December 22, 2014, 01:02:11 AM

Author Topic: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing  (Read 25542 times)

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1925
    • View Profile
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2014, 03:04:34 PM »
The big advantage for mirrorless is the removal of the mirror.  It degrades IQ by banging up and down and vibrating the whole Camera, it increases the cost.
In the mirror absence EVFs are becoming a necessity. As far as I know they are not perfect and they cost a lot (the good ones).
Find a way to make the mirror go away without losing performance, and you can eliminate vibration, sensor cleaning, and greatly improve reliability
Eliminate sensor cleaning to a camera that has no mirror to protect the sensor during lens changes?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2014, 03:04:34 PM »

JohnDizzo15

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 443
    • View Profile
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2014, 03:06:24 PM »
Is it the glorified P&S's canon and nikon and most of the others have released?  Or will it follow a similar model to what Sony just released with their FF bodies?   Again, what is the identity of mirrorless -- is it a niche fad mid-level attempt to tempt those that favor their cell phones or is it going to be a serious system that pros and enthusiasts will not only see as viable, but want and or shall I go as far as saying - need? 

Some people won't like the answer, but here it is:

Professional-level mirror-less cameras have been around since at least the 1930s. For decades, only one manufacturer – Leica – has kept mirror-less alive and then only as a niche market product. Really, nothing of substance has changed. The cameras use electronic sensors instead of film, but all the other relative advantages or disadvantages of the rangefinder versus SLR form factors remain the same.

While a vastly improved electronic viewfinder might make mirror-less more competitive, it would still have huge hurdles to overcome. The mirror-less form factor is great as a light weight street camera, but it offers no advantage for many other applications, such as studio and portrait work. It may even be a disadvantage when using telephotos beyond about 135mm (Notice Leica doesn't even produce any longish telephotos).

So, given that, why should Nikon and Canon rush to produce a professional-level mirror-less camera? Far wiser to let Sony risk their resources on testing the market. If the technology improves and if Sony's sales figures show a true demand, Nikon and Canon can easily enter and very quickly dominate the market. There simply is no good business reason for them to risk their resources on an untested market. Better to let someone else take the risk.

But, I seriously doubt that Nikon and Canon are watching Sony nearly as closely as they are watching Fuji. Looking at the Fuji Pro series, it would be easy to make a case that the future of mirror-less is in the APS-C format, rather than full frame. It offers high image quality while retaining more of the size advantages that mirror-less can offer.

Over at Photorumors, they just published some sales numbers for Japan. For those who dream of a full-frame anything, they are quite eye-opening. Full frame mirror-less constitutes just .5% (that's 1/2 of 1 percent) of the total sales in Japan and in DSLRs, full-frame is just 8.7% of the sales. In short, it is "a small, small world after all" despite the skewed perspective one gets on this and other forums.

Mirror-less may someday displace DSLRs, but only when the technology proves superior, which is far from the case today. If it does eventually happen, it is likely to be a gradual, almost seamless transition, not some jarring "game changing" occurrence.

Couldn't agree more on all points.

unfocused

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #32 on: January 03, 2014, 03:30:13 PM »
While a vastly improved electronic viewfinder might make mirror-less more competitive, it would still have huge hurdles to overcome. The mirror-less form factor is great as a light weight street camera, but it offers no advantage for many other applications, such as studio and portrait work. It may even be a disadvantage when using telephotos beyond about 135mm (Notice Leica doesn't even produce any longish telephotos).

I think that full-frame will continue to dominate studio & portrait.  However, mirrorless offers some nice advantages for photographers who are on their feet covering events all day.  The Leica limitation of 135mm relates to the rangefinder mechanism and won't be a disadvantage for new mirrorless cameras like the OM-D.  Panasonic offers a 35-100/2.8 (70-200 equiv.) and Olympus will soon offer a 40-150/2.8 (80-300 equiv.).  These telephoto zooms are much more compact & lightweight than their full-frame alternatives, while still offering nice depth of field control.  The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 in particular weighs a small fraction of what a typical 70-200 weighs (13 ounces vs. 3 pounds).  Likewise the Olympus 75/1.8 weighs a fraction of a what full-frame equivalent would weigh.  I think the reduced size & weight will be a selling point for photographers who are tired of carrying around big telephoto zooms, especially now that the OM-D has improved autofocus.

I agree. The real advantage of mirror-less comes in weight and size savings.

But that weight and size advantage is contingent upon a smaller sensor. It also requires a new set of lenses. There is still a lot of inertia to overcome before the market settles on an ideal compact-sized sensor.

