Why Thom is wrong...

[Richard]

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now. They push the mirror out of the way when they go into live view. The first objection is that the AF is faster on mirrorless, sure using on sensor AF on a DSLR. Right now that is true but if you think Canonikon is going to sit on the hands and not improve live view to the point it is better than current mirrorless, I think they are smarter than that. It will happen or Canonikon will die. Mirrorless will lose the AF advantage in live view.

2. Canikon already have EVF, on the back of the camera for live view. They also can use a laptop, tablet or smart phone as a remote. They have had this for some time. Mirrorless has no advantage there.

3. Canikon can make smaller dslrs with APS-C that will be able to compete with mirrorless or they can produce better EOSM and V1 units. Again, they cover Pro, Advanced amateur, beginner, small size DSLRs. (they both produce point and shoots too.)

At this point mirrorless has no advantage and has disadvantages compared to Canikon solutions.

So is mirrorless really going to be dead? No, I think M43 because of the number of lenses and market penetration even though small will survived as a niche market camera. BUT I only think there will be 2 major players, Sony and Panny, possibly Sony and Oly but Oly seems to be on its way out or at least to a reduced market share and segment at this point.

Thom can predict, but so can I. I think that cell phones will only get better and be good enough for the masses, and Canikon will take up the rest of the market with some mirrorless being niche while other disappear. Because Japanese culture is different, it is hard for me to predict what they will buy. I am sure budding Asian markets will embrace cell phones, with pros and advanced amatuers buying Canikon.

Canikons strength is not just DSLR, it is lenses APS-C for smaller cameras and FF which mirrorless lacks.

I think most camera people know these points already and if they are honest with themselves, they already know mirrorless in its present form is not where it is at.

 

[Beach Bum]

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now. They push the mirror out of the way when they go into live view. The first objection is that the AF is faster on mirrorless, sure using on sensor AF on a DSLR. Right now that is true but if you think Canonikon is going to sit on the hands and not improve live view to the point it is better than current mirrorless, I think they are smarter than that. It will happen or Canonikon will die. Mirrorless will lose the AF advantage in live view.

2. Canikon already have EVF, on the back of the camera for live view. They also can use a laptop, tablet or smart phone as a remote. They have had this for some time. Mirrorless has no advantage there.

3. Canikon can make smaller dslrs with APS-C that will be able to compete with mirrorless or they can produce better EOSM and V1 units. Again, they cover Pro, Advanced amateur, beginner, small size DSLRs. (they both produce point and shoots too.)

At this point mirrorless has no advantage and has disadvantages compared to Canikon solutions.

So is mirrorless really going to be dead? No, I think M43 because of the number of lenses and market penetration even though small will survived as a niche market camera. BUT I only think there will be 2 major players, Sony and Panny, possibly Sony and Oly but Oly seems to be on its way out or at least to a reduced market share and segment at this point.

Thom can predict, but so can I. I think that cell phones will only get better and be good enough for the masses, and Canikon will take up the rest of the market with some mirrorless being niche while other disappear. Because Japanese culture is different, it is hard for me to predict what they will buy. I am sure budding Asian markets will embrace cell phones, with pros and advanced amatuers buying Canikon.

Canikons strength is not just DSLR, it is lenses APS-C for smaller cameras and FF which mirrorless lacks.

I think most camera people know these points already and if they are honest with themselves, they already know mirrorless in its present form is not where it is at.

They don't act like mirrorless for a number of reasons. Most mirrorless cameras have a shorter flange focal distance due to the lack of a mirror, which allows greater leeway in lens design and possibly the option of making smaller or cheaper lenses while maintaining image quality. Also, it allows the adoption of a lot more lenses from different manufacturers to your system.

The reason they can have this short flange distance is because they're not encumbered by a mirror. Neither Nikon or Canon have any significant market share in ILC's with short FFDs.

