- Status
wickidwombat said:
I'd guess that optics are going to increasing become a barrier aswell, these new 24MP ASPC sensors really seem to be struggling to find a lenses that give good sharpness across the frame.
There actually seems to be alot of room for DSLR's to devolp in this area aswell to me, at the moment size and quality go together but I think theres alot of potential for quality to be reduced in size ala Pentax.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
@briansquibb
Maybe the Sony SLT system is the future, I remember pellicle cameras were the go to option for sports folks, and of course, no mirror flip means EF-s lenses could in theory be used on cameras with an FF sensor (and EF-s mount, obviously)
Olympus made a camera a few years back, the E-330, which was unremarkable in every way except that it managed to have both an optical finder and live view similtaniously, although like current DSLRs, it had to drop the mirror to get the best AF, maybe a combination of the two systems would be an ideal:
Full time live view, full time optical finder, with full time phase detection AF? Would make for a complex prism path and unusual camera shape, but then is it form over function, or function over form.
The only CSC that really appealed to me was the GF1, I really really liked the Panasonic Lumix L1 / leica digi whatever and would liked to have seen a scaled down micro 4/3rds version (again, optical finder and live view - adapted from e-330 but in a nicer shaped body) and with its aperture ring and shutter dial could be a fuji x competitor...
The problem with csc's is that anything other than a pancake just isn't really all that usefully compact.
Maybe the Sony SLT system is the future, I remember pellicle cameras were the go to option for sports folks, and of course, no mirror flip means EF-s lenses could in theory be used on cameras with an FF sensor (and EF-s mount, obviously)
Olympus made a camera a few years back, the E-330, which was unremarkable in every way except that it managed to have both an optical finder and live view similtaniously, although like current DSLRs, it had to drop the mirror to get the best AF, maybe a combination of the two systems would be an ideal:
Full time live view, full time optical finder, with full time phase detection AF? Would make for a complex prism path and unusual camera shape, but then is it form over function, or function over form.
The only CSC that really appealed to me was the GF1, I really really liked the Panasonic Lumix L1 / leica digi whatever and would liked to have seen a scaled down micro 4/3rds version (again, optical finder and live view - adapted from e-330 but in a nicer shaped body) and with its aperture ring and shutter dial could be a fuji x competitor...
The problem with csc's is that anything other than a pancake just isn't really all that usefully compact.
Upvote
0
It is a little bit to early to sound the Death bell for DSLR. Will it happen??? May be quite a few years down the road. Some posts here sound like science friction. They are a little bit far fetch. Let us look at what we have now:
Fast auto focusing without mirror: Nikon 1, Olympus OM-D has it. Canon on T4i???
Semi-transparent Mirror: Canon has it 50 years ago and give it up, Sony SLT now. Is there any problem? Decrease actual lens speed for sure. Ghosting, unsharpness, maybe?
Electronics view finder: we have it now.But can we live with the delay and distortion due to delay???
Electronic shutter: we have it now. But do we want to expose the sensor while we are changing lens? We can put an automatic blind to protect the sensor while we are changing lens. But this will slow down the lens changing process (slightly) and have more mechanical parts.
Practically, I can see a 2 parallel path for a long while: 1. For light weight and smaller size: Canon S100 or G1 X type with fast AF. 2. DSLR for speed and versatility. As it is now, I do not see the practicality of interchangeable mirrorless digital camera. I was playing with the Olympus OM-D for awhile couple weeks ago. It has FAST AF. But the view finder gave me a headache.
Fast auto focusing without mirror: Nikon 1, Olympus OM-D has it. Canon on T4i???
Semi-transparent Mirror: Canon has it 50 years ago and give it up, Sony SLT now. Is there any problem? Decrease actual lens speed for sure. Ghosting, unsharpness, maybe?
Electronics view finder: we have it now.But can we live with the delay and distortion due to delay???
Electronic shutter: we have it now. But do we want to expose the sensor while we are changing lens? We can put an automatic blind to protect the sensor while we are changing lens. But this will slow down the lens changing process (slightly) and have more mechanical parts.
Practically, I can see a 2 parallel path for a long while: 1. For light weight and smaller size: Canon S100 or G1 X type with fast AF. 2. DSLR for speed and versatility. As it is now, I do not see the practicality of interchangeable mirrorless digital camera. I was playing with the Olympus OM-D for awhile couple weeks ago. It has FAST AF. But the view finder gave me a headache.
Upvote
0
S
stevenrrmanir
Guest
RLPhoto said:5dmarkii said:JRS said:adhocphotographer said:I think that SLRs, like everything else, will eventually die, being replaced by the next thing... when and how this will happen, only time will tell!I think mirrorless is the first step, and the fact that a lot of the P&S cameras are getting better and better!
Yes, but even if P&S reach SLR in terms of IQ, noise and ISO performance, we will not have the same DOF using small sensors....
You can safely assume majority of camera owners don't even know what is DOF.
Let alone the Circle of Confusion around it. Pun Intended. ;D
anyone knows what DOF means - something to do with the Department of Freedom
getting back to topic, yes, dSLR are dead! anyone buying them right now will realize that their bodies will be useless and as they got old things don't function as they used to. As bodies age, they will notice stuff sagging, pants being to small, and needing larger underwear.
I would definitely stick with the point and shoot cameras. They fit nicely in your pants. Small is always good!
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
Like the well-received 36MP that everybody apart from Canon will be using soon?
Like the NEX-7? (I do hope Canons CSC is at least half as good as this)
Like the G1x beating RX-100?
Like the EOS c300 & 500 beating FS700? (costs a third less too)
I'm here all week ladies and gentlemen.
I am no Sony fanboy, but I do wish canon would teke a leaf out of their book sometimes!
Upvote
0
^To be fair, I've seen nothing out of the fs700 that looks anywhere near as good as the c300.
I think there will be dslrs around for a while, but they won't dominate the high end market.
I think there will be dslrs around for a while, but they won't dominate the high end market.
Upvote
0
stevenrrmanir said:RLPhoto said:5dmarkii said:JRS said:adhocphotographer said:I think that SLRs, like everything else, will eventually die, being replaced by the next thing... when and how this will happen, only time will tell!
Yes, but even if P&S reach SLR in terms of IQ, noise and ISO performance, we will not have the same DOF using small sensors....
You can safely assume majority of camera owners don't even know what is DOF.
Let alone the Circle of Confusion around it. Pun Intended. ;D
anyone knows what DOF means - something to do with the Department of Freedom
getting back to topic, yes, dSLR are dead! anyone buying them right now will realize that their bodies will be useless and as they got old things don't function as they used to. As bodies age, they will notice stuff sagging, pants being to small, and needing larger underwear.
I would definitely stick with the point and shoot cameras. They fit nicely in your pants. Small is always good!
That's not what she said, lol.
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
Theres a difference between Sony's exellent sensors and there own products.
The feeling I'v always gotten from SLT is that it was a solution looking for a problem introduced to differentiate there products from Canon and Nikon.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
I think the problem was crap AF in live view... whilst solution may not be a 1D beater, if you were shooting sports on a budget and had no lens legacy, then a Sony might be very appealling.
As I say, not a fanboy, and prefer optical VF, but Sony seem to have continued Minoltas slightly offbeat & sometimes superlatively forward thinking attitude. I just feel that sometimes, especially recently, Canon are the followers...
As I say, not a fanboy, and prefer optical VF, but Sony seem to have continued Minoltas slightly offbeat & sometimes superlatively forward thinking attitude. I just feel that sometimes, especially recently, Canon are the followers...
Upvote
0
I think it's pretty clear that optical viewfinders at some point will be replaced by electronic ones, meaning yes, SLRs are doomed in the long run. That doesn't mean they will become entirely extinct (like there are still LPs around today).
Regarding camera size... there are certain limits every future camera will need to adhere to, that can never change, no matter how clever future engineers are. I'm of course referring to the laws of physics. It may sound scary, but is often really simple, like this one: A sensor can never detect more light than is fed to it.
One implication is that we cannot expect sensors to increase their sensitivity indefinitely. Sensors already have a quantum efficiency (QE) of about 50%, meaning about half of the photons of the right wavelength hitting the sensor will get registred. For Bayer-type sensors we can thus expect at most a factor 2 improvement in sensitivity, even for an ideal sensor. With photo-sites that can detect all colours (as opposed to one colour; think foveon-like sensors), we can gain another factor 3 in sensitivity.
Low-light photography dominated by thermal/readout noise can naturally benefit from eliminating those additional noise sources, but the photon noise will always be there no matter what.
Another implication is that a larger lens will always have a low-light advantage, no matter the size of the sensor. Thus you have the option to choose a big lens that will be good in low light (and give shallow DOF), or a small lens that will fit easily into your pocket, but deliver deep DOF and not work as well in low light conditions. This will always be true. Forget about small lenses delivering shallow DOF - the reason the DOF becomes shallow is that the lens is big! Simple.
