The Emperor Bans Noisy Mirrors

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,047
75
118
#41
Fair enough. But that's a sad statement about both the industry and its consumers.
I don't disagree :)

Also, I've noticed more and more of these types of shooters with WFT's connected, the shelf life of the vast majority of these kinds of images in the fast paced news cycles we now have are frighteningly short.

During the Olympics for the mens 100m finals the best images from the race and finish are expected to be available for purchase by news organizations within seconds, and they are. Same now with the various 'important' speeches and committees etc etc that feed the news cycle.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,012
220
#42
About 9 years. That's how long it's been since the introduction of APS-C MILCs...and DSLRs still dominate the ILC market. A 9-year span also separates the introduction of a mass-market APS-C DSLR and the discontinuation of Polaroid and Kodachrome film. That's the difference between a minor evolution and a paradigm shift.

As for Canon and Nikon 'withholding technology', Canon launched the EOS M two years after Sony and Samsung launched their APS-C DSLRs.

As usual, facts and reality reveal your statements as the typical ridiculous drivel you spout here.
You are wrong Neuro. Anything that is not FF does not count as mirrorless, didn't you know that? The rest are just toys and not worthy of consideration. And didn't you know that Sony invented mirrorless cameras, focus peaking, zebras and 4k video? You really have to catch up with modern technology.
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,051
143
#43
Sony A7 FF mirrorfree camera series was a breakthrough, like it or not. Unfortunately it was Sony who achieved it. They had little clue and no balls [against forum denizens criticizing them for abandoning stupid legacy A-mount and introducing "lots of new mounts") and therefore took the wrong decision to go with APS-C optimized E-mount also for FF sensor system. Surprisingly [given their professional, moving-imaging gear experience] they also had little clue how to properly organize a good user interface for stills-oriented cameras - neither hardware/ergonomics and control points (wheels, dials, buttons and their placement) nor the menu system. With generation Mk. III they are finally approaching the target. But sub-optimal mount decision will haunt them forever. And their "consumer electronics philosophy". Plus ludicrous lens pricing. :)
 
Likes: Del Paso
Apr 23, 2018
1,051
143
#44
But it does count..... When you look at sales numbers for Mirrorless camera sales, there they are. When you search a photography store website for mirrorless cameras, there they are...… and they sell a lot of them!
yes, much to my amazement they found some buyers. Panasonic I can halfway understand, due to the video stuff. But Oly? At the prices they charge? 2 grand for a quarter-sensor camera almost as large and heavy as any APS-C camera? Or big, heavy quarter-image-circle lenses for 3 grand? Never in my life!

But obviously 1. most of the Oly sales seem to have been the lowest priced entry models at clear-out sales and 2. they seem to be running out of folks willing to buy their small-sensored, but large-bodied and expensive product range.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,012
220
#45
And their "consumer electronics philosophy".
Maybe that philosophy is what helpe them build the nerve to release the A73 at 2,000 USD. If they drive FF mirrorless into that bracket of the market it will really open up the competition - however one thing you will not like is the way they 'build to a price' - you know, the sort of things you criticise Canon for: old generation EVF and LCD, relying on menus rather than dials and buttons because those cost money to manufacture into the case.

Plus ludicrous lens pricing. :)
Maybe that is what lenses cost to produce and Canon has the economies of scale that Sony don't.
Or the bodies are being sold at low profit margins and they hope to recoup that with the lenses.
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,051
143
#46
Maybe that is what lenses cost to produce and Canon has the economies of scale that Sony don't.
Or the bodies are being sold at low profit margins and they hope to recoup that with the lenses.
No and no. Neither Sony nor Canon or Nikon are selling any of their imaging products - cameras or lenses - at a low margin, not to mention below cost.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Del Paso

BillB

EOS Rebel T7i
May 11, 2017
788
53
#48
No and no. Neither Cony nor Canon or Nikon are selling any of their imaging products - cameras or lenses - at a low margin, not to mention below cost.
Well, that might depend on whether they are hitting the volumes needed to cover their front end costs for development, design and production setup.
 