Also, you claim Canon and Nikon are smarter than this and can improve their contrast detect autofocus, yet I've seen no evidence of this whatsoever. Ask yourself why Panasonic and Sony can be so good here yet Canon and Nikon so poor. The answer is quite simply the availability of resources. Panasonic and Sony are far larger than Canon or Nikon and have far more resources available to them to develop tech. It's really the same reason Panny and Sony are so good at video while Canon and Nikon (especially Nikon) are not so good.

This is the reason why Panasonic and Sony are so consistent in quality across their line-up while Canon and Nikon have to cut corners in some models.

In short, I don't believe either Canon or Nikon are "smarter" in any way, shape, or form, and, in fact, are outgunned in a number of ways. My belief is that Panny, Sony, and/or Olympus will eventually overtake CaNikon in overall autofocus when they develop on sensor PDAF to perfection (combined with their already stellar CDAF). The mirror is going to be rendered obsolete eventually, and camera manufacturers with already established marketshare in cameras with short FFDs will have the edge.

 

[Mike_PEAT]

Both Canon and Nikon used to produce FF (35mm/135 format) SLRs that are close in size to the E-M5.

If they want to compete, why don't they reproduce this with their FF (NOT APS) dSLRs? If Canikon users are abanding their big, bulky, heavy dSLRs for the Olympus E-M5, surely the answer is for Canikon to return to making normal sized cameras again like they used to when they made film SLRs!

 

[MarkJH]

Seems like a reasonable look at one possible future to me, Richard. That said, after pondering the logic as you'd suggested, I had a few thoughts.

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now. They push the mirror out of the way when they go into live view. The first objection is that the AF is faster on mirrorless, sure using on sensor AF on a DSLR. Right now that is true but if you think Canonikon is going to sit on the hands and not improve live view to the point it is better than current mirrorless, I think they are smarter than that. It will happen or Canonikon will die. Mirrorless will lose the AF advantage in live view.

I'm missing the evidence for your CaNikon confidence, here. It's true that both companies are clearly putting r&d into better on-sensor focus systems, but neither is yet coming away with a clear victory. The Canon 70D's "dual-pixel" phase sensor, as a case in point, really does dramatically improve live-view performance, but it's still not as fast or as confident as Olympus's contast-detection for stills. And, in time Canon took to develop it, Olympus cooked some improvements into their system such that the new EM-1 now offers true phase-detect continuous performance.

So, it looks (to me, anyway) like all the parties are inching forward, and the relative advantages among them haven't decisively changed. Olympus is still the fastest single-shot AF in town. I guess we'll have to see things like EM-1 vs. 70D continuous video AF results to really judge more.

Of all the players, it seems at the moment that Nikon is really lagging in this area. But maybe they've got something in the works that we don't know about?

2. Canikon already have EVF, on the back of the camera for live view. They also can use a laptop, tablet or smart phone as a remote. They have had this for some time. Mirrorless has no advantage there.

Well, except that Olympus cooked a remote wi-fi implementation into the OM-1, and most Nikon DSLRs require an extra off-camera dongle to do similar stuff.

3. Canikon can make smaller dslrs with APS-C that will be able to compete with mirrorless or they can produce better EOSM and V1 units. Again, they cover Pro, Advanced amateur, beginner, small size DSLRs. (they both produce point and shoots too.)

The new tiny EOS SL1 definitely gives mirrorless cameras like the OM-D and GH series a run on size, but the OM-D and GH cameras are so much better specified. The SL1 uses the ancient 18 megapixel sensor, doesn't have an articulated screen, doesn't offer AF fine-tune (so that wide-aperture shooting is gonna be tough). I can't imagine anyone choosing an SL1 over a GH3, for example, for video.

And the Nikon 1 cameras really do silo you into their sensor size: you have to be cool with limited shallow DoF options to like them, though certainly there's plenty of great photography for which that'd be OK.

