Lets Face It, DSLRs, Appear Somewhat Heading In The Way Of The Dinosaurs

MusicDoctorDJ:

It appears to be a weak attempt, on his part to say we are people opposed to increased industrialization or new technology; and, that we are small-minded "Luddites", resisting progress ---- when, in truth, we're the exact opposite of this.

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

MusicDoctorDJ said:

amalric said:

I have been fighting the no-mirror faction which was quite vocal and apocalyptic on the 4/3 Olympus dsLR Forum until they were relegated to their own forum, the µ4/3 one.

It is simply not nice to open a Forum main page, and see people predict the demise of your hard won equipment, and the end for you as a dinosaur.

It strikes me it must be a generational fad, akin to an oedipus complex, so blindly it works.

Anyhow to make things short I decided to get myself a 620 dSLR instead of the coming E-P1 and couldn't be more happy. It is a true hybrid in the that it has an OVF and lightning fast focus for action.

But it also has Liveview and CDAF on a flip out screen which I enjoy for architecture and landscape shot at low angles, or even for a bit of stelathy street shooting.

So I have the best of both on a small camera and with small lenses.

If I want to go smaller I'll probably get a µ4/3 with a prime but in no way it will replace my small dSLR.

People less demanding might well please themselves with no mirror, but those coming from P&S never had to deal with fast action, fleeting moments or BIF in the first place. Someof their luddism comes from the fear and laziness of having to tame a complicated machine they don't understand.

Then come the militants and intellectuals, ex dSLR owners who abandoned ship, who fear that the same company won't provide them the lenses because it still has dSLRs to care for.

Those are the most ferocious and they have somehow succeeded. For the next two years there will be only one new lens in 4/3, while there are a dozen more in µ4/3. Luckily the 4/3 lenses lineup is more than enough for me at the moment (except the need a few primes) so I can pass on it easily.

However small non telecentric lenses are giving their bitter fruits: none is optically worth a dSLR one, and despite that they are quite expensive for the bits of plastic with CA and heavy distortion bits they are.

So at the moment nothing to boast about for the disappearance of the mirror: just a handful of good sensors, and lenses, with soft edges, and inferior ergonomics.

As super P&S or second cameras EVIL do quite well, but no way they are going to replace dSLR. Which of course doesn't mean that at some point we might see some mirrorless upper tier cameras for special sensors and applications. But they won't be small, they will be telecentric and probably live next to mirror cameras.

I think a photographer, differently from a gear user, still understands the advantages of a natural view, at the speed of light.

An if he/she really needs to chimp, they will use the LCD or even Liveview when fit.

Sorry, little puritans, but the end of the World is not near, at least in the photographic world.

Click to expand...

Care to define 'Luddism' for us . . . ?

And . . . thanks for the Sunday morning sermon!

Made for a great laugh.

--
J. D.
Colorado

Click to expand...

Did you not see that I wrote that I acknowledge that EVF has many benefits to YOU and that further down I wrote that I am not trying to deny you an EVF?? I also very clearly wrote that the clarity of an OVF may not be significant to you ??

For heaven's sake, do I have to write it in all caps before you will read what I write?

Marion

MusicDoctorDJ said:

mhc_99 said:

Did you even read what I wrote before you responded or is this just one of your many knee-jerk defensive posts about the superiority of EVF?

EVF has many benefits to you , and the sharper image that OVF provides is not significant to you , but somehow you can't accept that others don't feel the same way.

A sharp, clear viewfinder is the most important thing to me because i use manual focus a lot--EVF just doesn't cut it for me . Maybe your eyesight is failing so the viewfinder sharpness isn't significant for you anymore?

You see all sorts of benefits to the EVF so go ahead and use them, I'm not trying to deny you. But why do you feel that everyone should march lock-step along with your views?? Sounds rather narrow-minded to me.

Click to expand...

Wow . . . looks to me like you are the king of the knee-jerk defensive posts!

It seems it is you who can't understand that others can do without something that you "need"!

