Canikon another dinosaur?

Started Jun 3, 2013 | Discussions
Chad Gladstone Senior Member • Posts: 2,608
Re: Canikon another dinosaur?
4

There is no way either company will risk resting on its laurels and risk substantial capital investment.  They must and will continue to innovate and provide the products that their existing customer's demand while remaining on the bleeding edge of what is technologically practicable in producing economies of scale, attempting to anticipate the evolving needs of future markets.  Feasibility of this proposition has little to do with 4/3rd's because they are not even a statistically relevant player in the market.

4/3rds faces substantial competition from both the optimal convenience of improving portability/functionality and technological innovation from the smart phone industry (or other unforeseen future technological innovation that makes carrying a separate imaging system, redundant), and pressure from above from full frame, ultimate IQ/fastest capture acquistions, etc (I am not attempting to debate the strides that mirrorless or 4/3rds have made in bridging the gap, only pointing out that both are continuing to advance their capacities and that DSLR has substantially more latitude to evolve) and restrained the least by diffraction limited optics.

Trying to strike a balance between IQ and portability is tantamount to striving for mediocrity.  It ensures failure in any ultimate achievement by providing a system, neither compact enough to pocket, nor appreciably more capable for those who demand the highest performance the industry has to offer.  This race to the middle with eradicate itself through inefficiencies, and competing redundant technology companies who continue to extol the virtues of carrying multiple lenses leaving both the casual shooter and the sophisticated enthusiast with little desire to carry a system mired in a stark compromises of both.

4/3 is just too big and too small at the same time.  It has failed to make any demonstrable market penetration because meets neither market's requirement, and the "collaborative effort," (termed loosely) appears apt to compete against itself into relative obscurity and no meaning roadmap for long term viability.  How long with each company continue to sink capital into an investment with no appreciable rate of return? One year, two, five?  Your guess is as good as mine, but at present, they are not making money for their investors from any of the data I am privy to.

Just as pocketable P&S continue to been squeezed out by smart phones from below (for their diminutive size and the reality that we all carry one, anyway), and above by hitting the diffraction wall, so too will 4/3rds.  It is the middle tier that is most susceptible to being made redundant.  APS-C may be next, but if DSLR ultimately loses market share by lacking any meaningful relevance in the long run, it will not be because of any disruptive technologies that 4/3's has to bear at present.  In the future, the companies with the most to lose will not relinquish their market share by remaining dormant and will continue to innovative just as they have been since the beginning of the digital revolution.  If they go down, it is because the consumer base will be wholly content with the capabilities of convenience over function.

Just as CD's that have become largely irrelevant it has little to do with their acoustic qualities, it is far more about sheer convenience.  I play them  (CD's) for my kids and they can audibly appreciate acoustical superiority, they just don't care.  They are equally unenthused by the prospect of learning a system and carrying a camera that requires multiple lens changes - even if they observe a stark superiority in images as small as an instagram post, again, they just don't care.

The Sun Times reporters were not offered smaller cameras (AFAIK), the photo staff were laid off entirely, and the reporters were trained in iphone capability.  The wisdom of this draconian maneuver remains to be seen, but it has little to do with the capability of either the equipment or the photographers, themselves - 4/3rd's would not have saved them.

-- hide signature --

Chad Gladstone

 Chad Gladstone's gear list:Chad Gladstone's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G +7 more
Ulric Veteran Member • Posts: 4,558
Re: Service? and then I read part 1

Midwest wrote:

Great! I'm glad you're happy. But you apparently don't do the same type of shooting I enjoy, and I would not enjoy my kind of shooting at all if I had to fight an EVF that lags or tears or freezes or is too dim to view on a bright sunny day without waiting several seconds for my eye to adjust to it.

Life must suck in your alternate reality.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +13 more
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 13,144
And Yet....
3

.....no mirrorless camera maker is making ANY money at all.

Canon and Nikon are quite profitable.  Mirrorless is losing heaps of money.

-- hide signature --

9 years of Fujifilm camera usage, ended by rampant fanboyism.

Jorginho Forum Pro • Posts: 14,791
Re: Why m4/3ds won't last.
1

I will start by saying I think this whole piece is far fetched. I think he is clearly downplaying the Nikon 1. It is not too late, indeed it is getting lenses. Also via the adapter people can use their older lenses (unlike m43, in which 43 lenses are slowwww). Nikon has responded and the 1 seems to be targetted to compete with m43 on the same basis and for similar users: those who appreciate a small package and are willing to sacrifice some IQ.