I guess what I am saying here, again, is that I see valid CaNikon competition, but I don't any real advantages, andi don't see any real evidence that any are coming. As with your other two points, it seems like they've left a door or two open for competitors to exploit, and competitors have.

At this point mirrorless has no advantage and has disadvantages compared to Canikon solutions.

Well, I can think of a few. Micro 4/3 has a wonderful lens system right now, with exceptional primes. CaNikon do, too, but only for FX and at a serious cost premium. Pentax, maybe, comes closest with their dA Limited glass. Panasonic micro 4/3 is really wonderful for video: excellent codec / output / audio flexibility that only Canon really approaches. Olympus offers the industry's best image stabilization, and it's in-body, so it covers any lens you mount.

And then there's the EVF. Some love it, some hate it, but it does enable some interesting possibilities if you're inclined to take advantage of them. Seeing your exposure, white balance, tone curve, and histogram live, while you shoot, through the viewfinder opens some big doors for many kinds of photography.

So is mirrorless really going to be dead? No, I think M43 because of the number of lenses and market penetration even though small will survived as a niche market camera. BUT I only think there will be 2 major players, Sony and Panny, possibly Sony and Oly but Oly seems to be on its way out or at least to a reduced market share and segment at this point.

Thom can predict, but so can I. I think that cell phones will only get better and be good enough for the masses, and Canikon will take up the rest of the market with some mirrorless being niche while other disappear. Because Japanese culture is different, it is hard for me to predict what they will buy. I am sure budding Asian markets will embrace cell phones, with pros and advanced amatuers buying Canikon.

Why are you sure of this? I thought the word was that mirrorless was doing incredibly well in Asia--that it's only in North America and Europe that mirrorless sales are flat. Is that not true?

Canikons strength is not just DSLR, it is lenses APS-C for smaller cameras and FF which mirrorless lacks.

Well, the rumor mill tells us we will have a full-frame Sony NEX mirrorless in a few days, so there's the end of that CaNikon exclusive.

I think most camera people know these points already and if they are honest with themselves, they already know mirrorless in its present form is not where it is at.

Being honest with myself, I find the latest round of mirrorless products to be well-specified, capable, and pretty desireable. I don't know that I would want one for photographing sports or events, but for fine art, portraits, fashion, I think they might actually be the better tool at the moment for many different styles.

 

[MarkJH]

Mike_PEAT wrote:

Both Canon and Nikon used to produce FF (35mm/135 format) SLRs that are close in size to the E-M5.

If they want to compete, why don't they reproduce this with their FF (NOT APS) dSLRs? If Canikon users are abanding their big, bulky, heavy dSLRs for the Olympus E-M5, surely the answer is for Canikon to return to making normal sized cameras again like they used to when they made film SLRs!

+1 to that, Mike_PEAT. I'd be first in line for a digital Nikon FM or Canon AE. That is exactly the market Olympus is picking up with cameras like the OM-D and their suite of m4/3 primes.

M.

 

[marvin t martian]

Thom can predict, but so can I. I think that cell phones will only get better and be good enough for the masses, and Canikon will take up the rest of the market with some mirrorless being niche while other disappear.

In the long run I think the market will trifurcate with cell phones at the low end (good enough for the masses), FF DSLRs at the top end for situations where IQ matters more than portability, and some form of mirrorless (be it interchangeable lens or large sensor fixed lens) filling the remaining cases where cell phones can't provide enough quality and FF DSLRs can't provide enough portability.

There are physical limits on how little DOF and how much low light IQ the tiny lenses on cell phones can provide. There are also physical limits on how small FF DSLRs can get. People who need/want something better than a phone cam but can't take the bulk of a FF DSLR will look for alternatives and mirrorless, with larger lenses than phones but less bulk than FF DSLR, will be one of those alternatives.

Whether any of the existing mirrorless brands ultimately comes to dominate the gap has a lot to do with whether any one of them develops a reputation for building mirrorless cameras that don't come with design flaws that restrict them to narrow use cases.