By the way . . . yes, I did read and understood everything you wrote.

--
J. D.
Colorado

Click to expand...

bosjohn said:

bosjohn said:

amalric said:

I

Sorry, little puritans, but the end of the World is not near, at least in the photographic world.

Am.

Click to expand...

--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]

Click to expand...

Sorry I got the post in the wrong place so it looks like what amilric said its not.

My post was in response to his post ending in the above quote. It reads " Your entire post puts me in the difficult position of being ashamed to admit that I too prefer ovfs over evs." I hope I got it right this time. again my apologies.
--

Click to expand...

Nevertheless it's not clear what you and the poster above have against dSLR. Because that was the point I was addressing in my post.

I am not suggesting to destroy EVIL cameras, I reminded that people in some forums wanted to see dSLR dead, which is rather ridiculous, considering how many use them and are happy with them.

But I don't see any arguments to the contrary, only a feeble attempt at getting personal.

Lame. Meh.

Am.

Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

amalric said:

I am not suggesting to destroy EVIL cameras, I reminded that people in some forums wanted to see dSLR dead, which is rather ridiculous, considering how many use them and are happy with them.

But I don't see any arguments to the contrary, only a feeble attempt at getting personal.

Lame. Meh.

Am.

Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with dslrs at all I own one and enjoy it I love the finder I have not yet found an evf that I like. But this discussion is about whether or not compact cameras are narrowing the gap on all fronts, that is image quality, flexibility and speed of operation. The evidence seems to suggest that this is true. That is a discussion about a trend and its understood that we may not be there yet.

As to getting personal it was and is my impression you were making directing some rather personal and pointed remarks at people who were pointing out what evfs do for them and how they are getting better and better all the time. If I am in error as to the shall we say somewhat harsh nature of your post the of course we can continue with a friendly discussion.

I have not crystal ball but I am willing to bet that evfs will be the more common viewfinder on dslrs in the nearer rather than later future. The push to bring evfs to levels approaching ovs will accelerate in proportion with how much the manufactures need to cut the costs of manufacturing to stay competitive. I think though I cannot at this time prove it, that the cost of making the evfs is considerable less the the ovf just as it is cheaper to manufacture small point and shoots and compact cameras without optical finders and beefing up the lcds.

bosjohn said:

I have not crystal ball but I am willing to bet that evfs will be the more common viewfinder on dslrs in the nearer rather than later future. The push to bring evfs to levels approaching ovs will accelerate in proportion with how much the manufactures need to cut the costs of manufacturing to stay competitive. I think though I cannot at this time prove it, that the cost of making the evfs is considerable less the the ovf just as it is cheaper to manufacture small point and shoots and compact cameras without optical finders and beefing up the lcds.

Click to expand...

In fact the opposite is true, as we see in the E-P2, high quality EVF are expensive to make. Thus they must be used for a reason. The reason is that you dropped the EVF to shrink the camera size, and register. This in turn means small lenses, which are not telecentric. and have worse performance.

OTH if you include the EVF in the camera you have a G1, which has the same size of a small dSLR, so nothing gained, neither in size or quality.

So my theory is that Oly and Panny understood correctly that they were going to produce for the P&S market, and that the above would be an improvement for P&Shooters.

But it isn't so for dSLR users, unless they want a second, smaller camera, and they accept the tradeoff, which is smaller size but worse ergonomics, and lens quality.

It might be that in the future EVF will migrate to dSLR, for instance when needing multiple sensors, but telecentric registers will stay for bigger and better HQ lenses, which is reallly what one buys in the end, when getting a system, not only a camera.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

amalric said:

bosjohn wrote:

Click to expand...

amalric said:

In fact the opposite is true, as we see in the E-P2, high quality EVF are expensive to make. Thus they must be used for a reason. The reason is that you dropped the EVF to shrink the camera size, and register. This in turn means small lenses, which are not telecentric. and have worse performance.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Click to expand...

