I'd just like to know how bad the price for the 200-400 will be...
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I don't really need the back LCD, but it will never go away in a mainstream camera. It is one of the features that attracted the masses to digital cameras, they can tell if they actually captured a photo, and many carry their cameras with them to use as a display gallery to show photos they took.It could be radical and still be mainstream. I'm not saying remove the ability to playback images on the body, I'm just saying remove it from the back. If they can come up with some kind of hybrid EVF like on the X100 for example, you could review that way.
The big user of space is the mirror. EF Lenses are designed with a focus distance to account for a FF mirror. Remove the mirror, design new lenses with a short distance to the sensor, and a huge reduction in size occurs. Thats why the 35mm film point and shoot cameras were much smaller.As before I was thinking in two parts, one of which was how small could you make a DSLR? Specifically one that would be compatible with existing accessories. As such, the mirror box stays in that case. I was looking at other areas where size optimisation could occur.
Once you remove the mirror and design a new set of lenses, the size of the sensor doesn't have much effect, its the lens design.Not entirely true... only shorter focal length lenses could get some benefit. A longer zoom or prime wouldn't get smaller just because you move the mount slightly closer to the sensor. Big sensor still means big lenses (for a given quality, FoV, equivalent f number, ignoring DoF). Look at m4/3 using various compromises to help make lenses simpler. Distortion is less corrected and they rely on software to fix it. Olympus claim a small 75-300, but that's in part because it is slower than anyone else's similar zoom.
The DSLR is bigger than the SLR due to the battery, memory cards, a whole bunch of electronics and motors inside the body. Plus every body wants a hand grip for the DSLR.Look at compact digital cameras, they also have a ton of electronics in them. I can imagine the "stuff" would easily sit in place of where the film rolls would otherwise go. The mechanics between a SLR and DSLR I think would be near enough the same. I do think the LCD on the back is one of the biggest consumers of volume, so removing that would allow bodies to get much smaller. That also removes the need for the power so batteries could be smaller too.
What threw me off was how the D7000 basically failed to leapfrog the 7D.The D7000 was never intended to. While the D7000 does have a nice build and rich feature list, it is still targeted at a lower level than the 7D.
from what I've heard about the latest olympus m4/3s cameras ... the AF is getting there. I think the rebels are going to see some major change over the next few development cycles.For one-shot focus, it isn't getting just there. It has got there. The recent Panasonic models were already "DSLR fast" and the new batch from Olympus announced yesterday are claimed to be even faster. I think one shot AF speed is no longer an issue, at least in the m4/3 camp. I don't know how NEX or others will compare.
Not in DSLR sales. If I remember correctly from the last sales numbers I saw, Nikon & Canon combined are around 85% of sales. That's a small slice of pie left for everyone else.There seems to be a trend in the press to count "interchangeable lens cameras" as a group and work units out as a market share. No surprise that shows Sony/Olympus/Panasonic growing at the expense of Canon/Nikon. The big question is therefore are "mirrorless" cameras going to kill DSLRs, and where things go from there. I wouldn't expect any quick change whatever happens.
If you're talking P&S and bridge cameras, that would be much closer to the truth; there are a lot of players in that market though.
Not unheard of in business. Where I work in my "day job" they bought another company before the economic situation, and sold it after. The difference in loss is comparable, but someone decided it was the best thing to do.the Nikkei business daily said earlier it would be about 10 billion yen ($124 million). ($1 = 80.530 Japanese Yen)
In 2007, Hoya bought Pentax for $1 billion. Now they're selling it for 12% of what they paid? Probably incorrect, but if true, ouch!