Mirrorless has been disappointing because all of the offerings so far have serious problems. M4/3 has shutter shock. Olympus m4/3 has horrific IS in all but its 5-axis IBIS models. Panasonic m4/3 has issues with record histograms. Fuji X and the Canon M have bad AF performance. Nikon 1 is overpriced and has a small sensor. NEX has the level of durability expected from Sony. Etc.

It's premature to write-off mirrorless as a concept until someone releases a mirrorless camera that isn't self-sabotaging. If that doesn't happen--or if it does and the camera is a commercial failure--then mirrorless probably doesn't have a future. I don't expect this, however. In the long run, the gap between phones and FF DSLR is too big to be left unbridged.

 

[Dennis]

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now. They push the mirror out of the way when they go into live view. The first objection is that the AF is faster on mirrorless, sure using on sensor AF on a DSLR. Right now that is true but if you think Canonikon is going to sit on the hands and not improve live view to the point it is better than current mirrorless, I think they are smarter than that. It will happen or Canonikon will die. Mirrorless will lose the AF advantage in live view.

That's a possibility. But when you consider certain benefits of mirrorless: quiet, fast, high frame rates, reduced vibration, less room for AF calibration error due to AF sensor alignment ... if AF performance improves to the point that it matches what's available on DSLRs now, then a lot of photographers are going to want to exploit those benefits while using an eye level viewfinder.

(It's also possible, but probably remote, that they can design a DSLR that does PDAF-on-sensor LV with the mirror up that has an EVF alongside the OVF ... or maybe even one with interchangeable VFs ... but I think part of the appeal of mirrorless to manufacturers is making cameras simpler, not more complicated)

Thom can predict, but so can I. I think that cell phones will only get better and be good enough for the masses,

They already are.

Canikons strength is not just DSLR, it is lenses APS-C for smaller cameras and FF which mirrorless lacks.

Well now you're going back to current mirrorless, not what Thom proposes. (Sony should have FF mirrorless out by Photoplus Expo, too, according to reasonable rumors).

I think most camera people know these points already and if they are honest with themselves, they already know mirrorless in its present form is not where it is at.

No, but again, that's not what Thom is suggesting, either. Mirrorless EOS & F-mount bodies gives DSLR users what they have today with the benefits of mirrorless and full time live view, but the costs of full time live view (and possible AF performance if they can't perfect PDAF-on-sensor).

- Dennis

 

[Dennis]

MarkJH wrote:
Of all the players, it seems at the moment that Nikon is really lagging in this area. But maybe they've got something in the works that we don't know about?

They did a decent job with the Nikon 1. They may simply be planning to piggy back on Sony's PDAF-on-sensor implementation, since Sony has the more pressing reasons to go that way (to get away from the SLT).

- Dennis

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

If I were buying a new camera today, I would take a quick look at the OM5/EM1 and discard the notion based on not much weight or size savings compared to the D5200. The vast selection of great lenses on offer at reasonable prices would seal the deal. If I want to rent or buy a 600mm lens for wildlife shooting, or a 24-70 to do an event, I'm good to go, everywhere.

Carry on all you want about focus, the D5200 destroys any Olympus for image quality even crippled by its AA filter. The D7100 is $250 cheaper than the EM1 and outclasses it by an even wider margin in every way and is no chore at all to carry if you're committed to really outstanding photography. No popup flash on the EM1? Are you kidding me?

So that's where mirrorless small sensor is going to stay for a good long while. Pretty good, very expensive smallish camera and lenses, but not smaller enough to make it worth the sacrifice in IQ or the additional outlay.

 

[ludwik123]

Who the hell is Thom ?

 

[Richard]

Beach Bum wrote:

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now.

They don't act like mirrorless for a number of reasons. Most mirrorless cameras have a shorter flange focal distance due to the lack of a mirror, which allows greater leeway in lens design and possibly the option of making smaller or cheaper lenses while maintaining image quality.

