Canikon another dinosaur?

Started Jun 3, 2013 | Discussions
dmanthree Veteran Member • Posts: 7,248
Re: Not so fast on the not so fast
5

TrapperJohn wrote:

First off, the IQ difference is becoming largely theoretical, or in the purvey of spec memorizers. Is it visible in a photograph? Not really. Perhaps in the ultra thin DOF department, but that's only one style of many, and that shallow DOF becomes a problem when shooting macro or long telephoto. By the specs, the larger sensor is 'better', but the 4/3 sensor has become so good that it's not evident in the end result.

I can see the difference on paper and on screen. It's not theoretical, it's real. FF cameras are still better, and that's a fact.

The latest M43 bodies are pretty darn quick. And a heck of a lot smaller than a big pro rig, which will be very appealing to PJ's. If the rumored OMD-Pro with faster shutter and more rugged build becomes reality, PJ's may have a new darling, and a compelling reason to buy it - it's small, it's light, and it's very unobtrusive.

There is no m4/3 camera that is useful for actions sports that require continuous focusing. Nothing. Cameras like the Canon 1Dx leave everything m4/3 in the dust.

I think the author is stretching things a bit in some areas, but I also think he's spot on about C/N sleeping on their duopoly. It seems unthinkable to consider that they could see their dominant position endangered, but I remember a time when Nikon ruled the roost, and Canon was just an also-ran.

Until autofocus came along. Nikon dragged their heels, Canon was all over it, and in the short space of about eight or nine years, Canon had such a head start on that technology that they knocked Nikon out of the top spot. Took Nikon over twenty years to claw it's way back to parity. For that matter, Kodak once owned pro digital with its digital backs, but it failed to capitalize on it's head start on sensors, and Kodak is now... gone.

And M43 has one feature that neither Nikon nor Canon have: multiple manufacturers building to the same lens mount. M43 needs one more camera company associated with it to really add credibility to the concept. I strongly suggest Pentax, as their mirrorless efforts have not been successful, but they do have a loyal following and they make such lovely pancakes and primes. M43 has a chance to really seal the market before the dunderheads at C/N finally wake up. Bringing Pentax in could do just that. If Sigma were to retool the DP for M43, Foveon would make an interesting option to have.

Yet despite that, m4/3 cannot match the lens catalogs of either Nikon or Canon. No super teles, tilt/shift, or any other specialty lenses (save for the occasional fisheye). It's m4/3 that needs to do a lot of catch up here.

The DSLR isn't going away any time soon, but if you look at today's market... M43 is where all the exciting things are happening. M43 hits the larger sensor dslr's with the one thing they can't do: make the lenses smaller, while sensor tech has eroded the large sensor advantage.

I agree, and that's why I shoot only a Panny GH3. But to say it's the equal of the high-speed bodies of Canon or Nikon is just ridiculous. If you were a professional shooter assigned to cover the NFL, what gear would you have? A Canon 1Dx or a Panny GH3?

-- hide signature --

No Signature.

 dmanthree's gear list:dmanthree's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II
Charles Pike
Charles Pike Senior Member • Posts: 1,527
Nikons number one competition is Minolta?
2

Years ago, I was looking to buy into a good 35 mm system.  I had a friend who was and F.B.I. agent who was setting up the photo lab in Charlotte.  Consumer Report had just come out and said the best camera to buy was the Miranda.  My friend pick up the phone and called Nikon in N.Y. and asked who there worst competition was?  They said, "Minolta".  You get the point?  You never know when one of the big boys is going to guess wrong, and just go away.  I sold all of my Nikon gear a few years ago, and now shoot Panasonic.

Now this story is from many years ago, but you never know when it might repeat its self.

www.photosbypike.com

 Charles Pike's gear list:Charles Pike's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR
sdribetahi Contributing Member • Posts: 819
Re: Canikon another dinosaur?
7

Why does this forum have a thread like this every 3 days? Is there some reason you want 'less' camera companies in the world and will jump for joy if M43 puts anything out of business? Do you personally win something? I can see if you are a stock holder maybe, but if you are a camera buyer, you may in fact need psychological help.

