The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing

[JohnDizzo15]

I am sorry, but you seem to be one of the people who got his DSLR religion, and is not willing to look forward. Windows vs Apple, Windows vs OS/2 Windows vs Linux, iOS vs Android, Android vs Windows 8,.... so many "religious" wars, and yet folks continue to use most of the products.

There are MANY professionals who already dumped D800 5DIII and other "big boy" toys. The fact is that Fuji and Olympus and Sony are ahead of the game of looking towards the future.
If you look at quality of fujifilm x-yyyy series, they produce amazing pictures. So do latest toys from Olympus and Sony. A7 and A7r is the v 1.o of the line, but so was iPhone way back.

I met plenty of parents who drag heavy DSLR with huge lenses to take pictures of their little ones. Dedicated cameras will NEVER go away, unless a new breakthrough product emerges just for this reason. I will try to sell my DSLRs to one of them, who doesn't know any better.

Mirror-less cameras are light, provide great picture quality and improve in AF area. What else does one need.

To answer your question:
Longer battery life
Faster/accurate AF
Developed ecosystem
Ergonomics with large lenses

OR

be even smaller to truly be small enough for me to care how small it is....which it will never be unless there is some breakthrough in physics that allows lenses to be smaller and have the same specs.

 

[9VIII]

Go ask your wife, brother, sister, parents.... friends that are not into photography... ask them about IQ and compare pictures and bodies.... they don't give a crap... they might even think you're nuts. Problem is... Canon and every other company is not just targeting you, but also your wife, brother, sister, parents and the people that are not into photography.

It depends on what culture you're from. Around the people I grew up with it's more just a cost/benefit equation. If you can start a good conversation about one thing being significantly better than another they'll probably buy it. I'm fairly certain you'll find an SLR in every household among my relatives, and many of my friends as well.
If people didn't care about image quality I don't think this industry would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
I'm still betting that once full frame sensors punch through the $1,000 barrier you'll see a significant boost in the amount of interest surrounding big cameras (regardless of viewfinder type).

 

[mrsfotografie]

No mirror to protect the sensor when changing lenses is an open invitation to dust and ruined pictures (and that's what users of these cameras WILL get)

FWIW the mirror doesn't protect the sensor against dust. The shutter on a DSLR however usually is closed when you change lenses, so that helps perhaps. Still, despite the shutter, dust that gets inside the camera can eventually find its way to the sensor. I wouldn't want to use the shutter as a protective screen anyway, because it is very delicate. Best be careful with lens changes no matter what

 

[Albi86]

Simple truth: the OVF is a passive device that has tied camera progress for years. This has been supported by Canikon being the benchmark of photography and by their being uninterested in developing EVFs.

That said, the EVF is a dynamic, active device that gives plenty of advantages. Magnification, exposure preview, peaking, zebras, etc are only some of them. More than that, an EVF can be extensively developed and improved over time, OVFs not quite. OVFs are the past, EVFs are the future, and we are now in a transition zone.

If any of the nay-sayers in this thread had actually tried the EVF in the a7 or OMD, probably they would have a different opinion.

 

[SwampYankee]

Try taking this with your iPhone.

 

[Random Orbits]

Simple truth: the OVF is a passive device that has tied camera progress for years. This has been supported by Canikon being the benchmark of photography and by their being uninterested in developing EVFs.

That said, the EVF is a dynamic, active device that gives plenty of advantages. Magnification, exposure preview, peaking, zebras, etc are only some of them. More than that, an EVF can be extensively developed and improved over time, OVFs not quite. OVFs are the past, EVFs are the future, and we are now in a transition zone.

If any of the nay-sayers in this thread had actually tried the EVF in the a7 or OMD, probably they would have a different opinion.

Yeah, now if they can only reduce the battery drain. EVFs can match OVFs but they are currently a lot more expensive than the OVFs. That problem will be solved as the technology is developed and matured. The power consumption is another issue. Battery technology is based on basic chemistry and there aren't any technologies that are better than Li-ion (cost, power capacity, etc.) and right now, people are not willing to give up the 700+ shots with a DSLR (OVF) for 200 shots with an EVF.

 

[Sella174]

Yeah, now if they can only reduce the battery drain. ... The power consumption is another issue. Battery technology is based on basic chemistry and there aren't any technologies that are better than Li-ion (cost, power capacity, etc.) and right now, people are not willing to give up the 700+ shots with a DSLR (OVF) for 200 shots with an EVF.

