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

It still doesn't add up.

A camera is simply the sum total of its components. A moment or two's reflection should also have shown you that it simply isn't true that all non interchangeable lens cameras are designed and built down to the lowest possible price. Canon, Sigma, Panasonic and Leica all make models that suggest otherwise as a search of DPR reviews and models will reveal. Further, the interest in these models seems to be increasing. And similarly all makers have a range of mirror slrs that range from beginners to advanced.

It also ought to be pretty obvious that there are other factors at work apart from cost cutting in the development of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. Size; weight; lack of vibration and silence are tangible and significant advantages to the mirrorless design. The ability to use them at waist level for low level shooting; tripod work and inconspicuous shooting is another. Besides, there really isn't much cost difference bewteen cheaper mirrored models and mirrorless models, so they must be selling on other factors.

No-one will argue that mirrorless cameras at their present point of development are superior to mirror models. That is a generalization the is clearly not true (although a good case could be made for saying they are already superior in some areas.) Pirate's post is talking about the writing on the wall. OVF technology appears to have peaked years ago. It is limited by the size of the mirror (the only way to make that image brighter is to increase the size of the mirror); the size of the mirrorbox; the vibration and noise inherent in the design and the unavoidable need to black out the image seen by the viewer. Mirrorless technology on the other hand is only just getting underway.
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

Renato1 said:

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...

Click to expand...

I thought of something else... Look at Minolta's film cameras. Many of them were slim and not really much better than RFs. Film SLRs weren't always extra-bulky in the way that seemingly all DSLRs seem to be plagued with being over-sized today. You'd think that with a sensor smaller than film, you could make a camera smaller than a Minolta Maxxum 7000, for example -- even a DSLR.

But then again, when you look at the last of the rangefinders, they were getting smaller and smaller. Olympus did some amazing things with the 35 RC and then their X series. These cameras could go into a pocket, and the Maxxum 7000 was still a bit too big for that. But I guess my thought is that DSLRs seem larger to to me than they have to be, and I'm sure the smaller SLRs were popular years ago.

Renato1 said:

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

Click to expand...

My guess would be the finder. It was not uncommon to have add-on adapters for the fixed-lens models to add a bit of flexibility, but in my reading about RFs, I don't see any long-teles mentioned.

Obviously a digital system with an electronic VF or LCD back-panel wouldn't have those limitations.

Renato1 said:

Renato1 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.

Click to expand...

Hard to beat the A230 in price, but I think the Oly and Pan. cameras are a bit overpriced. Hopefully, with Sony in the market there will be some price wars. Already, the newer Pen seems cheaper... And, besides, Sony always prices things the highest when they first come out.

Renato1 said:

Renato1 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.

Renato1 said:

3. It will be smaller then a DSLR

Click to expand...

Same goes for the good quality RFs.

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

Renato1 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.

Click to expand...

The higher end Nex would have the APS-C sensor size.

As for sensor size, apparently some people are OK with the IQ of the 4/3 sensor. If DSLR-like controls are the most important feature (along with the smaller sized camera), then I don't have a problem with someone preferring m4/3.

Renato1 said:

Renato1 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!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I guess that's fine if you're a professional and need to maximize the quality as much as possible, but I can't be bothered to drag around a lot of heavy equipment. I've watched photographers carry large bags with many lenses, and I won't do that. I try to come up with a short list of lenses, and mine are relatively small (particularly compared to the above).

Renato1 said:

Renato1 said:

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...

Click to expand...

I remember someone who had the F828 -- I thought it was a bit big, but I'm sure he got somewhat better photos than I did with my smaller V3. And yet, I preferred the V3 because of: 1) price, 2) smaller size, 3) still had manual controls and good quality.

Renato1 said:

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?

Click to expand...

As compared to an Alpha DSLR with an 18-200? It would be interesting to see the two side-by-side.

Do most tourists need an 18-200, or wouldn't an 18-55 be good enough for most use? I'd prefer something more like the 16-105 as a tourist lens, I suppose, if it could be made smaller or better than the 18-200. I don't typically need 200+ except for some specific uses (airshows? Wildlife?), but for most of my trips, I would have been OK with the 18-55. That's the one nice thing about an interchangeable mount -- if you go someplace and need a longer lens, just mount it. It will take a while before we find out what other lenses will be available for the e-mount.

Renato1 said:

Yes it's lighter, but it doesn't have much of a grip - how comfortable is it going to be?

Click to expand...

It does look really big in the photos!

Renato1 said:

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

Click to expand...

I'd like similar fields of view that were available in old RFs.

If they could make a "flat" 24mm lens, I think that'd be idea.

Renato1 said:

Renato

Click to expand...

--
Gary W.

The analogy isn't perfect of course - there are too many differences - and EVIL will probably take a higher portion of the ILC market (relative to DSLRs) than RFs did relative to SLRs.

But the analogy points out that size is not everything, even when quality is just as good.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

I think this thread is missing the point about rF cameras. They (the top end models) were better than slrs for some uses. For most uses, the slr was superior. The RF was small, silent and vibration free. You could shoot in lower light without flash than you could a slr. The first slrs didn't automaticall close to shooting aperture, so the rf was easier to focus and set f stops in low light. This made them ideal for street photographers and journalists. As a system camera however the slr was all over them, especially once the camera remained at full aperture while the f stop was set. Mirrorless slrs have the same advantages as the rf over ovf slr, but with the obvious disadvantages.
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

I don't think I can really agree with you on this, and I don't think the analogy with digital sound works. I agree incidentally that quality analogue sound is superior to digital sound, but analogue sound has a lot more information recorded relative to digital sound that is the case comparing analogue images to digital images.

It depends on the size of the sensor/film. Obviously you can only directly compare the image output where the sensor of the dig camera is the same size as the film frame. Otherwise its like trying to argue that the image quality on a 35mm film is the equal of a 6X6 film frame. The problem for film is that comparing the number of all those little grains with the number of pixels available isn't valid. Film makes its images by clumping the grain, so that once the film is developed, the number of bits of information it is storing is actually far less than seems apparent at first. The higher the ISO that the film is shot at, the more clumping occurs, which is why higher ISO films (or push processed film) don't hold the same detail.
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

Renato1 said:

So I look back to the past for guidance.

We used to have something called 35mm film, which went into complex SLR cameras, complex range finder cameras (with interchangeable lenses) and simple point and shoots. Effectively, All those cameras, for a given roll of film, had the very same equivalent "sensor". The quality of the final image related instead to the quality of the lens, and accuracy in focusing.

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?

The analogy of Range Finder cameras with NEX cameras isn't precise, because with NEX you do snap exactly what you see, and it does do video. Video I view as nice to have but not essential - when you go on a European vacation, you can take lots of interesting pictures of old buildings and churches, and great vistas - but seriously, who's going to take deathly dull videos of those very same things?

Click to expand...

Go ahead an be skeptical but the Range finder analogy isn't even close to being relevant and is in fact inaccurate. The SLR style camera as we know it today was invented after the range finder and didn't become perfected and popular until the end of the 40's. Range finders were common in the 30's. So your analogy really supports EVIL cameras replacing SLR's the way SLR's replaced range finders.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

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

Renato1 said:

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

Click to expand...

You obviously have never used a range finder camera. Long telephotos are totally impractical because there is no way to magnify the image in the range finder window to match the lens. You'd barely be able to see what you were shooting. Please try out a range finder sometime and then maybe you'll be able to understand the total failure of your arguments.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

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

Dennis said:

The analogy isn't perfect of course - there are too many differences - and EVIL will probably take a higher portion of the ILC market (relative to DSLRs) than RFs did relative to SLRs.

But the analogy points out that size is not everything, even when quality is just as good.

Click to expand...

Once again wrong. 35mm Range finders were barely smaller than SLR's. Both the RF cameras of the 30's and the SLR's of the late 40's and 50's were considered compact cameras compared to the more common MF and LF cameras of the time. Both were designed to meet a need people had for smaller more portable high quality cameras. Both were built around use of 35mm movie film. The only reason RF's survived at all was because they came first. When SLR's arrived only a stubborn few continued to use them.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

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

While generally I agree with your arguments in this thread tbcass, I think your comments on RF cameras are a bit off the mark. They remained the camera of choice for many pro users, usually journalists (and those thatwanted to look like pros), for many years after slr cameras appeared. They had several highly desirable advantages for these users. No noise (and early slrs were much noisier than today's models) No vibration. You could shoot in dim light without flash and have a couple of stops advantage over slrs. Early slrs tended to stop down when you set the f stop and only reopened to full aperture after the shot was taken. You needed to focus, then adjust f stop and meanwhile things at the subject end could be moving faster than you wanted them to. Plus build quality. The quality RF cameras were a more solid piece of equipment than slrs and this was a considerable plus for people like war corrspondents. Initially, slr viewfinders couldn't match rf for speed of focus, again important to some pro users.