Just Having Fun Veteran Member • Posts: 3,869
Re: a very silly article

mferencz wrote:

The mere fact that you opened this post and responded to it tells me your concerned enough to take the 30 seconds out of your life which it entails.  If the article was just nonsense I would assume that wouldn't be the case.

Maybe some one should clue him in on this...

Phase-detection autofocus (even using still targets and center-point only) wasn’t nearly as accurate as contrast detection.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras

If you want the most accurate focusing you need CDAF.  Even manual focusing is not better...

The contrast-detection autofocus was about as accurate as the most careful manual focusing.

djsphynx Contributing Member • Posts: 542
Re: Canikon another dinosaur?
5

novaoz wrote:

Interesting article on MFT and why it will outlast Canon & Nikon, some of his argument is sound

http://chasinglightphotography.com/blog/

The disruptive technology that he seems to conveniently forget is actually smartphones. If I were to predict the future, I'd say:

1- Smartphones will continue to have better camera modules on them, thus completely eradicating the P&S and will take potential m43 users completely away (why carry 2 devices especially when one is connected?) *duh

2- Canikon will continue to dominate pro sporting events and weddings because of glass, robust bodies, handling, large OVF and low light performance

m43 will do well as well though, and we may see an uptick in market penetration at the expense of Canikon for novice users IF dealers play ball and have the right incentives to move people towards m43. m43 and others (looking at you Fuji) needs to enhance AF speeds and precision though, drastically.

The author also forgets that a reason why many people chose and stick to Nikon is the backwards compatibility of lenses. I love carrying a D800 with a MF 24 for example. Very small and light, perfect for ad hoc occasions.

His argument against the Nikon 1 (not enough DoF) is laughable. It's what m43 users have been defending themselves against whenever FF people tell them that they have crappy DoF. So now he's using the same argument against smaller sensors? Glass houses... Remember, not everyone is a DoF freak. Some WANT DoF, they don't want their kid half out of focus. So smaller sensor = bigger DoF, coupled with a fast AF... not a bad camera.

With all that said, I'm actually really interested in seeing m43 flourish. My plan is to pick up a EP5 once they are available. And that's where the author also gets it slightly wrong. Lot's of people might buy m43 as a complimentary system, not as a primary one. It's what I'm doing, and others that I know have already done. I don't shoot for money all day every day, so I do want a smaller camera for light occasions. Different tools, different situations.

Lastly, his statement "Ten years from now, it’s very likely that either Canon or Nikon won’t exist as a camera manufacturer. You heard it here first" is ridiculous:

1- They are entering the mirrorless market and have all the technology to do well. They also have the incentive to do well

2- The camera market is shrinking as a whole, we've reached "peak camera". Smartphones are adding to the saturation, and if you were to ask a person to give up their phone of their camera, most would give up their camera

3- It's such a grandiose statement. He's basically saying "if they don't adapt, they will disappear". Golly gee, are people really paying this guy to teach an MBA class? I'm glad he wasn't my teacher, my class would have eaten him alive with such vacuous statements.

R

-- hide signature --
smallLebowski Contributing Member • Posts: 996
Re: m43 and Canikon another dinosaur?
1

Yes, you all will die. Because Sony NEX is out there. Who needs Canikon huge cameras, when we have NEX. Who needs m43 SAME SIZE OR BULKIER cameras when we have NEX APS-C!

Ok, it is not completely true - everyone will live, due to simple fact: business. Canikon, Sony, Pentax as well as any smaller sensor manufacturers m43, P&S will have its own share. Don't worry and be happy - just don't read that silly articles.