So, who cares, the lenses right now are very expensive so this logic does not fly.

Also, it allows the adoption of a lot more lenses from different manufacturers to your system.

But they are the same lenses or close, Canikon have pro lenses that go up to 1200mm. Mirrorless for as long as it has been around is only starting to produce some of the more unique lenses.

Also, you claim Canon and Nikon are smarter than this and can improve their contrast detect autofocus, yet I've seen no evidence of this whatsoever. Ask yourself why Panasonic and Sony can be so good here yet Canon and Nikon so poor. The answer is quite simply the availability of resources.

I will disagree, I will say that Canon and Nikon did not put much thought into this and did not think it was going to be competition, when it becomes competition, they step it up.

Panasonic and Sony are far larger than Canon or Nikon and have far more resources available to them to develop tech. It's really the same reason Panny and Sony are so good at video while Canon and Nikon (especially Nikon) are not so good.

This is the reason why Panasonic and Sony are so consistent in quality across their line-up while Canon and Nikon have to cut corners in some models.

Sony and Panny products quality is not that great, sorry, accros all products including cameras.

In short, I don't believe either Canon or Nikon are "smarter" in any way, shape, or form

I think they are and only time will tell. That is not to discount that Sony and Panasonic are good brands, they just are not as good as Canon and Nikon in cameras

 

[Richard]

Mike_PEAT wrote:

Both Canon and Nikon used to produce FF (35mm/135 format) SLRs that are close in size to the E-M5.

I don't think that will happen, there is something called ergonomics and balance. You don't make things large or small for no reason, you make it so if fits your hands and balances and is comfortable within the design spec of the camera and lens.

If they want to compete, why don't they reproduce this with their FF (NOT APS) dSLRs?

Because APS-C will be able to get close in size but also offer a migration path to FF (Canon users would have to buy FF lenses to migrate, Nikon would not have to.

If Canikon users are abanding their big, bulky,

They aren't, I know I am not, Oly does not produce a product I want.

heavy dSLRs for the Olympus E-M5, surely the answer is for Canikon to return to making normal sized cameras again like they used to when they made film SLRs!

 

[jkoch2]

This thread begins with a rant that does not even specify the source of the tantrum. Might it be this?

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/whither-nikon.html

The OP also begs people not to get emotional, but the whole frackus obviously has do to with emotion:

If Nikon takes the mirror out of the D5, then what becomes of all my precious gear? What meaning will I have in life? Oh, woe. Buwaaaa. Sniff. Pass the hanky.

Hence, we see a collosal screaming tirade of supposed DSLR purists against one of their own for stating a heresy.

A bigger mess than the grease and schapnel on a D600 sensor.

The storm levy over at the Nikon forum needs a fixin'.

Hogan's a good man, more often right than wrong, but who cares?

 

[Beach Bum]

Richard wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

Richard wrote:

And Mirrorless is dead. Now before you go getting emotional, ponder the logic.

1.DSLRs act like mirrorless as they are right now.

They don't act like mirrorless for a number of reasons. Most mirrorless cameras have a shorter flange focal distance due to the lack of a mirror, which allows greater leeway in lens design and possibly the option of making smaller or cheaper lenses while maintaining image quality.

So, who cares, the lenses right now are very expensive so this logic does not fly.

Who cares? Like I said, when the mirror is long dead and buried, the Nikon and Canon body designs will be unnecessarily large and cumbersome.

You said that CaNikon existing DSLRs could function like mirrorless cameras, and my point is that when the mirror is no longer needed or even wanted, their body/lens design will be unnecessarily large and cumbersome and won't be competitive. In simpler terms, the smaller bodies will do the same thing as CaNikon bodies when the mirror is gone. What do you think people will want?

Stop thinking in the short term. The mirror box is doomed. It won't happen immediately, but it will happen.