The source of the battery-life problem is the misguided insistence that mirrorless cameras be small in size, which obviously dictates a small battery as well.

 

[mkabi]

Try taking this with your iPhone.

Out of curiosity, what did you use to take that picture?

 

[Random Orbits]

Yeah, now if they can only reduce the battery drain. ... The power consumption is another issue. Battery technology is based on basic chemistry and there aren't any technologies that are better than Li-ion (cost, power capacity, etc.) and right now, people are not willing to give up the 700+ shots with a DSLR (OVF) for 200 shots with an EVF.

The source of the battery-life problem is the misguided insistence that mirrorless cameras be small in size, which obviously dictates a small battery as well.

Even if the batteries were as large as that in the 5DIII, the number of shots per battery will still be much fewer. The EVF does not work without power. That is the nice thing about OVF. You can set up a lot of shots without using any power until you need to press the button. On a good day, I can get 800+ using PDAF. Using LV heavily, maybe 300, and if I had to use an EVF/LV for rough framing etc, it'd be even less.

 

[zim]

Try taking this with your iPhone.

Out of curiosity, what did you use to take that picture?

A 5D3 I'll bet ;D

 

[Marsu42]

If any of the nay-sayers in this thread had actually tried the EVF in the a7 or OMD, probably they would have a different opinion.

I'm a yay-sayer when it comes to the potential of mirrorless, but I have to admit I am atm very attached to an old-school optical viewfinder that draws no power and shows me what I see with my bare eye without feeling like in a sci-fi movie.

Every time I pick up a new Sony gadget (there's ample opportunity in Berlin in the Sony Center) and look through the current evf generation I jump a little and think "Yuck! Gimme my ovf back"... so I agree with dpreview's assessment, see http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/5

For its part, the EVF is a means to an end - much as I prefer an optical viewfinder, knowing that the α7 is going to capture an impressive image in a smaller package than the average full frame digital SLR makes the EVF a necessary evil worth tolerating.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Did you read the post? The example given is sticking a super large and comfy eye-piece on the back of the camera, not holding it out in front of you.
There are definitely much better places to put the viewfinder than top-center on the camera, another reason to like the Fuji bodies is that the viewfinder is off to the side so I wouldn't be mashing my face into the body all the time. I have to wonder if they couldn't make an SLR with the viewfinder on the side instead of the top.

I've come to appreciate the OVF a lot more as time goes by, and that it doesn't take power is great, but all the lame excuses about fictitious problems with the EVF aren't going to help anyone.

Sorry, misread that --- i guess my brain read 3" EVF and couldn't comprehend why at eye level you'd need something so large...

 

[Loswr]

No mirror to protect the sensor when changing lenses is an open invitation to dust and ruined pictures (and that's what users of these cameras WILL get)

It's a mirror, not a magic mirror. When you change lens, dust gets in whether there's a mirror there or not. Sure, if there's a mirror that dust doesn't settle directly on the sensor...but the dust doesn't evaporate when the lens is put back on. It's in the mirror box, then you start taking pictures, the mirror flipping up and down each time, moving that dust around inside the mirror box...and guess what? It gets on the sensor anyway.

Mirror-less cameras are light, provide great picture quality and improve in AF area. What else does one need.

Picture quality correlates with sensor size - bigger is better. Pancake lenses notwithstanding, full frame sensors need big lenses. A 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 zoom on a mirrorless body renders the light weight of the body moot.

Mirrorless AF is improving, but true phase AF with a dedicated sensor is still superior, especially for tracking movement.

What else does one need? How about an electronic viewfinder approaching the quality of optical. We're not there yet. Decent battery life would be nice, too.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I am sorry, but you seem to be one of the people who got his DSLR religion, and is not willing to look forward. Windows vs Apple, Windows vs OS/2 Windows vs Linux, iOS vs Android, Android vs Windows 8,.... so many "religious" wars, and yet folks continue to use most of the products.

There are MANY professionals who already dumped D800 5DIII and other "big boy" toys. The fact is that Fuji and Olympus and Sony are ahead of the game of looking towards the future.
If you look at quality of fujifilm x-yyyy series, they produce amazing pictures. So do latest toys from Olympus and Sony. A7 and A7r is the v 1.o of the line, but so was iPhone way back.

I met plenty of parents who drag heavy DSLR with huge lenses to take pictures of their little ones. Dedicated cameras will NEVER go away, unless a new breakthrough product emerges just for this reason. I will try to sell my DSLRs to one of them, who doesn't know any better.

Mirror-less cameras are light, provide great picture quality and improve in AF area. What else does one need.

To answer your question:
Longer battery life
Faster/accurate AF
Developed ecosystem
Ergonomics with large lenses

OR

be even smaller to truly be small enough for me to care how small it is....which it will never be unless there is some breakthrough in physics that allows lenses to be smaller and have the same specs.

+100

 

[AvTvM]

Mirrorless AF is improving, but true phase AF with a dedicated sensor is still superior, especially for tracking movement.

What else does one need? How about an electronic viewfinder approaching the quality of optical. We're not there yet. Decent battery life would be nice, too.

Sony A7/R has proven how small a mirrorless camera with a top notch FF sensor can be built.

There are no technical reasons precluding an AF-system better than 1D X, battery charge for 500+ shots and even higher res EVF with no perceptible lag (or blackout) ... any time soon. It will come. It will sell. Very well.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

• I disagree with almost all of this. The future of photography is higher end gear, cameras like those made by Fuji X, Sony NEX, A7, etc - not P&S or phones.

  
  @ pharp - Bros., the future of photography may be higher end gear but what makes you think that Fuji X, Sony NEX, A7, etc. is so much high end versus P&S or cell phones?
  
  @ everyone else.... Here is whats happening. The pro. won't even touch these guys with a 10 yard stick (not that I talk for all professionals), people everywhere else are using cell phones and P&S. Few people will look at these pros and will buy a DSLR - thinking that they can emulate a pro. and most will always start with a lower end model like a Rebel. And, depending on how much they will get into photography, most are happy as long as its better than a P&S or cell phone. Filter that and they will invest in FF. Filter that and you will see people talking about IQ... its a small playing field... it doesn't make it better that a MILC looks like a toy camera versus a probody.
  
  Go ask your wife, brother, sister, parents.... friends that are not into photography... ask them about IQ and compare pictures and bodies.... they don't give a crap... they might even think you're nuts. Problem is... Canon and every other company is not just targeting you, but also your wife, brother, sister, parents and the people that are not into photography.

  
  Sony Rx10 is a fantastic video camera and professional WILL touch them the same way as they do GoPro action cameras. These products are cheap and good enough for many of their work.
  
  I found another wedding photographer who dumped her Canon 5DIII for Olympus OMD-E5 and OMD-E1. For her pixel peeping is not important. Making money and not getting injured in the process by caring heavy camera, is the top priority.
  
  As far as families and friends not giving crap.
  
  Only family members that haven't seen any good pictures from any of their friends. However those who HAVE seen great pictures (like mine ...lol ) immediately ask one basic question "what camera should I buy?". They know that their iPhone or Android phone are NOT going to give them what they really want, since they already tried them. They've seem me switching from Canon 7D to Sony NEx-5n and the results where not worse, as they (and I) can tell.
  KNOWING the basics of photography is more important than what camera we have. Of course equipment does matter, but skills ARE the main ingredient of a good photo.
  Just saying.

  
  EVF only makes no difference for video, because all you have is EVF for video, so of course video people would not care about the mirror, the mirror is a compromise for them because a dedicated cine series camera is expensive!
  
  that last part i take issue with though, cause it does seem to be one of those things you see and here all the time -- you shoot an event, take some great shots and do some great PP on those shots...and there's always one person that says...that's amazing, you must have a really nice camera.
  
  when this happens I really hope I encounterthem in a scnerio they specialize in...if they are a cook, you know, it's not that they know how to make a mean dish with skill...you must have a real good oven.
  
  this is why I harp on the identity of mirrorless. The only thing stopping that tech from becoming serious is itself --- just like P&S and entry level slr's, the main consumer base will be shooting in P mode, pop up flash on auto, everything on auto. PP will be in camera filters and that thing better have built in wifi so i can post the shots to fb immediately!!!! This is the crowd we all have to deal with when thinking about the overall future of camera tech!
  
  This crowd has become a cell phone crowd because:
  
  • cell phone camera have gotten better, easy to use, 1 device that can take the shot, edit and upload on the spot
  • the advantages of P&S are lost to these folks because lets face it, there isn't much that's really good about modern P&S's
  • simplicity wins the race here, 99% of what we talk about here is lost to the bulk of the market for cameras
  
  That leaves the rest of us that do care, which is a small segment of the market. Of course, we make up for our #'s in profit margin because most of us have several thousand $$$ worth of gear.
  