Ulric Veteran Member • Posts: 4,535
Re: Canikon another dinosaur?
1

djsphynx wrote:

His argument against the Nikon 1 (not enough DoF) is laughable. It's what m43 users have been defending themselves against whenever FF people tell them that they have crappy DoF. So now he's using the same argument against smaller sensors? Glass houses... Remember, not everyone is a DoF freak. Some WANT DoF, they don't want their kid half out of focus. So smaller sensor = bigger DoF, coupled with a fast AF... not a bad camera.

Actually, I think a good, small, inexpensive APS-C or even FF camera from Canon or Nikon would be a threat to the M43 as well as DSLR markets. The sensor size argument is valid as long as the larger sensor doesn't come with too much of a penalty in system size.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +13 more
Just Having Fun Veteran Member • Posts: 3,869
Kodak will never die either

Hey! They are now making M43 cameras too! 

Just Having Fun Veteran Member • Posts: 3,869
Say what?????

Richard wrote:

novaoz wrote:

Interesting article on MFT and why it will outlast Canon & Nikon, some of his argument is sound

http://chasinglightphotography.com/blog/

His arguments are silly.

m4/3rds has no advantages over Canon ....Canon and Nikon have answered with their own mirrorless.

You mean the very slow focusing Canon that uses Full Frame lenses?  You call that an answer??

I will tell you one of the biggest advantage on paper that m4/3rds is that the lenses are interchangeable across brands.

But they have done nothing to capitalize on this. They all produce the same lenses, just different brands.

So Both Panasonic and Olympus both make 75mm primes?   Both make F/2.8 zooms?  Do they also make F/.95 lenses?  What do you mean by same lenses?

Not to mention lesser IQ, and a host of other problems, no OVF and such.

what advantage will m43rds have? Size/weight to combat all the downsides.

Well, the current M43 sensors are better than the Canon APS sensors (DxO rates 71to 62).  CDAF cameras focus more accurately than the most expensive Canon cameras/lenses (proven in the DPR article)...and then there is the size and weight.

I say it will die off.

Just like CDs...after they wiped out LPs. 

ohtinsel New Member • Posts: 15
Re: Canikon another dinosaur?
2

I don't know. Some times the optimism I see for M43, paired with this open distain for DSLRs, sounds a lot like the netbook craze from a few years back; remember how *everyone* was going to toss out their clunky expensive laptops for the wonders of cheap, lightweight netbooks? Can you hear even now the faint echo from the many many forum threads joyfully proclaiming the demise of Apple if a *real* mac netbook wasn't soon forthcoming? Yeah, me too.

Then as now, those who desire the revolution may be correct in its coming but very wrong about its nature and its winners.

For netbooks the real threat was from smartphones, tablets and cheaper lighter full-service laptops. Apple and Samsung won, not Asus and the like.

Now I'm not saying that M43 is an analog to netbooks... although the cramped mushy buttons do hold a striking resemblance. Anyway, I can see how M43 is likely to retain the advantage of small size (as did netbooks) but I think the game is still afoot for the advantages of lightweight and especially less expensive.

For example, maybe DSLRs can't ever be as light as M43 but then again maybe the real market winning question is can they get light enough while offering something else, say better ergonomics and battery life, that people will want them anyway?

I would gladly forego any current M43 kit if I could just loose 1/2 the weight of my current DSLR kit; poundage bothers me far more than size. Indeed, I see my big hand-full of a camera with its well placed controls as being much more helpful to my photography than is the ability to put my other camera in my pocket.

I really do love my X100 (and my buddy's often-borrowed OM-D) for a lot of sound photographic reasons, but at the same time I love my D800 that much more. So far I'm fortunate enough to play on both sides, in which case I don't feel like we're anywhere near having The Camera to replace them both or even being able to call which way things will go in the future.

I hope this great camera comes about though. Soon. I don't mind firing up ebay.

sdribetahi Contributing Member • Posts: 819
Re: Say what?????
5

Just Having Fun wrote:

Richard wrote:

novaoz wrote:

Interesting article on MFT and why it will outlast Canon & Nikon, some of his argument is sound

http://chasinglightphotography.com/blog/

His arguments are silly.

m4/3rds has no advantages over Canon ....Canon and Nikon have answered with their own mirrorless.