Aglet

EOS 7D Mark II
Feb 26, 2012
1,692
9
AB
#50
But it does count..... When you look at sales numbers for Mirrorless camera sales, there they are. When you search a photography store website for mirrorless cameras, there they are...… and they sell a lot of them!
+1. I bought a lot of those "quarter-sensor" systems because they work very well for a lot of my shooting requirements and are compact and light weight.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,012
220
#51
Let's not fool ourselves into thinking Canon's and Nikon's digital camera businesses aren't squarely in the consumer electronics market.
I'm under no illusions at all. But my reference was more that Sony have for a long time been in the consumer electronics where prices are driven heavily by market forces, the technology to manufacture them by the gazillion it readily available to many, many different manufacturers and the technology rapidly achieved a maturity that only the die-hard fans thought had to be improved.
Mobile phones have brought photography to the same state that music/hifi had with the walkman and mp3 - it is good enough for most people. Until the mobile phone the camera companies could say 'Ah, but you need this new gizmo so buy our new camera'. Now people have the freedom to say 'No I don't, and no I won't'.
With 2 players in a market you get a cosy symbiosis - I will not say 'cartel' because sometimes you come to realise that creating a price war is meaningless and self-defeating. But a third player starts to shake things up especially when that 3rd company has a product that looks interesting and enticing. So to my mind CaNikon could well retain that philisophy of getting people to pay what they can afford. Sony have a whole divisions are used to thinking 'what price to I need to sell at and still make a profit as long as I sell enough of them'. The difference in mindset is subtle but vital.
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,051
143
#52
+1. I bought a lot of those "quarter-sensor" systems because they work very well for a lot of my shooting requirements and are compact and light weight.
excellent, if it works well for you.

But to me, mFT gear has lost the last bit of appeal, when Canon EOS M and EF-M lenses were launched. Much larger sensor, better RAWs than any Oly camera, similar size/weight and lower system cost (thanks to extremely affordable EF-M lenses). Granted, there are no f/1.2 EF-M primes available, but I don't need or miss them. On an APS-C sensor I [almost] get equivalence with a simple, tiny, dirt-cheap EF-M22 f/2.

Overall I think Oly was rather lucky that Sony solely focused on their FF lineup over the past 5 years and sort of neglected their APS-C lineup - especially A5### series cameras and decent+affordable E-mount lenses. Otherwise Oly might well already have disappeared by now.

In my opinion Oly's decision to move from FT to mFT, will lead to their [mFT/Imaging division] demise. Had they moved to "very compact, decent and affordable" mirrorfree APS-C cameras back then [instead of the retro "Pen" folly and before the first underspecced Canon EOS M was launched] and additionally in 2007 launched a mirrorfree FF system in the spirit of the film OM system [most compact cameras in the market with excellent functionality] they could have had a bright future. They did not and now their lunch is totally being eaten by smartphones, 1" compact cameras (eg Sony RX100) and mirrorfree APS-C systems (Canon, Sony, Fuji).
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,188
163
Canada
#53
+1. I bought a lot of those "quarter-sensor" systems because they work very well for a lot of my shooting requirements and are compact and light weight.
I have two friends who are leaving soon on a 2 month backpacking trip in Europe. The Nikon D850 will be left at home and a brand new Oly is going with them.... because it is small and light. Sony? Nah, way to big :)
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
#54
Sony A7 FF mirrorfree camera series was a breakthrough, like it or not.
So you bought one, right ? The "breakthrough" A7 was introduced towards the end of 2013, that's nearly five years ago now. Don't tell me that in five years you haven't bought one when you consider them to be "breakthrough" and a "paradigm shift".

The only breakthrough I had with the A7 was when I felt like chucking it into a river......
 
