Camera Labs

Maybe DSLV could be used (Single Lens Viewfinder) to indicate the through-the-lens viewfinder type camera as opposed to the simpler separate viewfinder type.

Ben
_________________
When in doubt..... Press the shutter.

These were described on other forums as EVIL:
Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens.
It's interesting that the designs have come this far without general agreement on terminology.

EVIL excludes optical viewfinders. DSLV would include both OVF and EVF cameras.

Ben
_________________
When in doubt..... Press the shutter.

Actually, Panasonic has already dubbed it a "Digital Interchangeable Lens" camera, or DIL. DIL? Sounds silly. Makes you think of Dilbert or dill pickles.

I don't think DIL has much chance of catching on. It's usually better to go with something that is most similar to what's already used. DSLV is very similar to DSLR and would probably find easier acceptance.
_________________
When in doubt..... Press the shutter.

DSL - I like it! But it could be confused with broadband...

Thomas, we've included Micro Four Thirds with DSLRs because we no longer have seperate listings for compacts and superzooms. We now only list the specs of DSLRs - and, ahem, Micro Four Thirds. Should other DSL (!) models arrive from other manufacturers, we'll also include them there.

Yes, but it also has to make sense. Digital Single-Lens Viewfinder? Doesn't make sense to me. DSLEV makes more sense, but it has too many letters. Perhaps they should just be called DEV cameras.

Hey, how about just DM43 cameras? Why not just use the M4/3 designation?

After posting that, it dawned on me that we can just drop the D. I mean, there is no longer any need to contrast digital with film since digital is now dominant and taking over the camera market. It seems to me, then, that calling them M4/3 cameras is the way to go.

The whole point was to find a designation that would cover the 'traditional' DSLRs and the Micro 4/3 with an EVF because of the absence of the "Reflex" part in these new cameras and have a single designation that would include them both.

So you'd have to be able to use it in a sentence like: "The Canon 50D, the Nikon D90 and the Panasonic G1 are all .... cameras".

As Gordon said DSL is already 'in use'. Since you basically want to include both OVFs and EVFs here it would seem to make sense to use the VF part that they both have in common and as it simply describes the essential through-the-lens path (Single Lens) of the light to the VF it would make perfect sense.

Ben
_________________
When in doubt..... Press the shutter.

It depends how narrow you want the group to be. M4/3 is fine for this specific standard, but what if Canon, say, come out with their own version. I prefer just EV cameras - this would include superzooms and bridges, but I don't have a problem with that. I agree that we don't need the SL bit - the 'single lens' is a reference back to the days when there were reflex cameras with two identical lenses, like the Rolleiflex - definitely time expired!

A compact with an OVF also uses two lenses and two light paths. One through the lens to the sensor and another through the VF to the eye. The SL part indicates the absence of that second light path to the eye.

Ben
_________________
When in doubt..... Press the shutter.

Then there's the 'SL' for single lens, which in the absence of twin-lens cameras makes no sense. Since the EVIL cameras represent a fresh break from the old evil of mechanical parts, it would not be good to link the old with the new. Remember "horseless carriages"? We don't need another horseless carriage.

My opinion is that we don't want a catch-all term which includes DSLRs. The M4/3 standard is unique enough to get its own designation. However, the designation needs to separate M4/3 cameras from point-and-shoot cameras, since the sensor is so much larger. DEV doesn't do that. As I said before, I think we're trying to dredge up a new term when we already have an adequate term for these cameras: M4/3 or possibly DM43.

I own a Sony R1. Its a phenomenal camera. It avoids the complexity of the moving parts of a DSLR and the poential dust issues that moving mirror mechanisms pose - even if lenses are never changed. Having the rear element of the lens near the sensor provides for better image quality and allows for a smaller lens build.
The live view on the R1 is OK but nor brilliant. It does not have interchangeable lenses. Its good but its limited.

I have been waiting for some time for Sony to bring out an (??R2??) with much enhanced live view and interchangeable lenses to give ALL THE ADVANATGES OF A DSLR and ALL THE ADVANATAGES OF A FULLY ELECTRONIC CAMERA WITH NO PENTAPRISM AND NO REFLEX SYSTEM.

Panasonic have done it. It has the potential to be brilliant.
The potential advnatages are:
Cheaper manufactuing costs - so cheaper buying
Enhanced image quality
Lighter to carry
As fexible as a DSLR
Possibly less dust issues
Permanent live view

Lets see if Panasonic, unlike their previous point and shoot incarnations, have managed to overcome their noise and noise suppressing issues.

They have used a larger sensor here - but its STILL smaller than the APCS-S sensors on many medium range DSLR'S and way smaller than full frame - it will be telling to see if image quality can match DSLRS.

For me I am still waiting for an R1 follow on that has a APC-S sensor or larger, has a metal chassis, is fully weather sealed, has interchangeable lenses of very high quality, hot shoe, RAW shooting, a WYSIWYG viewfinder (100% view and the format ratio preserved).
I do not want a DSLR.
The R1 has a huge following but it cried out for an R2.
I suspect that the G1 will fall short of that market. May be it has not been developed for that market.
I believe there is a market out there for an R2 or - dare I say it a G2.
Lets see !

The Sony R1 came out at a time when I wasn't in the market for a camera, and it slipped right by me. DPreview had a lot of good things to say about it. But I hate the bulky styling.

I guess the R1 didn't sell well if they didn't come out with an R2. According to their review, the R1 had some disadvantages which the G1 may not have. JPG processing wasn't good, and RAW files were enormous. The EVF wasn't good, and the camera was slow. But Sony certainly had a lot of courage to make such a camera. Just based on the more-attractive styling of the G1 alone, I think it will be more successful. Also, the G1 represents a new standard, which the R1 didn't, so there will be models from more than just one manufacturer.

Considering how well made Pana's FZ50 was, lacking only a larger sensor and a better processing engine, the G1 ought to be a really sensational camera. I've had two Leica 'M' cameras, and I think the FZ50 is built better than the Leicas.