You mean the very slow focusing Canon that uses Full Frame lenses?  You call that an answer??

I will tell you one of the biggest advantage on paper that m4/3rds is that the lenses are interchangeable across brands.

But they have done nothing to capitalize on this. They all produce the same lenses, just different brands.

So Both Panasonic and Olympus both make 75mm primes?   Both make F/2.8 zooms?  Do they also make F/.95 lenses?  What do you mean by same lenses?

Not to mention lesser IQ, and a host of other problems, no OVF and such.

what advantage will m43rds have? Size/weight to combat all the downsides.

Well, the current M43 sensors are better than the Canon APS sensors (DxO rates 71to 62).  CDAF cameras focus more accurately than the most expensive Canon cameras/lenses (proven in the DPR article)...and then there is the size and weight.

I say it will die off.

Just like CDs...after they wiped out LPs. 

In the dictionary under fan boy is a picture of you. With the large dof, it was probably taken with a m43 camera.

Richard Veteran Member • Posts: 4,858
Re: Say what?????
5

Just Having Fun wrote:

Richard wrote:

novaoz wrote:

Interesting article on MFT and why it will outlast Canon & Nikon, some of his argument is sound

http://chasinglightphotography.com/blog/

His arguments are silly.

m4/3rds has no advantages over Canon ....Canon and Nikon have answered with their own mirrorless.

You mean the very slow focusing Canon that uses Full Frame lenses?  You call that an answer??

The m43rds format is going away, why should they spend money competing against something that will go away eventually. Canons answer is for Canon users that already have lenses.

I will tell you one of the biggest advantage on paper that m4/3rds is that the lenses are interchangeable across brands.

But they have done nothing to capitalize on this. They all produce the same lenses, just different brands.

So Both Panasonic and Olympus both make 75mm primes?   Both make F/2.8 zooms?  Do they also make F/.95 lenses?  What do you mean by same lenses?

Meaning that Nikon and Canon have superior lens selection. The m4/3rds selections include redundant coverage. Does m43 cover 400 2.8 or 600 4.0

Not to mention lesser IQ, and a host of other problems, no OVF and such.

what advantage will m43rds have? Size/weight to combat all the downsides.

Well, the current M43 sensors are better than the Canon APS sensors (DxO rates 71to 62).  CDAF cameras focus more accurately than the most expensive Canon cameras/lenses (proven in the DPR article)...and then there is the size and weight.

Which is why their Oly is not making good profit of them, and why demand is down in the US.

I say it will die off.

Just like CDs...after they wiped out LPs. 

LP's are still around, and you will probably see m43 around too, but if it were a good format, it would have taken off by now. It is a tweener camera. Between cameraphones/pocket cameras and dslr, it will continue to be squeezed until there is nothing left. DSLR will get smaller (and pros cameras will remain their large selves) live view will get better, both will squeeze m43. Cameraphones quality will get better and we are already seeing pocketable cameras like the R100 and LX7 thrive.

The only way m43 will survive is if the price drops to 200-300 and compete with pocket cameras, even then, pocket cameras you can put in your pocket, again squeeze.

I hope the format survives because I think it is best we have choice, but I think it will go away just like the dinosaurs just the opposite of what the OP was saying, they are already on the decline here in the US, just an opinion.

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,111
Re: Service? and then I read part 1
4

ryanshoots wrote:

... Then I read part one and it all became clear "I confess; I’m a recent convert to the micro four-thirds (m4/3) system."

Yes, for almost 6 whole months he's been a m4/3 user.  What is it about the newly converted that makes them feel the need to proselytize to the masses?  I think it's a sign of insecurity.

I keep telling those people to take their pamphlets and knock on someone else's door.

Over and over the people who don't use DSLR's are trotting out all their arguments and reasons why the DSLR is going away. You're right - it's all about their insecurity. They are bound and determined to prove that they bought the right camera type by trying to knock down DSLR's or try to prove that they are going to go away.

And someone mentioned 'the demand for smaller cameras.' I don't know where this is coming from... I don't want a smaller camera, I want something that's large enough to have plenty of body controls and be easy to hold and handle. Funny that so many times I see people showing off their m43 and other smaller cameras by putting a huge lens on it and an add-on viewfinder that looks like some kind of plumbing.

The DSLR is going to be around until the manufacturers can make an EVF that is brighter, faster, clearer, and uses less power (<zero) than light itself.

-- hide signature --

It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice. (sarcasm)

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,111
Re: a very silly article
2

Just Having Fun wrote:

mferencz wrote:

The mere fact that you opened this post and responded to it tells me your concerned enough to take the 30 seconds out of your life which it entails.  If the article was just nonsense I would assume that wouldn't be the case.

Maybe some one should clue him in on this...

Phase-detection autofocus (even using still targets and center-point only) wasn’t nearly as accurate as contrast detection.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras

If you want the most accurate focusing you need CDAF.  Even manual focusing is not better...

The contrast-detection autofocus was about as accurate as the most careful manual focusing.

As long as you have time for CDAF it's great. Unfortunately it's far too slow for some kinds of photography - and anyhow, I don't see any huge deficit of sharpness in DSLR's with their phase detect.

Osvaldo Cristo
Osvaldo Cristo Veteran Member • Posts: 4,347
Look for a Psychologist
4

Look for a Psychologist: these guys that needs continuously to repeat the mantra "DSLR must dye. Mirrorless is all" certainly have some kind of problem...

Regards,

-- hide signature --

O.Cristo - An Amateur Photographer
Opinions of men are almost as various as their faces - so many men so many minds. B. Franklin

 Osvaldo Cristo's gear list:Osvaldo Cristo's gear list
Olympus Stylus 1030 SW Nikon D200 Nikon D300S Nikon D810 Nikon AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED +32 more
Dheorl Veteran Member • Posts: 4,119
Re: Service? and then I read part 1

ryanshoots wrote:

From the article "Moreover, the mediocre customer service and odd warranty policies of firms like Nikon and Canon mean that customers have little brand loyalty beyond the sunk costs of proprietary equipment."

What does Panasonic have in the way of professional services?   They are going to have to get that going to attract pro shooters.  Olympus may have remnants of pro services, but they mostly went away with 4/3 professional shooters.

Do the companies really need to attract many pro shooters? I would have thought most of the money is made selling to joe blog.

... Then I read part one and it all became clear "I confess; I’m a recent convert to the micro four-thirds (m4/3) system."

Yes, for almost 6 whole months he's been a m4/3 user.  What is it about the newly converted that makes them feel the need to proselytize to the masses?  I think it's a sign of insecurity.

There will be a place in the world for FF, APS-C, 4/3 and so on.  I would agree the mirror is going away someday in Nikon and Canon.

Lot's of things missing from the m4/3 lens lineup.  Native tilt shifts, high quality zooms (think Oly SHG level glass).

Lets be fair, do many systems have glass of that standard? I would have said a few of the primes as well as the two panny zooms measure up pretty well to the top Canikon glass. I would like a native shift lens though.

Probably the soonest that is a reality for the pro is when Oly releases a body that will AF it properly.   Sportsshooters are not being served at all by the current m4/3 market.  AF sucks for them and the small sensor requires crazy fast glass to get the thin DOF they want.

My 35-100mm gets DoF thin enough doing sports that if someones face is in focus the hand carrying/foot kicking/bat is already out of focus. How thin do you really need?

Go read John A_G's posts to get a sense of a good sports setup.

How about a good flash system for Panasonic?  I think Olympus' is fairly solid though.