Apr 23, 2018
1,051
143
#55
I am not an early adopter. Even less so for 1st gen "breakthrough products". :)
There is a whole number of reasons why I don't want to buy Sony. First and foremost they are on my personal boycot list ever since they secretly and sneakily installed a root file on my PC from one of their CDs [which I had of course purchased correctly] which took me half a day to remove. For those too young or too short-memoried: it was back in 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal

Before then I had purchased many Sony CE products ranging from "Trinitron" TV sets to Walkmen, Diskmen and Sound systems. I am happy to report that I have stuck to my vow to never again give my money to such a sneaky sh*thole company.

Also, I overall [not in every detail] do prefer Canon [camera] user interface over any other I've encountered so far. So I decided to make do with my 2 existing camera systems [EOS M and Canon FF mirrorslapper] until a company other than Sony comes up with a decent, compact and affordable mirrorfree FF system. :)
 
Last edited:

Aglet

EOS 7D Mark II
Feb 26, 2012
1,692
9
AB
#56
excellent, if it works well for you.
EM1v2 is a pretty good do-all camera, so yes, it works well for me when I don't need a FF light-bucket or more shallow DoF.


But to me, mFT gear has lost the last bit of appeal, when Canon EOS M and EF-M lenses were launched. Much larger sensor, better RAWs than any Oly camera, similar size/weight and lower system cost (thanks to extremely affordable EF-M lenses). Granted, there are no f/1.2 EF-M primes available, but I don't need or miss them. On an APS-C sensor I [almost] get equivalence with a simple, tiny, dirt-cheap EF-M22 f/2.
I will only dispute 2 points there.

1. lens costs. Oly (and Pany's) kit lenses are actually quite good, super small, light and compact, and still deliver decent optical results if you don't require fast apertures. AND THEY ARE CHEAP.

2. "much better raw" - uhm. NO. not from any metrics I've seen.

Canon sensor is less than 50% larger than 4/3 so less than half a stop advantage, all things being equal.
And all things are not equal. Canon's latest sensor tech performance is much improved but still lags behind the best (which is pretty much everyone else) in IQ.
If you compare metrics with M100 and (older but still flag-bearing) EM1v2 you'll find the Oly still beats the M100 in many key sensor metrics despite the size disparity.


Overall I think Oly was rather lucky that Sony solely focused on their FF lineup over the past 5 years and sort of neglected their APS-C lineup - especially A5### series cameras and decent+affordable E-mount lenses. Otherwise Oly might well already have disappeared by now.
Perhaps the market may have evolved differently if Sony's crop ML were more refined and better promoted. They were tempting but still just not compelling enough vs product from more experienced still camera mfrs.
Don't forget to check the label on what's being used when you go for a colonoscopy. ;) Chances are it's an Olympus (and they've had more than enough problems in that market!)


In my opinion Oly's decision to move from FT to mFT, will lead to their [mFT/Imaging division] demise. Had they moved to "very compact, decent and affordable" mirrorfree APS-C cameras back then [instead of the retro "Pen" folly and before the first underspecced Canon EOS M was launched] and additionally in 2007 launched a mirrorfree FF system in the spirit of the film OM system [most compact cameras in the market with excellent functionality] they could have had a bright future. They did not and now their lunch is totally being eaten by smartphones, 1" compact cameras (eg Sony RX100) and mirrorfree APS-C systems (Canon, Sony, Fuji).
I'm not going to dredge the sales data for the last decade to argue that opinion but MFT is doing OK considering the niche market ML has been up until recently.
Even a cheap MFT system is far more of a "real" camera than any smartphone.

How things will shake out over the next few years as the 2 biggest names in camera gear jump into the ML market in a committed way remains to be seen.
If Nikon doesn't do it now, or Canon a little later, the MFT group will likely take the next step and introduce global shutter functionality and that will be another useful leap forward for MFT. It's likely more cost-effective to implement GS on a smaller sensor so expect it there first unless Canon and Nikon are afraid enough to deploy it early.
Olympus is hinting at some very impressive goodies for their 100th anniversary in 2019. I'm not sure that would prevent me buying a Nikon Z or 2 in the meantime tho. Next October feels like a very long time to wait right now!
 
Likes: fullstop