Yes. Agreed, the flipping mirror is mechanical gadgetry in a solid-state world! price points are important in this discussion, i don't see the balance of big lens on small body as an issue--ultimately i'm holding or mounting the lens to tripod and attaching a lightweight imaging head to the back of the lens.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Rmark
Senior Member
This scenario is dependent on the development of the EVF. Currently even the best EVF's do not provide the visual immediacy of an optical reflex viewfinder. Or, it may take a new generation of photographers who find the EVF perfectly acceptable.
How can you duplicate the fact that the mirror uses no power, has no dynamic range limitation, has no color gamut limitation, and has zero lag, using a sensor being read by a computer processing that information and sending it to a lighted display?
Have you replaced the windows in your car with flat-screen displays? In your house?
Last edited:
grammieb14
Senior Member
I agree. I hate looking at a screen in order to take my shot. I like my 100% viewfinder. I wear glasses & find it much easier to see without using an added screen. Bab
From what i have seen in California, yes there are many DSLR user, but more and more folks are getting hip to the mirrorless cameras too.
The size and the fact that some (Sony NEX) have an APS-C sensor and are small is a big selling point.
I used to shoot everything with my Pentax K20D and K-5, but now I carry around my NEX 5n for just about everything.
wll
The size and the fact that some (Sony NEX) have an APS-C sensor and are small is a big selling point.
I used to shoot everything with my Pentax K20D and K-5, but now I carry around my NEX 5n for just about everything.
wll
MoreorLess
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,976
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,481
jande9
Senior Member
When the 4/3 milc's first came out I thought they were a great idea. Smaller and lighter than a slr but still with excellent quality. Then I saw one in a camera store and I was underwhelmed. It was still pretty big, not much smaller than my entry level Pentax slr, and DPR said that their image quality was not as good as a slr so I backed off.
The 4/3 camera has a "neither fish nor fowl" problem. Perceived to not be good enough for serious photography, but also not small enough to be a "take anywhere" camera. I like the Nex line but the lenses are huge. Too much barrel, not enough glass!
I ended up buying a Sigma DP1. Not ideal, but small and very high quality.
The 4/3 camera has a "neither fish nor fowl" problem. Perceived to not be good enough for serious photography, but also not small enough to be a "take anywhere" camera. I like the Nex line but the lenses are huge. Too much barrel, not enough glass!
I ended up buying a Sigma DP1. Not ideal, but small and very high quality.
zxaar
Senior Member
Why to do all these things? This is your personal preference list. Why should companies care about what you want? As long as there are enough people who can buy what they are offering, all these things you mentioned can not stop mirrors going dodo.
I want to replace, now can you tell where I can buy these flat screens cheaper than car windows that I now have.
Last edited:
I think they all have limited resources to the extend that they cannot or could not address all markets in the way some succes was assured. So they thought the American market would be too difficult and started of with others.
If that is correct and they are/were you get a double whammy: the USA that with the same effort would do less well than Europe or Aisa now does even worse making the gap quite wide.
I am not saying it is like this, just seems logical to me.
If that is correct and they are/were you get a double whammy: the USA that with the same effort would do less well than Europe or Aisa now does even worse making the gap quite wide.
I am not saying it is like this, just seems logical to me.
makarandsaraf
Senior Member
[No message]
goetz48
Senior Member
all mirrorless cameras into one box. Presently there exist three and a half groups of mirrorless cams:
1. The upcoming FF mirrorless. Sony RX1 is a predecessor, and Sony is assumed to have an exchangeable lens cam shortly before announcement. Drawback: The camera shrinks, but not the lens.
2. The APS-C ones which use the same sensors like DSLRs/DSLTs. Reduced flange distance permits smaller boxes and adapters for nearly all types of exchangable lenses. Drawback: The camera shrinks, but not the lens.
3. Micro 3/4. The old 3/4 system with reduced flange distance.
4. Small sensor systems like Nikon 1 system. Much smalles sensor & lenses, but Use of film camera type lenses makes little sense. Sensor size limits low light performance.
All these four groups have specific advantages and drawbacks. the only common advantage is smaller box size, the common disadvantage is no OVF. And the advantages a mirrorless camera has for a Nikon 1 user is different to a NEX user.
After 40+ years of SLR/SLT shooting I shortly added a NEX to my camera collection and am glad about. Since that my P&S and my old KM A2 are dust collectors.
1. The upcoming FF mirrorless. Sony RX1 is a predecessor, and Sony is assumed to have an exchangeable lens cam shortly before announcement. Drawback: The camera shrinks, but not the lens.
2. The APS-C ones which use the same sensors like DSLRs/DSLTs. Reduced flange distance permits smaller boxes and adapters for nearly all types of exchangable lenses. Drawback: The camera shrinks, but not the lens.
3. Micro 3/4. The old 3/4 system with reduced flange distance.
4. Small sensor systems like Nikon 1 system. Much smalles sensor & lenses, but Use of film camera type lenses makes little sense. Sensor size limits low light performance.
All these four groups have specific advantages and drawbacks. the only common advantage is smaller box size, the common disadvantage is no OVF. And the advantages a mirrorless camera has for a Nikon 1 user is different to a NEX user.
After 40+ years of SLR/SLT shooting I shortly added a NEX to my camera collection and am glad about. Since that my P&S and my old KM A2 are dust collectors.
Last edited:
Your answers do not explain the difference between US versus the rest of the world. The question is why that difference is. Some things are stated as facts and if so, that would be true for everyone out there. Perception seems to be different. I think it is indeed egocentric and it does not explain it at all. Why wouild a small body big lens combo appeal in one place and not in another when they are exactly the same?
alpha90290
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 76
Wellington100
Forum Pro
Heh heh heh, thats a good way of looking at the issue.
goetz48
Senior Member
The difference:
The Japanese would do it.
The Europeans would try it.
And the Americans would fear it,
It seems to be, but it is not to my mind. Flatpanel screens in windows do not offer anything over a normal window other than being electronic.
If you look through a screen, the information will never be elctronically altered or saved. Just directly in your brains. That is not true with any DSLR. The information you get with your OVF is never equal to what the sensor makes of it. With the EVF you come very close to that. Also: if you look trhough a window you ar enot helped with all sorts of extra information, with anf EVF in a cam you can see blown out highlights etc. In short: there are some clear advantages that do help you with the end result compared to an OVF (which has its advantages too, I agree).
The mirror was needed to get an image in the viewfinder. Whether you like EVF or not, it is no longer necessary to do this. Also, for video, a mirror is not very helpfull. Also, the mirror can slap and make things look blurry on occasion. It does make the camera bigger and the lenses somewhat too.
The processing times are getting so fast that the human eye cannot detect the lag between EVF and the scene in fornt of it. I can't already but of course if people can, this is a matter of time.
I am also sure that mirrors will be a thing of the past mostly and a big step would not be changes in the EVFs, but really good AF tracking with good lenses to go with it. I think currently that is one thing that really is a significant difference everstill and a reason for some types of shooting not to get a mirrorless cam.
If you look through a screen, the information will never be elctronically altered or saved. Just directly in your brains. That is not true with any DSLR. The information you get with your OVF is never equal to what the sensor makes of it. With the EVF you come very close to that. Also: if you look trhough a window you ar enot helped with all sorts of extra information, with anf EVF in a cam you can see blown out highlights etc. In short: there are some clear advantages that do help you with the end result compared to an OVF (which has its advantages too, I agree).
The mirror was needed to get an image in the viewfinder. Whether you like EVF or not, it is no longer necessary to do this. Also, for video, a mirror is not very helpfull. Also, the mirror can slap and make things look blurry on occasion. It does make the camera bigger and the lenses somewhat too.
The processing times are getting so fast that the human eye cannot detect the lag between EVF and the scene in fornt of it. I can't already but of course if people can, this is a matter of time.
I am also sure that mirrors will be a thing of the past mostly and a big step would not be changes in the EVFs, but really good AF tracking with good lenses to go with it. I think currently that is one thing that really is a significant difference everstill and a reason for some types of shooting not to get a mirrorless cam.
R
rattymouse
Guest
Awesome reply. Absolutely awesome.