  Which brings me right back to the og theory that if mirrorless has to be a new system all of it's own - that means those of us invested in current tech have to sell it all off to upgrade to the new tech ---and right now the benefits to doing so just aren't there. For a full system switch, there had better be some real tangible differences and at this stage they just aren't there. I look at the new sony's and other than the sensor itself (and yup, it's pretty much the same sensor that's in the d800), there's really nothing there that's ground breaking (for a mirrorless system it is, cause its the first FF mirrorless) - stack the specs vs a 5d3 or a d800 or a d610 or a 6d and there isn't much that the sony can do that the slr can't - in fact the slr can and is doing things the sony can't ---and we aren't talking nuts and bolts ---we're talking about being capped at 300 shots per battery charge because so much of the thing is electric....even if the sony at 24 stops of DR, that won't matter as the sony is in the bag dead while my 6d is trucking away at 2000 shots on the same battery ---and yeah, that battery will still be good the next day (as long as i'm not using live view or wifi!)
  
  all that said though --- if a mirrorless body could be made that fits in the existing system, then it doesn't have to be a revolutionary groundbreaking product to sell. You make 1 purchase in a body just like every other time a new body comes out. To me, that's the difference maker. That's why the sony intrigues me, with an adapter of course you can use nikon or canon glass. It's a great move, but also I think it's sony's way of saying we don't know if we really want to invest in this whole new system thing so lets see what happens... with that said though - if all it takes is that silly adapter to convert it, it should be easy enough to design slr like mirrorless bodies which use the current system of lenses.
  
  To bring this full circle - Even if the future is mirrorless and it does mean a whole new system down the line - for it to gain momentum and acceptance it needs to be something that can be taken seriously --- not just marketed to the I shoot on P mode and auto everything crowd. that means making some moves to intrigue the size and weight don't matter to me crowd --- that's your pros and invested enthusiasts. Afterall, it's the photos taken by pros and enthusiasts that make the average joe want nicer cameras, right?????
  

 

[Albi86]

If any of the nay-sayers in this thread had actually tried the EVF in the a7 or OMD, probably they would have a different opinion.

I'm a yay-sayer when it comes to the potential of mirrorless, but I have to admit I am atm very attached to an old-school optical viewfinder that draws no power and shows me what I see with my bare eye without feeling like in a sci-fi movie.

Every time I pick up a new Sony gadget (there's ample opportunity in Berlin in the Sony Center) and look through the current evf generation I jump a little and think "Yuck! Gimme my ovf back"... so I agree with dpreview's assessment, see http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/5

For its part, the EVF is a means to an end - much as I prefer an optical viewfinder, knowing that the α7 is going to capture an impressive image in a smaller package than the average full frame digital SLR makes the EVF a necessary evil worth tolerating.

I insist that you try it

I played with the a7 for a week and I swear, of all things, the lack of OVF didn't bother me at all. Now, the size of the VF did, but that's another story

 

[Loswr]

Sony A7/R has proven how small a mirrorless camera with a top notch FF sensor can be built.
Better AF

Yes, they're small. Does that make the lenses needed to cover a full frame image circle a
significantly smaller or lighter?

Yes, the a7/a7R need better AF than they've got - particularly the a7R.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

I would be much more intrigued if Sony decided to develop a body where they took size out of the equation, added hybrid ovf/evf, and worked in partnership with someone like conurus at metabones to get adapted glass focussing close to native spec.

If compactness were not a consideration, battery size could be increased.
Hybrid vf similar to Fuji would allow people to almost have their cake and eat it too (while saving some battery life)
Conurus has already adapted zeiss glass to canon bodies very successfully with re to AF speeds and have a three distance in-lens AFMA capability. I don't see why this would not also be possible for sony.

Those few things alone would completely change my tune.

 

[Marsu42]

I insist that you try it I played with the a7 for a week and I swear, of all things, the lack of OVF didn't bother me at all. Now, the size of the VF did, but that's another story

I'm positive that using the thing for a week is way different than just for a couple of minutes in an expo - so I can only tell about my first impression with evfs... but dpreview had more time and still came to the same conclusion, that's why I quoted them. But alas, in a decade we're all in for it anyway ;-)