Reading mode: Light Dark

Natural evolution, TLR, SLR, Mirrorless (MILC, ILC)

Go to last post
Aleo Veuliah

Aleo Veuliah

Veteran Member
Messages
14,768
Solutions
6
Reaction score
3,269
Location
Lisbon / Lisboa, PT
  • Natural evolution and the future
  • Mirrorless, is stronger and stronger, and better as the time passes by, I think they will really be the future for the consumers and advanced photographers, It is just a matter of time and SLR's will only be used by some professional photographers as for the medium formats, this speaking in general, because there are always some exceptions
  • The Micro 4/3 System (the best system now), and other mirrroless cameras are really doing very well
  • What you think of this ? Is Mirrorless really going to be the future ?
  • Some images to illustrate
  • TLR (Twin Lens Reflex)

  • SLR (DSLR) (Single Lens Reflex)



  • Micro 4/3 System (MILC, ILC) (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera)







  • Other mirrorless examples






--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.
 
  • Fuji mirrorless (MILC)

  • Leica M


--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.
 
Mirrorless is rising, I see a natural evolution.

My opinion on the future is:

1- Micro Four Thirds will always lead the mirrorless market.

2- Mirrorless continue to sell well and reach a similar SLR market share.

3- SLR's will not end completely, and main SLR's brands will slowly move into mirrorless.

4- The professional market will stay the same.

Sofia

--

Perfection is achieved, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away

The smallest act of kindness is worth more than the greatest intention
 
My view Aleo is that's all about size. Mirrorless is one of the factors that enables most of the features and benefits of a DSLR to be miniaturised to the size of the 1925-1936 Leica 1.

Oskar Barnack, starting from scratch got it about right in terms of form factor, but lacked features. First built-in rangefinders and then mirrors, pentaprisms and exposure meters were added - all adding bulk. SLRs gradually got smaller with the Oly OM, Pentax ME etc.., but then ballooned in size once more to accommodate autofocus, built-in flash and auto-winders. They kept getting bigger when they went digital before the shrinking process began again.

Mirrorless gets back to Leica 1 size.

Leica 1, 1925: 133mm x 39mm x 65mm

Panasonic GX1, 2011: 116mm x 39mm x 67mm

It's not a coincidence. The fact is that something a bit bigger than a deck of cards is the optimum shape and size for quality, portable, hand-held photography. People may get used to bulky cameras and then complain the new ones are too small, but I have little sympathy for them. As the OMD proves, grips can be added for when extra bulk is useful and removed for everyday use. Of course bigger (and smaller) cameras will always have a place for optimum quality, specialist use and unusual situations.
 
I think mirror less interchangeable lens cameras evolved from P&C cameras. Both have more in common it terms natural and native Life View, both have natural and native video capabilities, both have similar communications scheme between camera and men.

Also bigger sensor size was not the privilege of SLR cameras: - bigger sensor could be found in P&S cameras too.

My guess is that MILC took from SLR the focus plane shutter only. Single lens camera is fine with leaf shutter, and even today little MILC from Pentax still adhere to in-lens shutter tradition
--
I’m surprised how much Wikipedia contributes to the forum.

 
Hello and thank you for the comment,

Glad you mentioned Oskar Barnack, the "father" of 35mm photography, I think you are right about the size factor

When I was seeing the TLR cameras and compare to the SLR one, the first thing I though was about the difference in size between TLR cameras and SLR, and now it is happening the same with mirrorless, mainly Micro 4/3

You are right when mentioning some good film SLR cameras, they were much smaller and nice than these DSLR's, the SLR I liked more was the Nikon FM2, and it was not only for the camera (because at the time I had also the F3), the Nikon FM2 was very similar in size comparing to the Olympus OM and Pentax ME, and that was an important factor to me
Kuppenbender said:
My view Aleo is that's all about size. Mirrorless is one of the factors that enables most of the features and benefits of a DSLR to be miniaturised to the size of the 1925-1936 Leica 1.

Oskar Barnack, starting from scratch got it about right in terms of form factor, but lacked features. First built-in rangefinders and then mirrors, pentaprisms and exposure meters were added - all adding bulk. SLRs gradually got smaller with the Oly OM, Pentax ME etc.., but then ballooned in size once more to accommodate autofocus, built-in flash and auto-winders. They kept getting bigger when they went digital before the shrinking process began again.

Mirrorless gets back to Leica 1 size.

Leica 1, 1925: 133mm x 39mm x 65mm

Panasonic GX1, 2011: 116mm x 39mm x 67mm
Click to expand...
Interesting to see those cameras compared in size, I really like the form of the GX1, I still have a GF1, that I use more often than the G2, must be the correct balance to me

The Olympus EP cameras most be also similar in size
Kuppenbender said:
It's not a coincidence. The fact is that something a bit bigger than a deck of cards is the optimum shape and size for quality, portable, hand-held photography. People may get used to bulky cameras and then complain the new ones are too small, but I have little sympathy for them. As the OMD proves, grips can be added for when extra bulk is useful and removed for everyday use. Of course bigger (and smaller) cameras will always have a place for optimum quality, specialist use and unusual situations.
Click to expand...
I don't complain about being small, one of the cameras I like to use is my Panasonic Lumix TZ6 a good compact, if that camera had the quality I get from Micro 4/3, I will always use it

The OM-D is a great camera, and I was glad they have made it "small", also the good retro design helps, the grip is a good add when needed, no wonder so many people have lust for that camera

If I upgrade I will compare it to the GH3 and then decide, but guess the GH3 will be a bit bigger and a very different design

But I not a person that upgrade to new cameras often, I am still using the G2 and GF1 and happy with the results

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.
 
s_grins said:
I think mirror less interchangeable lens cameras evolved from P&C cameras. Both have more in common it terms natural and native Life View, both have natural and native video capabilities, both have similar communications scheme between camera and men.
Click to expand...
Agree, with that, and the Live View in mirrorless cameras is the best, it is natural on these cameras, image passes directly to the sensor
s_grins said:
Also bigger sensor size was not the privilege of SLR cameras: - bigger sensor could be found in P&S cameras too.
Click to expand...
Yes, the LX3/5 and some others, like some Fuji, or you are not talking of those ?
s_grins said:
My guess is that MILC took from SLR the focus plane shutter only. Single lens camera is fine with leaf shutter, and even today little MILC from Pentax still adhere to in-lens shutter tradition
Click to expand...
Did not knew the Pentax have in lens shutter, the only thing is that the sensor is small

I found very interesting to see how the market are going to evolve, and if the SLR's market is going to reduce the sales
s_grins said:
--
I’m surprised how much Wikipedia contributes to the forum.

Click to expand...
--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.
 
Aleo Veuliah said:
You are right when mentioning some good film SLR cameras, they were much smaller and nice than these DSLR's, the SLR I liked more was the Nikon FM2, and it was not only for the camera (because at the time I had also the F3), the Nikon FM2 was very similar in size comparing to the Olympus OM and Pentax ME, and that was an important factor to me
Click to expand...
All the big five (as they were at the time) manufacturers had to produce compact SLRs to compete with the OM series, just as Canikon will eventually be forced to compete directly with m43 (I don't see Nikon's 1 series hitting the same sweet spot).
Aleo Veuliah said:
Interesting to see those cameras compared in size, I really like the form of the GX1, I still have a GF1, that I use more often than the G2, must be the correct balance to me

The Olympus EP cameras most be also similar in size

But I not a person that upgrade to new cameras often, I am still using the G2 and GF1 and happy with the results
Click to expand...
Both the EP3 and the GX1 were obviously built with longevity in mind. Solid, mostly metal construction and enthusiast features - hot shoe and built-in flash etc...

I always buy cameras with a view to keeping them for dozens of years. Unfortunately GAS tends to get the better of me :(
 
Kuppenbender said:
Aleo Veuliah said:
You are right when mentioning some good film SLR cameras, they were much smaller and nice than these DSLR's, the SLR I liked more was the Nikon FM2, and it was not only for the camera (because at the time I had also the F3), the Nikon FM2 was very similar in size comparing to the Olympus OM and Pentax ME, and that was an important factor to me
Click to expand...
All the big five (as they were at the time) manufacturers had to produce compact SLRs to compete with the OM series, just as Canikon will eventually be forced to compete directly with m43 (I don't see Nikon's 1 series hitting the same sweet spot).
Click to expand...
Yes, that was true, the OM film cameras were really good and had just the right size

I don't believe also that the Nikon 1 system is going to be a success (only for Nikon fans maybe), I wonder what Canon will do, they are late, but they have the advantage to study well what others have done, let's see ...

Anyway I think the sweet spot, both on cameras, lens and sensor size is Micro 4/3

Besides that the mount is great and we maybe have the widest lens choice on the market
Kuppenbender said:
Kuppenbender said:
Interesting to see those cameras compared in size, I really like the form of the GX1, I still have a GF1, that I use more often than the G2, must be the correct balance to me

The Olympus EP cameras most be also similar in size

But I not a person that upgrade to new cameras often, I am still using the G2 and GF1 and happy with the results
Click to expand...
Both the EP3 and the GX1 were obviously built with longevity in mind. Solid, mostly metal construction and enthusiast features - hot shoe and built-in flash etc...

I always buy cameras with a view to keeping them for dozens of years. Unfortunately GAS tends to get the better of me :(
Click to expand...
True, those are really well built that is one thing I like, I also buy a camera thinking on keeping it and I do not think on buying each new model that appear

To me manufacturers could deliver new cameras only 5 in 5 years, that way when they launch one it will have major improvements and not small ones

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.
 
There wil always be millions of people who want to be able to discretely carry a camera in a pocket/handbag/coat, hence the millions of P&S that are sold. The smaller PENS from Oly might be at the upper limit of camera size for this purpose however we would need to see a slight improvement in collapsible lens design, perhaps with the lens collapsing right inside the camera to achieve the small size needed in this format in order to compete properly (take a look at an MFT camera - there is still a large gap between the back of the lens and and the sensor). There will be a natural limit in sensor size dictated by the lens optics of an overall small camera package but I can see sensor sizes increasing in P&S until we reach close to MFT sizes. The Canon G1X shows what is possible at teh upper end. If this had a longer zoom range I think it would be make a serious impact on bridge cameras.

With increases in electronic viewfinder technology and the ability to display camera information in the viewer I can see that FF could go mirrorless. Removing the optical viewfinder path reduces bulk and weight and increases reliability. PDAF might need to be retained but using on sensor detection, fixed mirror, flip up pdaf sensors, or PDAF sensors around the main imaging sensor. Focal plane shutters will give way to electronic shutters further removing mechanical complexity and reducing size.

The only advantage a high end bridge camera with a MFT sized sensor would have over CSCs is in design simplicity and manufacturing costs. With a suitable small superzoom I could see some blurring of the boundaries between bridge cameras and CSCs (including MFT).

I think the writing is on the wal for FT. As FF cameras get smaller and MFT gets faster optics (albeit slightly larger and heavier) then FT will be squeezed. FT is still a great system but is only competative whilst FF is bulky and heavy. In 10 years time this may not be the case. MFT will continue (after all this is an MFT forum) in the form of the smaller PENS (the upper limit of pocketability) kitted with small slightly slower and lighter optics, and the larger cameras with built in viewfinders (eg EM-5 and GH2) sold with faster and slightly heavier optics. Thus I see MFT diverging in 2 directions but with the advantage of swappable lenses between the two keeping upgrade/downgrade options open and giving it a wide audience base.
 
Good observation of the general view of this matter

I agree with collapsible lens, at least on not very long focal length, and yes we might see in the future a smaller than the Leica M9, fullframe 35mm cameras
OM User said:
There wil always be millions of people who want to be able to discretely carry a camera in a pocket/handbag/coat, hence the millions of P&S that are sold. The smaller PENS from Oly might be at the upper limit of camera size for this purpose however we would need to see a slight improvement in collapsible lens design, perhaps with the lens collapsing right inside the camera to achieve the small size needed in this format in order to compete properly (take a look at an MFT camera - there is still a large gap between the back of the lens and and the sensor). There will be a natural limit in sensor size dictated by the lens optics of an overall small camera package but I can see sensor sizes increasing in P&S until we reach close to MFT sizes. The Canon G1X shows what is possible at teh upper end. If this had a longer zoom range I think it would be make a serious impact on bridge cameras.

With increases in electronic viewfinder technology and the ability to display camera information in the viewer I can see that FF could go mirrorless. Removing the optical viewfinder path reduces bulk and weight and increases reliability. PDAF might need to be retained but using on sensor detection, fixed mirror, flip up pdaf sensors, or PDAF sensors around the main imaging sensor. Focal plane shutters will give way to electronic shutters further removing mechanical complexity and reducing size.

The only advantage a high end bridge camera with a MFT sized sensor would have over CSCs is in design simplicity and manufacturing costs. With a suitable small superzoom I could see some blurring of the boundaries between bridge cameras and CSCs (including MFT).

I think the writing is on the wal for FT. As FF cameras get smaller and MFT gets faster optics (albeit slightly larger and heavier) then FT will be squeezed. FT is still a great system but is only competative whilst FF is bulky and heavy. In 10 years time this may not be the case. MFT will continue (after all this is an MFT forum) in the form of the smaller PENS (the upper limit of pocketability) kitted with small slightly slower and lighter optics, and the larger cameras with built in viewfinders (eg EM-5 and GH2) sold with faster and slightly heavier optics. Thus I see MFT diverging in 2 directions but with the advantage of swappable lenses between the two keeping upgrade/downgrade options open and giving it a wide audience base.
Click to expand...
--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.
 
I think that mirrorless will dominate the camera industry in a few years.

The D800e is virtually equal to MF cameras in DR and suggests that high quality cameras with FF DSLR sensors will do very well for many years.

FF DSLRs are also coming down in price while mirrorless cameras are approaching APS-C quality. Thus, I think the most endangered category of cameras is the currently dominant APS-C.
 
My first camera ever was a Yashica A, a very bare bones TLR. I used to ogle the Rollies in the camera stores but could never hope to have one at my age (about 12). Later, I received a Yashicamat LM, which was an advancement on the model A. I still wanted a Rollie or Mamiya (interchangeable lenses.) Then the SLR put in an appearance and no one wanted the TLRs any longer. Never did get a pro level TLR but seeing that Rollie brought back fond memories.
--
MRD
 
I don't think the evolution is any different from the way film 135 cameras evolved. As with film "normal" people shot with "point and shoot" (not to be read derogatory) cameras, however specialized / professional photographer used SLRs. Meanwhile the recording medium (135 film) remained the same. Today we are reaching the same equilibrium. A large sensor is not just the prerogative of DSLR's, it is slowly trickling down to point and shoots (again not derogatory) hence creating the MILF / EVIL mirror less category. This does not mean that the DSLR will die out, it just means we will have mirror less cameras that will catch up with DSLRs on sensor size and image quality. Some already have, others will do so.

As mentioned earlier in this thread the stress now will be to digitize anything mechanical and hence make them more compact (think shutters / viewfinders). I think even dials and knobs will be completely replaced by touch screens (not that i relish this thought but i am not part of the 90% target group for such cameras).

Another important aspect that I foresee in the next couple of years will be an open software approach, much like the mobile phone industry where people and third party developers will be able to customize and enhance their cameras using available API's. But that is probably a subject for a separate thread.
cheers,
--
Everything has its beauty but not everyone sees it.
– Confucius
 
How strange. My first camera was also a Yashica A. I still use the 80mm 3.5 lens as a loupe 45 years later!
Marvin Doering said:
My first camera ever was a Yashica A, a very bare bones TLR. I used to ogle the Rollies in the camera stores but could never hope to have one at my age (about 12). Later, I received a Yashicamat LM, which was an advancement on the model A. I still wanted a Rollie or Mamiya (interchangeable lenses.) Then the SLR put in an appearance and no one wanted the TLRs any longer. Never did get a pro level TLR but seeing that Rollie brought back fond memories.
--
MRD
Click to expand...
 
s_grins said:
I think mirror less interchangeable lens cameras evolved from P&C cameras. Both have more in common it terms natural and native Life View, both have natural and native video capabilities, both have similar communications scheme between camera and men.

Also bigger sensor size was not the privilege of SLR cameras: - bigger sensor could be found in P&S cameras too.

My guess is that MILC took from SLR the focus plane shutter only. Single lens camera is fine with leaf shutter, and even today little MILC from Pentax still adhere to in-lens shutter tradition
--
I’m surprised how much Wikipedia contributes to the forum.

Click to expand...
I can remember back on the Canon forum, in the earlier days, some of us suggested that an EVF and some other features of P&S could be incorporated into a DSLR 'like' camera, and we were nearly burned at the stake as heretics. ;-) And now Canon will be introducing one, according to rumours.
--



http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
 
Just picked up her book, now available again on Amazon.com, after seeing a show of her work in Santa Fe last February. It's a shame she was unknown in her lifetime, though I guess that was her choice.
Lights said:
Weren't those Rolleiflex's beautiful cameras though? Here's some great work, and a great story about someone who used one (recently discovered).

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2011/Vivian-Maier-Street-Photographer/Photos-Vivian-Maiers-Street-Photography/
--



http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
Click to expand...
 
Aleo Veuliah said:
..., and yes we might see in the future a smaller than the Leica M9, fullframe 35mm cameras
Click to expand...
Isn't the Leica a special case? It seems to me Leica had to put microlenses on their FF sensor for accommodating the non-telecentricy of their small optics. Otherwise, FF cameras, mirrorless or not, need a lot of glass in front of their FF sensors. As long as Canon & Nikon make lenses for either APC or FF, I don't see their lenses competing with the smallness of mFT. Granted, they could come down considerably in size/weight, but still not as carry-around-comfortable as mFT.

my CA$0.02 :)
--
cheerios from the Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland
http://www.michael.shaffer.net/albums.html

 
I agree with waht others have said. APS DSLRs became a kind of standard a while back. This allowed Tamron, Sigma and other vendors to develop common lenses and accessories that fit all the APS cameras. Now remember, not all APS sensors are the same size, but are close enough for this to work.

Now we have Panasonic, Olympus and Canon making 4:3 ILCs with very similar sized sensors. I think this will be the new standard. If Sigma decides to make a long zoom in the future they will see the size will dramatically increase if they want to include APS mirrorless cameras. Of course Sony may pay out big $ to be included, and not be left out. Nikon on the other hand is in big trouble IMHO. They are on their own and still have to support their larger formats. They are spread way too thin (and so is Sony if you ask me).

Canon played this perfectly. If they used a smaller sensor, it may have been smalled enough for Nikon to get included. Now they are left out in the cold.
 
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