Canon must make mirrorless camera or else it's compacts will be 2nd tier

[Cedarhill]

DSLRs are already losing market share, but that doesn't make them obsolete. I suppose you can declare anything obsolete if you also make up your own definition of what the word "obsolete" means. Here is the primary definition according to Merriam-Webster, " no longer in use or no longer useful". It will be a long time before that is true of DSLRs.

I think your timeframe of 10 years is about right, according to my definition (and Merriam-Websters). By that time, image processing and display technology will have evolved to the point that EVFs will be an adequate and cost effective substitute for an optical viewfinder. In fact, these viewfinders will be able to accurately simulate exposure and depth of field at a resolution you can really use and will provide all sorts of optional information overlays onto the live image. At that point, optical viewfinders will start to become obsolete.

I predict there will never come a time where LCD dispalys mounted to the back of a camera will replace a viewfinder of any kind for the reasons I have already mentioned.

 

[Graystar]

Bad assumption. In case you hadn't noticed, large-sensor cameras are more popular than f0.3 lenses for compacts. Why? High ISO performance, of course.

And You interviewed every DSLR owner in the world to determine that? I bought my DSLR for better image quality. I almost never shoot above ISO 200 (I have a Nikon) because I don't want my images to look like they came out of a compact.

Your full-frame ISO 3200 images have more noise than your compact's ISO 80 images.

The same, actually. And the 5D's images are better in other ways.

Yes I'm sure the 5D images are better in other ways, but physics say sensitivity is based on area, and math says FF ISO 3200 images have more noise than 1/2.5 ISO 80 images.

.

 

[Graystar]

Once again, the reason G11 keeps getting compared to the likes of GF1/EP2 is because it is essentially the same size and weight.

But it's not the same size. When it comes to potentially pocketable cameras, the depth of the camera + lens is all important. Posters have written that the Panasonic LX3, though slightly smaller than the G10, was less pocketable because of the protruding lens, which made it difficult to get in and out of a pocket. The GF1, even with it's pancake lens, is worse. Forget about the zoom lens...that's just a joke to compare against a G11.

.

 

[Lee Jay]

Bad assumption. In case you hadn't noticed, large-sensor cameras are more popular than f0.3 lenses for compacts. Why? High ISO performance, of course.

And You interviewed every DSLR owner in the world to determine that? I bought my DSLR for better image quality. I almost never shoot above ISO 200 (I have a Nikon) because I don't want my images to look like they came out of a compact.

Oh...good for you. I hardly shoot below ISO 400. I bought the dSLRs so I can shoot in 7 stops less light than I can with my compact.

Your full-frame ISO 3200 images have more noise than your compact's ISO 80 images.

The same, actually. And the 5D's images are better in other ways.

Yes I'm sure the 5D images are better in other ways, but physics say sensitivity is based on area, and math says FF ISO 3200 images have more noise than 1/2.5 ISO 80 images.

Other ways means things like better lenses with less CA and wider focal length range, etc. Anyway, 3200 on the 5D is pretty close to 80 on the S3:



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Graystar]

Other ways means things like better lenses with less CA and wider focal length range, etc. Anyway, 3200 on the 5D is pretty close to 80 on the S3:

Check Mickey’s mouth...lots more noise and less detail in the ISO 3200 image. That makes sense to me, as your 5D settings put you at slightly worse that the S3 IQ.

.

 

[Lee Jay]

Other ways means things like better lenses with less CA and wider focal length range, etc. Anyway, 3200 on the 5D is pretty close to 80 on the S3:

Check Mickey’s mouth...lots more noise and less detail in the ISO 3200 image. That makes sense to me, as your 5D settings put you at slightly worse that the S3 IQ.

I also applied a lot less NR to the 5D shot than the S3 does natively. If I shoot the same in raw, the 5D wins (slightly).

Do the math - both shots had the same photon count.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[ryan2007]

That is why I returned the Canon G11 after wanting to upgrade from a G7. The G7 is still a nice camera and on occasion I use it.

So, I bought the GF-1 and have not looked back. I am glad with the choice and even sold my Nikon D90 gear to make a full transition to this new format so to say. I do not have any brand loyalty only what does the best job for me and to try and buy it once.

I always said in the P&S class Canon is the way to go over Nikon and for a DSLR Nikon over Canon at least for me.

Now the Panasonic GF-1 for the slight cost hike gives you a system in a P&S type body, but the output IMO blows it away. I know some are Olympus uses and they have a nice product, but I like the Leica glass that Panasonic uses.

If Nikon or Canon create a micro four thirds system and the lenses are compatible I will not have issue switching again. If not and their system blows Panasonic out of the water I will sell again and move on to the next.

I believe that Micro four thirds is the future of digital photography!

The Micro 4/3 cameras must be seriously hurting the Canon compact sales especially the G11 type. Advanced photographers looking for a quality compact to replace the DSLR have been buying the micro 4/3s. Will canon catch up by making a mirrorless camera like the samsung NX10? - only then can it recoup the lost sales. What's your thought?

I'm already seriously thinking of getting the Panasonic G2 for my everyday camera.

 

[Graystar]

Check Mickey’s mouth...lots more noise and less detail in the ISO 3200 image. That makes sense to me, as your 5D settings put you at slightly worse that the S3 IQ.

I also applied a lot less NR to the 5D shot than the S3 does natively. If I shoot the same in raw, the 5D wins (slightly).

You applied noise reduction on the 5D image? That’s quite a detail to omit when you’re trying to show that an image from one camera is as good as another.

It is my understanding, from the early CHDK discussions and my own experience with my A710 (nearly the same era as the S3,) that Canon doesn’t apply noise reduction at ISO 80. So I doubt your S3 image has any “natively” applied noise reduction.

Do the math

I did. The math is telling me exactly what your images are showing me...the 5D IQ is worse.

.

 

[Lee Jay]

Check Mickey’s mouth...lots more noise and less detail in the ISO 3200 image. That makes sense to me, as your 5D settings put you at slightly worse that the S3 IQ.

I also applied a lot less NR to the 5D shot than the S3 does natively. If I shoot the same in raw, the 5D wins (slightly).

You applied noise reduction on the 5D image? That’s quite a detail to omit when you’re trying to show that an image from one camera is as good as another.

It is my understanding, from the early CHDK discussions and my own experience with my A710 (nearly the same era as the S3,) that Canon doesn’t apply noise reduction at ISO 80. So I doubt your S3 image has any “natively” applied noise reduction.

That would be horribly wrong. A huge amount of NR is applied at ISO 80 on the Canon compacts. I've shot the S3 at ISO 80 with CHDK. The processed results look nothing remotely like the out-of-camera JPEGs from a noise point of view.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[snukr]

DSLR's will be around for a few years yet, but the technology is ancient and wiil be replaced eventually. The SLR system does bring extra noise when taking a picture, not good for wildlife photography, it's possible to have a completely silent shutter with a compact. The TTL system which was one of the main attractions of SLR's has now been superceded electronically and is not now necessary. The technology dates back to the 1940's. DSLR's will be superceded by a range of compact cameras with interchangable lenses. One of the DSLR's main disadvantages is it's bulk.

 

[RAL131504]

There's nothing close even in sight. I doubt that manufacturers like nikon and canon will drop a huge segment of their customer base that demands optical viewfinders and the response of a dslr. All electronic will no doubt be the mainstay of the younger generation that have never experienced the speed of light, but to be successful a manufacturer will have to cover both ends of the customer base.

 

[Graystar]

It is my understanding, from the early CHDK discussions and my own experience with my A710 (nearly the same era as the S3,) that Canon doesn’t apply noise reduction at ISO 80. So I doubt your S3 image has any “natively” applied noise reduction.

That would be horribly wrong. A huge amount of NR is applied at ISO 80 on the Canon compacts. I've shot the S3 at ISO 80 with CHDK. The processed results look nothing remotely like the out-of-camera JPEGs from a noise point of view.

Well I don't have your S3 so I'll just have to take your word for it...but personally I think it's broken. I just checked out my A710 again and like I said, in terms of noise the RAW images are indistinguishable from the camera’s JPEGs.

.

 

[Lee Jay]

It is my understanding, from the early CHDK discussions and my own experience with my A710 (nearly the same era as the S3,) that Canon doesn’t apply noise reduction at ISO 80. So I doubt your S3 image has any “natively” applied noise reduction.

That would be horribly wrong. A huge amount of NR is applied at ISO 80 on the Canon compacts. I've shot the S3 at ISO 80 with CHDK. The processed results look nothing remotely like the out-of-camera JPEGs from a noise point of view.

Well I don't have your S3 so I'll just have to take your word for it...but personally I think it's broken. I just checked out my A710 again and like I said, in terms of noise the RAW images are indistinguishable from the camera’s JPEGs.

Processed how? A raw S3 image processed in LR with NR off looks nothing like its JPEG.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Graystar]

It is my understanding, from the early CHDK discussions and my own experience with my A710 (nearly the same era as the S3,) that Canon doesn’t apply noise reduction at ISO 80. So I doubt your S3 image has any “natively” applied noise reduction.

That would be horribly wrong. A huge amount of NR is applied at ISO 80 on the Canon compacts. I've shot the S3 at ISO 80 with CHDK. The processed results look nothing remotely like the out-of-camera JPEGs from a noise point of view.

Well I don't have your S3 so I'll just have to take your word for it...but personally I think it's broken. I just checked out my A710 again and like I said, in terms of noise the RAW images are indistinguishable from the camera’s JPEGs.

Processed how? A raw S3 image processed in LR with NR off looks nothing like its JPEG.

I open the DNG using Raw Therapee with the Neutral setting (all functions zeroed or off.) So there's no processing other than demosaicing. Sure, the image needs a little processing to look like it's JPEG counterpart...a little sharpening, slight color boost, tone curve adjustment, etc...but it doesn't need any noise reduction.

.

 

[Graystar]

I open the DNG using Raw Therapee with the Neutral setting (all functions zeroed or off.) So there's no processing other than demosaicing. Sure, the image needs a little processing to look like it's JPEG counterpart...a little sharpening, slight color boost, tone curve adjustment, etc...but it doesn't need any noise reduction.

Here's a demonstation pic. The A710 had MyColors set to Neutral and I used a custom white balance. The CHDK DNG was loaded into Raw Therapee using the Neutral profile (no processing.) Then an exposure correction of 0.5 was applied to get the brightness to match the JPEG. Images were resized/cropped/saved using PSE.

As you can see, there's no difference in noise between the two images, even though I added EC to the DNG (which, if anything, will make any noise stand out.)

 

[Ed B]

DSLR's will be around for a few years yet, but the technology is ancient and wiil be replaced eventually. The SLR system does bring extra noise when taking a picture, not good for wildlife photography, it's possible to have a completely silent shutter with a compact. The TTL system which was one of the main attractions of SLR's has now been superceded electronically and is not now necessary. The technology dates back to the 1940's. DSLR's will be superceded by a range of compact cameras with interchangable lenses. One of the DSLR's main disadvantages is it's bulk.

I have to agree that DSLR technology is ancient and will be replaced eventually but that's a safe statement that could be made about all present day technology.

Television is ancient, cars are ancient, and the internet will someday be ancient.

All will be replaced someday.

Micro four thirds has already been replaced but most people don't realize it yet.

As I've already said in another answer, Sony has proven that APS-C can be put into a small camera. Why would anyone buy micro four thirds when they could have APS-C? Why Would Panasonic and Olympus continue to make micro four thirds cameras when other manufacturers (Canon & Nikon) will be using APS-C size sensors in small camreras?

 

[Lee Jay]

As you can see, there's no difference in noise between the two images,

Actually, there's a pretty huge difference in the limited shadow and transition regions. Shoot something dark with texture instead of a smooth bright target so you can see it.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Graystar]

As you can see, there's no difference in noise between the two images,

Actually, there's a pretty huge difference in the limited shadow and transition regions. Shoot something dark with texture instead of a smooth bright target so you can see it.

Huge difference?? Are you for real? There's practically no difference. The idea of shooting the phone was to get a smooth area in the shadow, like the bottom edge of the phone. It needs to be smooth so that the noise can stand out. Other than the JPEG having a bit more green and some sharpening, there's no difference...certainly not in the noise levels.

Compare the RAW of a scene at ISO 100 vs. ISO 200 and you'll see far more noise between the two than the difference in my pics.

.

 

[rrr_hhh]

. . . For the most common eye sight problem among older people which I have (presbyopia), an optical viewfinder with a diopter adjustment is much much more useful than any LCD or even some electronic viewfinders. Once the diopter is adjusted, there's no need for eye glasses. This is a key feature that is missing on most if not all (not sure about this) small sensor compacts but is widely available among DSLR's.

??? The reason why optical viewfinder are preferred by people affected by presbytia is that although the optical viewfinder is physically nearer than the tip of our noise, it is as if the image presented in the VF was standing much further and our eyes don't have to focuse as near as if we were reading (on an lcd or a newspaper). I think that the diopter is there mainly to correct for myopia, not for presbytia. I think that on a usual optical VF, the focusing distance is at at about 0.9 meter (?? not sure however).

--
rrr_hhh

 

[rrr_hhh]

That Sony camera has interchangeable lenses. A fixed lens can collapse into the body and be much smaller.

You obviously know nothing about the physics of lens design and construction. No lens can collapse into nothing.

Aren't you aware of the small zooms made by Olympus for their MFT pen series ? Two of them are collapsibles, the 14-42mm kit lenses and the 9-18mm wide angle zoom. They make for a very pocketable sized camera. The kit lenses is well like every kit zoom, but the 9-18mm has received a very good review here at Dpreview; it is sharp till the corners.

Probably it would be possible to have a 120mm equivalent lens in a camera 3cm thick.

For "Probably", read "highly unlikely". For a realistic view of relative lens sizes on an APS-C compact, take a look at the Samsung NX10.

This is why I think that the MFT format is a much better compromise than the APS-C road chosen by Sony. Given the sensor size, the lenses will remain bigger, apart of some pancakes primes.

--
rrr_hhh