It is not embarrassing to see these kind of pieces to my mind though as mirrorless is a serious change in photog technology. Something that has been there for over 50 years is on the brink of extinction. Rationally there seems to be no way around this. With ever better EVFs the mirrors downsides are overtaking its advantages. Current sales are not a good predictor for the future when we talk about 10 years because current sales are based on yesterdays reality which is the current perception of most buyers and some tech is not there yet for EVFs, for AF tracking (for most systems) etc...

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 or Nikon in any way, accept for size, which both Canon and Nikon have answered with their own mirrorless.

It has. Weight is at least as important as size. Those are two factors. Liveview is better, video is better, focussing in video and aftracking in video is MUCH better (GH3). The EVF provides data an OVF can get you (exposure info in the form of highlit areas), the use of MF lenses, focus peaking.
Also S-AF on m43 cams is faster than any DSLR and more accurate.

But most of these are specialities not important for the market. Portability is may be just one factor, but it is very important. Look at tablets: they do not have the capabilites of notebooks, they are not small but they are smaller and lighter than notebooks. And popular. mFTs in functionality is much closer to DSLR than a tablet is to a notebook...

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.

They do not. Oly has a load of primes Panny does nothave. Panny has a couple zooms Oly does nothave. And primes Oly does not have too. there is very little overlap. what is more troublingis the lack of IBIs in Panny cams or the lack of OIs on some Oly lenses that prevent interchageability without a sacrifice. panny is coming with IBIS in its next model. If so, that problem is gone.

So while this is an advantage on paper, when you compare the lens line up, they can't compare to Nikon or Canon. Thus their eventual death.

If so than it would never ever haven taken off as they started out with only two lenses.In your logic, no one whould have bought it in the first place. The fact is that they have carved out a considerable market of 1:4 (CSC: DSLR) in 4 years. The reason for this is that I think you underestimate the importance of size and weight to many.
I have a GH2 which I now use for film mostly and as a backup. I cannot have that cam with me in my coatpocket. It is too big especially. I do have my EPL5 with 20 mm and 45 mm with me. every day. it is not noticable. There is no way you can do this conveniently with any DSLR.

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

The lesser IQ on current mFT is minimal. As I said: tablets are less techologically in each and every way compared to a notebook. But that doesn't matter. What matter is that it is good enough for *by far) the most and much more convenient.
You consider OVFs superior and they are in some way. But first of all: not all OVFs are created equal. Second of all: they are inferior in other ways. if you really want to know what you are doing and how yourpic will look like an EVF is superior.

Everyone here says, get rid of the mirror. But Canon and Nikon can do that by moving the mirror up, and as live view gets better, what advantage will m43rds have? Size/weight to combat all the downsides.

Again: those downsides are not downsides for a majority of people easily. I think you overplay them and downplay size and weight. We already see some pro's using mFT exclusively. So we are not talking about a P&S crowd (only). mFTs are already that good. The only thing I can come up with where they still are  lagging is Af tracking with pics.

The video implementation of mFT is far superior. For quite a few people, that is important too.

I say it will die off. It is already relegated to the niche market and we are seeing a decline in the US. I think its time is limited.

The US was not a main market from the start. As an example, the first new models and lenses are almost always available elsewhere first.

The US always had big cars etc. But that has not prevented smaller and "greener" cars to flourish elsewhere on the planet.

I have no magic ball. It could die off just like DSLRs etc. We'll see. it is not veyr important. I use cams as a tool. I will get the thing that has sealed its fait if that is the case.

Now possibly mirrorless will stick around and may even work its way out of niche market but that little to do with the format (sensor size) and only to do with display.

If youhave 20-25% of the total market that is not a niche I think. But it is so in the USA I think.with 250-300 million people, the USA is an ever smaller part of the world when other economies are rising and its people are rich enough to buy these cams.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +8 more
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 13,144
Re: Service? and then I read part 1
5

Ulric wrote:

Midwest wrote:

Great! I'm glad you're happy. But you apparently don't do the same type of shooting I enjoy, and I would not enjoy my kind of shooting at all if I had to fight an EVF that lags or tears or freezes or is too dim to view on a bright sunny day without waiting several seconds for my eye to adjust to it.

Life must suck in your alternate reality.

That you need to denigrate someone's experience shows how utterly bankrupt your position is.

-- hide signature --

9 years of Fujifilm camera usage, ended by rampant fanboyism.

PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 14,049
Smaller sensor almost killed Nikon in the pro market
2

novaoz wrote:

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

http://chasinglightphotography.com/blog/

When Nikon said that they would go for the 1.5x APS-C (DX) format also in the pro cameras, they were almost killed in the pro market by Canon with their 1.3x APS-H sensors.

Then Nikon decided the smaller sensor was the wrong way and developed the D3 with its FF sensor and made a spectacular comeback, regaining market share very fast.

For several years Canon maintained that the 1.3x crop was what the pros wanted for sports, because a 300 2.8 would be like 400 2.8 etc, all the time bleeding market share and status and mindshare among the pros.

Finally Canon instead went for FF in the 1DX, and now C and N are evenly matched.

All the arguments you hear about "reach advantage", more compact teles etc, with m43 also applies to the 1.5x and 1.3x vs FF. Both Nikon and Canon has pretty competitive APS-C cameras, yet the pros prefer FF.

Why - because the results simply are better, and that is all that matters if you want to compete with the best.

-- hide signature --
nzmacro
nzmacro Forum Pro • Posts: 16,168
Mirrorless lenses = LPs
3

Just Having Fun wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

Canon and Nikon have no problem

http://www.dpreview.com/products/Nikon/lenses

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses

Danny

Those DLSR lenses are like LPs (records).   They will always work, and some will prefer them, but records were mostly replaced by smaller CDs...which are now being replaced by MP3 (which mostly have lesser quality).

Sure DSLR lenses will work on mirrorless cameras, but in few years almost everyone will prefer smaller/optimized mirrorless lenses.

When it comes to long fast lenses m4/3, NEX and mirrorless is the LP and DSLR's are the DVD's.

There are no native lenses for m4/3, NEX or mirroless that will convince a lot of serious nature and sports shooters and then there is that sensor size. I shoot next to them all the time mate and what they take at the ISO's they use is quite amazing to see and they still crop heavily.

Without the lenses, it just doesn't stack up for mirrorless. Canon and Nikon have that market sewn up and people are already addicted to the lenses they have.

All the best and the DSLR for nature and sports is going nowhere

Danny.

-- hide signature --
 nzmacro's gear list:nzmacro's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Sony a7 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Olympus E-M1 II +6 more
panos_m Senior Member • Posts: 1,507
Re: Canikon another dinosaur?
1

novaoz wrote:

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

http://chasinglightphotography.com/blog/

Lenses don't expire and there are 75 million Nikon and 90 million Canon lenses already produced. I wonder who is going to serve them if Canon and Nikon disappear?

-- hide signature --

Panagiotis

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,590
Re: Canikon another dinosaur?

panos_m wrote:

novaoz wrote:

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

http://chasinglightphotography.com/blog/

Lenses don't expire and there are 75 million Nikon and 90 million Canon lenses already produced. I wonder who is going to serve them if Canon and Nikon disappear?

Not that I expect Canon or Nikon to diasappear  but most of those lenses have been sitting unused in cupboards or lofts for years.  And Grandpa is getting on a bit so he won't be using his for much longer.

The rest, well who cares really.   Any more than for those millions of audio systems that have ended up in landfill.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,590
Re: Canikon another dinosaur?
1

Chad Gladstone wrote:

There is no way either company will risk resting on its laurels and risk substantial capital investment.  They must and will continue to innovate and provide the products that their existing customer's demand while remaining on the bleeding edge of what is technologically practicable in producing economies of scale, attempting to anticipate the evolving needs of future markets.  Feasibility of this proposition has little to do with 4/3rd's because they are not even a statistically relevant player in the market.

4/3rds faces substantial competition from both the optimal convenience of improving portability/functionality and technological innovation from the smart phone industry (or other unforeseen future technological innovation that makes carrying a separate imaging system, redundant), and pressure from above from full frame, ultimate IQ/fastest capture acquistions, etc (I am not attempting to debate the strides that mirrorless or 4/3rds have made in bridging the gap, only pointing out that both are continuing to advance their capacities and that DSLR has substantially more latitude to evolve) and restrained the least by diffraction limited optics.