For perfect optics, the size of the sensor does not matter. In reality, it is much easier (and cheaper) to design satisfactory optics for a large sensor than a small. That's why the EF-S 17-55/2.8 is slightly more expensive than the EF 24-105/4.0L, eventhough the latter sports better build quality, has a larger effective aperture (26 mm at f=105mm compared to 20mm at f=55mm for the EF-S), and has the red ring.
Since we can expect sensors to continue become cheaper I would predict that sensors in general will become larger, and that the optics will become cheaper. I'd be surprised if we hadn't cheap FF P&S with plastic lenses within 10 years, producing better quality images than current P&S to better ergonomics and much better prices.
Regarding camera size... there are certain limits every future camera will need to adhere to, that can never change, no matter how clever future engineers are. I'm of course referring to the laws of physics. It may sound scary, but is often really simple, like this one: A sensor can never detect more light than is fed to it.
One implication is that we cannot expect sensors to increase their sensitivity indefinitely. Sensors already have a quantum efficiency (QE) of about 50%, meaning about half of the photons of the right wavelength hitting the sensor will get registred. For Bayer-type sensors we can thus expect at most a factor 2 improvement in sensitivity, even for an ideal sensor. With photo-sites that can detect all colours (as opposed to one colour; think foveon-like sensors), we can gain another factor 3 in sensitivity.
Low-light photography dominated by thermal/readout noise can naturally benefit from eliminating those additional noise sources, but the photon noise will always be there no matter what.
Another implication is that a larger lens will always have a low-light advantage, no matter the size of the sensor. Thus you have the option to choose a big lens that will be good in low light (and give shallow DOF), or a small lens that will fit easily into your pocket, but deliver deep DOF and not work as well in low light conditions. This will always be true. Forget about small lenses delivering shallow DOF - the reason the DOF becomes shallow is that the lens is big! Simple.
For perfect optics, the size of the sensor does not matter. In reality, it is much easier (and cheaper) to design satisfactory optics for a large sensor than a small. That's why the EF-S 17-55/2.8 is slightly more expensive than the EF 24-105/4.0L, eventhough the latter sports better build quality, has a larger effective aperture (26 mm at f=105mm compared to 20mm at f=55mm for the EF-S), and has the red ring.
Since we can expect sensors to continue become cheaper I would predict that sensors in general will become larger, and that the optics will become cheaper. I'd be surprised if we hadn't cheap FF P&S with plastic lenses within 10 years, producing better quality images than current P&S to better ergonomics and much better prices.
Upvote
0
Interesting article in to-days London Daily Telegraph. Sales of digital cameras have fallen by 30% ( value) between 2006 and 2011 and are forecast to continue downwards ( mirrored by camcorder sales) All down to smartphones and helped by fact that 25% upload to web and 33% burn to disc rather than print. The message is optical quality is of less importance, megapixels and optical zoom are dead, web services or other new capabilities are key to attracting sales....The article I assume is geared at the P&S market but it must have something to say about how firms like Canon see the market. IMV 10 years time - no P&S. 10 years time 2 or 3 DSLRs, Mirrorless to rule with no entry level SLR for keen photographers. Did you see the post the other day comparing the Hasselblad and the G10? I have a 7D, a 5D11 and a G1x - the difference is not sensor size, IQ or DR - it's size, fps, dof weather sealing etc etc and a great mirrorless could take them all out
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
Was that really a big issue for many users of SLR's? I'm guessing for the majority of users liveview is something thats used for either less challenging AF subjects like landscape or for manual focus.
Just seems like a halfway house between DSLR's and mirrorless to me with the disadvanatge of both plus the loss of light from the mirror.
Upvote
0
briansquibb said:
+1000
Shutter latency is one of the biggest issues. You can only really shoot predictable action with a compact or EVIL camera - because you have to compensate for the latency between the time when you release the shutter and when the photo is actually taken. Try shooting sports in live-view mode and see....
Upvote
0
J
Jettatore
Guest
I wouldn't be surprised if we got FF or near to it P&S cameras that have fixed lenses that are of a high quality and a better value, size and weight than a big L prime lens in the future, to a point where it may make some consider just getting the fixed P&S if the attached camera and controls and resulting pictures are good enough vs. buying a modular prime lens and lugging around a bigger system... I'm not sure if I would go for it or not, but it is very tempting.