In any case, none of that will satisfy those who insist that Canon absolutely must produce a full-frame mirror-less camera. Which really was my point -- to debunk the idea that we are going to see either Canon or Nikon rushing into the mirror-less market with a full-frame offering anytime in the near future.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

pharp

  • Guest
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #33 on: January 03, 2014, 03:45:48 PM »
The real advantage of mirror-less comes in weight and size savings.
& MF assist like in the Olympus or focus peaking in the Sony, easier to use in low light, less vibration, higher fps, potentially more reliable  .....

But that weight and size advantage is contingent upon a smaller sensor.

more contingent on back plane distance - just compare the size and weight of 4/3 lens vs same focal length m4/3 lens or Leica FF lens vs mirrored FF lens.

I can't help but feel that the biggest downside, in many peoples minds, to MILC is that their investment in glass would be obsolete without adapter.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 04:51:22 PM by pharp »

Lichtgestalt

  • Guest
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #34 on: January 03, 2014, 04:06:55 PM »
i had mirrorless cameras in the past.... i am eager to buy one again? not really.

why?

they are to big to be pocketable.
even the tiny GM1 is to big with a lens attached.

i love my DSLR and im not switching to a smaller sensor.
35mm is great, always was.
spending money on yet another camera systems? nah!
the camera has to earn me money.. im not a lens or camera "collector" like so many here. ;)

what i need beside my DSLR (and medium format camera) is a small POCKETABLE camera.
m43, nex etc. can not offer me that.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 04:08:34 PM by Lichtgestalt »

pharp

  • Guest
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #35 on: January 03, 2014, 04:46:27 PM »
i had mirrorless cameras in the past.... i am eager to buy one again? not really.

why?

they are to big to be pocketable.
even the tiny GM1 is to big with a lens attached.

i love my DSLR and im not switching to a smaller sensor.
35mm is great, always was.
spending money on yet another camera systems? nah!
the camera has to earn me money.. im not a lens or camera "collector" like so many here. ;)

what i need beside my DSLR (and medium format camera) is a small POCKETABLE camera.
m43, nex etc. can not offer me that.

All emotion, no salient technical arguments. More tired "not pocketable", not useable with current equipment, blah, blah, blah arguments.

JohnDizzo15

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 443
    • View Profile
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #36 on: January 03, 2014, 05:11:47 PM »
I can't help but feel that the biggest downside, in many peoples minds, to MILC is that their investment in glass would be obsolete without adapter.

That is one of the issues. But I think the real issue for most people that are hesitant (and people that have tried them) is overall usability.

Let's be real here. AF still blows (speed and consistency) on every mirrorless offering in the market relative to a DSLR. The only piece of tech in existence currently is Canon's dual pixel tech which can potentially be used to provide something that can bring mirrorless AF up to par (or perhaps beyond a DSLR).

Yes, there are great manual aids that various companies provide in their mirrorless offerings. But the average user is the one that companies need to pursuade as they are the largest percentage of consumers and most of them don't want to have to manually focus. Also, focus peaking isn't all that great when it comes to super fast lenses and getting consistent critical focus. Split prism and/or zoom PIP is okay, but still not very fast or usable for all situations.

The second issue would be energy consumption. Battery life sucks on mirrorless cameras. Yes, all of them. I try to use the OVF and just deal with parallax as much as possible on my x100s and it is still not getting great battery life. Although I can deal with it, I still don't like having extra batteries in my pockets when I'm running out the door with the family in a hurry. So unless there are some earth-shattering developments in battery tech in the near future, this will be a major issue for the average user with any mirrorless camera.

Then comes the lens issue for me. lol. That being said, if the two problems I mentioned above were somehow rectified by some miracle, I would have no qualms about dumping my glass and going all in on a mirrorless system.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #36 on: January 03, 2014, 05:11:47 PM »

pharp

  • Guest
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #37 on: January 03, 2014, 05:22:35 PM »
I can't help but feel that the biggest downside, in many peoples minds, to MILC is that their investment in glass would be obsolete without adapter.

That is one of the issues. But I think the real issue for most people that are hesitant (and people that have tried them) is overall usability.

Let's be real here. AF still blows (speed and consistency) on every mirrorless offering in the market relative to a DSLR. The only piece of tech in existence currently is Canon's dual pixel tech which can potentially be used to provide something that can bring mirrorless AF up to par (or perhaps beyond a DSLR).

Yes, there are great manual aids that various companies provide in their mirrorless offerings. But the average user is the one that companies need to pursuade as they are the largest percentage of consumers and most of them don't want to have to manually focus. Also, focus peaking isn't all that great when it comes to super fast lenses and getting consistent critical focus. Split prism and/or zoom PIP is okay, but still not very fast or usable for all situations.