Trying to strike a balance between IQ and portability is tantamount to striving for mediocrity.  It ensures failure in any ultimate achievement by providing a system, neither compact enough to pocket, nor appreciably more capable for those who demand the highest performance the industry has to offer.  This race to the middle with eradicate itself through inefficiencies, and competing redundant technology companies who continue to extol the virtues of carrying multiple lenses leaving both the casual shooter and the sophisticated enthusiast with little desire to carry a system mired in a stark compromises of both.

4/3 is just too big and too small at the same time.  It has failed to make any demonstrable market penetration because meets neither market's requirement, and the "collaborative effort," (termed loosely) appears apt to compete against itself into relative obscurity and no meaning roadmap for long term viability.  How long with each company continue to sink capital into an investment with no appreciable rate of return? One year, two, five?  Your guess is as good as mine, but at present, they are not making money for their investors from any of the data I am privy to.

Just as pocketable P&S continue to been squeezed out by smart phones from below (for their diminutive size and the reality that we all carry one, anyway), and above by hitting the diffraction wall, so too will 4/3rds.  It is the middle tier that is most susceptible to being made redundant.  APS-C may be next, but if DSLR ultimately loses market share by lacking any meaningful relevance in the long run, it will not be because of any disruptive technologies that 4/3's has to bear at present.  In the future, the companies with the most to lose will not relinquish their market share by remaining dormant and will continue to innovative just as they have been since the beginning of the digital revolution.  If they go down, it is because the consumer base will be wholly content with the capabilities of convenience over function.

Just as CD's that have become largely irrelevant it has little to do with their acoustic qualities, it is far more about sheer convenience.  I play them  (CD's) for my kids and they can audibly appreciate acoustical superiority, they just don't care.  They are equally unenthused by the prospect of learning a system and carrying a camera that requires multiple lens changes - even if they observe a stark superiority in images as small as an instagram post, again, they just don't care.

The Sun Times reporters were not offered smaller cameras (AFAIK), the photo staff were laid off entirely, and the reporters were trained in iphone capability.  The wisdom of this draconian maneuver remains to be seen, but it has little to do with the capability of either the equipment or the photographers, themselves - 4/3rd's would not have saved them.

Finally!  Someone who engaged their brian before they allowed their fingers near the keyboard.

PhotoKhan Forum Pro • Posts: 10,937
That this is...

...such a typical case of "wishful thinking" presented as prediction of things guaranteed to happen, is just unfortunate.

That the author reveals such ignorance on what is, technically-wise, lined up for the future and the way it can affected that very same "wishful thinking" is a bit more serious.

That, apparently, he teaches MBA corporate classes while projecting inaccurately perceived past-processes analysis into wrongly-deducted guaranteed future events is plain worrisome.

He really should not try to play Nostradamus and just stick to the other usefully, relevant and engaging stuff I found in his other articles.

(...he does have a point amidst all that "wishful thinking" gibberish...Can you spot it?...)

PK

-- hide signature --

“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 37,748
Re: Canikon another dinosaur?

meland wrote:

novaoz wrote:

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

http://chasinglightphotography.com/blog/

As all the respondents to this thread are probably camera enthusiasts, or they wouldn't be in a DPR forum in the first place, most of the arguments in this thread are likely to be based on what enthusiasts want, or think they want.

Now if you asked my children (both mid 20s) what they think, they would tell you that they think even the concept of M4/3 or NEX or EOS M, or Nikon 1 is a dinosaur.  Why?  Because unless you are an enthusiast then the thought of having to handle anything that requires lens changing, or having to understand what shutter speed and apertures do, or let alone the complexities of RAW formats and the need for PP, is complete nonsense. Now (you, me and other enthusiasts) currently love this kind of stuff but for how much longer?  As an example look at HiFi.  When I left university most of my peers aspired to two, maybe three things - a car, a good HiFi and perhaps a camera.  What has since happened to the HiFi market? A few esoteric and very expensive products sit at the very top end and everyone else is happy with their iPhones (or similar).  Audio quality? Who really gives a s**t!  It's good enough.

