purpose of a dSLR camera?

In my opinion it's just the bigger sensor.

This whole idea of including a swinging/flipping mirror is so much
obsolete. It renders the LCD screen useless since it cannot be used
as a viewfinder. It doesn't make any sense at all. Digital SLRs are
for people who consider SLRs good because they have a mirror while
any other camera (w/o a mirror) must be inferior.

What we need is a camera with a sensor slightly bigger than those
currently used in compact cameras. No need for a mirror at all.

Click to expand...

The DSLR is, as you say, a way to use a bigger sensor without getting it too heated up. The SLR form was to get optical TTL viewing and phase detection AF, so they make a good pairing. Until the LCDs and EVFs mature, they are a compromise compared to what a DSLR can provide.

I have a Coolpix 5000 which has a 2/3" sensor and fits your no mirror requirements. The difference between image quality and file depth, for various sensor (and pixel) sizes is very real. If you do no post processing, you wouldn't care. The mirrorless, large sensor camera can be a very useful tool, so I hope they do it right.
--
Bob Ross
http://www.pbase.com/rossrtx

More likely, the Oly is a re-badged Panasonic!

stdr said:

BTW: There are no affordable super-zoom objectives for SLR cameras.

Click to expand...

I'm far from rich, but I would call these affordable:

Phoenix 28-300 $190

Sigma 28-300 $220

Sigma 18-200 $369

(Prices from B&H Photo.)

Stabilised? No.
Sharp? Probably not.
But 10x zoom and affordable.

Do I want them? Probably not.

Just my two öre
Erik from Sweden, F Z 5 owner
The only free lunch in photography: O I S

--
[email protected]

when came the new one,and the diferences are good?

the new one came never sooner and the differences are never better, can't complain yet.

If a DSLR tree falls in the Panasonic forest, does anybody hear it? (nt)
-Dave.

That is deep Dave, very deep, but I gotta tell ya, some in this forum have their hearing aids turned to full volume and would hear a panasonic lens cap strike the ground in the Amazon jungle.....
--
Kevin Coppalotti
http://razorsharp.smugmug.com

Well mirror systems aren't obsolete because the use of them allows for state-of-the-art autofocus systems that are currently superior to P&S style AF systems. How you feel about optical viewfinders v. EVFs is up to you, but I haven't seen any AF system on a P&S that performs as well as a traditional SLR-type system, especially in low light. Aside from that the lens has to still be mounted the same distance from the sensor if the Olympus 4:3 mount is to be used and allow interchangability of lenses from different brands; unless of course you want to implement some sort of needlessly complicated enlarging system or create an entirely new line of lenses without cross-brand compatability. So getting rid of the mirror doesn't really allow you to make the camera significantly smaller (the prism maybe, but really how big is that?).

But here's the thing that I do think is stupid: one of the supposed benefits of smaller sensors is smaller bodies and lenses; well okay I'm still waiting. Granted, a 300mm lens is somewhat smaller and lighter than a 400mm lens, but a 300mm still isn't exactly small so I don't see that it really matters that much at that point. I'd be perfectly happy if someone made a camera that took the 4:3 lenses and, yes, did away with the mirror and went with a P&S-style AF system, as long as it was legitimately compact. If it's only marginally smaller than a D-Rebel, it's a complete wash as far as I'm concerned, and until they manage that I'll be more than happy to stick with a traditional SLR-type design.

stdr said:

What's the purpose of a dSLR camera?

Click to expand...

Purpose is to provide the best darn pictures you are able to. Aside from the MUCH LARGER lenses and sensors...they tend to have additional features that cheaper P&S cameras lack. Panasonic has come far with their P&S cameras...they have virtually no shutter lag (Venus II engine)...but this is not common in the P&S market...(well, maybe today it is common). In the rst of my post, I touch on merely a few of the benefits of DSLRs. There are more benefits than I can come up with.

stdr said:

In my opinion it's just the bigger sensor.

Click to expand...

It is also to BIGGER lenses and the firm comforting feel of a larger brick-like object in your hands, not to mention drastically improved metering and AF response. I think I left out the fact that DSLRs tend to have commonly used buttons directly on the camera rather than hidden deep in a menu.

stdr said:

This whole idea of including a swinging/flipping mirror is so much
obsolete. It renders the LCD screen useless since it cannot be used
as a viewfinder.

Click to expand...

Not anymore. Olympus has set the bar with regards to DSLRs and Live preview with their E330.

stdr said:

It doesn't make any sense at all.

Click to expand...

Not to you, but to others...it makes sense. Have you ever used one?

stdr said:

Digital SLRs are for people who consider SLRs good because they have a > mirror while any other camera (w/o a mirror) must be inferior.

Click to expand...

I am not even going to comment on the short-sightedness of this statement except to say that in my 1 week with an FZ5, it cannot handle low light very well. I have trouble framing in low light. This is likely due to the gain of the sensor. If I had an optical viewfinder like in my E1, I would have no problems framing the shot.

stdr said:

What we need is a camera with a sensor slightly bigger than those
currently used in compact cameras.

Click to expand...

Maybe...how much bigger?

stdr said:

No need for a mirror at all.

Click to expand...

how wrong can someone possibly be in a single post?

Advanced AF mechanisms require the clunky mirror assembly that you are so callously undermining. Sure, you can focus with whatever P&S cameras use to focus, but I have found that DSLRs tend to focus faster than P&S cameras. Professionals cannot sit around and wait for the camera to focus...they need consistant dependable results.

My FZ5 cannot focus properly in dim light...but my Olympus E1 (which is wrongfully criticised for slow focus) can focus rather quickly in very dark places...and with the FL-50 flash unit, it can focus in complete darkness.

I suggest learning more about DSLRs before you go spouting off all this useless mis-information.

--

Life is like a roll of TOILET PAPER; the closer you get to the end, the faster it goes.

Chromatic Aberration said:

Chromatic Aberration said:

Digital SLRs are for people who consider SLRs good because they have a mirror while any other camera (w/o a mirror) must be inferior.

Click to expand...

I am not even going to comment on the short-sightedness of this
statement....

Click to expand...

I've seen countless threads on this topic in which people have essentially said, "Well if it didn't have a mirror it wouldn't an SLR then, would it? There! I run rings around ya, logically!" How short-sighted can ya get?

tko said:

4/3rds w/o EVF is kind of dead. I haven't seen that Oly lenses are
smaller, better, or cheaper than the competition, so what's the
point? However, if you can remove the mirror and move the lens
closer a whole new world may open up which would revitalize (or
just vitalize) the 4/3rd market.

Click to expand...

...and having gotten rid of the mirror and moved the lens closer to the sensor plane the existing 4/3 lenses won't work anymore. Back to square one.

I also can't see a need for an EVF in a DSLR. I appreciated the live preview in my FZ10, but not the graininess. Having gone over to the DSLR side I very quickly realized even the absence of live preview did not matter - the dynamic range is so vastly superior one does not need to choose between blown highlights in the sky or totally blocked blacks in the shadows.

I also verily doubt that Leica will enter the 4/3 market. If they made - or even allowed making - of Leica-badged lenses, they'd either have to keep the interchangeable lenses at a quality and price level an amateur would not feel comfortable with or run the risk of depreciating the market perception of the Leica made lenses and gear. Anyway, there's no problem using Leica R lenses in 4/3 cameras as it is - Leica R to 4/3 adapters are commercially available.

Cheers,

-Topi Kuusinen, Finland

Topi said:

...and having gotten rid of the mirror and moved the lens closer to
the sensor plane the existing 4/3 lenses won't work anymore. Back
to square one.

Click to expand...

If the distance between mount and sensor is shortened, old lenses
could still work 100 % via an adapter. But a less annoying (for owners
of old lenses and new bodies) way to exploit the extra space is to let
the rear element of the lens protrude further into the body. A small
adjustment to the mount such that they couldn't be fitted to 4/3rds
bodies with mirror, like Canon EF-S, would be appropriate. But it is
really only lenses shorter than normal that would benefit from this
shorter back focus.

Topi said:

I also can't see a need for an EVF in a DSLR. I appreciated the
live preview in my FZ10, but not the graininess.

Click to expand...

Your mistake is assuming an EVF of a comparable quality will be used.

If it's a lot better, even if not perfect, I think many people would see
its use.

Let's use the film vs digital analogy again: A few years ago, when the
best consumer cameras were 1-2 MP, and inferior to film in just about
every PQ aspect - resolution, dynamic range, colour fidelity, blooming,
highlight rendering - people were still happily buying and using them
even at prices far higher than today. Why? Because the drawbacks
were compensated by added functionality (immediate feedback,
no film costs, ability to manipulate on a PC without scanning first).

EVFs will also be a question of balancing pros and cons.

Topi said:

Having gone over
to the DSLR side I very quickly realized even the absence of live
preview did not matter - the dynamic range is so vastly superior
one does not need to choose between blown highlights in the sky or
totally blocked blacks in the shadows.

Click to expand...

If you are still talking about the view finder, I would prefer to have the
VF show the DR that the camera captures, even if it is limited.

Just my two öre
Erik from Sweden, F Z 5 owner
The only free lunch in photography: O I S

Conan said:

Well mirror systems aren't obsolete because the use of them allows
for state-of-the-art autofocus systems that are currently superior
to P&S style AF systems. How you feel about optical viewfinders v.
EVFs is up to you, but I haven't seen any AF system on a P&S that
performs as well as a traditional SLR-type system, especially in
low light.

Click to expand...

Whilst I agree that the potential for fast AF is always better with a
phase detection system, as it's implemented it isn't always clear-cut.
E.g. imaging resource measured 0.32-0.39 s for the FZ4, whilst
the E-500+kit got 0.37-0.38 s. Ricoh and Casio have also managed to
make very fast AF without a mirror design. So I think the difference
can be made so small that it wont be a major factor.

Someone shooting predominently sport might always favour the mirror
design, whilst someone with other interests might find more use of the
EVF or tilt LCD. The right tool for the job. And with a camera system,
you can bring one body of each kind.

Conan said:

But here's the thing that I do think is stupid: one of the supposed
benefits of smaller sensors is smaller bodies and lenses; well okay
I'm still waiting.

Click to expand...

Yes, agree with you here, waiting too.

Just my two öre
Erik from Sweden, F Z 5 owner
The only free lunch in photography: O I S

If some people here ever used a 35mm SLR...

A mirror is not inferior...nor is an OVF...

To those who spout off about it needs to go have very limited experience of using an OVF....

EVF requires power to run, draining the battery further, there is also lag, the image is not as clear, nor is the dynamic range....OVF stomps all over it..

And I mean decent OVF not the small crud E-500 OVF.....that was a serious oversight by olympus....

I honestly think some people wont be happy until technology removes all areas of skill from photography.....cameras that focus after the event...no thanks.....

4/3 is IMO a mistake for pannie to adopt....the sensor is inferior to 3/2 (smaller) very poor third party support, and despite Oly's claims their lenses never were cheaper as the result of smaller lenses and less glass...

Pannie will go one of two ways...a big winner in the DSLR market, or it will bomb out...

So quit this EVF rocks rubbish...its ok at best...but its never gonna replace optical 100%....and neither should it...

And a quick point...35mm is far from dead also, and many users here would be well served to go back to learn the basics on that...and enjoy real photography....

Agree with most of what you say.

Unfortunately some people have never had the priviledge to gaze thru a truly good pentaprism SLR, let alone one with a fast lens.

A good, near 100% coverage, pentaprism OVF and a F2 or faster lens on it is incredible.
But that is only part of the equation.
'Digital' is different though.
I do like the additional info an EVF provides (histogram, all settings info...).

If an EVF does not allow me to take pictures (easily) at bright sunlight it is useless IMHO. Does not mean it can't be invaluable in other situations.

Mrfitz, I am torn between the EVF camp and the OVF camp because I have one camera with each, personally I prefer my FZ30 EVF to my 20D OVF. OVF is not WYSIWYG whereas EVF is closer to the final image and I replay my pics in the EVF for checking fine focus detail and exposure. The 20D lcd is pathetic in comparison.

I think a way to package the new pana DSLR will be with say 18 -55 kit lens and a 55 - 200 zoom to cover the entry level people, like OLY did a while back. But I still think this will be a hard beast to sell, because there is no clearly defined taget market. And please, existing pana customers are price conscious point and shooters or people who already have a DSLR.

So to my mind no one has been able to clearly define the target market, so that leaves the bottom feeders buying on price. Still I am very curious about this camera and who will be the first buyers to take the great leap forward (or backward). Bring it on!
--
Kevin Coppalotti
http://razorsharp.smugmug.com

Well it seems at least one of the pannie DLSR's will be EVF....is it a deal breaker? No, not if its a decent one...

I do think that Panasonic will have a hard time in the SLR market...I have a lot of respect for them as a company...they have done well to date in the camera market....no mean feat considering the competition around.

