Immediate nonsense of PDAF sensors on shutter blades:
Come on! In what way does the fact that SLRs used a lot of technology that had previously been used in other camera types somehow prove that SLRs were inferior?
Yes the purpose is exactly what we both said, I first, and you second. And this works fine with either camera type.
That does not sound very specific.
Yes.
Why restrict yourself to two or three unnecessarily costly lenses? I had at least half a dozen lenses simultaneously (all primes) for use with my film SLRs.
Yes, range finders and leaf shutters are more appropriate for fixed-lens cameras than for cameras with interchangeable lenses. In fact, virtually all range-finder owners had fixed-lens cameras whereas virtually all SLR owners had interchangeable-lens cameras. Do you see a pattern here.
I think rickyclicks already took care of that one for me.
That's essentially the compactness argument a second time around. The rest is debatable.
Haha! Nice try. Of course an LCD/EVF camera is neither a range finder nor an SLR. Both of the earlier camera types lose their defining criterion (the finder) in the process. The new camera type takes the advantage that drove the SLR-revolution in the 60s (WYSIWYG) one step further while simultaneously offering certain size/weight benefits.
Yes, that would be cool. Guess you already saw the report on 43rumors about Panasonic having filed a patent for such a finder:
I agree that no simple extrapolation is possible. But it might be interesting to debate the driving forces of the past (what people have turned out to appreciate and why) in order to come up with reasonable ideas about the future. According to tedolf, the SLR revolution was merely a Nikon market conspiracy. Noone really needed/wanted the features that set SLRs apart from range finders but were lured into buying SLRs anyway. This imaginative theory of his strikes me as less than perfectly convincing.
You are certainly right about that.
I think you may well be right about that too.
I didn't! Thanks. That was over a year ago . . . I wonder how long it typically takes for a patent to become reality.
Everyone? Absolutely not. SLR to me is far more ergonomic than any rangefinder.
No, it is the housing for the flash and the microphone, which is a very good design decision, because this leads to more room for controls on both side of the hump.
--
--Massive advertising by Nikon. Amature photographers were convinced then, just as they are now that if they have the same cameras that the pro's do, their photos will look just like their's. So, you had all these morons luging around SLR's with the 50mm lens welded on taking awful photographs that they thought were good because, "hey, its a Nikon!".
Because that is what Nikon tells them.Although I very much doubt that this explanation is correct, why is it, in your opinion, that morons think that serious cameras are supposed to look like an SLR?
Tedolph
--
The only thing that sucked with the E-P1 was the LCD and the lack of a plug for the new VF2. (Plus the constraint to circle through the info button to get the display you wanted, especially noyous if you are using legacy MF lenses).
Yes, but when you add the VF they come close to the shooting experience offered by rangefinders, they offer portability without the bulk of the mirrors, but with the bonus of getting all the shooting information in the VF. I'd say that they are the modern equivalent of rangefinders.
Dslrs are also often much bulkier and heavier than their slrs counterparts, thus adding to the usefulness of the grip, to say the least.
Right-eyed photographers are only 2/3rds of the population:
To me the problematic thing is the total "soft control". Everything configurable, context sensitive, not state revealing. In that sense the current NEX-7 is an "anti X100", an "anti rangefinder". More similar to a GF3 than to a EP-3, GH2, and the traditional rangefinder you described above. Only in this sense, of course.
--
"RF", as I'm pretty sure it's been used in here, refers to a form factor: rectangular box. All of the PENs, as well as the GF's and NEX cameras, are 'RF-style'. The opposite are the m43 cameras with a DLSR form factor like the G1, G2, and GH series.
Wow, this discussion has gotten far afield. It started out as a discussion of the FORM-FACTOR of the camera--'RF' vs. 'DLSR'--and now we've actually got people arguing about the function of a true RF vs. true SLR. For goodness sake, this is an m3 forum; there ARE NO rangefinder m43 cameras!
--Sure. Where do you have this statistics that the world prefers so many many many more RF at m4/3?
To me, the majority of photgraphers use DSLRs and will continue to do that. Smaller and m4/3 has still to convince them. It is not necessary, that as soon m4/3 as matured in IQ and performance, that those people will feel more home with a RF body than with DSLR shape.
At least in Germany the situation is certainly not as clear as you imply. My feeling is that people, who tend to buy more lenses, tend to GH2 or G3, people, who actually don't buy a lot of lenses are equally distributed between PENs and GH2/G3.
The GF3 probably has the least resoncance in forums.
I also don't think that sales volumes are everything.