What are you basing your opinion on? btw I maybe I was not clear I mean the the evf is cheaper to make than the optical reflex finder found on dslrs not necessarily cheaper than the the simple optical accessory finders that fit on top of the camera.

Pentaprisms to start with a expensive to make. add to that the mechanism necessary for the return mirror and the associated optics associated with the finder and yes I think the cost of making this fitting it and getting it all properly set up is significantly more than an evf. But you could be right however with out some hard cost information we will have to agree to disagree on this one
--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]

BRJR said:

1. And, this trend should accelerate, as more and more small, compact and smaller cameras/Bodies/lenses (and, lets not forget camera phones) continue to advance technologically.

Click to expand...

Why hasn't SLRs cameras already disappeared?

Back in the film days people could use the exact same technologically advanced 35mm/135 format film in a P&S as they could use in an SLR...yet people (including me) still bought SLR cameras...why? SLRs just do some things better.

Why are there still corded drills when cordless tool technology can do things without the hassel of a power cord? Corded tools just have more power.

For household use they are trying to ban incandescent lights...if that's the case, why are incandescents still used for car headlights?

While MicroFourThirds (especially Oly's E-P1) has taken the world by storm, there will still be photographers who prefer the larger heavier SLR with a grip, even for outing photography. There was once a miniSLR from Pentax (Pentax 110), yet people still bought the full-sized SLRs.

bosjohn said:

amalric said:

bosjohn wrote:

Click to expand...

bosjohn said:

In fact the opposite is true, as we see in the E-P2, high quality EVF are expensive to make. Thus they must be used for a reason. The reason is that you dropped the EVF to shrink the camera size, and register. This in turn means small lenses, which are not telecentric. and have worse performance.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bosjohn said:

What are you basing your opinion on? btw I maybe I was not clear I mean the the evf is cheaper to make than the optical reflex finder found on dslrs not necessarily cheaper than the the simple optical accessory finders that fit on top of the camera.

Pentaprisms to start with a expensive to make. add to that the mechanism necessary for the return mirror and the associated optics associated with the finder and yes I think the cost of making this fitting it and getting it all properly set up is significantly more than an evf. But you could be right however with out some hard cost information we will have to agree to disagree on this one
--

Click to expand...

The main issue is not the EVF vs. the OVF. The main issue is down to what size you can shrink a camera wt good IQ. So first and foremost it is a matter of register and lenses.

Associated with that is to see if focussing in LiveViwe can compete in speed with Phase Detect autofocus: at the moment it cannot.

Nor can µ4/3 lenses quality compete with the bigger register - telecentric ones.

These are facts, explored and settled in the relevant forums.

So there are already two good reasons for keeping dSLRs.

Choosing an EVF for micro is the logical consequence of the first two. But it's not a must. You can simply use an LCD. Using a good EVF is plenty expensive. The difference between the E-P1 and an EP-2 + EVF is a sizeable 300 $.

As for prism no entry level dSLR uses prisms but pentamirrors, which are very cheap to make. It's easy to verify. By now an entry level dSLR price is half of that of an EP-2. And when making stock clearance they go as low as 200 $.

Believe me, at the moment the EVIL is only an expensive toy for affluent consumers. It doesn't have anything of the semipro features of a dSLR, except the sensor. And is much more expensive.

Moreover even the most expensive EVF i.e. the new Epson, mounted on the E-P2, suffers from relatively low refresh rates, blackouts, colour degradation in low light or pans.

Instead OVF have clarity, speed of light, don't suffer from colour degradation, allow fast sport shooting. And they are cheap to make.

Until all those problems are solved nobody is going to throw to the dogs the dSLR, and some might never do. But it's really the first two reasons that condition the issue.

Olympus took the decision - not me - to produce two different lines of camera: µ4/3 and 4/3 at the same time. And the reasons are those stated above. They are the creators of µicro, so they should know better than anyone.

So please don't give me any fudge. Try to get more information and reason on them instead of resting your case on half baked assumptions.