When I mean decent OVF I mean....Nikon D200, KM 7D, Pentax Ist DL etc...which are way above the budget entry cams in OVF quality...

Like others I have held off getting a DSLR, though have had the chance to use a few....the cost factor cannot be ignored...its not cheap.. It will be interesting to see what Pannie bring out...but they have to do more than a revamped E-500 or something like that...that is probably a cam that would benefit from an EVF, IMO the OVF is seriously poor..

I dont think the Megapixel thing is that relevant...at a guess 8mp for the entry one....price will be crucial..and i wonder how they will do OIS, this could be expensive in the lens.....

With a KM 7D going pretty cheap at the mo (as cheap as an E-500, but light years ahead in handling and build quality), that could warrant serious consideration.....

Failing that with KM out of it, I dont dig Sony, its looking like Nikon, maybe at the outside Pentax/Samsung if it were better value! I just dont know if there is room for pannie....A lot of photographers, rightly or wrongly want a camera from a camera company with a history...and not an electronics giant....

Canon are good, but hell we cant all buy em or nobody else will be around!

Erik37 said:

Topi said:

...and having gotten rid of the mirror and moved the lens closer to
the sensor plane the existing 4/3 lenses won't work anymore. Back
to square one.

Click to expand...

If the distance between mount and sensor is shortened, old lenses
could still work 100 % via an adapter.

Click to expand...

Only if the adapter included an optical element.

Erik37 said:

But a less annoying (for owners
of old lenses and new bodies) way to exploit the extra space is to let
the rear element of the lens protrude further into the body. A small
adjustment to the mount such that they couldn't be fitted to 4/3rds
bodies with mirror, like Canon EF-S, would be appropriate.

Click to expand...

And so you'd in effect have yet another lens system that would not even be covered by the 4/3 patent, if I've understood the patent right.

Erik37 said:

Erik37 said:

I also can't see a need for an EVF in a DSLR. I appreciated the
live preview in my FZ10, but not the graininess.

Click to expand...

Your mistake is assuming an EVF of a comparable quality will be used.

Click to expand...

Actually I forgot to mention that this concerns the current level of technology that AFAIK has improved (a lot) since the FZ10.

Given the perceived demand for an EVF even in a DSLR-like cameras I'm sure the technology will advance to the point that they'll be good enough and affordable. The "good enough" point is no problem even today, the problem is in combining the good enough and affordable.

Erik37 said:

Erik37 said:

Having gone over
to the DSLR side I very quickly realized even the absence of live
preview did not matter - the dynamic range is so vastly superior
one does not need to choose between blown highlights in the sky or
totally blocked blacks in the shadows.

Click to expand...

If you are still talking about the view finder, I would prefer to
have the
VF show the DR that the camera captures, even if it is limited.

Click to expand...

Yes, I was. The difference in DR is humongous. Also, shooting in RAW still increases the exposure latitude. As I said, I pretty soon learned to use the EVF of the FZ10 as a WYSIWYG screen, helping me to choose my exposure reference point. It was a good thing to have due to the limited DR. With the DSLR I really do not need it anymore. The viewfinder provides me with the info I need and should feel the need for checking, say, exposure, I can chimp and check the exposure in a three-channel histogram right after the exposure. Which is something I extremely rarely do, as there is basically no need for it.

I really think I'll just have to agree to disagree with those clamoring for EVFs to DSLRs or the like.

Cheers,

-Topi Kuusinen, Finland

Yep

I agree with you - take out the clunky mirror, stick on an evf and a full flip live lcd on the back. Great big slurpy sensor and a high quality removeable lens system. Nice trick zoom-in focussing.

Sell them by the truckload whilst the "mirror-pentaprism" lot mutter darkly in the backgorund.

Fact is some people will like to give them a try even if they are not a "proper camera". My guess is that at some time in the very foreseeable future the "mirror-pentaprism" dslr's will be relegated to a niche market for "enthusiasts" whilst the "plebs" will be exhibiting top quality images from their devfr's (or whatever they are called).

Fact 1 - the world appears not to be ready for the change yet

Fact 2 - mass produced evf's must be cheaper than mass produced mirror pentaprisms - economics will win in the end

By the way I am not saying that an evf is better than a mirror-pentaprism - but it may become "as good".

--
Tom Caldwell