This is for example enticing, although getting close, it's probably not up to snuff of the above description.. http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-X100-Digital-Fujinon-2-8-Inch/dp/B0043RS864/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341005816&sr=8-1&keywords=finepix+x100
"with an equivalent focal length of 35mm because of the X100's ~1.5x crop factor" plus it's an f/2 lens, so not too shabby, and gallery photo's seem to be able to hold their own to some degree. I just think the price of this item is a bit high for my tastes, especially because it's not a "perfected release", but if it were cheaper, I'd seriously consider something like this either before getting a 35mm L prime or just as an easily pocket-able camera that I would take everywhere with me and be taking more pictures. It's price however is about 2-3 times as much as I would want to pay for a high quality walk around camera and I don't honestly think I would consider it over a 35mm prime if pocket-ability wasn't the main concern. I can however envision this changing in the future with new pricing and updated models.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
@moreorless
There's two strands here, one - video AF. Not a big deal for me as with video I'm an MF man (although when I use 1/3 type camcorders I do like the option to quickly engage then disengage AF) but I recognise that a lot of folk don't use the video mode because live view AF sucks.
Second strand, I was shooting stills over a crowd at a demo through the week with the flip out screen and it brought it home how slow and lousy the live AF is on the 600D, if the camera isn't that still it doesn't lock, and as the camera was at arms length above my head I couldn't really see how well or otherwise AF was doing.
Better can only be better, even if YOU don't see the practical implications. It's a broad church.
On your second point, I think the reason Sony have to some extent carried it off is because their current sensors / processing have really address the dynamic range / noise issues on their earlier cameras.
That extra stop of DR the 16MP has over the canon 18MP makes up for the stop lost through the mirror.
I am strictly a canon guy, I've used and enjoyed their cameras for years and have invested into their system, it doesn't mean that I can't look over the fence at what other companies are doing, some crap (Pentax Q, Nikon J) some excellent (Pentax K-01, Fuji X-Pro1) and I have to say I am almost always nearly seduced by Panasonic, their GF1 and GX1's, the DMC-L1, the superior video quality of their G and Gh cameras....
But I'm a loyal beast. Just I feel sometimes that canon takes that loyalty for granted (prices of the 24 & 28mm IS lenses? anoooooother 18MP rebel)
There's two strands here, one - video AF. Not a big deal for me as with video I'm an MF man (although when I use 1/3 type camcorders I do like the option to quickly engage then disengage AF) but I recognise that a lot of folk don't use the video mode because live view AF sucks.
Second strand, I was shooting stills over a crowd at a demo through the week with the flip out screen and it brought it home how slow and lousy the live AF is on the 600D, if the camera isn't that still it doesn't lock, and as the camera was at arms length above my head I couldn't really see how well or otherwise AF was doing.
Better can only be better, even if YOU don't see the practical implications. It's a broad church.
On your second point, I think the reason Sony have to some extent carried it off is because their current sensors / processing have really address the dynamic range / noise issues on their earlier cameras.
That extra stop of DR the 16MP has over the canon 18MP makes up for the stop lost through the mirror.
I am strictly a canon guy, I've used and enjoyed their cameras for years and have invested into their system, it doesn't mean that I can't look over the fence at what other companies are doing, some crap (Pentax Q, Nikon J) some excellent (Pentax K-01, Fuji X-Pro1) and I have to say I am almost always nearly seduced by Panasonic, their GF1 and GX1's, the DMC-L1, the superior video quality of their G and Gh cameras....
But I'm a loyal beast. Just I feel sometimes that canon takes that loyalty for granted (prices of the 24 & 28mm IS lenses? anoooooother 18MP rebel)
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
chasn said:
Yes. Interesting. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9361867/Digital-camera-sales-slump-as-people-use-smartphones-to-take-snaps.html
That's one reason why I'm not so sure companies betting on mirrorless are making the right decision. People use their smartphones because they are small and they have them with them all the time. For uploading to the web (which is about as far as the majority of photos get today and many never even get off of people's phones or cameras) smartphones are adequate and getting better.
Why would the typical smartphone user want to carry about a camera and two or three lenses? Clearly they don't.
Someone tell me who the mirrorless interchangeable lens customer is, please. Early adopters who want the latest cool gadget? I suppose tourists not wanting to be loaded down with a big DSLR, but wanting nice pictures from their trip of a lifetime might be a good market. But is that a sustainable market? And, knowing how most consumers think, they might pay $6,000 for trip but aren't going to shell out $1,000 for a camera and lenses to remember the trip by. ("I thought about it and then realized I could just upgrade my iPhone for $200.")
It seems like many who are enthusiastic about mirrorless cameras are enthusiastic about a product that exists only in their minds. Big sensor, small lenses, lightweight, clear viewfinder, high ISO, quality images, low cost. But no one makes this dream mirrorless camera. Frankly, I suspect that the ideal mirrorless camera would need to be something like Dr. Who's TARDIS: bigger on the inside than on the outside. And outside of science fiction, that's a bit difficult to accomplish.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