The OP's header is highly misleading, therefore I answered.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Mike_PEAT said:

While MicroFourThirds (especially Oly's E-P1) has taken the world by storm,

Click to expand...

Actually, Micro Four Thirds hasn't taken the world by storm. It's only generated interest amongst a relatively small niche of photographers so far. M4/3 sales are only a small fraction of what APS-C DSLR sales are. Take a look at Amazon's "Bestsellers in Camera & Photo" list, which lists the top 100 selling products in the Camera & Photo category.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/502394/ref=sv_p_2

As of this writing, I see these DSLRs:

4. Canon Rebel T1i kit
8. Canon Rebel XSi kit
9. Nikon D3000 kit
13. Nikon D90 kit
26. Nikon D5000 kit
46. Nikon D90 body
65. Canon Rebel XS kit
74. Canon 7D body
80. Canon 50D kit
84. Nikon D40 kit

Unfortunately, I didn't see any Micro Four Thirds product in that Top 100 list. You'd think that if Micro Four Thirds had "taken the world by storm", there would have been at least one Micro Four Thirds (or even regular Four Thirds) camera somewhere on that list, and preferably somewhere at the top of the list. And Amazon is one of the biggest sellers of cameras. They move boatloads of product! So based on what's a top seller at Amazon, and what's not a top seller at Amazon, I think it's fair to say that APS-C DSLRs are the ones taking the world by storm. Micro Four Thirds? Not so much. They still have a long way to go before anyone can say that it's "taken the world by storm."

n/t

nt=No Text

T3 said:

Mike_PEAT said:

While MicroFourThirds (especially Oly's E-P1) has taken the world by storm,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

T3 said:

Take a look at Amazon's "Bestsellers in Camera & Photo" list, which lists the top 100 selling products in the Camera & Photo category.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/502394/ref=sv_p_2

Click to expand...

Mike_PEAT said:

Mike_PEAT said:

Mike_PEAT said:

While MicroFourThirds (especially Oly's E-P1) has taken the world by storm,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

T3 said:

Take a look at Amazon's "Bestsellers in Camera & Photo" list, which lists the top 100 selling products in the Camera & Photo category.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/502394/ref=sv_p_2

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't see anything indicating that Micro Four Thirds has taken over the world outside the US either. For example, let's take a look at Japan sales rankings in 2008, where I'd say Micro Four Thirds would have possibly the best chance of success. Here were the top 20 best selling DSLRs in Japan in 2008 (yes, I know it predates more recent Micro Four Thirds cameras, but it gives you an idea of what M4/3 is up against):

http://brainmusic.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/top-20-best-selling-dslr-cameras-in-japan/

1. Canon EOS Kiss X2
2. Nikon D60
3. Nikon D80
4. Nikon D40
5. Canon EOS Kiss Digital X
6. Canon EOS 40D
7. Sony α350
8. Nikon D300
9. Sony α200
10. Nikon D90
11. Canon EOS 50D
12. Nikon D40x
13. Canon EOS Kiss F
14. Sony α300
15. Pentax K200D
16. Panasonic Lumix G1
17. Olympus E-510
18. Olympus E-520
19. Olympus E-420
20. Nikon D700

So the Panasonic G1 had a "solid showing" at #16. That's one camera against 15 other better selling APS-C cameras. Cumulatively, APS-C buries M4/3. In fact, M4/3 and 4/3 combined round out the bottom of the barrel. Definitely not taking Japan by storm.

So would the more recent EP-1, EP-2, and GF1 do any better? Probably not, because they are still pretty pricey for what you get, and don't include things like eyepiece viewfinders or (in the case of the EP-1 and EP-2) onboard flashes. So it's a comparatively poor value proposition compared to most APS-C DSLR cameras, and as a result, those cameras will cater more to a small niche segment of the buying population. And I think this applies to the world market as a whole. Certainly not enough to take the world by storm. Maybe someday you might be able to say that M4/3 has "taken the world by storm", but right now they aren't even close.

And by the way, Amazon does operate in other countries other than the US.

If the japanese list indicates totals of 2008, than the G1 was available in octobre but only in small numbers. I bought mine in december, as it was difficult to get.

Nevertheless I think people mix up popularity of a camera on a forum with allround camera popularity. I think DSLRS like the D40/ XS (1000D) or XSi (450D) are much more popular. Certainly when shops (non internet shops I mean) are considered. You can get these camera's and Sony's everywhere. M4/3's a still hard to find.

M4/3's have not taken the world by storm and DSLR's are far from obsolete. I am hapy with my G1 and to me it does what I want. But I can see the advantage of much beter DR (full frame especially) camera's. I would say that pure based on technique. m4/3 and its off spring will be very competitive and to APS-c camera's and that they could outcompete them in time. But FF DSLR's: I do not see that happening.

To your first point. Clearly there is no standard for what size a compact camera should be however there is at least one out there and probable two all ready that can rival the dslr in lens performance sensor performance and registration etc. the Leica x1 is said by at least one review to rival the image quality of medium level dslrs as it should as its using the same sensor. the other is the ricoh which remains to be tested but in one if its iterations it too uses the same sensor size as most dslrs. Again they are not all there now it an ongoing process. Gains are made all the time.

I would assume the lens in the x1 to be near telecentric. Incidentally leica M lenses are far less telecentric than the retro focus dslr lenses and even vary in telecentricty from lens to lens but I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that these lenses don't deliver first class performance.

As to making lenses for a small sensor point and shoot a sensor in the eleven mm range i agree with you.

I am also well aware of the prism less finders in cheaper dslrs which are not nearly as bright as prism finders however they still require a number of machanical moving parts assembled and fitted and robust enough to withstand the rigors imposed by forces of acceleration and deceleration. Electronic devices with no moving parts are by en large cheaper to make than mechanical devices with many moving parts that require many more manufacturing steps and labor to assemble. Yes the new olympus is 300 bucks more than the old but how much do you think Olympus has inflated the price of the finder to offset the slim margin on the camera?] Incidentally

panasonic gets almost two hundred dollars for their single focal length optical finder, how much more do you think they would get if they made an equal quality zoom finder?

As I mentioned before I fully agree with you that ovf at this point in time is vastly superior to any evf I have tried but this does not deny that vast improvement have been and will continue to be made to evfs.

Bottom line the gap between performance of dslrs and compacts digital cameras has at least the top end of compact cameras has been narrowing remarkable in the last two years or so.

Offering for the first time in digital photography a real choice in camera size with little or no sacrifice in image quality. Compact cameras in the micro 4/3 class such as offerings from Olympus and Panasonic, and aps c sensor size cameras from Leica, Ricoh and Sigma are a giant step closer in performance with the ubiquitous dslr. They are not there all the way yet but the gap is narrowing all the time.

But we all know of course that the dslr will also continue to develope as long as there is still a market big enough to allow the manufactures to make some profit making them.
--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]

Leica is a very bad case to make.

I believe they put special microlenses on the edges of their sensor, to compensate for lack of telecentricity. Must be quite expensive to design a special sensor, but with Leica who cares?

I have an E-4x0, the lightest dSLR available. With the pancake it's only 50 grams more than an E-P1, so I don't buy the spin. The latter would cost me three or four times as much, with very limited advantage.

But lazy and rich P&S of course don't want to change their habits, and foot the bill, provided they don't have to fight against a true photographic tool.

They assume there won't be a learning curve, but they will end in juggling an array of costly accessories, which I find funny.

But by the spin please, it's your money after all...

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

T3 said:

tko said:

Here's Kenny rationalizing why he doesn't shoot digital.

"I didn't have to haul around a big DSLR, bigger lenses, a computer, backup drives, card readers, cables, power supplies, blank DVDs and CDs, camera chargers, power strips, and all the other crap that takes up a separate bag. I just grabbed my camera and went, and each night, I went to sleep. With film, you're done, and never have anything that needs to be backed up, copied or posted. Film is more reliable; it won't erase itself or become unreadable while you're out shooting, and this way I could devote all my attention to the trip and photography, not to computers."

Click to expand...

What a complete load of bull. Back in the film days, I used to have to carry Ziplock baggies full of film...different types of film, different speeds of film. I needed bags for fresh, unused film, and bags for spent, used film. And all these rolls of film took up a lot more room than a few memory cards. In fact, all this film did take up a separate bag. Plus, these days when I travel, I take along a small 10" netbook with a 160GB internal harddrive to store my images. And even if I weren't doing any photography, I'd still be bringing the netbook simply to watch movies, or check email, or surf the internet, so it's not even an extra item that I'm bringing! I can have a set of images on my netbook, and I can keep a set of images on my memory cards, so I have some redundancy. What kind of redundancy do I have when traveling with film? None.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct! One of the (many) things I love about digital is that a lab isn't going to lose my film (happened), scratch it, (happened), fog it, expose it, subject it to sloppy processing using old chemicals. Another thing I love about digital is that my memory cards are far smaller than film and reusable.

T3 said:

I really love his statement "With film, you're done, and never have anything that needs to be backed up, copied or posted."

Click to expand...

With KR, he is probably right about the photos he takes on film, in the sense that he never has anything worth backing up, copying or posting.

And regarding his rant about the "crap" he has to take with digital as opposed to film, if one were to duplicate the capability he "hauls around" for digital, one would need to take a fully equiped darkroom along.

And, not just Micro Four Thirds (m4/3's). KR, says he prefers the "color rendition" of the pocket camera (Canon S90) seen at the link below better than his Leica M9; and, overall, except for in the studio, or sports, it appears to now be a favorite:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/s90.htm

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

Jorginho said:

If the japanese list indicates totals of 2008, than the G1 was available in octobre but only in small numbers. I bought mine in december, as it was difficult to get.

Nevertheless I think people mix up popularity of a camera on a forum with allround camera popularity. I think DSLRS like the D40/ XS (1000D) or XSi (450D) are much more popular. Certainly when shops (non internet shops I mean) are considered. You can get these camera's and Sony's everywhere. M4/3's a still hard to find.

M4/3's have not taken the world by storm and DSLR's are far from obsolete. I am hapy with my G1 and to me it does what I want. But I can see the advantage of much beter DR (full frame especially) camera's. I would say that pure based on technique. m4/3 and its off spring will be very competitive and to APS-c camera's and that they could outcompete them in time. But FF DSLR's: I do not see that happening.

Click to expand...

And, lets not forget the Apple iPhone's video-photo capabilities are continuing to getting better; and, so are third party iphone applications for it, such as seen at this link:

http://www.seeitwithus.com/

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

RedFox88 said:

BRJR said:

1. And, this trend should accelerate, as more and more small, compact and smaller cameras/Bodies/lenses (and, lets not forget camera phones) continue to advance technologically.

Click to expand...

P&S and compact digital cameras are on their way out. Why pay $200 for a camera when your $100 phone has a 5MP (only 0.5MP needed for facebook) camera with flash, a personal organizer, internet, TV video, word processor, MP3 player, and you always have it with you?

Also most people college age or younger are almost always using their photos for just social networking sites which means very small web images. Less than 1MP needed and facebook won't take an image bigger than 604 pixels on the long side.

RedFox88 said:

2. Why, heck, on his website, "18 November 2009, Wednesday", under "Go Shoot", KR, now says:

"I don't even use DSLRs anymore except in the studio. In the field, I use a point-and-shoot."

Click to expand...

If you haven't heard about KR, he says something different every month or so. Before it was "only real photographers shoot film - it's the REAL raw". It's all eye catching headlines to grab your attention and you were stupid enough to believe it!

Click to expand...

--
Neil
http://thewarmland.com

Your hero kent rockwell is a ******. Half of what he posts is crap to stir up the pot to get more people to visit his garbage ebegging website.