I will disagree, I will say that Canon and Nikon did not put much thought into this and did not think it was going to be competition, when it becomes competition, they step it up.

Highly doubtful that they haven't put much thought into it. They're outgunned by larger competitors, and, until now, they've sold cameras on name alone, even when competitors are producing better products.

Panasonic and Sony are far larger than Canon or Nikon and have far more resources available to them to develop tech. It's really the same reason Panny and Sony are so good at video while Canon and Nikon (especially Nikon) are not so good.

This is the reason why Panasonic and Sony are so consistent in quality across their line-up while Canon and Nikon have to cut corners in some models.

Sony and Panny products quality is not that great, sorry, accros all products including cameras.

These two companies put out some of the best and most reliable electronics on the planet. I'm watching a Panny TV right now with a Sony Blu-ray player, BTW.

Look at the reliability ratings for TVs, cameras, etc. You might be surprised at who's on top and who isn't.

In short, I don't believe either Canon or Nikon are "smarter" in any way, shape, or form

I think they are and only time will tell. That is not to discount that Sony and Panasonic are good brands, they just are not as good as Canon and Nikon in cameras

Definitely better in the compact market. Better autofocus, better video, and, for the most part, better glass. They're not in the DSLR market so they can't really compete in it.

 

[Red5TX]

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

D5200 destroys any Olympus for image quality even crippled by its AA filter. The D7100 is $250 cheaper than the EM1 and outclasses it by an even wider margin in every way and is no chore at all to carry if you're committed to really outstanding photography. No popup flash on the EM1? Are you kidding me?

Right. Because those who are "committed to really outstanding photography" frequently use the pop-up flash.

 

[olliess]

Red5TX wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

D5200 destroys any Olympus for image quality even crippled by its AA filter. The D7100 is $250 cheaper than the EM1 and outclasses it by an even wider margin in every way and is no chore at all to carry if you're committed to really outstanding photography. No popup flash on the EM1? Are you kidding me?

Right. Because those who are "committed to really outstanding photography" frequently use the pop-up flash.

Commonly for some quick-and-dirty fill flash or to trigger an off-camera flash, yes.

 

[ZorSy]

Beach Bum wrote:
They don't act like mirrorless for a number of reasons. Most mirrorless cameras have a shorter flange focal distance due to the lack of a mirror, which allows greater leeway in lens design and possibly the option of making smaller or cheaper lenses while maintaining image quality. Also, it allows the adoption of a lot more lenses from different manufacturers to your system.

The reason they can have this short flange distance is because they're not encumbered by a mirror. Neither Nikon or Canon have any significant market share in ILC's with short FFDs.

Apart from comparing apples, oranges and bananas in treads like this, let me point on few things: perhaps shorter FFD saves some 25mm overall camera thickness - but that's it. Other saving volume-wise in case of Pana/Oly comes due to smaller sensor size. So does Nikon 1 system. The reason why short FFD works better for these systems as opposed to 35mm(aka FF) lies as well in design of the system itself: it worked pretty good with film due to its plain surface. With CMOS sensors, the active pixels are at the bottom of the "tube" and shorter FFD works AGAINST the design due to angle light hits the active pixels. Leica tried to eliminate problem by redesigning the micro lenses to compensate for this. At the result, we have $8K FF "compact" camera (without AF, which is the best case scenario if you want small lenses). So, the good short FFD with larger sensor comes at the price not many is willing (or capable) to pay.

Also, you claim Canon and Nikon are smarter than this and can improve their contrast detect autofocus, yet I've seen no evidence of this whatsoever. Ask yourself why Panasonic and Sony can be so good here yet Canon and Nikon so poor. The answer is quite simply the availability of resources. Panasonic and Sony are far larger than Canon or Nikon and have far more resources available to them to develop tech. It's really the same reason Panny and Sony are so good at video while Canon and Nikon (especially Nikon) are not so good.

Clueless to a degree again: Sony uses translucent mirror, hence full-time PDAF at the cost of half a stop of light (actually more than a stop, but let's settle without arguments). Panasonic, again, uses smaller sensor, DOF kicks in and generally you get "sharper" images due to a less focus error. Yes, Nikon lags with CDAF or on sensor PDAF on the current offering of their DX/FF range, hence video isn't as good as on Canon DX.So we do agree about one thing - Nikon is not good in video.

This is the reason why Panasonic and Sony are so consistent in quality across their line-up while Canon and Nikon have to cut corners in some models.

In short, I don't believe either Canon or Nikon are "smarter" in any way, shape, or form, and, in fact, are outgunned in a number of ways. My belief is that Panny, Sony, and/or Olympus will eventually overtake CaNikon in overall autofocus when they develop on sensor PDAF to perfection (combined with their already stellar CDAF). The mirror is going to be rendered obsolete eventually, and camera manufacturers with already established marketshare in cameras with short FFDs will have the edge.

Once they develop on sensor PDAF they will eventually overtake - well, lots of conditional wordings here, right? Both of these two "big" ones have demonstrated they are capable of doing it, don't you think? It's a matter of implementation: at this stage, neither system is "good enough" to be implemented on mass scale. Reputation is thing you loose in a split second and half baked products may just hurt it. Panasonic, if we speak about it, is ignorant about criticism, which reflects in sales numbers. Olympus is better in that regard but they are pushing it hard. Pen series (numerous models) was as unsuccessful as One series - lots of noise, not much sales. Low cost consumer stuff. It definitely lost to bottom range Rebels or low end Nikons (as they actually deliver). I admire Pentax (not being user) for recognising that 1 inch of flange distance does not actually make camera that much smaller - still not fitting in the pocket. We'll put design on the side here. I wouldn't mind or be surprised if Nikon introduces ILC based on DX with mirror box removed, still using F mount: even without mirror box it still wouldn't fit it the pocket and the lenses wouldn't magically shrink in size. At least on the consumer level , it would make more sense without major re-work on the imaging chip itself. But all this hypothetical ramble is made under assumption the on-chip PDAF actually works on par to PDAF speed, which is only the wishful thinking. For most people, the world is not standing still - it moves much faster than ever (still spinning at the same pace, luckily) and focusing speed still matter. Both for videos and photos - the only thing is that in video you can't zoom to a full 24MP resolution, as not there, to see all the flaws current V-AF suffers from, so it all looks "good enough" - just.

Short FFD will not have the edge with the current sensor design. Nor will make wide angle lenses cheaper to make. Not will help with long telephoto lenses as the body will eventually follow the flange size and became diminutive, compromising ergonomics. Short pancake prime, yes - but is that what buyers (consumers) really want?

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

No tears, really, just one great photo after another, better than anyone else's. If someone comes up with a better system, we'll have a look at it. Not holding my breath.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Yes, absolutely. The Nikon popup flash works extremely well indeed. If you're lugging around a Flash with your Oly, you've lost any conceivable weight and size advantage.




Poppies with popup

 

[Red5TX]

olliess wrote:

Red5TX wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

D5200 destroys any Olympus for image quality even crippled by its AA filter. The D7100 is $250 cheaper than the EM1 and outclasses it by an even wider margin in every way and is no chore at all to carry if you're committed to really outstanding photography. No popup flash on the EM1? Are you kidding me?

Right. Because those who are "committed to really outstanding photography" frequently use the pop-up flash.

Commonly for some quick-and-dirty fill flash or to trigger an off-camera flash, yes.

By the time I've set up off-camera strobes, it's not a great difficulty to have also attached the E-M1's flash.

Look, I recognize that DSLRs have plenty of advantages, but the pop-up flash issue is a silly criticism. Handy? Sure. Deal killer? I would hope not. Plenty of very pro cameras don't have pop-up flashes, either.