Panasonic can use olympus flashes and the new cameras can also remotely fire them in the same way AFAIK.

And yes you're not as locked in on glass, but sometimes there are issues such as:  No automatic CA correction when mixing and matching body manufacturers and lens manufacturers, or chattering aperture complaints (rattlesnaking I believe it's been called).  Lenses larger than you need because they include IS, but your body already has it.

Do you really thing IS takes up that much space? Go compare the panny 45-150 to the olympus 45-150.

To a small extent m4/3 is Android and Nikon or Canon are Apple as far as the hardware goes.  Both approaches work.

If Pentax is still in existence, how bad do things have to get for DSLR's before Nikon and Canon fold up shop?

Also tired of the cliche of writing an article espousing economic principles from mba programs to try to make your points seem well thought out.  Very very common theme among bloggers.  That is only slightly less cliche than another shot of antelope canyon with light illuminating the dust.  Both make me want to vomit.

Dheorl Veteran Member • Posts: 4,119
Re: Canikon another dinosaur?

Savas Kyprianides wrote:

Immediate sharp focus acquisition during fast, unpredictable action is a dud in Micro 4/3. Fix that, and Micro 4/3 is golden. Then I can see the dinosaur thing taking place.

The focus acquisition is absolutely fine. In fact I rely on it being so fast when shooting sports because I dont shoot burst anyway. It's the tracking that's the problem.

Cimarron Regular Member • Posts: 224
Re: Service? and then I read part 1
1

Midwest wrote:

ryanshoots wrote:

... Then I read part one and it all became clear "I confess; I’m a recent convert to the micro four-thirds (m4/3) system."

Yes, for almost 6 whole months he's been a m4/3 user.  What is it about the newly converted that makes them feel the need to proselytize to the masses?  I think it's a sign of insecurity.

I keep telling those people to take their pamphlets and knock on someone else's door.

Over and over the people who don't use DSLR's are trotting out all their arguments and reasons why the DSLR is going away. You're right - it's all about their insecurity. They are bound and determined to prove that they bought the right camera type by trying to knock down DSLR's or try to prove that they are going to go away.

And someone mentioned 'the demand for smaller cameras.' I don't know where this is coming from... I don't want a smaller camera, I want something that's large enough to have plenty of body controls and be easy to hold and handle. Funny that so many times I see people showing off their m43 and other smaller cameras by putting a huge lens on it and an add-on viewfinder that looks like some kind of plumbing.

The DSLR is going to be around until the manufacturers can make an EVF that is brighter, faster, clearer, and uses less power (<zero) than light itself.

But the fact is that a lot of former DSLR users, myself included, have gone all-in with M43.  I didn't plan to.  I bought an OM-D last year as a lighter travel option to supplement my Nikon D90 and four lenses.  But when I saw what the OM-D could do, and how much more comfortable it and its lenses were to use and carry -- well, all the Nikon stuff is gone now and I have six superb (and very small) M43 lenses to go with my OM-D.

Fact No. 2 is that M43 is also gaining traction among professional photographers.  I come across another blog or video almost every day in which a pro talks about his/her conversion from 35mm-equivalent DSLR to M43.

Fact No. 3 is that most photographers today -- even the professional ones -- don't actually need 35mm-equivalent DSLRs.  Why? Because the output vehicles degrade the image so much anyway.  Most pictures taken these days are displayed on small cell phone screens or computer screens of various sizes.  And most of those images are reduced significantly in order to be small enough to load and display quickly.  Even an HDTV picture is only 2 megapixels, so a 24- or 36-mp sensor is extreme overkill.

In the print world, check out the grainy, fuzzy photos in your daily newspaper.  Does anyone think a 35mm-equivalent sensor is needed to produce such crappy images? Of course not. And even in high-quality glossy magazines, a full-page photo only has the equivalent of 5 mp.

Kirk Tuck, who uses mirrorless cameras and a Sony A99, says the benefits of 35mm-equivalent cameras really only become apparent in a studio, on a tripod, where you can take advantage of all that fabulous resolution.  But even then, if his fabulous studio shots end up in a magazine or on a computer screen, that 35mm-equivalent advantage is negated.

Will Crockett, a professional photographer in Chicago who uses all kinds of cameras, says he does a test in his studio.  He takes a photograph, blows it up to 24x24 inches, sticks it on a wall and asks his staff and colleagues if they'd feel comfortable charging a client $400 for it.  Results: The M43 images stand up just as well as the 35mm-equivalents.

Fact No. 4: DSLRs are still using last-century technology.  When SLRs morphed from film to digital, camera makers just slapped a sensor in there to replace the film, and voila!  But in the digital world, there simply is no need for a flopping mirror or, for that matter, a mechanical shutter.

Fact No. 5: M43 offers two key differentiators: video compatiblity and small lens size/weight.  As more and more clients and consumers want still photos AND video, M43 cameras offer a single, great solution in one small package.  Shooting video with a DSLR is an extreme pain, because of that antiquated mirror being in the way.  Mirrorless cameras, on the other hand, are perfect for such jobs.

And skeptics may discount the size/weight advantage of M43, but it is real.  Ask any amateur or pro who's made the switch and that  is likely to be the No. 1 factor.  Other mirrorless systems offer small bodies, but the smaller M43 sensor means M43 lenses can be made significantly smaller and lighter.

Look, I'm not rooting for the demise of the DSLR either. I've had SLRs and then DSLRs for 40 years.  But the fact is that their mirrors are being rendered obsolete by digital technology, both inside the camera and in the output media.  However, I don't think they'll entirely disappear.  After all, you can still buy turntables.

 Cimarron's gear list:Cimarron's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Fujifilm X-T20 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Samyang 8mm F2.8 UMC Fisheye +4 more
SkiHound Veteran Member • Posts: 3,388
Re: Great article
1

Well, I do think mirrorless cameras are likely the future but I think Nikon and Canon have sufficient market presence and and market image that SLRs will be around for a while. Especially FF SLRs. There are inherent advantages, and disadvantages, to sensors of different sizes -- at least with current technology. Most folks still look at an SLR as a different animal than something like an Pen, even if the IQ is very comparable. The PDAF systems still trump CDAF for continuous AF tracking. And for fast action, as good as the EVFs are and, IMO, they have become very very good, a large OVF is probably still an advantage. But we kind of see that mirrorless technologies are closing the gap and at some point the disadvantages of mirrors and separate focusing sensors will likely yield. But I think it will be a slow process and pros who depend on systems are not likely to change anytime soon. My take is that Nikon and Canon are very reluctant to make the jump into a system that really competes with their APS-C SLRs. If they create a new system based on APS-C or similar sized system they could still become dominant players. But the initial Canon offering seemed a couple of generations too late and the Nikon 1 system seems designed to not steal sales from APS-C. It'll be interesting to see how Canon and Nikon respond.

Sean Nelson
Sean Nelson Forum Pro • Posts: 12,985
Re: Say what?????

Richard wrote:

The m43rds format is going away, why should they spend money competing against something that will go away eventually. Canons answer is for Canon users that already have lenses.

That sounds very much like Microsoft's attitude.   It's precisely that attitude that now has them scrambling to get a bit of a toehold in the in the mobile market before they loose it completely.

I don't think DSLRs are going to disappear, but I think the advantages of smaller mirrorless systems, both for the most typical users and in terms of manufacturing cost, are going to tilt the industry toward them over the coming years.  And the point will come when, if you're not an established manufacturer with a well supported ecosystem, you're really going to miss out on the opportunities the way Microsoft has with the mobile market.

I'm still waiting to see if Canon is ever going to take mirrorless cameras seriously, because their first effort certainly fell flat in my estimation.  It's not a product that can attract new users on its own merits, it's just an attempt to stop existing users from jumping ship.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads