Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:41 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:23 am 
Gordon (and whoever else has thoughts): Are ILCs going to take over? Does it make sense to plan your long term camera / lens strategy around this now?

I've known about them for a while (think early on it may have been Gordon on a G+ hangout), and just saw this where Trey R is saying they are taking over. I was just thinking of upgrading to full frame Nikon, but now am in doubt about that.

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2012/01/0 ... he-future/

In case you don't know ILC is interchangeable lens digital camera and it is very similar to a DSLR except it doesn't have a mirror system that diverts light to the viewfinder - instead the viewfinder would be a computer screen of some type. The advantage is the mirror system takes up a ton of space in the traditional DSLRs makes them a lot more expensive, etc. Right now the ILCs are mostly entry to mid level quality - not full frame professional at least.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:22 pm
Posts: 1310
Location: Speyer (Germany)
Personally I don't think they are dying. I just like the ergonomics of those "big cameras". There are a lot of big lenses out there and even with EVIL cameras the size of those won't decrease as much as they'd need in order to be called compact. If you want small lenses you are restricted to use "normal" focal lengths - as soon as you are going for a tele lens (for example) the size increases. Having those bigger lenses I also like a bigger camera for ergonomics - they are just better to hold and easier to keep straight.

Of course the EVIL cameras will get more and more but I doubt there will be so many in the professional segment. For full frame EVILs you'd need bigger lenses and the body size gets less relevant as it's not that compact any more and the smaller the sensor gets the less you can play with the field of view.

The next thing is there are so many existing DSLR lenses at the moment. You could use adapters to use them but often with some restrictions.

I guess I will go on using DSLRs. At least as long as possible. :lol:
Still I think Sony had a good idea with that translucent mirror. But the size is still DSLR-like.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III + Canon EOS 33v
Canon EF 28-80mm 3.5-5.6 USM + EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 50mm 1.8 II + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:01 am
Posts: 1164
Location: bit east of Melbourne
I don`t think this is silly at all.
As soon as I can get an ILC that provides me with good dof, instant response and none of that delay between the action and the view screen I will be having one. It naturally needs to be fast auto focus and would replace the DSLR for normal family duties. It is a big thing to cart around when visiting. Often I now just take the S95, but it still lacks in above mentioned areas.

I need to have a play with a Sony NEX to see how close they are and really look into what lenses are available and what price.


It doesn`t yet make me wonder whether I should invest in another lens or save it for the other system, but I can see that soon this may well be the case. There has been a lot of changes in the last 4-5 years, there is going to to be more in the next 4-5 years.



I would still take the DSLR for chasing birds, wildlife etc.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 6D,7D, Canon 40 2.8 STM, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, Canon 17-40 L, Canon 15-85, Canon 85 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L Macro, Canon 70-300L +Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:31 pm 
MaxJJ and Jiko - I've come around to agree with you. Or at least, I'm going to be acting like I do: investing in some good new DSLR stuff for the timebeing. Here are the assumptions that drive this:
1) good serious equipment (big frame, great lens choices) will be 3-5 years wait for these cameras and that's too much time
2) as they start to catch on even if I like them, I'll be able to sell my current gear for a good price.

Good point that with big lenses, it doesn't really matter that much that a body shrinks a bit.

I think one of the advantages that I heard from the video was about how quickly these new cameras do frames. It sounds more like you almost take a short movie vs a handful of photos. You then select the pictures you like the most out of this movie sequence.

Where I'm coming out (I think) is that the gear I'm looking at (Nikon but probably true for many others) seems to have super resale value. So I will pay out some money that's a lot for me but really enjoy the good equipment for now, not be waiting forever to get what I want, and be able to swap out later...


Top
  
 
 Post subject: It's about time
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:25 pm 
I have a half dozen current camera bodies and over 20 some lenses from 40 years of work and play. I've learned their limitations and I'm now ready for something new, a mirrorless non mechanical system that's fast and programable. One based on pure digital control that leaves the mirror and vibration behind. Today I spend most of my time in a digital darkroom exploring all the things I could never do in my film darkroom. Today I think in terms of HDR, focus stacking, gigapan landscapes, et al. Merging and stacking images to create what my eye sees. To that end I can't wait to setup a mirrorless camera. Think what an instantaneous burst of images of varied exposures could do for a final HDR image....

I'm thinking of investing in a Sony NEX 7 and one very good fast lens. I'll wait on the technology to evolve to pro levels before I invest heavily but I can't wait.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:17 pm 
I have a couple of queries with this theory.