So all those people who just wanted a camera to record their kids and were sold Olympus OM-Is or Canon AE-1s because that's the only way they could get half decent photos, what happened to them?  Well a few became enthusiasts of course but the vast majority bought a digital compact as soon as those became available and put the OM-1 in a cupboard somewhere.  And newcomers to whom film was as archaic as a wax drum for music, what did they do?  Yes, we're back to the smartphone with its built in camera again. And if they do want a bit more zoom they might just buy a bridge camera.  50x zoom, relatively small, inexpensive and the IQ is fine for most purposes.

So the dilemma for Canon and Nikon is not how to make equipment that is attractive for DPR readers but how to make it attractive to our children and theirs.  Catering just for a group of enthusiasts who are rapidly ageing is rather like Toyota banking their total business plan on the desires of the classic car market. And as for the Pro market, well 1) it is tiny, and 2) they are far less hung up about equipment will use whatever works (as long as they can still get paid).

Sorry folks, unfortunately just tinkering with marginally smaller formats or getting mirrorless cameras to focus slightly faster just isn't going to cut it.

Well said.

Note also the locking in of users to lens mount systems.  Those that are locked in to Nikon or Canon mounts need to feel that they defend their turf.  But as noted a new generation not already locked in to a dslr mount system might more likely lock themself into the M4/3 or NEX or whatever rather than the dslr which may start looking like that dinosauer to them.  Just as much as those that love their dslr-capable lenses love them to bits so will (eg:) M4/3 camera system owners become equally locked in to their M4/3 lens stock and be just as happy.  When the dslr becomes grandpappy-gear it will no longer be cool.  This is no matter how well it works, people came to laugh at the plate glass camera as much as the Graphlex is about to start a riot if seen used in public these days.

So I am not a dslr hater or killer-off.  I have a great collection of Canon EF lenses that I really respect.  I just get more fun out of them these days using them on a NEX6 and electronic lens adapter.

My guess is that my NEX6 as an aps-c camera captures as good and image as my aps-c Canon dslr body using the same lenses - that is what it is all about for Canon.

Canon could make a better EVIL-type body for its EF lenses but simply chooses not to do so whilst it can still raise premium prices for dslr bodies.

As the original article states many companies will follow their refined established technology to their death rather than introduce themself to new technology that might compete with their present image and customer base.  It is nothing to do whether dslr or EVIL-type is better.  If Canon did decide to make a professional level EVIL-type camera then its customer base would have a choice and the market would decide which they preferred.  Those that wanted a dslr could keep on buying them (great) and those that wanted to fly with the EVIL-type version could buy them.  It is more the reluctance of the dslr manufacturers to grasp the nettle that is the observation.

If Nikon and Canon choose not to offer high level EVIL-type cameras then they risk a new generation of consumers locking into a different mount system than theirs.  Their problem, not ours to argue about.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 14,049
Grandpappy-gear
3

When the dslr becomes grandpappy-gear it will no longer be cool.  This is no matter how well it works, people came to laugh at the plate glass camera as much as the Graphlex is about to start a riot if seen used in public these days.

Actually I believe that young ambitious professionals today are more likely to want to use the heavy duty pro stuff from Nikon and Canon.

Choosing conivience and comfort in carrying over results and performance is more like grandpa-style, I would say.

-- hide signature --
Andy Crowe Senior Member • Posts: 1,587
Don't forget the FF sensor to go with that 40mm lens.

ryanshoots wrote:

It is a good lens.  On FF it's the same as the Panny 20 f/1.7 on m4/3.  Except it's higher quality, produces better images, focuses fast on all the cameras if fits on and costs less than 1/2 of the Panny.

Ok, so to get similar image quality as a $1000 425g camera + $250 100g lens you need a $1650 770g camera + $140 130g lens?

Just Having Fun Veteran Member • Posts: 3,869
Your Urban Legend
2

Midwest wrote:

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...

That of course is an Urban Legend.

DPR for years (since the GH2) has been reporting that many CDAF cameras are some of the fastest focusing cameras on the market.

(example: "Single AF acquisition is impressively fast - using most Micro Four Thirds lenses will result in some of the fastest focus on any system.")

So while focus tracking is still an Achilles heal, CDAF does offer more accurate focusing and  "some of the fastest focus on any system".

Just Having Fun Veteran Member • Posts: 3,869
Re: Even funnier

Richard wrote:

Just Having Fun wrote:

Your posts always amuse me.  I still love your rant about how you ONLY a "Canon 1D level of camera" is considered professional.

No rant, just the facts ma'am

This of course right about the same time the Sun-Times fired all their DSLR using photographers and told them to get iPhones.  Go figure - your timing stinks.

Doesn't change the fact they are pro cameras in a pro camera line and the m43 are not pro cameras. Sorry that doesn't fit into your little delusion.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger!  It was just funny that the actual people who employ "professional" photographers said the opposite of your rant.   Sorry that conflicts with your little delusion.

Just Having Fun Veteran Member • Posts: 3,869
Only if...

Abrak wrote:

Overall I think that Canon and Nikon are being pretty smart. They are dominating the DSLR market with very little competition because their competitors are looking elsewhere. Meanwhile they dont feel the need to compete (aggressively) in mirrorless because the players are killing each other fighting over a very small market.

For the first 4 months of the year 859,000 mirrorless ILCs were shipped (according to CIPA). There are currently 8 players competing in the mirrorless market with each player averaging 100,000 shipments each so far this year. I suspect there are no winners in the mirrorless market.

Mirrorless has gone form 0 to 20% of the ILC market over the past few years.

What you say above would only be true if mirrorless stays at that 20% (or less) for the next 10 years.

Let's see what happens.

MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 37,748
Re: Grandpappy-gear

PerL wrote:

When the dslr becomes grandpappy-gear it will no longer be cool.  This is no matter how well it works, people came to laugh at the plate glass camera as much as the Graphlex is about to start a riot if seen used in public these days.

Actually I believe that young ambitious professionals today are more likely to want to use the heavy duty pro stuff from Nikon and Canon.

Choosing conivience and comfort in carrying over results and performance is more like grandpa-style, I would say.

Worth a grin on a contentious topic.

I know that struggling to a shoot with a great big camera sporting an even bigger lens and a big bag of accessories surely gets more respect and a bigger fee than any EVIL-type camera with a miniature lens.

That need to impress the client will keep the dslr camera in business for a while yet. We now know why the young professionals on the make find it obligatory to own a Canon 70-200 f2.8 L - apart from it being a great lens of course.

I might wonder if some clued up manufacturer could make a convincing looking case into which a small Evil-type camera could be hidden discreetly so as to preserve the professional look?

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 37,748
Re: Smaller sensor almost killed Nikon in the pro market

PerL wrote:

novaoz wrote:

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

http://chasinglightphotography.com/blog/

When Nikon said that they would go for the 1.5x APS-C (DX) format also in the pro cameras, they were almost killed in the pro market by Canon with their 1.3x APS-H sensors.

Then Nikon decided the smaller sensor was the wrong way and developed the D3 with its FF sensor and made a spectacular comeback, regaining market share very fast.

For several years Canon maintained that the 1.3x crop was what the pros wanted for sports, because a 300 2.8 would be like 400 2.8 etc, all the time bleeding market share and status and mindshare among the pros.

Finally Canon instead went for FF in the 1DX, and now C and N are evenly matched.

All the arguments you hear about "reach advantage", more compact teles etc, with m43 also applies to the 1.5x and 1.3x vs FF. Both Nikon and Canon has pretty competitive APS-C cameras, yet the pros prefer FF.

Why - because the results simply are better, and that is all that matters if you want to compete with the best.

Yep, I am hardly "a pro" but I have fun with a number of cameras but when on a mission and no mistakes are permitted I take my dslr kit still.

But this does not mean that there will never be an EVIL-type camera that will compete with a dslr nor that Canon and Nikon could not make quite a good fist of such a camera should they choose to do so - make a FF fist when they are at it to get the best out of their existing lenses.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Olymore
Olymore Senior Member • Posts: 1,776
Re: Mirrorless lenses = LPs

I'm not disagreeing with you but don't you think that what you shoot is fairly specialised.

Most consumers with an interest in photography will be going for smaller equipment with a corresponding smaller sensor as the quality is 'good enough'.

However I still think Canon and Nikon will be the big boys operating in that sphere.

And I think Nikon was actually ahead of their time with their mirrorless system (though poorly implemented).

If M43 sensors are good enough for most people now, 1 inch and Nikon 1 sensors will be good enough in a few years time.

 Olymore's gear list:Olymore's gear list
Olympus E-M1
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads