Maybe not next year...but the move is on....

Renato1 said:

True, Range Finder cameras didn't photograph exactly what you saw in the Viewfinder, but were close enough for most practical purposes. And from memory, some of those Rangefinder cameras cost a lot more than many SLRs did.

So why didn't Range Finders take over the camera world, leaving SLRs to the tiny niche who needed the extra features?

Click to expand...

That's not a bad question.

Besides what you mention above, because the RF didn't "photograph exactly what you saw in the Viewfinder", especially close up, it meant that macro was not really possible. RF lenses, probably for this reason, generally had poor close-focus abilities (something people who now adapt them to EVILs regret). Macro is a fun field that appeals to many people so was one good reason to choose a DSLR over a RF.

Another area also suffering from the parallax was tele. I don't think there are much if any RF lenses above about 135mm. That's a pretty serious limitation for many.

And finally, AF is much more convenient than MF. All MF systems, also SLR ones, were marginalised by AF DSLRs.

The RF being a bit smaller and more quiet doesn't balance the drawbacks listed above for most people, so it explains the dominance of the SLRs.
. . .

This is not the place to analyse all the pros and cons of EVIL vs. DSLR but I personally think the EVIL has a lot going for it and it has more scope for improving on the points where it is weak than the more mature DSLR has.

--
Just my two öre,
Erik from Sweden

You and I look at cameras as a tool, as do many on this board, while and some people and God bless them look at cameras as a toy, they are looking for the newest bell and whistle that will enable them to take that great photo. What they are missing is the time and effort needed to learn the skills and that thing I call the Photographers Eye. Video on a camera I fear will be a easy diversion, it will make for a great marketing tool but will not help the photographer take a better photo.

I teach photographer part time for adult education and for elementary school. In the young children I can teach it as an art form with adults they want to learn how to take better photos off the auto settings. You can guess who takes the better pictures.

I hope I did not hijack this thread

Hi Erik,

Thanks for your thoughts on this. What you point out in relation to macro photography was certainly one thing SLRs did better than RFs - but I'd class most of the people who do such photography, either regularly or sporadically, as a niche group.

I don't agree the autofocus part that you cite though. When SLRs were manual focus, RFs were manual focus. When SLRs went to autofocus, there was eventually an autofocus RF, the Contax G1. And when SLRs went digital, eventually, so did a couple of RFs.

I wonder about the telephoto point that you raise. Was there anything stopping long telephoto lenses being developed for RFs, other that perhaps they might look silly and defeat the purpose of being compact? Kind of like the NEX and its 18-200mm lens looks a bit ridiculous?

I really have a hard time picturing the world full of tourists lugging the NEX and such a big lens around. While I can imagine them carrying lenses like used to be used on RFs around.
Regards,
Renato

Ehrik said:

Renato1 said:

True, Range Finder cameras didn't photograph exactly what you saw in the Viewfinder, but were close enough for most practical purposes. And from memory, some of those Rangefinder cameras cost a lot more than many SLRs did.

So why didn't Range Finders take over the camera world, leaving SLRs to the tiny niche who needed the extra features?

Click to expand...

That's not a bad question.

Besides what you mention above, because the RF didn't "photograph exactly what you saw in the Viewfinder", especially close up, it meant that macro was not really possible. RF lenses, probably for this reason, generally had poor close-focus abilities (something people who now adapt them to EVILs regret). Macro is a fun field that appeals to many people so was one good reason to choose a DSLR over a RF.

Another area also suffering from the parallax was tele. I don't think there are much if any RF lenses above about 135mm. That's a pretty serious limitation for many.

And finally, AF is much more convenient than MF. All MF systems, also SLR ones, were marginalised by AF DSLRs.

The RF being a bit smaller and more quiet doesn't balance the drawbacks listed above for most people, so it explains the dominance of the SLRs.
. . .

This is not the place to analyse all the pros and cons of EVIL vs. DSLR but I personally think the EVIL has a lot going for it and it has more scope for improving on the points where it is weak than the more mature DSLR has.

--
Just my two öre,
Erik from Sweden

Click to expand...

Renato1 said:

What you point out in relation to macro photography was certainly one thing SLRs did better than RFs - but I'd class most of the people who do such photography, either regularly or sporadically, as a niche group.

Click to expand...

When I was a teenager in the early 80's, I had an MF SLR with a 3rd party zoom lens with a macro mode (I don't recall if it was 1:1 or 1:2). No great quality of course, but I did mostly 10x15cm prints and had a lot of fun doing macros.

Renato1 said:

I don't agree the autofocus part that you cite though. When SLRs were manual focus, RFs were manual focus. When SLRs went to autofocus, there was eventually an autofocus RF, the Contax G1.

Click to expand...

Yes, forgot about that one. But both Contax and Leica were priced out of the mass market, weren't they?

Renato1 said:

I wonder about the telephoto point that you raise. Was there anything stopping long telephoto lenses being developed for RFs, other that perhaps they might look silly and defeat the purpose of being compact?

Click to expand...

For one thing, the viewfinder size is fixed so what you frame is just a small part in the middle, you see no details. Even if there could be magnifier accessories, it would probably be hard to align the focus assist and get a reasonably correct framing. With a long tele even a fraction of a degree matters.

Renato1 said:

Kind of like the NEX and its 18-200mm lens looks a bit ridiculous?

Click to expand...

That too.

Renato1 said:

I really have a hard time picturing the world full of tourists lugging the NEX and such a big lens around. While I can imagine them carrying lenses like used to be used on RFs around.

Click to expand...

It would have been more logical to launch the NEX-3/5 with three pancake primes. Then people jumping in would know more what to expect regarding size, optical quality and price. But there may be issues with getting fast AF with longer fast primes causing delays.

--
Just my two öre,
Erik from Sweden

Thanks Eric,

Well we live in interesting times, it'll be interesting to see how this develops.

I guess I'll have a good idea by the time I go on my next trip to Europe in a year's time, and check out what the other tourists are carrying.
Renato

Three factors distinguished slr cameras when they first developed . The photographer looked through the lens of the actual lens on the camera to see the image, not an extra viewfinder dedicated lens. The lenses were interchangeable but the photographer still viewed through the lens in use. They used roll film. (This was important because it distinguished slrs from viewfinder cameras that also could have interchangeable lenses and where the actual image was also viewed directly but on a groundglass screen that was interchanged with a film back when the image was to be captured).

The evil cameras meet all these criteria and so can be regarded as slrs. No, they don't have roll film, but they can capture multiple images on their recording medium. It doesn't matter if the technology is different, they perform the functions that distinguished slrs from other categories.

I can't think of any significant difference in technique between the use of Evil and mirrored slrs that puts them into a different category, but I'd be happy to consider suggestions.
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

Walt, that just doesn't add up. Your comments on dropping price points applies equally to the cost of mirror slrs. That isn't the world of P&Ss just the world of photography.

While it is true that to this point in time OVFs (and they are not equal) are better than EVFs, the quality of EVFs has improved rapidly and dramatically and we can expect that it will continue to do so, whereas OVF quality is pretty well fixed.

Apart from size/weight there are inherent advantage of mirrorless slrs that will give them an edge for advanced photography as the technology matures. Complete lack of vibration and absence of sound. Despite years of development of ovfs, the vibration issue is considerable and forces ovf cameras to have to use higher shutter speeds (or ISO) than is the case without OVF. Hence thre need for mirror lock up, when the subject allows it to be used.
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

Mike Fewster said:

Three factors distinguished slr cameras when they first developed . The photographer looked through the lens of the actual lens on the camera to see the image, not an extra viewfinder dedicated lens. The lenses were interchangeable but the photographer still viewed through the lens in use.

Click to expand...

The EVIL cameras use an electronic image to view while DSLR's use a reflected/projected image on ground glass. That, to me, is a big difference and reason enough to separate them from DSLR's.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

The method is irrelevant. What is important is what the design achieves. The aim of slr's was not the mirror, the aim was the photographic controls enabled to photographers. These were for photographers to be able to see precisely what the lens saw, thus eliminating parallax error (as in rf and TLR formats) and to still be able to do this when changing lenses. Evil qualifies. If the evil technology had been available in the 60's and 70's it would certainly have been considered slr. If the photographic community wishes to distinguish them it will need to refer to mirror slrs to distinguish these slrs from non mirror slrs, or we'll just have to wait for a new set of acronyms to emerge. I'd be happy with EVIL and MSLR. Common usage has resulted in everyone assuming that slr has to mean a mirror, but technology advances have simply come up with another way that achieves the objectives of the slr design. But slr they certainly are.
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

tko said:

So go ahead, predict the demise of dSLR's like people have been doing for the last 5 years. In the meantime, prosumers and their brethren are getting slower, fewer buttons, harder to access menus, less programmabiility, in general, no improvement in handling over a FZ30, a C-8080, or a DCS-F707, all impressive cameras, and much more interesting that's what's being offered today.

Click to expand...

Around 8 or 9 years ago I think I asserted in the Minolta forum that EVFs would reign over OVFs within a very short period - maybe 2 or 3 years. That was back in the days of the Dimage 7.

I never expected to own a DSLR because they would be obsolete.

In retrospect I'm shocked that after almost a decade that EVFs haven't managed to dominate. it seemed so obvious (to me at least) that they would. Put into context of what was available at the start of the decade the Oly Pen was a huge disappointment IMHO.

--
---------------
Andrew.

Ehrik said:

Renato1 said:

True, Range Finder cameras didn't photograph exactly what you saw in the Viewfinder, but were close enough for most practical purposes. And from memory, some of those Rangefinder cameras cost a lot more than many SLRs did.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The viewfinder also gives you a bit of extra working room. This was really nice.

Modern digital P&S have much inferior viewfinders. No wonder people have given up on viewfinders -- better to use the LCD than a really tiny crummy OVF.

Ehrik said:

Ehrik said:

So why didn't Range Finders take over the camera world, leaving SLRs to the tiny niche who needed the extra features?

Click to expand...

That's not a bad question.

Click to expand...

I've wondered about that a bit myself. I used my mother's RF-like Trip 35 for years. (It didn't have a "rangefinder", but used a simple manually-set scale-focus.) While the expensive rangefinders had interchangeable lenses, many were fixed focal length and less expensive.

So what replaced it? Not just SLRs, but P&S cameras that still used 35mm film(!) and did AF and zoom. So, they weren't really "rangefinders", but they were more convenient to use. I think much of the market adapted to slightly less quality but more features and less cost.

I appreciate your points about macro and tele, but I think most people saw the larger size of SLRs, and had to make the decision -- bigger camera and extra bulk, or these handy smaller cameras? Those who insisted upon these features or more manual features moved up to SLRs. Those who could make do with a simpler camera but wanted something easier to deal with (or just cheaper and still often with good IQ) got the P&S cameras.

Ehrik said:

Besides what you mention above, because the RF didn't "photograph exactly what you saw in the Viewfinder", especially close up, it meant that macro was not really possible. RF lenses, probably for this reason, generally had poor close-focus abilities (something people who now adapt them to EVILs regret). Macro is a fun field that appeals to many people so was one good reason to choose a DSLR over a RF.

Another area also suffering from the parallax was tele. I don't think there are much if any RF lenses above about 135mm. That's a pretty serious limitation for many.

And finally, AF is much more convenient than MF. All MF systems, also SLR ones, were marginalised by AF DSLRs.

Click to expand...

And AF P&S.

Ehrik said:

The RF being a bit smaller and more quiet doesn't balance the drawbacks listed above for most people, so it explains the dominance of the SLRs.
. . .

This is not the place to analyse all the pros and cons of EVIL vs. DSLR but I personally think the EVIL has a lot going for it and it has more scope for improving on the points where it is weak than the more mature DSLR has.

Click to expand...

Looking back, the Trip was a good camera.

Eventually as people switched from film P&S cameras to digital P&S cameras, I think quality took a big hit. It still suffers to a large extent with the small sensors. But the convenience of digital outweighs a lot.

But I think it shows that a new technology can have compromises in certain areas and still show enough advantages to overtake the old standard.

These new ILC cameras are going to force people to make a decision -- go with the larger, more expensive SLR cameras or.....

--
Gary W.

Mike Fewster said:

The method is irrelevant. What is important is what the design achieves. The aim of slr's was not the mirror, the aim was the photographic controls enabled to photographers. These were for photographers to be able to see precisely what the lens saw, thus eliminating parallax error (as in rf and TLR formats) and to still be able to do this when changing lenses. Evil qualifies. If the evil technology had been available in the 60's and 70's it would certainly have been considered slr. If the photographic community wishes to distinguish them it will need to refer to mirror slrs to distinguish these slrs from non mirror slrs, or we'll just have to wait for a new set of acronyms to emerge. I'd be happy with EVIL and MSLR. Common usage has resulted in everyone assuming that slr has to mean a mirror, but technology advances have simply come up with another way that achieves the objectives of the slr design. But slr they certainly are.

Click to expand...

SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex

And Reflex stands for using a mirror or prism to change the direction of the light. ie it's not direct back to the sensor in a straight line from the lens.

To me what's more important is the camera body style and only built in viewing of the NEX. That is not only not SLR, but will require different holding and shooting techniques. Which will more closely resemble using a cell phone or pocket able P&S than a DSLR.

Remember there were TLRs and Rangefinders which had interchangeable lenses, but no one called them SLRs.

And size of film has not been the point used in camera naming, it's been the type of viewfinder and what that did to how the camera was used.

I'd farther point out that the flash interface of the NEX precludes any commonality of flashes available. A large area of DSLR discussion won't be in common with NEX there too.

Walt

Mike Fewster said:

Walt, that just doesn't add up. Your comments on dropping price points applies equally to the cost of mirror slrs. That isn't the world of P&Ss just the world of photography.

Click to expand...

We are talking components, not entire cameras. Even in entire cameras price will not continually go down.

Mike Fewster said:

While it is true that to this point in time OVFs (and they are not equal) are better than EVFs, the quality of EVFs has improved rapidly and dramatically and we can expect that it will continue to do so, whereas OVF quality is pretty well fixed.

Click to expand...

The assumption that a technology can become infinitely cheaper forever is highly flawed. For one thing, less and less of the cost is actually technology even if that had infinite improvement available, which it does not.

You are really dreaming if you think the OVF quality in Sony DSLRs is to top possible.

I'm for choice. And I wlll choose OVF for it's top quality and variety of use. And I expect that will not change in the rest of my lifetime.

Yes EVF will be put in some cameras, cheaper so it increases profits when you charge the same or more for the camera. But don't think that increasing the manufacturer's profits has anything to do with quality. They will shave the quality as low as the customers will still buy. Is that truly what people want, lowest possible quality?

Walt

Andrew Cruickshank said:

Around 8 or 9 years ago I think I asserted in the Minolta forum that EVFs would reign over OVFs within a very short period - maybe 2 or 3 years. That was back in the days of the Dimage 7.

I never expected to own a DSLR because they would be obsolete.

In retrospect I'm shocked that after almost a decade that EVFs haven't managed to dominate. it seemed so obvious (to me at least) that they would. Put into context of what was available at the start of the decade the Oly Pen was a huge disappointment IMHO.

Click to expand...

And in spite of all the predictions have EVFs gotten any better? No, we are seeing just the same amount of lack of needed quality from them.

Walt

GaryW said:

GaryW said:

And finally, AF is much more convenient than MF. All MF systems, also SLR ones, were marginalised by AF DSLRs.

Click to expand...

And AF P&S.

Click to expand...

AF is dominant in P&S because the MF is so crude and slow in them to be useless. So you use AF and pray it gets it right. You can't see if it did in either the EVF or LCD, and the MF is motor driven with a motor so slow that glaciers are faster. All of it is a significant part of why so many P&S shots are incorrectly focused.

In DSLRs, with a good OVF you can use DMF and quickly correct AF's errors in what it locks on using MF. Or use the AF/MF button to simply shut it off and MF. A significant portion of my shots I have to correct what AF did or take over from it. And that can only be changed when we wire the camera for direct control from our brain. But what we have in DSLRs is far better than P&S style shooting.

Walt

Well I like your view in the past. The RF did not take over the market for a lot of reasons.

1. Price: the real RF cameras (with exchangeable lense) where expensive. Those wit fixed lenses where for qiete a while dominating the market.

2. DSLRs where advertised as THE tools to make great pictures, RF cameras where there for the happy few.

RF cameras where limmited in there use (no long tele lenses, no macro) that fact was cleverly used by the DSLR folks. Telling the new buyers that ther system was the most advanced and versatile. So people bought a DSLR even when they never shot one macro or long tele shot.

Why should the ILC be different from the RF camera?

1. It is cheap (look in a couple of years it will sell in the same price range as the mid range P&S.

2. It is veratile like a DSLR (as good in IQ, As good in features, As good in View Finder (but that will take some more time...)
3. It will be smaller then a DSLR
4. The low range models (like the Nex3/5) will be as easy to use as a P&S

5. Rhe higher range (like the Samsung and som M43 cameras) wil have the controls like an DSLR

The story about the silly big lenses on a smal camera are totaly bogus. Last week I saw a peron with a Canon 5DmII and a big 500 mm F2.8 lens. The camera was, compared to the lens, much smaller then rthe Nex5 would be when using the 70-300mm G lens! Nobody ever told that man how redicules that combination looked, they all praised the quality of his work! And do you remember the Sony F707/F717 and F808 cameras? Huge lenses with a tiny body at the end. Maybe redicules, but a charm in handling and quite a good quality!

WaltKnapp said:

GaryW said:

WaltKnapp said:

And finally, AF is much more convenient than MF. All MF systems, also SLR ones, were marginalised by AF DSLRs.

Click to expand...

And AF P&S.

Click to expand...

AF is dominant in P&S because the MF is so crude and slow in them to be useless.

Click to expand...

I can manually focus better with a rangefinder or the Trip 35 than I can with the A100. I still prefer the A100 AF over a rangefinder MF. I think I prefer my P&S AF than the old MF.... But yes, in adding AF, MF took a back-seat and is worse. A new value system took over.

The fact that the Nex has DMF with MF assist sounds promising, though.
--
Gary W.

zackiedawg said:

If the world of photography comes to that, I guess I'll be that historical hobbyist who still enjoys the old tools in a modern world. Like the folks driving around in a Model T, or listening to vinyl records...to me, the still camera, not video, is the reason I'm a photographer to begin with, and will always be what kindles my passion. I'll leave the video to the videographers.

Click to expand...

I have to agree. I still find the vinyl record more "pleasing" than the digital... especially as compared to MP3's. They are fine, if you are not listening critacally or to get into the music. As background material, they are much more than adequate. It is just with "careful, critical" listening that it comes up short.

I find it is similar comparing out-of-camera jpgs to a good shot taken with RAW files and compared to other images. A quick look gives the impression of a good shot... comparing the same image developed from RAW, then you see where all is wrong. IF one didn't have the comparison, all would be fine.

The same applies to a good digital compared to good analogue. The magazine, UHF, has covered this repeatedly in a very concise, clear manner time and time again.

That said, very, very expensive, Great digital systems CAN beat a good analogue system, BUT a mediocre analogue system can march or equal a good digital system. For MOST people's needs, a digital system comes up very good... and is often easier to make sound good. The, basically, silent system produced by digital is very beguiling...just don't look for the detail. The same rule applies to digital... for MOST people's needs, digital does fine. For discriminating listeners... and lookers... analogue is the way to go.

How much, though, is one willing to put out for the system they have?

--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada

Walt, this post was not discussing NEX cameras specifically, it was discussing a perceived movement to non mirror cameras. Nobody would argue that the current NEX range is the end point in this development, so it is misleading to say evil cameras can't be compared with current mirror models by looking at aspects of NEX specs that are not an inherent part of mirrorless camera design. We are talking about the potential of a design, not the specs of any particular camera.

You asked why tlr and rangefinder interchangeable lens cameras were not slrs? I'd have thought that was pretty obvious. Both used an auxilliary lens for the viewfinder. The distinguishing feature of slrs when they were introduced was their ability to show the photographer exactly what was seen by the lens capturing the image, even when the lens was interchanged. The only reason this was seen as a function of a mirror is because this was the only way this trick could be done at that time. As I said before, if today's mirrorless interchangeable lenses had been available then, they would have been seen as in the same category because they fulfilled the same highly desirable function from the photographers point of view function. And the same applies today. There will be basic mirrorless designs for beginners and there will be advanced models that will be every bit the professional equal of the best mirror slrs.
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

gfrensen said:

Well I like your view in the past. The RF did not take over the market for a lot of reasons.

1. Price: the real RF cameras (with exchangeable lense) where expensive. Those wit fixed lenses where for qiete a while dominating the market.

2. DSLRs where advertised as THE tools to make great pictures, RF cameras where there for the happy few.

RF cameras where limmited in there use (no long tele lenses, no macro) that fact was cleverly used by the DSLR folks. Telling the new buyers that ther system was the most advanced and versatile. So people bought a DSLR even when they never shot one macro or long tele shot.

Click to expand...

What was stopping them from having long telephotos - other than for the loss of compactness?

gfrensen said:

Why should the ILC be different from the RF camera?

1. It is cheap (look in a couple of years it will sell in the same price range as the mid range P&S.

Click to expand...

NEX and PEN and the rest look pretty darn expensive to me, relative to entry level DSLRs - which outperform them in everything but video. Seems very analogous to RFs to me.

gfrensen said:

2. It is veratile like a DSLR (as good in IQ, As good in features, As good in View Finder (but that will take some more time...)

Click to expand...

Same goes for the good quality RFs.

gfrensen said:

3. It will be smaller then a DSLR

Click to expand...

Same goes for the good quality RFs.

gfrensen said:

4. The low range models (like the Nex3/5) will be as easy to use as a P&S

Click to expand...

Where RFs difficult to use?

gfrensen said:

5. Rhe higher range (like the Samsung and som M43 cameras) wil have the controls like an DSLR

Click to expand...

But they don't have a DSLRs sensor size - correct? Makes it a bit like comparing 35mm film to Advantix film.

gfrensen said:

The story about the silly big lenses on a smal camera are totaly bogus. Last week I saw a peron with a Canon 5DmII and a big 500 mm F2.8 lens. The camera was, compared to the lens, much smaller then rthe Nex5 would be when using the 70-300mm G lens! Nobody ever told that man how redicules that combination looked, they all praised the quality of his work! And do you remember the Sony F707/F717 and F808 cameras? Huge lenses with a tiny body at the end. Maybe redicules, but a charm in handling and quite a good quality!

Click to expand...

Here is the inherent problem I see. Is a tourist who doesn't want to lug a DSLR around, going to to be happy lugging a NEX with 18-200mm lens around? Yes it's lighter, but it doesn't have much of a grip - how comfortable is it going to be?

A NEX with smaller lens may be okay, but we'd only be taliking the same focal lengths as typical in old RFs.
Renato