1- The technology has to offer something very very very significant for folks to leave behind their existing systems. I dont see EVIL's, MILC's or whatever offering that. Think the evolution of audio. First vinyl, then cassette tape offered recordability and portability, then CD's offered HUGE increase in sound quality and then digital files but this required technology to catch up to enable it to work. I see ILC's as a bit minidisc

2- No electronic viewfinder is ever going to have the same resolution, natural feel, low power consumption or visibility (in bright light) as an 'analogue' one.

3- anything that gets in the way of any light getting to the sensor is a bad thing. The advantage of a conventional dslr is that it moves the mirror out of the way to get the shot. In my short time with a dslr I've already had issues with filters so part see through prisms dont seem ideal

just my 2p's worth


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:32 pm 
It really is a matter of function. If you use a camera in the most conventional way then your choice of camera is your choice. I have Rollie rangefinders that I still enjoy using. I am still a very conventional photographer but I really am spending more time in post on HDR and merging and masking images to get what I want. I still plan to keep the best of my current lot but I'm not upgrading to a D4 and that Zeiss 21 mm ZF is going to wait my purchase until I see where Nikon is going. My hope is they'll jump into the fray with a larger chip and add more programmable functions sooner than later. I really don't want to replace all my lenses but I'm ready to do so if Nikon doesn't. I'm not upgrading my Nikon gear until they do.

An electronic viewfinder is something I would have agreed with you a month ago, but then I got to use a Sony A77 and again I'm open to change. I used a large Hoodman eye cup on it and found the OLED so bright that it has eliminated daylight complaints for me. It's not perfect but I do like the peaking function. With an OLED viewfinder I can leave my 5" field monitor at home.

To your last point on the translucent mirror I didn't find it a problem. What I do find a problem is the noise and time it takes to raise and lower a mirror. We suddenly have 20 to 30 humming birds and even in live mode my Nikon's make way too much noise. It's hard to get a picture without one of them starring back at me.

I think the change is great enough to warrant new gear. I remember a niece asking for advice many years ago on buying film cameras and darkroom equipment. She wanted the darkroom experience and I tried in vain to get her to go digital. We don't talk about it anymore.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:22 pm
Posts: 1310
Location: Speyer (Germany)
I like optical viewfinders - especially compared to the electronic viewfinders I know until now. But I haven't seen the Sony version - and it sounds like they are pertty good, yet. And who knows about further evolution in terms of their quality, resolution and dynamic range?

In my opinion translucent mirrors are quite a nice idea - they combine the feeling of DSLRs with the advantages (speed etc.) of mirrorless systems. But in the end there are always people who do not need that speed... Aren't the 12 frames per second WITH a mirror flipping up (EOS 1DX) enough for about any sports? For a higher speed a 4k video recording (30 or even 60 fps) might be the way to go :D But of course - in the video mode you get the advantage of the translucent mirror's ability of offering autofocus all the time.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III + Canon EOS 33v
Canon EF 28-80mm 3.5-5.6 USM + EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 50mm 1.8 II + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8022
Location: UK
I'm going to stay out of the detail which has been hashed around countless times and probably isn't going anywhere soon, but DRTV have just done a video DSLR vs Mirrorless - which is better? in their own style...

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:59 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9811
Location: UK
.
One way of looking at this is to ask what the mirror provides that a mirrorless solution doesn't? An optical viewfinder and phase based AF are the obvious answers. EVFs are getting better and if the technology behind the main sensor phase AF as seen on the Nikon 1 system can be implemented on APS-C and larger sensors then there would seem to be no compelling reason to retain the complication of a mirror system. If main sensor phase AF can't be implemented on large sensors then there's always the pellicle soluton. Mirrorless cameras certainly offer the potential for small size but, as I argued in Size Matters, for creative effects based on depth of field the diameter of the entrance pupil of the lens doesn't change whatever the size of the camera/sensor. Similarly with low light situations. So while the marketing folks may concentrate on smaller size as a way of selling these cameras I would suggest that for a number of situations beyond the usual "happy snapper" ones there is no significant size advantage at all because of the glass needed.

I think there are two main factors holding back CSCs (compact system cameras) at the moment. A limited selection of native lenses and, crucially, the high prices. It's not at all clear to me why a camera which is mechanically simpler should cost more. R&D costs should be no greater than for any new DSLR model and dispensing with fiddly mechanicals should reduce the parts cost and assembly cost. Maybe the manufacturers either think we are so stupid that we believe we should pay more for less or they are trying to avoid cannibalising their own DSLR sales too rapidly? Or am I missing something?

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:35 am 
I have a question relating to sensor temperature and noise that is relevant to this topic

I've read somewhere a comment that using live view on a dslr increases its temperature and so therefore it's noise. This has got to be an issue with any system using electronic viewfinders if it is the case


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group