If you check photos of war photographers in the 50's, 60's and even early 70's, chances are that they are carrying a Leica.

Much later, the Konica Hexar series was much sought after for the same qualities.
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

I didn't mean to negate the advantages of range finders but believe me, and I'm old enough to remember, by the mid 60's range finders were a niche market. I remember using Leica for a photography class while in college in the 60's just to see what it was like. I had never seen one, only read about them (yes they were that uncommon by then). After a week I was glad to get back to my DSLR!!! Anyway my posting in this thread is to negate the argument of the OP that there is analogy between the survival of DSLR's vs EVIL cameras and SLR's vs Range finders with the range finder being analogous to EVIL. That argument is totally bogus.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

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

tbcass said:

I didn't mean to negate the advantages of range finders but believe me, and I'm old enough to remember, by the mid 60's range finders were a niche market. I remember using Leica for a photography class while in college in the 60's just to see what it was like. I had never seen one, only read about them (yes they were that uncommon by then).

Click to expand...

My mom bought a Trip 35 around '73. Now, it wasn't a rangefinder, strictly speaking, as it did not have an RF mechanism but was a simple scale-focus, but it was basically the same design. Same large VF where you could see outside the marks, same simple operation. It was a high-quality P&S of its day.

I guess my question is, if RFs were that rare in the 60's, what kinds of cameras were people buying?

For purposes of discussion, I'd throw the Trip 35 along with RF cameras. My guess is that non-RF cameras like this were cheaper to make and sold better.

So, did cameras like this get replaced by SLRs? Not entirely. Perhaps some people moved up to SLRs, but I imagine most just bought cameras like the Trip 35, and later, AF cameras.

I think RFs lost out to cheaper cameras more than SLRs, but perhaps both.

tbcass said:

After a week I was glad to get back to my DSLR!!! Anyway my posting in this thread is to negate the argument of the OP that there is analogy between the survival of DSLR's vs EVIL cameras and SLR's vs Range finders with the range finder being analogous to EVIL. That argument is totally bogus.

Click to expand...

I'll agree with you here -- the newer cameras, such as Nex, have some similarities with RF cameras, but there are enough significant differences that you can't really say that they will have the same result in the market.

I bought a couple of film RFs to play with. I like their smaller size, the comfortable viewfinders, and ease-of-use, but I miss the AF and of course the features that come with digital. (The fixed-lens aspect isn't so bad.) But cameras like the Maxxum 7000 weren't much bigger -- perhaps smaller -- than the 60's RFs. (Although, I think the 70's RFs seemed pretty small overall.) It wasn't that much of a penalty to go with an SLR over an RF as far as size is concerned.

This time around, I think DSLRs are all very bulky, and I think going with a compact size is a significant change that many will appreciate. And some will not, but that's the great thing about being able to choose in an open market.

tbcass said:

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

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

Click to expand...

--
Gary W.

Thanks for your thoughts on this Gary. I think we're in agreement that my analogy, while definitely not precise, may have some bearing on the issue of whether DSLRs are headed for the dustbin of history.

The issue of size and weight weighs colours my thoughts a lot, as I've become a tourist in recent times. Back home I always go around with my DSLR, but I've opted for P&Ss on my last two long trips to Europe. Basically, the issue of theft is a really big problem, and I kept my P&S with me at all times. And I feel terribly frustrated unless I have at least 6X zoom or more on a camera.

I just don't see NEX with a big lens being the answer for me, and NEX with a small lens is a step backwards.
Renato

tbcass said:

Renato1 said:

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

Click to expand...

You obviously have never used a range finder camera. Long telephotos are totally impractical because there is no way to magnify the image in the range finder window to match the lens. You'd barely be able to see what you were shooting. Please try out a range finder sometime and then maybe you'll be able to understand the total failure of your arguments.

--
Tom

Click to expand...

Hmmm - It is a physical impossibility to magnify an image in a Range Finder window?
How about that?

We can find gadgets to magnify images anywhere else, except for those in Range Finder windows.
I guess I'll just add that to one of the mysteries of physics.
Renato

tbcass said:

Go ahead an be skeptical but the Range finder analogy isn't even close to being relevant and is in fact inaccurate. The SLR style camera as we know it today was invented after the range finder and didn't become perfected and popular until the end of the 40's. Range finders were common in the 30's. So your analogy really supports EVIL cameras replacing SLR's the way SLR's replaced range finders.

--
Tom

Click to expand...

Let's see, I'm comparing a time when compact Range Finders produced exactly the same Image Quality as bigger SLRs - because they used exactly the same film - to a tiime that we are have now approached, when compact cameras can produce exactly the same Image Quality (much of the time) as DSLRs, because they have exactly the same sized sensor.

The issue of when in time each of the four was invented is your analogy, not mine, and quite frankly, I don't think it has any bearing on the conclusion that you draw.
Renato

tbcass said:

I didn't mean to negate the advantages of range finders but believe me, and I'm old enough to remember, by the mid 60's range finders were a niche market. I remember using Leica for a photography class while in college in the 60's just to see what it was like. I had never seen one, only read about them (yes they were that uncommon by then). After a week I was glad to get back to my DSLR!!!

Click to expand...

You were ahead of me. I didn't start using a DSLR until the early 1970s and editted my photos with Photoshop 0.1. Got my first website with photos up on the internet in 1973, I think. Those were wild days.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Dennis said:

The analogy isn't perfect of course - there are too many differences - and EVIL will probably take a higher portion of the ILC market (relative to DSLRs) than RFs did relative to SLRs.

But the analogy points out that size is not everything, even when quality is just as good.

• Dennis

Click to expand...

Hi Dennis,

Size, weight, money, exclusivity appeal, emulating what famous people use appeal - will all be factors in how this all turns out.

Perhaps the biggest factor that we haven't discussed yet is appeal to women. It's pretty obvious many women don't like DSLRs - counting tourists in the street, the number of men with DSLRs easily far outnumber the number of women.
Renato

I guess we don't understand each other because the Rangefinder analogy doesn't work for me. Lets leave it at that.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

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

Mike Fewster said:

I don't think I can really agree with you on this, and I don't think the analogy with digital sound works. I agree incidentally that quality analogue sound is superior to digital sound, but analogue sound has a lot more information recorded relative to digital sound that is the case comparing analogue images to digital images.

It depends on the size of the sensor/film. Obviously you can only directly compare the image output where the sensor of the dig camera is the same size as the film frame. Otherwise its like trying to argue that the image quality on a 35mm film is the equal of a 6X6 film frame. The problem for film is that comparing the number of all those little grains with the number of pixels available isn't valid. Film makes its images by clumping the grain, so that once the film is developed, the number of bits of information it is storing is actually far less than seems apparent at first. The higher the ISO that the film is shot at, the more clumping occurs, which is why higher ISO films (or push processed film) don't hold the same detail.

Click to expand...

Kodachrome was dye sub instead of grains. Closer to analog.

There are a lot of parallels between photography and sound recording.

Sadly one of those is the degrading of sound down to mp3's and poor speaker system with photography following right along with cell phones and low level P&S. It's already the case that many never really see quality photography anymore.

Walt

GaryW said:

My mom bought a Trip 35 around '73. Now, it wasn't a rangefinder, strictly speaking, as it did not have an RF mechanism but was a simple scale-focus, but it was basically the same design. Same large VF where you could see outside the marks, same simple operation. It was a high-quality P&S of its day.

I guess my question is, if RFs were that rare in the 60's, what kinds of cameras were people buying?

For purposes of discussion, I'd throw the Trip 35 along with RF cameras. My guess is that non-RF cameras like this were cheaper to make and sold better.

Click to expand...

I consider, as did the photographic world back then, a rangefinder camera was one with a built in dual image mechanism that locked into place when the image was in focus. That's why they were called range finders. This method was considered by many to be more accurate than SLR's until SLR's incorporated similar methods such as split screen and micro prisms in the viewfinder. For my definition a rangefinder has to have the RF focusing aid and be manual focusing only. Without such a focusing aid it is not a range finder but just a quality P&S. I started out with such a camera in the mid 60's that didn't even have a built in light meter like the OLY Trip 35.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

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

Mike Fewster said:

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.

Click to expand...

There are certainly plenty arguing that the current NEX can completely replace all DSLRs and already produce better IQ than DSLRs.

Mike Fewster said:

You asked why tlr and rangefinder interchangeable lens cameras were not slrs?

Click to expand...

My you sure wandered far afield from what I actually said or the point I was making. Completely opposite of what I said.

Hint the point concerned those that think the NEX having interchangable lenses makes them the same as DSLRs.

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.

Designs that will functionally equivalent to bridge cameras, interchangable lenses or not.

Walt