Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon's mirrorless camera

Go to last post
One thing I do not understand, why mirror-less camera should be necessarily small in size? I prefer to see it as a development of technology which can reduce number of moving parts in current DSLR design.

If we are talking about everyday walk-around it can be whatever starting from some more or less advanced compact to small DSLR-like bridge cameras.

On my point of view idea of interchangeable lens becomes attractive only when camera body has DSLR-like ergonomics and size, other way once longer lens is attached it is not very comfortable to hold it. Ok, I know here one can suggest to try recent mirror-less cameras. Yes they are Ok but ergonomically not as good as DSLRs. They are slightly smaller compared to entry level DSLRs so they would not save you much space or weight in your luggage... .

Sven

--
http://www.jetcrocodile.smugmug.com/
http://picasaweb.google.com/jetcrocodile
 
Don't get me wrong, light weight is great, as is small size, as long as the ergonomics are OK. But I think size is becoming the new megapixel race for the marketing departments. I predict that it won't be long before EVIL cameras are so small, IQ be damned, that we will start seeing complaints about usability and image quality here in the forums.

Maybe that's the direction Nikon intends to go!
--

I'm Thinking of changing my name to Manheim Pike because it sounds more 'Artsy'. What do you think?

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos
 
Mark K said:
While I have not tried my AI lenses on Nex5, here comes this shocking news

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/04/nikon-wants-to-create-a-new-market-with-its-new-concept/
Click to expand...
Just to show that the rumour world has gone mad

http://www.digitalrev.com/en/nokia-leaked-super-camera-mobile-phone-5691-article.html

Regards,
Rachis
---------------
I am an Amateur / Enthusiast / Hobbyist / etc… not a Pro = I can be wrong

Cautions:
I may when the mood suits me become a pixel peeper!
 
I'm not so sure about that, even the NEX-5 with the pancake goes in to a jacket pocket. The reason why a M9 has small lenses is because they are manual focus, and because the camera doesn't have a mirror. A 110-film rangefinder could have even smaller lenses. The same's true with digital lenses, for instance a normal for this new system could be under 2 cm long. Wide-angle lenses can also be smaller, as the focal lengths are shorter, but at some point the angle will become a problem and will require exotic micro-lenses like on the M9

The pace at which sensor are developing will make the majority indifferent to the IQ gained from bigger sensors. I'd say DOF is the bigger problem, as you'll need some seriously fast glass to allow the same kind of DOF as on a APS-C, not to mention full-frame camera. The patent applications do look promising thou.

I for instance could live with a cheap, small system at around 12mp with usable 3200 ISO, as long as there were lenses that produces dof equal to a 100mm f/2 on APS-C.
ManuH said:
Marty4650 said:
If Nikon's MILC cameras are anything like the rumors floating around, then they will have a real hit on their hands. The rumors say they will base their system on a sensor with a 2.5X crop factor,
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the supposed Nikon 2.5x is that interesting. Once you make an IL mount, it's almost impossible to make it really pocketable anyway. Even high end P&S like the G11 and LX-5 are not that pocketable. Thus the trade off of a 2.5x micromount in IQ is not worth it IMHO.

Why not a big sensor? FF size or even bigger, why not? there is no mirror to accommodate anymore. Isn't it one of the advantage of mirrorless cameras (like the Leica M9) to have smaller lenses, especially wide angles? Here you would get the non-compromise IQ AND the smaller size. And I'm sure it can be produced at prices much below the Leica M9. Make the mount adaptable to M lenses and you have a lot of lenses readily available at launch.

--



http://flickriver.com/photos/ensh/popular-interesting/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ensh/
PPG: http://bit.ly/cQhegL
Click to expand...
 
PLEASE not another proprietary lens mount! If there's one philosophical reason I enjoy supporting micro 4/3 it's that it is an actual standard that is shared by at least two manufacturers.

It's ridiculous that you need to re-buy lenses if you want to try a body by a different manufacturer. I understand everyone is in business to make money, but this really limits the consumer.
 
While it true that manufacturers use different mounts to in order to "lock you in" to their brand, you need to consider what it would take for manufacturers to adopt a universal mount.

Lens mounts are not merely physical coupling devices anymore.

They are complex electronic devices with several electronic contacts that need to communicate with your camera body. Some lens mounts have 4 or five contacts points. Some have up to 18 or 19. Some lenses even have sliding tabs, so they can be compatible with older cameras. Some have their contacts at the bottom of the circle. Some have them on top. Nikon uses around eight different styles, and the only thing they have in common is they all "fit."

In order for every maker to use the same mount they would need to have exactly the same electronic architecture. Their bodies could ignore contacts for features they don't have, but their lenses would need to have these features built in so they could be used with brands that do have them. That is, if you want real interchangeability.

Even those Panasonic and Olympus cameras aren't 100% compatible. Since those companies never could agree on whether IS should be body based or lens based, or if distortion should be corrected by the camera or by the lens.

Probably the closed thing we ever had to a universal mount goes back to the days of mechanical cameras. Mounts like the Pentax K, Leica M, or Leica M39 or M42 screw mounts.

But a universal mount is still a nice pipe dream.

Unfortunately, it will probably never happen.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1

 
Marty4650 said:
Simple. Nikon and Canon can place cameras in every Walmart and Target store in America. Olympus and Panasonic cannot do this. And even Sony has marginal success.
Click to expand...
I thunk "what it takes" to get cameras in Walmart and Target stores is to give these retailers massive discounts.
  • C
 
And unconditional product returns. Walmart is famous for their abuse on the suppliers. They are forced to take back products that are conveniently used and returned in a not so sellable conditions. Only a small percentage of the returned goods are actually defective.

I personally knew people who "purchased" cameras off stores like Walmart for a trip and then just returned it afterwards. It made Walmart look really generous but it is actually the supplier who has to eat up the used camera. They can only sell it as a refurbished at best.
CFynn said:
Marty4650 said:
Simple. Nikon and Canon can place cameras in every Walmart and Target store in America. Olympus and Panasonic cannot do this. And even Sony has marginal success.
Click to expand...
I thunk "what it takes" to get cameras in Walmart and Target stores is to give these retailers massive discounts.
  • C
Click to expand...
--

 
riveredger said:
It's ridiculous that you need to re-buy lenses if you want to try a body by a different manufacturer. I understand everyone is in business to make money, but this really limits the consumer.
Click to expand...
You just completely contradicted yourself.

Are you a socialist? ;)

Yes, the companies should jeopardize their business so you can get what you want. If that was the case they would go out of business and then you would have even less choice.

I swear I don't know what's wrong with people sometimes.

I guess, I should be able to put Chevy parts in a Ford, fill my razor with whatever blades I choose, oh wait, that brings up a good point.

You ever hear of the razor blade economic model? It applies here. They give away the razor, they make the money on refills. Similar to video game systems, printers and guess what, DSLR's.
 
JetCrocodile said:
One thing I do not understand, why mirror-less camera should be necessarily small in size? I prefer to see it as a development of technology which can reduce number of moving parts in current DSLR design.
Click to expand...
IMO, one of the main reasons the mirrorless cameras are all focused on size is that they need something to both set them apart from DSLRs and even moreso to justify their purchase in spite of current limitations of AF speed and EVF quality.

I think that once contrast-detect autofocus speeds (particularly continuous focus) achieves parity with the likes of the D300s or 7D and electronic viewfinders are improved, the ergonomics will once again be acknowledged and we may see larger mirrorless cameras.

Cheers.

--
breinholt.zenfolio.com
 
Erick L said:
Nikon, or anybody for that matter, could have a small camera by making a DSLR the size of old manual 35mm cameras. It could be even smaller on the left side.
Click to expand...
Where it can't be smaller is the thickness, which is often the critical dimension for pocketability. A film camera just needs the pressure plate and a thin metal back behind the image plane, whereas a digital one requires a sensor package, probably 3 PCB's and an LCD panel behind it. If you look at the focal plane marker of a digital SLR, you'll often find it's a centimetre or meore from the back of the camera. The camera could be made more pocketable with a drastic rearrangement, for instance a videocamera arangement with a flip out LCD to the side,like the Yashica Samurai



but I suspect the marketing people find that people like their DSLR's to look like SLR's (they even try to make compacts look like DSLR's)
--
Bob
 
Jon Rty said:
I for instance could live with a cheap, small system at around 12mp with usable 3200 ISO, as long as there were lenses that produces dof equal to a 100mm f/2 on APS-C.
Click to expand...
I'm curious. For what kind of pictures do you need 100mm f/2 kind of DoF? I tend to think that DoF issues are a bit overrated. More often than not, on a big sensor, you're more limited by small DoF than too much of it. Unless you love the tip-in-a-fog type of picture.

--



http://flickriver.com/photos/ensh/popular-interesting/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ensh/
PPG: http://bit.ly/cQhegL
 
ManuH said:
Jon Rty said:
I for instance could live with a cheap, small system at around 12mp with usable 3200 ISO, as long as there were lenses that produces dof equal to a 100mm f/2 on APS-C.
Click to expand...
I'm curious. For what kind of pictures do you need 100mm f/2 kind of DoF?
Click to expand...
For the kind of pictures that you need it. Shallow DOF is one of the creative tools at a photographer's hands.
ManuH said:
I tend to think that DoF issues are a bit overrated. More often than not, on a big sensor, you're more limited by small DoF than too much of it. Unless you love the tip-in-a-fog type of picture.
Click to expand...
Your taste isn't for shallow DOF, that's OK but there are those who value it as a creative option - elsewise 85/1.4's and 1.2's wouldn't be so popular, you hardly need the light gathering power for the majority of work those lenses do.

--
Bob
 
Portraits, mostly candid or in events where I can't control the background and wish to isolate my subject. Also some inanimate stuff, sometimes subject-separation suits the picture. Also when I'm photographing food.
ManuH said:
Jon Rty said:
I for instance could live with a cheap, small system at around 12mp with usable 3200 ISO, as long as there were lenses that produces dof equal to a 100mm f/2 on APS-C.
Click to expand...
I'm curious. For what kind of pictures do you need 100mm f/2 kind of DoF? I tend to think that DoF issues are a bit overrated. More often than not, on a big sensor, you're more limited by small DoF than too much of it. Unless you love the tip-in-a-fog type of picture.

--



http://flickriver.com/photos/ensh/popular-interesting/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ensh/
PPG: http://bit.ly/cQhegL
Click to expand...
 
Most probably technologically it is not very difficult to produce very small mirror-less interchangeable lens camera, I believe that it can be as small as small p&s or even smaller. But who need such design? Most probably very very few. At the same time design, development and marketing of such system would cost a lot. So very small EVIL cameras are out of game. Size of course can replace megapixel and ISO as a main point of marketing, but what is the smallest reasonable size for EVIL cameras?
Glen Barrington said:
Don't get me wrong, light weight is great, as is small size, as long as the ergonomics are OK. But I think size is becoming the new megapixel race for the marketing departments. I predict that it won't be long before EVIL cameras are so small, IQ be damned, that we will start seeing complaints about usability and image quality here in the forums.

Maybe that's the direction Nikon intends to go!
--

I'm Thinking of changing my name to Manheim Pike because it sounds more 'Artsy'. What do you think?

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos
Click to expand...
--
http://www.jetcrocodile.smugmug.com/
http://picasaweb.google.com/jetcrocodile
 
riveredger said:
I'm not so sure about that, even the NEX-5 with the pancake goes in to a jacket > pocket. The reason
Click to expand...
Ok this is sounds nice, when you need it to be advanced compact for a party you put pancake size lens (it would be good to have it zoom) and when you want you attach something more professional etc.

This is very nice idea, but is NEX-5 really enough to produce image quality acceptable by advanced amateurs? or we just targeting some vacation oriented level?

But to be completely honest I would not classify NEX as a pocket camera. So I am afraid that it would be hard to reach compromise on size... . But anyway I like your idea!
riveredger said:
PLEASE not another proprietary lens mount! If there's one philosophical reason I enjoy supporting micro 4/3 it's that it is an actual standard that is shared by at least two manufacturers.

It's ridiculous that you need to re-buy lenses if you want to try a body by a different manufacturer. I understand everyone is in business to make money, but this really limits the consumer.
Click to expand...
this keep competition alive ;)

--
http://www.jetcrocodile.smugmug.com/
http://picasaweb.google.com/jetcrocodile
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top