-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
So which camera system is future worthy?
- Thread starter BobT
- Start date
I have found your contributions to my topic very thought provoking. Though much is opinion, much has also been either documented or well thought through.
Like many of you I personally own several cameras of differing systems.
If I may digress with a personal remark......... I recently purchased a Canon EOS-M camera. Many have complained about it, yet many have praised it as well. It's Canon's first experience in the MILC scene. In other words, this means...."expect improvement" down the road. Canon has furnished a firmware update to help it's alleged rather slow AF. But regardless of it's short comings, none of those short comings affect my shooting style. Admittedly, it is still new to me, but I feel that I will really like this camera. And, heaven forbid, I might just find it suitable and satisfactory enough to rid myself of my DSLR gear. Now I don't know what this camera was costing when it first came out, but the current cost is quite attractive. AND....the few lenses native to this "M" are alleged to be exceptionally good, and built well. So right now, this camera is at a great price and with great IQ potential as well. Not a combination found very often these days. So even if Canon does nothing more with their MILC cameras (and there is talk this might be so), I feel fortunate that I have one....and it will likely serve me in the just the way that I'd hope it would. I also purchased the adapter allowing for use of Canon EF and EF-S lenses. Though I wouldn't expect to hook up one of my "L" tele lenses to it on any sort of regular basis, the fact remains that I could for those infrequent needs.
Just thought I'd toss that out there. Currently the box stores, like Wal-Mart, etc. carry about 80% point and shoots and 20% all others. I recall when digital first appeared on the scene their camera bars were 95% film and a mere 5% digital. The motivation for this thread came about when I was thinking just what those cameras bars will have on them in 10+ years.
One more thing. We recently returned from a 3 week trip to the U.S. Southwest, to photograph the absolutely outstanding scenery mainly in southern Utah. Beautiful. Of course everyone had cameras. In trying to recollect and summarize the gear that we saw used there, I would have to say that the majority would have appeared to be DSLRs. O sure, lots of P&Ss as well. But I only recall being able to recognizing a single mirrorless camera. ONE. (It was a Sony NEX.) So where are these mirrorless folks?
Like many of you I personally own several cameras of differing systems.
If I may digress with a personal remark......... I recently purchased a Canon EOS-M camera. Many have complained about it, yet many have praised it as well. It's Canon's first experience in the MILC scene. In other words, this means...."expect improvement" down the road. Canon has furnished a firmware update to help it's alleged rather slow AF. But regardless of it's short comings, none of those short comings affect my shooting style. Admittedly, it is still new to me, but I feel that I will really like this camera. And, heaven forbid, I might just find it suitable and satisfactory enough to rid myself of my DSLR gear. Now I don't know what this camera was costing when it first came out, but the current cost is quite attractive. AND....the few lenses native to this "M" are alleged to be exceptionally good, and built well. So right now, this camera is at a great price and with great IQ potential as well. Not a combination found very often these days. So even if Canon does nothing more with their MILC cameras (and there is talk this might be so), I feel fortunate that I have one....and it will likely serve me in the just the way that I'd hope it would. I also purchased the adapter allowing for use of Canon EF and EF-S lenses. Though I wouldn't expect to hook up one of my "L" tele lenses to it on any sort of regular basis, the fact remains that I could for those infrequent needs.
Just thought I'd toss that out there. Currently the box stores, like Wal-Mart, etc. carry about 80% point and shoots and 20% all others. I recall when digital first appeared on the scene their camera bars were 95% film and a mere 5% digital. The motivation for this thread came about when I was thinking just what those cameras bars will have on them in 10+ years.
One more thing. We recently returned from a 3 week trip to the U.S. Southwest, to photograph the absolutely outstanding scenery mainly in southern Utah. Beautiful. Of course everyone had cameras. In trying to recollect and summarize the gear that we saw used there, I would have to say that the majority would have appeared to be DSLRs. O sure, lots of P&Ss as well. But I only recall being able to recognizing a single mirrorless camera. ONE. (It was a Sony NEX.) So where are these mirrorless folks?
ZodiacPhoto
Veteran Member
I use Canon DSLRs and Panasonic M4/3 systems.
The biggest problem with M4/3 is the pricing. You take a DSLR, throw away the mirror box with its mechanics, the pentaprism / pentamirror assembly, and the optical viewfinder. Some mirrorless have an electronic viewfinder, while others don't. The total price should be lower that a comparable level DSLR, or at least, not higher!
Same is true for lens pricing.
Another problem is lack of accessories, in particular, a small and light, fully articulated (with vertical and horizontal bounce) flashguns. The existing solutions are in the same size / weight as my Canon flashgun! This is what keeps me away from otherwise very interesting Fujifilm X series. The whole idea of mirrorless is a smaller and lighter system with minimal compromise in image quality. That should include the accessories.
Lens selection. It looks like M4/3 lens choices are quite extensive from both Panasonic and Olympus. Where the advantage of smaller sensor should be most beneficial, it is with the tele-lenses. However, my both Panasonic teles, 45-200mm and 100-300mm, are just average optically, at best. When I tried to shoot the same scene with my Panasonic and Canon, there was simply no comparison above 200mm equiv. - Canon was sharper, with more contrast, almost 3D comparing to M4/3. Granted, it also was heavier and bulkier. Fujifim just released a 55-200mm tele for the X-sytem (the system I am considering very seriously), and optical performance at the long end is uninspiring...
For now, I will stay with Canon. I sold my 60D a few month ago, and waiting for the 70D, while using the SL1.
The biggest problem with M4/3 is the pricing. You take a DSLR, throw away the mirror box with its mechanics, the pentaprism / pentamirror assembly, and the optical viewfinder. Some mirrorless have an electronic viewfinder, while others don't. The total price should be lower that a comparable level DSLR, or at least, not higher!
Same is true for lens pricing.
Another problem is lack of accessories, in particular, a small and light, fully articulated (with vertical and horizontal bounce) flashguns. The existing solutions are in the same size / weight as my Canon flashgun! This is what keeps me away from otherwise very interesting Fujifilm X series. The whole idea of mirrorless is a smaller and lighter system with minimal compromise in image quality. That should include the accessories.
Lens selection. It looks like M4/3 lens choices are quite extensive from both Panasonic and Olympus. Where the advantage of smaller sensor should be most beneficial, it is with the tele-lenses. However, my both Panasonic teles, 45-200mm and 100-300mm, are just average optically, at best. When I tried to shoot the same scene with my Panasonic and Canon, there was simply no comparison above 200mm equiv. - Canon was sharper, with more contrast, almost 3D comparing to M4/3. Granted, it also was heavier and bulkier. Fujifim just released a 55-200mm tele for the X-sytem (the system I am considering very seriously), and optical performance at the long end is uninspiring...
For now, I will stay with Canon. I sold my 60D a few month ago, and waiting for the 70D, while using the SL1.
GeraldW
Veteran Member
I use "Fixed Lens" as a synonym for non-inerchangeable lens. FLC works nicely against ILC.
I avoid using point and shoot and compact as a generic term; since cameras like the SX50HS or FZ200 are hardly "compact", and cameras like the Sony RX1 & RX100, Canon G1X & G15, and Fuji 100S are hardly "point and shoot". I do use point and shoot for low end fixed lens cameras with little pretense of being enthusiast cameras. Also, "point and shoot" is sometimes used as a pejorative term by snobbish DSLR users and I hate that elitist viewpoint.
I avoid using point and shoot and compact as a generic term; since cameras like the SX50HS or FZ200 are hardly "compact", and cameras like the Sony RX1 & RX100, Canon G1X & G15, and Fuji 100S are hardly "point and shoot". I do use point and shoot for low end fixed lens cameras with little pretense of being enthusiast cameras. Also, "point and shoot" is sometimes used as a pejorative term by snobbish DSLR users and I hate that elitist viewpoint.