The second issue would be energy consumption. Battery life sucks on mirrorless cameras. Yes, all of them. I try to use the OVF and just deal with parallax as much as possible on my x100s and it is still not getting great battery life. Although I can deal with it, I still don't like having extra batteries in my pockets when I'm running out the door with the family in a hurry. So unless there are some earth-shattering developments in battery tech in the near future, this will be a major issue for the average user with any mirrorless camera.

Then comes the lens issue for me. lol. That being said, if the two problems I mentioned above were somehow rectified by some miracle, I would have no qualms about dumping my glass and going all in on a mirrorless system.

Agreed, but I get the impression that many wouldn't go for it regardless, or at least without kicking and screaming. Change is inevitable, just ask people with Betamax's. The only question in my mind is who comes out with the first really compelling system. The Sony A7 is a good start - the market, not rumor sites will ultimately determine. Unfortunately, it's the underdogs that are the innovators in the camera industry today. Maybe Nikon will step up.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 05:30:14 PM by pharp »

JohnDizzo15

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 443
    • View Profile
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #38 on: January 03, 2014, 05:41:11 PM »
I can't help but feel that the biggest downside, in many peoples minds, to MILC is that their investment in glass would be obsolete without adapter.

That is one of the issues. But I think the real issue for most people that are hesitant (and people that have tried them) is overall usability.

Let's be real here. AF still blows (speed and consistency) on every mirrorless offering in the market relative to a DSLR. The only piece of tech in existence currently is Canon's dual pixel tech which can potentially be used to provide something that can bring mirrorless AF up to par (or perhaps beyond a DSLR).

Yes, there are great manual aids that various companies provide in their mirrorless offerings. But the average user is the one that companies need to pursuade as they are the largest percentage of consumers and most of them don't want to have to manually focus. Also, focus peaking isn't all that great when it comes to super fast lenses and getting consistent critical focus. Split prism and/or zoom PIP is okay, but still not very fast or usable for all situations.

The second issue would be energy consumption. Battery life sucks on mirrorless cameras. Yes, all of them. I try to use the OVF and just deal with parallax as much as possible on my x100s and it is still not getting great battery life. Although I can deal with it, I still don't like having extra batteries in my pockets when I'm running out the door with the family in a hurry. So unless there are some earth-shattering developments in battery tech in the near future, this will be a major issue for the average user with any mirrorless camera.

Then comes the lens issue for me. lol. That being said, if the two problems I mentioned above were somehow rectified by some miracle, I would have no qualms about dumping my glass and going all in on a mirrorless system.

Agreed, but I get the impression that many wouldn't go for it regardless, or at least without kicking and screaming. Change is inevitable, just ask people with Betamax's. The only question in my mind is who comes out with the first really compelling system. The Sony A7 is a good start - the market, not rumor sites will ultimately determine. Unfortunately, it's the underdogs that are the innovators in the camera industry today. Maybe Nikon will step up.

The most innovative development in photo tech I have seen as of late is dual pixel tech due to all of it's potential applications. But it has been somewhat of an underrated development in the public eye as the other applications for it have yet to be explored.

IMO people are looking at the term "innovation" with regard to camera tech completely wrong these days. People lack the perspective to realize that a company shouldn't be deemed as not being innovative simply because they are not developing things in the fashion one segment of the consumer base wants them to. Everyone has their own wish list, Canon is innovative regardless of whether they have been working on one specific thing that a specific segment of the consumer base is wishing for.

JohnDizzo15

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 443
    • View Profile
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #39 on: January 03, 2014, 05:47:12 PM »
To take the issue of actual innovation vs perception one step further, imagine if Canon integrated the dual pixel tech into a mirror less body and also developed a new battery tech that made their offering better than the rest of the market in those two areas. You would still have people in here saying they are not innovative since neither one of those two things provides more DR or more megapixels. Conversely, that would be cause for a consumer like myself to order one immediately.

pharp

  • Guest
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #40 on: January 03, 2014, 06:12:26 PM »
Innovation is the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, inarticulated needs, or existing market needs.

By that definition, more DR or mp is not innovation, nor is dual pixel AF if you only put it into old style bodies. Real innovation is a tablet vs a desktop. Revolution vs evolution. I'm sure someone has a really innovative design available, but I'm not expecting it from Canon. Real innovation has nothing to do with catering to a particular consumer segment. The camera industry could use a Steve Jobs.

By all accounts, camera sales, in all segments are flat, or in decline. MILC are not really all that innovative per se, but it's a start in the right direction. The status quo is a recipe for extinction.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 06:36:36 PM by pharp »

ewg963

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #41 on: January 03, 2014, 06:15:39 PM »
Smartphones are a disruptive technology when it comes to photography. We haven't seen the end of the disruption, but there will always be a need for cameras to do things that smartphones can't.
+1
5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, 24-105mm 70-200mm 2.8 Non IS, 100-400mm 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 580EX II, 600EX-RT

mkabi

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 369
    • View Profile
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #42 on: January 03, 2014, 06:35:48 PM »
Over at Photorumors, they just published some sales numbers for Japan. For those who dream of a full-frame anything, they are quite eye-opening. Full frame mirror-less constitutes just .5% (that's 1/2 of 1 percent) of the total sales in Japan and in DSLRs, full-frame is just 8.7% of the sales. In short, it is "a small, small world after all" despite the skewed perspective one gets on this and other forums.

+1.
If you're not good with math, for every 100 people thats not even a single person, more like half a person.
For every 1000 person, its 5 people...
For every 10,000 peeps, its 50... so on and so forth.
Canon 7D - EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L, EF - 20mm f/2.8, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 100mm f/2.0, Custom Cine 50mm & Custom Cine 35mm

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #42 on: January 03, 2014, 06:35:48 PM »

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #43 on: January 03, 2014, 06:44:43 PM »

Let's be real here. AF still blows (speed and consistency) on every mirrorless offering in the market relative to a DSLR. The only piece of tech in existence currently is Canon's dual pixel tech which can potentially be used to provide something that can bring mirrorless AF up to par (or perhaps beyond a DSLR).

Yes, there are great manual aids that various companies provide in their mirrorless offerings. But the average user is the one that companies need to pursuade as they are the largest percentage of consumers and most of them don't want to have to manually focus. Also, focus peaking isn't all that great when it comes to super fast lenses and getting consistent critical focus. Split prism and/or zoom PIP is okay, but still not very fast or usable for all situations.

The second issue would be energy consumption. Battery life sucks on mirrorless cameras. Yes, all of them. I try to use the OVF and just deal with parallax as much as possible on my x100s and it is still not getting great battery life. Although I can deal with it, I still don't like having extra batteries in my pockets when I'm running out the door with the family in a hurry. So unless there are some earth-shattering developments in battery tech in the near future, this will be a major issue for the average user with any mirrorless camera.

Then comes the lens issue for me. lol. That being said, if the two problems I mentioned above were somehow rectified by some miracle, I would have no qualms about dumping my glass and going all in on a mirrorless system.

I quite agree about battery life (though they're small and it's easy to get back-ups; besides, I suspect that those of us who frequently take more than 400 photos a day are a rather small minority...) and focus assist (in my experience, used by itself it's the opposite, though it can be somewhat helpful when used in conjunction with zooming through an EVF), but unless by focus speed you're referring to tracking action (something I don't do and thus can't comment) I don't agree about focus speed and accuracy, at least with M43 cameras (esp. those I know best, OM-Ds; with most of the lenses I own focus is as close to instantaneous as makes no difference, and I'm pretty sure the accuracy rate is higher than I get from my dslrs (though as they're Canons that's very high anyway).  As for focus on fast moving things, there are plenty of demonstrations online of how that has changed with the newest OM-D; evidently it's not quite as good as the best Canons for that, but given how fast the technology seems to be developing it may catch up.  (Fujis, on the other hand, seem to be both slow and shockingly inaccurate, unless the new xe-2, which allegedly has fixed the former, has fixed the latter as well.)

All that said, I wouldn't be surprised if none of that has anything to do with why hardly anyone in the US or Europe wants to buy mirrorless cameras.  It may be more a matter of biases, prejudices, clueless salespeople, the vagaries of buying stuff online if you don't know anything much about the topic etc.

pharp

  • Guest
Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #44 on: January 03, 2014, 06:55:58 PM »
Over at Photorumors, they just published some sales numbers for Japan. For those who dream of a full-frame anything, they are quite eye-opening. Full frame mirror-less constitutes just .5% (that's 1/2 of 1 percent) of the total sales in Japan and in DSLRs, full-frame is just 8.7% of the sales. In short, it is "a small, small world after all" despite the skewed perspective one gets on this and other forums.

+1.
If you're not good with math, for every 100 people thats not even a single person, more like half a person.
For every 1000 person, its 5 people...
For every 10,000 peeps, its 50... so on and so forth.

In Japan, the Canon M was the 2nd best selling MILC camera! On the other hand FF systems are expensive at a time when there are fewer and fewer pros, many, who from what I've read get less and less of their income from actually selling photos (more from classes, lectures, tours, etc).  Price matters, so I'd expect FF cameras to become a real niche market unless they do more to appeal to enthusiast - smaller, cheaper... 

The Sony A7 came too late to make a difference in sales - still won't be HUGE, but even flat would be better than decline.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 07:09:40 PM by pharp »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing
« Reply #44 on: January 03, 2014, 06:55:58 PM »