GeraldW
Veteran Member
Bob,
I have seen the same lack on MILC's on a cruise in the Galapagos, a photo Mecca. Among 95 people on our ship, there were none! However, we need to remember that DSLRs have been around for years with heavy sales to serious shooters, and the MILC market is much newer. A related question is how many of the DSLR's that you see are recent models. Two guys on our ship were using Pentax *ist models. Others were using older Rebel and Nikon models. Still, I fully expected to see a few MILC's.
I have seen the same lack on MILC's on a cruise in the Galapagos, a photo Mecca. Among 95 people on our ship, there were none! However, we need to remember that DSLRs have been around for years with heavy sales to serious shooters, and the MILC market is much newer. A related question is how many of the DSLR's that you see are recent models. Two guys on our ship were using Pentax *ist models. Others were using older Rebel and Nikon models. Still, I fully expected to see a few MILC's.
Consumers are convinced that Canon and Nikon are the best, and since they can advertise large numbers of lenses for their cameras they can claim they are the largest and therefore the best.
The average Jane or Joe wanting to move up to a better camera constantly asks me which big camera to get, even when I know that they will be better off with their family pix using a P/S superzoom or such. I try to explain according to their needs but the final question is which camera will take the best picture, and there the answer becomes dSLR. So they buy a cheap Canikon and a 18-55mm and do not understand why they cannot get a close up of the bird on the other side of the yard.
There is a 12 y o toting his Mom's rebel around our church now cause she has given up on learning dSLR photography. Hopefully the lad will learn and enjoy.
So canon and nikon dSLRs are the system for the upcoming future. I hope I am right. I was invested in Konica 30 years ago and those lenses are paperweights now. I hope my EOS stuff does not go the way of the DODO.
Sony is a step behind Conikon, and Lumix and Oly are invested in 4/3 which the average consumer does not understand, and it is getting no shelf space at the main stores for the average consumer....Walmart, Sams and Best Buy. Pentax same story...no shelf space.
Final answer....Nikon and Canon
whvick
The average Jane or Joe wanting to move up to a better camera constantly asks me which big camera to get, even when I know that they will be better off with their family pix using a P/S superzoom or such. I try to explain according to their needs but the final question is which camera will take the best picture, and there the answer becomes dSLR. So they buy a cheap Canikon and a 18-55mm and do not understand why they cannot get a close up of the bird on the other side of the yard.
There is a 12 y o toting his Mom's rebel around our church now cause she has given up on learning dSLR photography. Hopefully the lad will learn and enjoy.
So canon and nikon dSLRs are the system for the upcoming future. I hope I am right. I was invested in Konica 30 years ago and those lenses are paperweights now. I hope my EOS stuff does not go the way of the DODO.
Sony is a step behind Conikon, and Lumix and Oly are invested in 4/3 which the average consumer does not understand, and it is getting no shelf space at the main stores for the average consumer....Walmart, Sams and Best Buy. Pentax same story...no shelf space.
Final answer....Nikon and Canon
whvick
Gato Amarillo
Forum Pro
How long a future? I don't think any of us can predict beyond 3 years, 5 at most.
I think Sony with their mix of mirrorless and A-mount SLTs (soon to be all mirrorless, if the rumors are correct) has the best grasp on the future. How successful they will be depends a lot on how much they invest and how successfully they promote their ideas. And, of course, what Canon and Nikon do.
Canon and Nikon are in a tough spot. EVF technology and demands for video are pushing toward mirrorless, not to mention production advantages and advantages for photographers such as high frame rates and WYSIWYG finders. It seems as if Canon and Nikon are going to have to find a way to move forward to new technology without alienating their current user base. Could be an interesting challenge.
Right now I'm using a mix of Panasonic and Sony. I tell people after 40 years of Canon and Nikon I'm now using cameras named after toasters. I think either of these brands can carry me as far into the future as I can see, but I'm not buying anything that won't pay for itself in 3 years or less.
Gato
I think Sony with their mix of mirrorless and A-mount SLTs (soon to be all mirrorless, if the rumors are correct) has the best grasp on the future. How successful they will be depends a lot on how much they invest and how successfully they promote their ideas. And, of course, what Canon and Nikon do.
Canon and Nikon are in a tough spot. EVF technology and demands for video are pushing toward mirrorless, not to mention production advantages and advantages for photographers such as high frame rates and WYSIWYG finders. It seems as if Canon and Nikon are going to have to find a way to move forward to new technology without alienating their current user base. Could be an interesting challenge.
Right now I'm using a mix of Panasonic and Sony. I tell people after 40 years of Canon and Nikon I'm now using cameras named after toasters. I think either of these brands can carry me as far into the future as I can see, but I'm not buying anything that won't pay for itself in 3 years or less.
Gato
CharlesB58
Forum Pro
Wow. You really are one self-absorbed, historically uninformed person. You even tried to use my signature line to bolster your point if focus which is your personal preference.
In so doing you completely missed my poinr, including my signature. LOL
--
If, in my lifetime, I will have produced just one image that makes a real difference in the life of another, I will have achieved my highest goal as a photographer.
Zenfolio | Charles Black Photography
Greetings to all, and thank you for visiting my gallery site. You'll notice there are a lot of photos of concerts and other performances. For over a decade I have been the house photographer CSPS Hall. The main purpose of this site is to present photos from my years at CSPS Hall, as well as...
ikkens.zenfolio.com
mpgxsvcd
Veteran Member
So you think that just because the Canon M was not a success then are mirror-less cameras are failures. The Olympus OMD EM5 is still doing very well and the GX7 is setting itself up to do equally well.
Excuse me?
The Sony Walkman wasn't an innovation? The Compact Disc wasn't? What about the manufacturing techniques that made the Japanese auto industry bigger than ours? LCD or plasma TV?
And in our beloved camera industry, are you unwilling to begrudge the thousands of photography innovations and refinements which have lead to Japan becoming virtually the sole producer of enthusiast and professional cameras today? I have been to Japan many times. The Japanese are an artistic and creative people. Naturally, bringing innovations to market is a challenge in any high tech company.
CFynn
Veteran Member
Bottom and mid-range P&S camera sales have fallen off a cliff. Over the last year both DSLR and MILC sales have also declined - MILC a little more than DSLR.
That certainly doesn't mean mirrorless cameras are doomed. However, right now, there seem to be a lot of players in the market with no clear leader. With DSLRs people can safely pick Canon or Nikon and in any given price bracket the two offer directly comparable models with similar features .
With MILC cameras the choice is bewildering. So far Canon and Nikon's offerings in this category look pretty underwhelming to many people. Beside those, potential purchasers have the choice of Sony NEX, Olympus and Panasonic M4/3, Samsung NX, Fuji X, Pentax Q and K1, and Ricoh GXR. Some of these names people associate more with home appliances, televisions, etc - than with photography. A couple they have probably never heard of before. This category of cameras offer a bewildering range of sensor sizes, lens options, EVFs (or not), and a mind boggling range of new features: on sensor PDAF, HDR, sweep panorama, Wi Fi, GPS, film emulations, picture effects, different video specs, adapters for different lenses, focus peaking, touch screens, a variety of Swivel LCDs or OLEDs, "pancake" lenses, IBS vs OIS, etc., etc.....
Manufacturers launch these cameras at unrealistically high prices, then a few months later sell them off at fire-sale prices when they launch whole new models with even more bewildering features. Who can figure out what they should be paying for these cameras? Which models are lemons?
Besides MILC cameras there is now a whole range of "high-end" P&S cameras in the same price range offering comparable sensor sizes and IQ
Any normal consumer would be totally confused and, if they turn to sites like this on the internet for help - probably even more confused by all the jargon and conflicting opinions.
If they wanted an MILC camera maybe the consumers mind is just numbed by all the "choices" now available. In this situation they can't make up their mind, turn away, or turn to a "safer" andless confusing choice like a CaNikon DSLR.
At one time, consumers could walk into a camera store and get some expert personal advice. Now, if they can even find a surviving camera store, - or more likely a camera department in a massive chain retailer - it is likely to be staffed by inexperienced sales people barely getting a minimum wage who will push on them whatever gives them the best mark-up. Otherwise to save money they are left to their own devices ordering from a box shifter on the web without ever handling the camera they are ordering.
Last edited:
CharlesB58
Forum Pro
I should have clarified I was speaking of the film era Leica M Series vs film era Nikon F or Canon F series. During the 60's, 70,s and early 80's, while 35mm slrs dominated most professional venues, there were still times when the quiet, smooth-operating and unobtrusive M series proved a better camera for the job at hand.
I agree. But if you look around this and other forums, you will see people who either have continually dismissed MILC as "toy cameras" or some such, and apparently take joy in seeing a report that MILC sales have declined. It seems some of them think that if MILC succeeds, that all manufacturers will eventually stop making OVF cameras. That's not true. Sure, in 20 years we may see that OVF cameras fall into the same category that film slrs do now-a niche with limited selection and either stripped down or top of the line type cameras. We won't see dslrs disappear any time soon, any more than we have seen film cameras, including TLRs and view cameras, disappear either.
What I've witnessed over 35+ years in photography, including a period in retail camera sales, is there will always be a few people who feel their personal preference must be the standard for others, and they feel threatened by anyone who favors something different, as though that favoritism is declaring the choice of the person who prefers older technology to be inferior or second class. In the late 70's when the first simple AF rangefinders came out, there were people who declared them "strictly amateur cameras" and that pros would never use AF. All new technology takes time to catch up to existing technology. But almost invariably, it does catch up and eventually surpass current tech.
CFynn
Veteran Member
But how do you make a flash smaller unless it has less output and/or less features? To get the same utility, don't you need a more powerful flash with a smaller sensor camera since it has less light gathering capability?
Last edited:
CharlesB58
Forum Pro
Actually, this is an interesting point. In my opinion, mirrorless cameras would be better if manufacturers actually made them such that they were intended to take the place of a DSLR. Even if it's your second camera, you still want it to have the functionality and controls to help you get the job done. Instead, manufacturers seem to be viewing mirrorless as their way of keeping consumers from giving up digicams (and using cell phones). They design mirrorless for the "point and shoot upgrader" and end up with ... an oversized point & shoot. After all this time, we only now have a variety of options with built in viewfinders, and still, only the Panasonic G series competes with entry level DSLRs on price.
It's definitely not an either/or situation. But I think that designing them under some notion that they're going to sell millions to people who love the usability of a point & shoots but want to be able to print billboard size just isn't going to get them the sales they want.
(Obviously, that's a simplification and there are products that show that manufacturers are targeting enthusiasts, but I personally believe there's a failure to sell low end products because they think buyers prefer everything about point & shoot cameras, right down to the lack of a viewfinder).
- Dennis
Wheatfield
Veteran Member
The most successful system is the one I choose to buy into. All the other ones can fall off the face of the earth for all I care.
I suspect that most of the people who think mirrorless cameras are going to fall out of favour are fanbois of Canon or Nikon who seem to be personally offended that any other camera companies are sucking precious resources from their favourite babies.
Who cares? Buy what suits your needs, build a system out of it and enjoy it. This is not stuff to fret about.
CharlesB58
Forum Pro
Actually, I have always made an effort to separate marketing efforts from what is actually the basis of decision-making by better informed photographers. An "anti-dslr" ad (meaning pointing out that an Olympus m4/3 camera kit is going to be smaller and lighter) is not different than Nikon's D600 and D800 ads are "APS-C killers". Ads are meant to get people of a certain demographic to buy a particular product. A "anti-dslr" ad is aimed at people who don't like the size of dslr gear, NOT at people who prefer a DSLR regardless of size and weight.
Getting it backwards applies more to those who seem to think that camera ads are going to provide an objective, balanced and accurate presentation of the camera.
Very true. Annie Leibovitz took a lot of flack a couple of years ago by going on record in saying that the iPhone was the best camera for most people. How dare a professional say such a thing? Well, because the legendary Ms Leibovitz understood something many enthusiasts don't, and marketers won't admit to: the average person just needs something to take photos of kids' birthdays, vacations and cats. They don't really care as much as some insist they should about high ISO noise levels or DR or how many milliseconds faster one camera focuses than another.
On the other hand there are is certain demographic that does indeed want to "feel like an expert" because they own "expert gear". They are still taking the same quality of photos of their kids' birthdays, vacations and cats they could get with an iPhone, but at least they feel like they are taking better photos. Maybe they are, but then I see what shows up on the DPR Challenges and wonder...
I think Canon misunderstood what was, at the time, appealing in existing MILC systems, as well as their own customer base. People buy Canon dslrs because they are Canon dslrs first and foremost. I think many Canon owners really didn't want MILC in the way the EOS-M was marketed.
happypoppeye
Veteran Member
EP-5 and the new GX7, as well as the the OM-D and quite a few other mirrorless bodies/kits and a lot more expensive than some really good DSLR's.
So, take m43 vs Canon/Nikon SLR ...m43 has smaller sensor, worse AF and is more expensive than a lot of SLR's. The only real advantage is size...
As for the EOS-M, well, it's a camera, not a system at this point and wouldn't buy into any system as a system without the system being there.
Dedcakes
Well-known member
Hi Bob. In a down economy the majority of people either choose the cheapest OR exclusive option. Focusing on products in the middle is traditionally a recipe for disaster.
Walmart and Bloomingdales will do well in a recession, but JC Penny will go out of business. Look at fast food, cars, clothing, other electronics... When money is tight, its more conmon to go cheap or you buy the best -- though some people obviously will choose second best.
The future proof system here is the system the pros will use.
CharlesB58
Forum Pro
How are you making your comparison. If you compare the OMD to anything less than a weather sealed, rugged and versatile "semi-pro" dslr (such as the Canon 7D or Nikon D7100) it's not an accurate comparison. Yet that is what many do: "Oh look the D5200 has a better sensor than the OMD and costs less..." That's quite flawed for those who seek features other than just the sensor when it comes to selecting a camera.
Nor is it accurate to say that MILC should cost less than a dslr simply because the mirror amd OVF have been removed. First, it's not that simple. Second, and more importantly, Canon, Nikon and Sony are dumping low end DSLRs unto the market at extremely low price points. Part of this is due to production costs. The R&D for the features found in lower end cameras has been recovered some time ago. The other reason is simply to grab as big a market share as they can.
This is a standard technique for larger companies with solid cash flow that want to edge out the competition. Canon can afford minimal profits on their lower end cameras. Olympus can't. M4/3 cameras and lenses are not overpriced in and if themselves (and most people who pay attention to build quality see the difference between an OMD or EP-5 and what they assume are comparable, but cheaper dlsrs). They are overpriced only in comparison ro cameras using older, already paid for design elements that are being sold at an intentionally lower price.
I saw the same thing years ago as the price of the Canon AE-1 kept going down as other makers introduced comparable cameras. Yet at that time, few questioned why the Nikon FE sold for 30% more than the AE-1. It was a much better made camera.
--
If, in my lifetime, I will have produced just one image that makes a real difference in the life of another, I will have achieved my highest goal as a photographer.
Zenfolio | Charles Black Photography
Greetings to all, and thank you for visiting my gallery site. You'll notice there are a lot of photos of concerts and other performances. For over a decade I have been the house photographer CSPS Hall. The main purpose of this site is to present photos from my years at CSPS Hall, as well as...
ikkens.zenfolio.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum