NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Per Inge Oestmoen on April 27, 2018, 11:19:45
-
At NikonGear, it is clear that the vast majority - it seems to me all the participants - consider the relative distribution and sales of Nikon and Canon DSLR systems when system camera sales and use is discussed.
This is much different from other fora.
A foremost example is dpreview.com, where one gets the impression that in particular Sony is about to overtake and dominate the whole camera market. Mirrorless cameras are touted as "the future" by people who seem to disregard or forget about the reality that mirrorless constructions who have electronic viewfinders and a sensor that is constantly on and exposed invariably means vastly increased battery power consumption and a correspondingly vastly reduced number of possible shots pr. mAh of battery power. Yes, one can carry a large number of batteries, and one can also carry a power bank, but the fact still remains - mirrorless consume much more energy and reduces the number of shots relative to a DSLR. Those who insist that mirrorless is the future and that optical viewfinders are obsolete and on their way out generally have no other answer than the statement that "most people will be fine with the capacity of mirrorless."
However, such statements do not change reality. The fact is still that for any given capacity of a battery you can get many more shots from a system with an optical viewfinder than what is possible from a mirrorless system.
Nor does anyone at dpreview or similar fora seem to consider the fact that mirrorless cameras with EVFs will have even more severe problems in low temperatures, since battery capacity will be even more drastically reduced - and how does an electronic viewfinder perform in -20, -30 and -40C?
That is why I ask:
- How and why is it that at dpreview.com and also other photo related discussion fora one gets the impression that mirrorless is the only thing and that DSLR syatems and glass viewfinders with no power consumption and sensors that are blacked out and protected between shots will soon be history?
- How representative are those who give that abovementioned impression?
- Who, and how many, are those who are ready to dump functional, reliable and capable systems from Nikon, Canon and Pentax in favor of the Sony system which seems to be mysteriously popular with hobbyist photographers?
- What are, in your opinion, the relative merits of DSLRs and mirrorless, and what is the future of these systems?
-
Having used Olympus E-M5 and E-M1 for some time, I can only say that I am patiently waiting for the first Nikon FX mirrorless to hit the market.
I currently use a Df on a near-daily basis (it is always with me, just in case). Df will not be replaced by a new type, and production will not last forever. I do not consider lugging around a D850 or similar with the same enthusiasm. So when my Df passes out, I'll probably get another one, second hand is need be, or jump to mirrorless.
Since I am mainly using MF lenses anyway, I do not drain batteries with AF and VR. Df battery life is more than enough for me now. Mirrorless might be just OK. It will not be worse than the E-M1.
I'll sure appreciate a mirrorless with EVF and better focussing aids than the hopeless focus confirmation we have on D800, Df & al. The Noct and the Summicron-R definitely deserve something better to become even more usable. This is especially true with focus-shift-prone lenses, including the Noct.
My "love story" with the Df is not especially due to the OVF, you see...
-
Dpreview's business model is to promote sales of new camera equipment; their site has traditionally been littered with camera evaluations along links to buy the said items.
From such sites' point of view the best customer of all is one who sells all their old gear and purchases a different system with new bodies, lenses and accessories. Because new gear costs more than old gear is compensated for, these switchers will have fewer items initially than they had for the old system so they are ripe targets for further purchases even to just chase what they had for the old system. SO it's basically to keep people running without moving anywhere.
Personally I think switching to a different system is usually a very bad move financially and if your current system offers a full selection of products that solve your practical photography need, it doesn't make any sense to switch. You end up spending a ton of money and get nowhere in terms of functionality. I also think that purchase of unnecessary items is immoral as it taxes the natural resources and environment of our planet. (I am well aware that I am guilty of this myself.)
Of course if you have legitimate problems with your equipment then it may be a different matter. But I've never had such a problem with Nikon equipment that I'd want to switch, with the exception of the 2004-6 era when there was no full frame digital option and the D70 viewfinder really annoyed me a lot. Then I looked into Canon 5D and 1D series cameras but decided not to go for it.
For mirrorless it has its own advantages such as viewfinder and autofocus for video, special tricks like eye autofocus for stills, compact bodies and compact wide angles (though I prefer large bodies but some it is an advantage to have a small body), silent operation when mechanical shutter is not used etc. This is all great but from my point of view the optical viewfinder is important and I have no plans of purchasing a camera without one. Fuji makes mirrorless with OVF/EVF hybrid and I recall Canon also patenting an optical viewfinder solution for mirrorless. These would be of interest to me to obtain the silent operation with viewfinder that I could use for some events. Other than those situations where silence is required, I prefer DSLRs.
Although mirrorless provide more focusing aids for manual focus, I cannot manual focus using the plain EVF display without use of magnification (in which case the overall composition is no longer visible). I mostly use autofocus when photographing hand held and manual focus for tripod based carefully controlled work. So for me viewfinder-based focusing aids are not typically used. I find the D850 live view to have the necessary tools for manual or automatic focusing for precision applications (on mostly static scenes) using a tripod. For hand held photography and moving subjects I use the viewfinder and autofocus.
For EVFs I just can't put up with the flickering, flashing, rolling jaggies and especially when panning the image basically goes all blurry and some cameras show a step like update instead of continuous, smooth movement. The slight delay gives me nausea and the artifacts reduce my ability to concentrate on the subject's subtle emotional cues. I have a strong dislike for the EVF and I don't think this will change in the future. I want to be happy when shooting and be able to concentrate on the subject and the large optical viewfinder of FX DSLRs gives me that.
I believe the camera review website industry has a strong motivation to push people to buy the new and make people unhappy with the old, because they live off advertisement clicks. They do not care about what is best for the photographer.
Actual sales are a different matter than what the camera review industry would like to promote. In Jan/Feb of this year DSLRs increased their market share relative to mirrorless compared to the same time of the previous year.
-
True, indeed, Ilkka. The perfect harmony balance between usage of mirror or mirrorless gears will be set by needs of each person. No propaganda of any kind/source will work for me, or anyone else, I am afraid, who perfectly knows what he/she needs. Batteries will be improved dramatically, ASAP, it is not that serious factor. And Nikon doesn't need to follow the Sony's way - Sony's cameras are great technically, but terrible ergonomically, too small and unusable without grips - it is my own opinion, of course. Yes, it is simply great to have a choice - everyone for its own! THX! LZ
-
Mirrorless cameras do have one or two genuine advantages for hobby photographers. If exposure is a mystery to you, the ability to see the effect of exposure compensation before you take the picture is very useful. And, according to Thom Hogan, Sony's AF, which does a phase-detect then a contrast-detect, gives better results than Nikon's AF if you can't be bothered learning how the system works and setting it up carefully.
Mirrorless cameras also have advantages for the manufacturers, because they have a lot fewer parts, which reduces inventory and assembly costs, and they require many fewer calibration and adjustment steps, which means lower staff training costs. Why consumers would care about lower manufacturing costs when they are not reflected in lower retail prices I have no idea. Plus, adding things like IBIS and pixel shift removes at least some of that advantage.
I recently saw an advertisement for Google's new laptop, and part of the pitch was "If you think computers should be more like phones". Which to me sounds as silly as "If you think computers should be more like blueberry muffins", but to young people it makes perfect sense. For them, the more like a phone another device is, the better, and mirrorless cameras are much more like phones.
The answer to the question of why sites like dpreview give the impression that mirrorless in general and Sony in particular are carrying all before them is that Sony has aggressively and very effectively cultivated relationships with those sites. To what extent that involves actual payments, and to what extent it is "only" trips to Japan and privileged access to new equipment we do not know because when dpreview publishes what poses as an article but is in fact a Sony advertisement (https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9600049212/sony-vision-over-profit) they do not tell us.
-
Sites such as DPreview should be treated with extreme caution - for the reasons already cited in this thread, least one comes away with the wrong impressions. FWIW Canon and Nikon appear to be holding their own quite well against the onslaught of Sony.
I use Olympus OMD E-M1s and various Nikons. I use the Olympuses when I am on foot and need a lighter outfit on account of a damaged neck and shoulder and the Nikons when I have four wheels and don't need to carry heavier cameras by myself.
-
I can not speak to why other forums are the way they are, but I certainly appreciate this one.
My position is that camera equipment format is driven by compromise. Large format lost to roll film when roll film became “good enough”. When I say “lost” I mean it lost its position as the dominant format for a particular use. LF is still around, but never again to the extent it once was.
2” film lost to 35mm when film quality became good enough. The benefits of small and portable alway play a part in decisions.
110 film lost. The results were not good enough and the reduction of form factor was not a big deal.
Digital won. It was not always obvious to many during the transition. Years ago I wrote this same argument about why digital would kill film when it got “good enough”. Many many people said it would not happen because film was so much better and had “infinite” resolution.
Cell phone cams killed point and shoot cameras. Convenience and sharing outweighed the benefits of a dedicated camera.
With mirrorless we see the same story. The question is whether the potential benefits outweigh the loss of something we are very used to and attached to.
I think it will win. People with DSLR’s are using the back screen to focus in live view. They are using it in video. Sure it is not better than through the lens, but when it becomes “good enough” then the bulk and cost and complexity of mirrors and prisms will start to fade away. This is my view. Certainly, there is the 110 example where the challenger never became “good enough”, but I don’t think we will end up that way.
Only time will tell. Remember, it is never about what “you” think. You will keep doing what you do. It is the other person, the new person, who determines the camera choices of the future. Old photographers keep on using what they are most familiar with until the switch becomes unavoidable.
-
One thing that many people miss is that there is no one camera of the future. There are, and always will be, various different types of cameras designed to be optimal for different usages and preferences. Just as different photographers' needs are different so are their tools.
It's not a question of familiarity or old age, either.
-
One thing that many people miss is that there is no one camera of the future. There are, and always will be, various different types of cameras designed to be optimal for different usages and preferences. Just as different photographers' needs are different so are their tools.
It's not a question of familiarity or old age, either.
Ilkka,
You are correct, and I agree. Many types of cameras co-exist and many photographers use multiple types.
My argument is a general one. There are certainly exceptions. I am one who has always used cameras which are out of mainstream fashion. For example I may have shot no more than 100 DSLR images in my life using autofocus.
For that reason I’m more sensitive to the fact that there is a way of working which I don’t participate in, but is really the main usage which drives camera design. I think mirrorless has that potential to be a mode in which a large majority of camera users work. As it improves, there will be people in the optical viewfinder community who find it good enough to adopt. Some won’t, ever. But as you point out, they won’t have to.
-
I agree with this entirely as I voiced a similar argument about digital some years ago (although I was wrong on the timeframe) - although I'm not entirely convinced that mirrorless will be the end of the SLR, and if so hopefully I'll be too old to worry.
However, there must now exist a whole generation that hasn't used an optical finder at all. This is perhaps what makes the difference.
One can only hope that maybe optical viewfinders will achieve some mystical properties a la vinyl.
John
I can not speak to why other forums are the way they are, but I certainly appreciate this one.
My position is that camera equipment format is driven by compromise. Large format lost to roll film when roll film became “good enough”. When I say “lost” I mean it lost its position as the dominant format for a particular use. LF is still around, but never again to the extent it once was.
2” film lost to 35mm when film quality became good enough. The benefits of small and portable alway play a part in decisions.
110 film lost. The results were not good enough and the reduction of form factor was not a big deal.
Digital won. It was not always obvious to many during the transition. Years ago I wrote this same argument about why digital would kill film when it got “good enough”. Many many people said it would not happen because film was so much better and had “infinite” resolution.
Cell phone cams killed point and shoot cameras. Convenience and sharing outweighed the benefits of a dedicated camera.
With mirrorless we see the same story. The question is whether the potential benefits outweigh the loss of something we are very used to and attached to.
I think it will win. People with DSLR’s are using the back screen to focus in live view. They are using it in video. Sure it is not better than through the lens, but when it becomes “good enough” then the bulk and cost and complexity of mirrors and prisms will start to fade away. This is my view. Certainly, there is the 110 example where the challenger never became “good enough”, but I don’t think we will end up that way.
Only time will tell. Remember, it is never about what “you” think. You will keep doing what you do. It is the other person, the new person, who determines the camera choices of the future. Old photographers keep on using what they are most familiar with until the switch becomes unavoidable.
-
My position is that camera equipment format is driven by compromise. Large format lost to roll film when roll film became “good enough”. When I say “lost” I mean it lost its position as the dominant format for a particular use. LF is still around, but never again to the extent it once was.
I disagree. Large format never lost, and still has not lost its position as the format you need when you need large prints with high resolution (film and digital have about the same resolution, (of the order of) 100 lp/mm, but an 8 x 10 negative can give a 24 x 30 print with 30 lp/mm, and no digital camera can do that). What happened was not that medium format - let alone 35mm - got "good enough" for that use, but that other uses for which it was good enough - newspapers, magazines, domestic-sized prints - became the ones that mattered. Digital displaced film for fashion and editorial photography not for any reason to do with quality but because it was so much easier to work with. The only photographic advantage of digital is the ability to change ISO shot-to-shot, and with modern systems, over a much wider range. Fine art photography is still largely film-based, because the advantages of digital are unimportant in that field.
There is an alternative to mirrorless displacing SLR or vice versa: convergence. We are already seeing that with the D850, which has features previously thought of as characteristically mirrorless, and it would not, eg, be difficult to add an eye-level EVF to an SLR.
-
While mirrorless cameras use batteries up more quickly, the comparison should take account of size and weight.
For example, the D5's battery weights 160g, while the Fuji W126s (used on a number of cameras in the range) weighs 47g. Three of those will give close to 1,000 shots with moderately careful use, not as much as the D5 battery but plenty for most people in most circumstances. I am happy not to carry the extra weight unless I need it.
Battery life on Fuji has never been a problem for me, even on safari or photographing sport.
-
One thing that many people miss is that there is no one camera of the future. There are, and always will be, various different types of cameras designed to be optimal for different usages and preferences. Just as different photographers' needs are different so are their tools.
It's not a question of familiarity or old age, either.
Ilkka Nissilä, there you hit the nail on its very head - at least in my opinion.
-
I recently saw an advertisement for Google's new laptop, and part of the pitch was "If you think computers should be more like phones". Which to me sounds as silly as "If you think computers should be more like blueberry muffins", but to young people it makes perfect sense. For them, the more like a phone another device is, the better, and mirrorless cameras are much more like phones.
The answer to the question of why sites like dpreview give the impression that mirrorless in general and Sony in particular are carrying all before them is that Sony has aggressively and very effectively cultivated relationships with those sites. To what extent that involves actual payments, and to what extent it is "only" trips to Japan and privileged access to new equipment we do not know because when dpreview publishes what poses as an article but is in fact a Sony advertisement (https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9600049212/sony-vision-over-profit) they do not tell us.
The first paragraph above explains the sociological part of the picture.
The second paragraph of course explains the market situation well.
However, photographers who grow out of the limitations of types of equipment that resemble a smart phone will more than likely demand more. They will probably be quite a few, also among young people who discover the benefits that follow from better and more capable tools.
-
Although mirrorless provide more focusing aids for manual focus, I cannot manual focus using the plain EVF display without use of magnification (in which case the overall composition is no longer visible).
My experience with the Oly involved using canon FD lenses on an adapter. In particular, I used the 50/1.4 with great pleasure. Focussing was easy, mainly using focus peaking. Seeing the sharpness zone changing when acting on the helicoid is very helpful, and not overly distracting - less than microprisms that tend to darken the crucial central zone, anyway ! I have been using clear matte screens since my Canon T90 times (late eighties), and cannot put up with microprisms or split prisms.
For me, a Nikon FX mirrorless is no system change, but just a new life for my old F mount lenses. Meanwhile, I go on with the Df for its overall qualities. Not to forget the DK 17 M eyepiece, that I always screw onto any camera (D700, D800, now Df). Without it, MF would not be an option.
-
I disagree. Large format never lost, and still has not lost its position as the format you need when you need large prints with high resolution (film and digital have about the same resolution, (of the order of) 100 lp/mm, but an 8 x 10 negative can give a 24 x 30 print with 30 lp/mm, and no digital camera can do that). What happened was not that medium format - let alone 35mm - got "good enough" for that use, but that other uses for which it was good enough - newspapers, magazines, domestic-sized prints - became the ones that mattered. Digital displaced film for fashion and editorial photography not for any reason to do with quality but because it was so much easier to work with. The only photographic advantage of digital is the ability to change ISO shot-to-shot, and with modern systems, over a much wider range. Fine art photography is still largely film-based, because the advantages of digital are unimportant in that field.
There is an alternative to mirrorless displacing SLR or vice versa: convergence. We are already seeing that with the D850, which has features previously thought of as characteristically mirrorless, and it would not, eg, be difficult to add an eye-level EVF to an SLR.
Les,
I’m getting my large format equipment ready for sale this weekend. Let me know if you are interested!
One thing I’ve noticed is that the majority of my equipment was made by companies which no longer produce LF equipment - Ebony Cameras (closed a couple years back), Nikon (no more LF lenses), Docter Optics (formed out of the death of Zeiss Jena, then died), Graflex, Kodak, Ilex, Riteway...
LF never died, but there is very low volume and no major companies are planning their future on it.
Medium format film is similar. Gone are the many species and flavors.
When I say “lost” I mean is no longer the majority format, not that it ceases to exist. LF was once the dominant form. Roll film took over in the second half of the last century and digital owns the beginning of this one. I can still do tintype or wetplate if I like, but it is a DIY thing now.
-
Having had a lot of mirrorless cameras (A7s, A7R2, A7r3, X1D, GFX) I can’t help but wonder who said mirrorless cameras have to have lousy batteries? Who said they have to be small? Why can’t there be a larger mirrorless camera that can take heavy lenses easier. I have used my last two cameras, the Nikon D810 and D850 like mirrorless cameras, not ever using the OVF on either camera except to see if it works.
To me it should be about EVF cameras with or without mirrors. I don’t use mirrors, so I don’t need them. I use LiveView like an EVF, plain and simple. So, I’m looking for a better and better LiveView camera, with loads of battery endurance... things like that.
My Sony A7R2 had to have 6 batteries to function for a real outing. That's a joke and Sony should have known better.
-
1. An EVF, properly implemented, makes possible viewing and focusing in light that is too dim for the standard OVF to be useful.
2. I would be pleased to have a mirrorless camera that accepts my existing Nikon mount lenses and supports their auto-diaphragm functionality.
3. The availability of a silent, fully electronic shutter is another useful mirrorless feature, although some electronic shutters create banding patterns on the subject when it is illuminated by pulsed artificial light.
-
I agree with 1 and 2. Especially 2 is important for me.
Concerning 2, auto-diaphragm is very important, but with a mirrorless camera, I'd tend to use closed diaphragm focussing and metering, at least at relatively wide apertures, to overcome focus shift when it is critical. The picture in the EVF might be degraded because of the increased gain needed, as is the case with LiveView, but the user can choose.
Currently, when using the Df together with the "unlinked" Summicron R, I am facing the same alternative (i.e. focussing wide open or stopped down), but I cannot increase the gain of the OVF.
Concerning 3, no mirror does not impose electronic shutter, but means less noise & vibration for sure (see Leica film cameras)
-
For me, a Nikon FX mirrorless is no system change, but just a new life for my old F mount lenses. Meanwhile, I go on with the Df for its overall qualities. Not to forget the DK 17 M eyepiece, that I always screw onto any camera (D700, D800, now Df). Without it, MF would not be an option.
The above is true if there is no change of mount, but is it really likely that a Nikon FX mirrorless system will have the F mount or be compatible with the old manual lenses?
-
While mirrorless cameras use batteries up more quickly, the comparison should take account of size and weight.
One can argue that future batteries may have so much greater capacity that there is no problem with an electronic viewfinder.
However, in addition to the EVF's and mirrorless constructions' inevitably higher power consumption there is the even more serious problem of cold weather. An optical viewfinder does function without problems in -20, -30, -40C or even below, whereas an electronic viewfinder ceases to function in low temperatures. It is a fact that such low temperatures regularly occur in many areas of the world. If we envisage a total supplantation of optical viewfinders by electronic ones like many of the most ardent mirrorless enthusiasts seem to do, such a scenario would imply a major step back regarding shooting in cold environments.
Any future photographic system will have to be at least as reliable under all circumstances, temperatures and climate conditions as today's systems, since photographers take their pictures in all kinds of environments and temperatures - and therefore future technical developments need to increase and not reduce our photographic possibilities.
-
My point was that a mirrorless camera could have a D5 size battery, and it would therefore have dramatically greater capacity. Yes, still more drain than a DSLR, but not a problem for the vast majority of shooting situations.
Not many photographers shoot in temperatures of -20 or below, so for most photographers the ability to shoot in such circumstances is not relevant. I have shot mirrorless in temperatures of -10 with no problem, but I can imagine that some photographers' demands would not be met in very low temperatures. For most, these are not really an issue; if a mirrorless camera is better for normal use, the fact that it would be less good at these very low temperatures would be unlikely to affect the purchasing decision. Already for most situations the battery issue is not important.
-
Well the battery consumption depends on how much you use the EVF/LV and if you do a lot of scouting using the EVF/LV and take few images, the battery won't last all that many shots. If you shoot a lot of bursts and don't do a lot of viewing then a lot of shots can be captured with just one battery charge. Whether the EVF battery consumption is a problem or not depends on how the photographer works and in what conditions. I was traveling with a small group of photographers and the Fuji user had four batteries, a multi-battery charger and was swapping quite often. It did seem like it was an annoyance that sometimes could result in missed shots. However, if the camera is made larger then a larger capacity battery can be used. But then one may find the advantages of a small camera reduced as well.
Personally I remember a time when I could shoot a week of an active photography trip on one battery (with a DSLR) and I also remember that mobile phones only needed to be charged once a week. Today I have to charge my mobile phone every night even though it is in an enclosure with extra battery. These things are not progress IMO. Manufacturers should focus on reducing battery consumption so that I could go back to traveling without a host of batteries and chargers for various devices. I think the burden of the electronic devices and the internet also is severe on our planet's environment. People talk about clean energy and make promises but then burn coal in practice to keep the grid powered. This may result in a spectacular crash of out society not to mention the wildlife etc.
-
Not many photographers shoot in temperatures of -20 or below, so for most photographers the ability to shoot in such circumstances is not relevant. I have shot mirrorless in temperatures of -10 with no problem, but I can imagine that some photographers' demands would not be met in very low temperatures. For most, these are not really an issue; if a mirrorless camera is better for normal use, the fact that it would be less good at these very low temperatures would be unlikely to affect the purchasing decision. Already for most situations the battery issue is not important.
It needs to be said that the above statement is, unfortunately, seriously mistaken.
In many areas of the world, temperatures of -20 or below are common. In large parts of Northern America, Alaska and Canada, in much of Europe and particularly in Northern Europe, as well as in mountain areas all over the world such temperatures are commonly confronting photographers. In nearly all of inland Scandinavia - that is Norway, Sweden and Finland - a temperature of -20C is normal during most of the winter and lower temperatures are by no means uncommon. In the inner areas of Norway, Finland and Sweden there may sometimes be -40C and below. This often happens in the northern areas. Photography is performed in all these countries, and is also an increasingly popular activity.
In Russia and Central Asia we know that large areas of the Taiga and Tundra areas are characterized by very low winter temperatures, and we are talking about areas where -20C is considered mild for the winter. The same is true for Mongolia and northern China. While I do not know about photography in these countries, tourism is as we know everywhere and the climate is known to be very cold during winter.
I assure you that many photographers do shoot in such temperatures as mentioned, and that the need for photo equipment to tolerate many degrees below zero (Celsius) is for real. If there is any doubt about that, please perform an internet search after for example "Cold weather photography," "Photographying in the cold," "Arctic photography," "Canadian Arctic photography," and "Winter photography." You will see that many photographers, both professionals and amateurs, take pictures in these areas, and these photographers seem to be growing in number. Electronic viewfinders (as of 2018) drain batteries very fast during use in cold weather. If the temperature is very low, the electronic viewfinder function will soon become so slow that it is no longer functional and finally it stops working. If mirrorless cameras are to compete with optical viewfinders in all types of weather, they have to function equally well in all types of weather. If they cannot do that, they cannot replace SLR cameras with optical viewfinders.
There is no question that a photographic system which is to be a serious one must be able to cope with low temperatures. The equipment simply has to be able to withstand very cold weather and to function flawlessly under such conditions.
-
I can only recommend to try before you buy.
For me the X100T hybrid OVF / EVF is a very good solution for situations requiring the smallest possible package. I bring three batteries for her but never needed more than two per day.
For professional jobs, ergonomics is the No1 criterium for me and my Nikon setup delivers just that plus speed.
Apart from my Nikons I used the OM Digital system. Not bad, but not for me. Sony ergonomics runs against everything I feel to be practical.
-
LF never died, but there is very low volume and no major companies are planning their future on it.
Medium format film is similar. Gone are the many species and flavors.
When I say “lost” I mean is no longer the majority format, not that it ceases to exist. LF was once the dominant form. Roll film took over in the second half of the last century and digital owns the beginning of this one. I can still do tintype or wetplate if I like, but it is a DIY thing now.
All true, but there are two questions: which users will decide the "majority" format, and on what criteria, and whether large manufacturers will continue to make products for people with minority interests.
Nikon has always centred its research and development on the top-of-the-line camera for the serious user, and the average consumer got - and gets - more than they needed. That is not the way things are designed in the modern consumer digital and electronics world. In that world, things are designed for the average consumer, and serious users get less than they need. There is a long and dreary catalogue, from VHS vs Betamax to Word vs Wordperfect to MP3 vs practically anything.
In the case of mirrorless cameras, that means we get eye-detect AF and the ability to see the effect of exposure compensation in the viewfinder, but poor battery life and ergonomics. As we are seeing even in this thread, people who are interested in ergonomics or battery life or low temperature use are simply brushed aside as not "most photographers". If they are lucky, those people may just have to buy from niche manufacturers, at higher prices. If they are unlucky, Big Camera may perceive those niche manufacturers as a threat, in the same way as Big Music perceives attempts to sell alternatives to MP3 as a threat.
-
All true, but there are two questions: which users will decide the "majority" format, and on what criteria, and whether large manufacturers will continue to make products for people with minority interests.
Nikon has always centred its research and development on the top-of-the-line camera for the serious user, and the average consumer got - and gets - more than they needed. That is not the way things are designed in the modern consumer digital and electronics world. In that world, things are designed for the average consumer, and serious users get less than they need. There is a long and dreary catalogue, from VHS vs Betamax to Word vs Wordperfect to MP3 vs practically anything.
In the case of mirrorless cameras, that means we get eye-detect AF and the ability to see the effect of exposure compensation in the viewfinder, but poor battery life and ergonomics. As we are seeing even in this thread, people who are interested in ergonomics or battery life or low temperature use are simply brushed aside as not "most photographers". If they are lucky, those people may just have to buy from niche manufacturers, at higher prices. If they are unlucky, Big Camera may perceive those niche manufacturers as a threat, in the same way as Big Music perceives attempts to sell alternatives to MP3 as a threat.
If we look at history - and I think it is a bad idea not to - the dominant camera makers in each era were not the one who drove change to the new formats with the exception of Kodak perhaps, but they sold cameras to sell film. Fuji is a bit similar to Kodak as well.
Instead it was Leica, Canon, Nikon etc. who opened up the 35mm market. It was Apple and Samsung who destroyed the point and shoot segment.
Being the best in a certain class does not mean that advantage will carry on. In some cases it locks you into behaviors that result in your eventual failure. This is especially true in technology, and I’d argue that image capture these days is depending more and more on computing and software (not to diminish the lens one bit - but certainly distortion can be computed out of images post capture).
I’ve worked in a couple of companies which have made it through those sorts of shifts, so I know Nikon could make a successful transition to the next generation of image capture, but I just want to point out that often it is the best in class which is left behind in a generational shift.
Those who need cameras with optical viewfinders or which operate without batteries will certainly be able to find them. I have a few 35mm bodies in the closet that don’t use batteries at all. It is not the limitations of the new format which you need to think about. It is the capabilities of the new format which drive change.
Please note that I don’t think the death of the optical viewfinder is coming any day now. I may never see an electronic viewfinder which meets my needs. But I’ll die someday or lose my eyesight, and the camera on my shelf will be as archaic to my grandchildren as my grandfather’s were to me.
-
Those who need cameras with optical viewfinders or which operate without batteries will certainly be able to find them. I have a few 35mm bodies in the closet that don’t use batteries at all. It is not the limitations of the new format which you need to think about. It is the capabilities of the new format which drive change.
I am the opinion that change is welcome when the change improves upon or comes in addition to what is presently available. That is a rule of thumb.
However, when a typical mirrorless camera with an energy consuming electronic viewfinder gives you a mere third or a fourth of the number of exposures that can be had from a similar battery in a camera equipped with an optical viewfinder, and moreover when the mirrorless camera is far less capable in low temperatures, it would be a major backward step if such mirrorless cameras were to completely supplant (D)SLRs.
-
I am the opinion that change is welcome when the change improves upon or comes in addition to what is presently available. That is a rule of thumb.
However, when a typical mirrorless camera with an energy consuming electronic viewfinder gives you a mere third or a fourth of the number of exposures that can be had from a similar battery in a camera equipped with an optical viewfinder, and moreover when the mirrorless camera is far less capable in low temperatures, it would be a major backward step if such mirrorless cameras were to completely supplant (D)SLRs.
Let me clarify a couple of the points I’m trying to make.
First, I don’t claim one technology will completely supplant another overnight. History shows us that “inferior” devices (with certain nascent advantages and uses) grow in the shadow of the dominant technology for a long time. The forest matures and grows slowly - all the technology there becomes perfected and no further growth is possible, but the undergrowth grows faster and eventually the forest is a different place.
Second, the squirrels who live in the old growth forest think it is perfect because they have evolved with it. The birds in the undergrowth love the undergrowth. They think squirrels are boring because they can’t fly. Of course, some squirrels can fly! And they may venture into the undergrowth and find new opportunities there. Some may choose to live in that new world of chaos and growth.
The main point is that change is driven by the advantages and new capabilities of a new technology more than it is limited by its inferiority in the capabilities of existing technology. It doesn’t need to be better at what old technology is good at. It needs to be better at what old technology is not good at (or can’t do). No 35mm camera can beat the resolution of 8x10 film nor the movements and control available with that format, However, 35mm format outsells 8x10 by millions of units.
-
The above is true if there is no change of mount, but is it really likely that a Nikon FX mirrorless system will have the F mount or be compatible with the old manual lenses?
I reckon that the new Nikon mirrorless FF camera will come with a new mount and an adapter for F mount. Otherwise I would not understand the world anymore.
I'll sure buy whatever 50mm Summilux-like stuff they will develop for the new mount, just one, I promise myself. The old MF lenses will continue to be used.
-
It needs to be said that the above statement is, unfortunately, seriously mistaken.
In many areas of the world, temperatures of -20 or below are common. In large parts of Northern America, Alaska and Canada, in much of Europe and particularly in Northern Europe, as well as in mountain areas all over the world such temperatures are commonly confronting photographers. In nearly all of inland Scandinavia - that is Norway, Sweden and Finland - a temperature of -20C is normal during most of the winter and lower temperatures are by no means uncommon. In the inner areas of Norway, Finland and Sweden there may sometimes be -40C and below. This often happens in the northern areas. Photography is performed in all these countries, and is also an increasingly popular activity.
In Russia and Central Asia we know that large areas of the Taiga and Tundra areas are characterized by very low winter temperatures, and we are talking about areas where -20C is considered mild for the winter. The same is true for Mongolia and northern China. While I do not know about photography in these countries, tourism is as we know everywhere and the climate is known to be very cold during winter.
I assure you that many photographers do shoot in such temperatures as mentioned, and that the need for photo equipment to tolerate many degrees below zero (Celsius) is for real. If there is any doubt about that, please perform an internet search after for example "Cold weather photography," "Photographying in the cold," "Arctic photography," "Canadian Arctic photography," and "Winter photography." You will see that many photographers, both professionals and amateurs, take pictures in these areas, and these photographers seem to be growing in number. Electronic viewfinders (as of 2018) drain batteries very fast during use in cold weather. If the temperature is very low, the electronic viewfinder function will soon become so slow that it is no longer functional and finally it stops working. If mirrorless cameras are to compete with optical viewfinders in all types of weather, they have to function equally well in all types of weather. If they cannot do that, they cannot replace SLR cameras with optical viewfinders.
There is no question that a photographic system which is to be a serious one must be able to cope with low temperatures. The equipment simply has to be able to withstand very cold weather and to function flawlessly under such conditions.
Thanks for replying, Per.
You are correct that many areas of the world are bitterly cold at certain times of year.
However, the proportion of photography at such temperatures is very low. And I speak as someone who has photographed in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. I have successfully used mirrorless in both regions.
I really do think that the battery issue is overstated for most people in most circumstances.
-
I have to agree, at least partially, with Per Inge here. Battery consumption is an important factor for photography in the field. The battery data produced by the makers are a fourth class of lie besides "lies, damned lies, and statistics". I have never been getting more than at most 30-40% of the numbers quoted even under the most optimal conditions. In more "normal" situations, I'm down to 20% or less of the stated capacity. In winter my camera dies on me after just a handful of captures on occasion.
OK, no problem if you carry a massive load of spare batteries and have to opportunity to charge them every day. However, such is not the case in many fields of practical photography.
The first generation of DSLRs had an abysmal poor battery performance so we have come a long way since then. However, mirrorless by their very design always will be inferior in terms of battery performance compared to (D)SLRs. Improved battery technology cannot change that fundamental fact.
It's the end user who has to decide what system will be the "better" for them. For some of us, battery performance is a key factor. For others it isn't.
-
I have to agree, at least partially, with Per Inge here. Battery consumption is an important factor for photography in the field.
The first generation of DSLRs had an abysmal poor battery performance so we have come a long way since then.
However, mirrorless by their very design always will be inferior in terms of battery performance compared to (D)SLRs. Improved battery technology cannot change that fundamental fact.
It's the end user who has to decide what system will be the "better" for them. For some of us, battery performance is a key factor. For others it isn't.
Yes we are at a sweet spot for batteries and electronic device power usage these days. I remember people carrying heavy battery packs for flashes, spare AA batteries for their early digital equipment, batteries for motor drives and so on. Now my Df goes for weeks without charging.
But I think things will get even better.
It is indeed the end user, of which there are many types. I can’t claim to represent anyone but me, but I welcome continued innovation in all directions.
-
Battery life does depend on the way in which it is used.
Even on the D-single # range, with their large batteries; I only get about 2 hours between re-charges if I am using LiveView while I can photograph all day for a couple of days on a single charge when using the optical VF.
Intensive use of the rear LCD while setting up menu functions etc. also results in the need for more frequent charging but not to the extent that working in LV requires.
Currently, I have no yearning for an electronic viewfinder; neither can I foresee any advantages (but I can foresee a lot of disadvantages!) in using a mirrorless camera for the work that I do.
If I wanted to create simple snapshots, I would use my iPhone but I don't — and I don't.
;)
-
The current 3.68MP OLED EVF used in Panasonic GH5, GH9, Sony A9, A7RIII, Fuji H-X1 is a game changer: it is the very first EVF ever on which I felt virtually no eye strain in any situations.
Combining its fast response and the short shutter lag thanks to the absence of the mirror, the total shutter lag can be shorter even than the Nikon D-single-digit camera.
On the other hand, the rolling shutter can still be an annoyance on the cameras with larger sensors, if you often chase fast moving subjects.
The battery life of the mirrorless cameras is, as already discussed, one of the major pain. I've never in need of a second battery for any DSLRs I've ever used, but I haven't been able to live without one for all the mirrorless cameras I've ever used. Thus I have to charge the batteries of mirrorless cameras way more often than those of DSLRs, which is not nice, especially we have to charge the batteries of too many digital gadgets that we (have to) have today.
So far as the Nikon mirrorless camera is concerned, the transition from DSLR would be very tough. It would be easier for Canon to retain the compatibility of the new full-frame mirrorless system with the existing DSLR lenses, thanks to their total lack of the mechanical linkage in the first place and their proprietary dual-pixel sensor that offers phase detect AF. Nikon has started to offer E lenses only just recently, and the live view AF is abysmal even to put it mildly.
On the other hand, the dual function sensor whose patent has been filed by Nikon recently looks very interesting. It offers the rolling shutter mode (better for still images with the mechanical shutter) and the global shutter mode (ideal for the video thanks to the potential lack of the rolling shutter effect). On condition that Nikon should offer at least the competitive AF system, their full frame mirrorless camera seems to be attractive.
-
The current 3.68MP OLED EVF used in Panasonic GH5, GH9, Sony A9, A7RIII, Fuji H-X1 is a game changer: it is the very first EVF ever on which I felt virtually no eye strain in any situations.
I have tried the X-H1's EVF and it is far from a "game changer" for me. I appreciate, and enjoy EVF's for certain applications, but would not like to rely on one to capture "the decisive moment".
I shoot fujifilm X-Pro and X100 series cameras because they have hybrid OVF, EVF, finders. If this option was included in an updated f-mount D8##, it would be ideal for my use.
I can confirm the battery life of my fujifilm cameras is pathetic. I have to take 4 for each camera ....8 battery's for a day's shooting. They are both used in OVF mode 95% of the time, and I am not a big chimper. I don't often need 4, but have to take them for when I do.
Cheers
-
The current 3.68MP OLED EVF used in Panasonic GH5, GH9, Sony A9, A7RIII, Fuji H-X1 is a game changer: it is the very first EVF ever on which I felt virtually no eye strain in any situations.
Is there any issue with that OLED EVF to suffer image burn-in, like OLED TV's are subject to do?
-
I have tried the H-X1's EVF and it is far from a "game changer" for me. I appreciate, and enjoy EVF's for certain applications, but would not like to rely on one to capture "the decisive moment".
I shoot fujifilm X-Pro and X100 series cameras because they have hybrid OVF, EVF, finders. If this option was included in an updated f-mount D8##, it would be ideal for my use.
I can confirm the battery life of my fujifilm cameras is pathetic. I have to take 4 for each camera ....8 battery's for a day's shooting. They are both used in OVF mode 95% of the time, and I am not a big chimper. I don't often need 4, but have to take them for when I do.
The strain in the eye is one of my essential issued with the EVF, so the lack of it is such a big news that it is entitled to be called a game changer to me.
Is there any issue with that OLED EVF to suffer image burn-in, like OLED TV's are subject to do?
I'm afraid I'm not sure. Unlike the TV or the computer screen, the EVF will be turned off periodically by the power saving function. So, the burn-in could be less of a problem.
-
Many users have reported eye strain. I don't know what that is, but I can report being annoyed at how dim the EVF in my Fuji X cam is when the camera is used in blazing bright sunlight. It would be nice if someone fixed that.
-
Akira, its actually the X-H1! And having used an X-T1, X-T2 and now an X-H1 I have experienced no eye strain at all!
The only strain has been on my wallet. ???
-
I reckon that the new Nikon mirrorless FF camera will come with a new mount and an adapter for F mount. Otherwise I would not understand the world anymore.
I'll sure buy whatever 50mm Summilux-like stuff they will develop for the new mount, just one, I promise myself. The old MF lenses will continue to be used.
Unfortunately, an adapter is not equal to a full compatibility between mount and lens. Such a solution is likely to reduce optical performance ever so slightly, and the extra centimeters added to the setup are also significant.
-
The main point is that change is driven by the advantages and new capabilities of a new technology more than it is limited by its inferiority in the capabilities of existing technology. It doesn’t need to be better at what old technology is good at. It needs to be better at what old technology is not good at (or can’t do). No 35mm camera can beat the resolution of 8x10 film nor the movements and control available with that format, However, 35mm format outsells 8x10 by millions of units.
Change of technology is more often than not primarily driven by other market forces than the customers. It is much like self-driving cars. People who use cars enjoy more freedom and more resilience with user controlled cars, but tech companies and car producers are now subjecting politicians to heavy lobbying and the general public stating that "a car with built-in AI is many times 'safer' than a human driver." Which is entirely beside the point, because the crucial point is freedom of choice and who controls the vehicle. If people are fine with a vehicle that obediently stops for the highwayman who steps out in the road before the car, and which never can exceed the speed limit no matter what the circumstances, it bodes no good for human societies. Frankly. It is a business decision that we should not be allowed to control our own vehicles. But not all people are zombies. There was a discussion between Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Elon Musk stated that future flying cars must be automated and not user controlled. Whereas deGrasse Tyson calmly replied with a question about why people could not be allowed to control their own flying cars.
The same phenomenon of market forces' propagandizing can be seen in the realm of personal computers, where connection dependent cloud computing is being touted as a better solution than individual computers equipped with copyable software that is controlled entirely by each user and which can be installed at any time and run indefinitely with no need for "permission" or any form of license control that means the user is helpless when the day comes when the software service is discontinued or unavailable or the net simply is not there. Here the software industry counts on people's inability to maintain a perspective beyond the immediate, and again we see that technological change - or attempt at a particular change - is frequently driven not by any true advantages but by market forces' desire to increase their profit as much as they can.
-
My Sony A7R2 had to have 6 batteries to function for a real outing. That's a joke and Sony should have known better.
It is the stark reality.
-
Many users have reported eye strain.
I don't know if it is what you are referring to but there is a well-defined phenomenon of loss of vision in one eye caused by looking at bright screens in the dark (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1514294).
-
Thanks for replying, Per.
You are correct that many areas of the world are bitterly cold at certain times of year.
However, the proportion of photography at such temperatures is very low. And I speak as someone who has photographed in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. I have successfully used mirrorless in both regions.
I really do think that the battery issue is overstated for most people in most circumstances.
On the contrary, the battery issue is understated.
Moreover, it is not only about the battery consumption. My cameras' LCDs (not that I use them much apart from when I need to access the menus) simply cease to function in temperatures below -25. An electronic viewfinder would be increasingly useless in such circumstances.
Lastly, I live in Norway and often go to northern Sweden and northern Finland. I can assure you that there are many photographers in these areas who are active during winter, and in addition tourism is on the rise. Those who have tried cameras with electronic viewfinders find that battery life is dismally poor and that function ceases.
Optical viewfinders are far superior in cold climates - and of course the battery capacity problem is there in all temperatures. It is not a real solution to bring a large number of batteries with a mirrorless system when an OVF system gives you three or four times as many exposures per charge.
It is not my impression that the photographers who need cold capable equipment is few. Just perform an internet search for cold weather photography in different areas of the world, and you will see that the proportion of photographers who need equipment that can withstand low temperatures is significant. Photography is a popular activity in all parts of the world. Also, that proportion is likely to be increasing with modern tourism - quite a few people go to cold areas to experience natural wintery environments.
Apart from the proportions of photographers in the Mediterranean summer and in the Arctic and the Antarctic, the capability of a mirrorless system versus a system with an optical viewfinder is hardly determined by proportions. We are talking about demonstrable and significant differences.
-
Many users have reported eye strain. I don't know what that is, but I can report being annoyed at how dim the EVF in my Fuji X cam is when the camera is used in blazing bright sunlight. It would be nice if someone fixed that.
Have you tried adjusting the EVF brightness setting? Also, have you tried changing the Preview Picture/WB setting?
-
On the contrary, the battery issue is understated.
Moreover, it is not only about the battery consumption. My cameras' LCDs (not that I use them much apart from when I need to access the menus) simply cease to function in temperatures below -25. An electronic viewfinder would be increasingly useless in such circumstances.
Lastly, I live in Norway and often go to northern Sweden and northern Finland. I can assure you that there are many photographers in these areas who are active during winter, and in addition tourism is on the rise. Those who have tried cameras with electronic viewfinders find that battery life is dismally poor and that function ceases.
Optical viewfinders are far superior in cold climates - and of course the battery capacity problem is there in all temperatures. It is not a real solution to bring a large number of batteries with a mirrorless system when an OVF system gives you three or four times as many exposures per charge.
It is not my impression that the photographers who need cold capable equipment is few. Just perform an internet search for cold weather photography in different areas of the world, and you will see that the proportion of photographers who need equipment that can withstand low temperatures is significant. Photography is a popular activity in all parts of the world. Also, that proportion is likely to be increasing with modern tourism - quite a few people go to cold areas to experience natural wintery environments.
Apart from the proportions of photographers in the Mediterranean summer and in the Arctic and the Antarctic, the capability of a mirrorless system versus a system with an optical viewfinder is hardly determined by proportions. We are talking about demonstrable and significant differences.
I am sure that there are circumstances where it is too cold to be suitable for mirrorless cameras. But still the vast majority of photos are not taken in these circumstances, and so they are not relevant for most photographers. There are very many circumstances where one type of camera is better than another, and people should use the best tool for the job.
In the olden days we were limited by the 36 exposure film roll; it is a lot easier to change a battery than a film roll. And I imagine that changing film at -40C was not at all enjoyable.
We are very fortunate to live in an era where we have a choice of equipment, and long may that continue. It would be a pity for all of us if the small number of photographers who need equipment to function at -40C were deprived of the ability to obtain such equipment.
-
There seems to real world evidence that the battery for the Sony A9 represents a significant improvement, eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgmiREAxjO8 or https://twitter.com/tonynorthrup/status/855103932716244992?lang=en
Of course, the same technology would presumably produce even more impressive results on a DSLR. And I have not seen any tests of it in very low temperatures.
-
Akira, its actually the X-H1! And having used an X-T1, X-T2 and now an X-H1 I have experienced no eye strain at all!
The only strain has been on my wallet. ???
LOL, Mike, thank you for the correction and sorry for my ignorance! Glad your new camera turned out to be "at least" eye-friendly. :D
-
I really do think that the battery issue is overstated for most people in most circumstances.
Yes, but the same could be said of anything. Most people in most circumstances don't need more than 6MP or apertures larger than f/8 or shutter speeds faster than 1/250. Only photography enthusiasts need those things. And even among photography enthusiasts most people in most circumstances don't need 45MP or f/1.4 or battery life longer than 500 shots.
The unanswered question is whether cameras will be designed to meet the needs of a wide range of users, or only be what most people in most circumstances need? Everything we see about the consumer digital and electronics world today suggests that users who need more than most people in most circumstances will be ignored. The mp3 format is the example here: it is based on a model of how humans hear sound, achieving high compression by discarding information its model says you won't hear anyway. And "most people in most circumstances" won't hear it, but those who will don't get a choice: as Jonathan Sterne says "the mp3 encoding process [...] decides for its listeners what they need to hear and gives them only that".
-
It is not my impression that the photographers who need cold capable equipment is few. Just perform an internet search for cold weather photography in different areas of the world, and you will see that the proportion of photographers who need equipment that can withstand low temperatures is significant. Photography is a popular activity in all parts of the world.
Per,
You are right about impressions.
Impressions certainly vary by location and our thoughts are directly related to those impressions.
I notice that Norway has a total population of about 5 million which is similar to the metropolitan area I live in. Snow here is an event that occurs every 40 years or so, so my impression is very different about the severity of cold weather performance. It can not help but be true that my concerns about being smaller and lighter are More prominent to me than battery life in the extreme cold.
My ancestors (Danes and Swedes) solved that problem for me by moving to California :)
Anyway, the great thing about this forum is meeting people with other locations and situations and learning their problems and solutions.
-
Concerning photography, I got the impression that the selection is wider than it used to be. I do not see which category of enthusiast is being neglected, even though I'm the first one to complain re Df not being further developed, but let us be reasonable.
In ancient times we had film in a few formats, and all cameras, from simple ones to pro level, had the same basic features and controls... main differences were fastest speed, flash sync speed, the possibility to add a motor, and the exchangeable ground glass. Compare with now (we are getting too much, maybe). We lost the exchangeable ground glass for reasons not very clear to me - does really everybody rely on AF ? do Zeiss lenses not exist ? this seems paradoxical to me: one the one hand, Zeiss does good business, on the other hand, cameras are ill-adapted.
Other features were tailored to slide shooting : I'm thinking of the multispot measure on the Canon T90, one of my favourite features at the time. I was mostly shooting slides under difficult conditions (organs in churches => high contrast). In the absence of slides, one is better served with a histogram, and even that is not really useful given the current DR of sensors.
Generally speaking, the current selection is rich, too rich maybe, and even most picky users like Mr. Erlewine manage to find satisfactory cameras for doing things unimaginable 30 years ago.
Concening mp3, that's not my favourite format, but it is misrepresented by Jonathan Sterne. Fact is, the masking effect exists in humans, and mp3 uses it (and over-uses it, at times) to perform the data compression. Besides, to some, it is more the pre-processing (e.g. cutoff at 15kHz with all the phase shift effects) that may be problematic. mp4 / AAC does basically the same, only better. It is not a marketing trick, but an engineering one.
-
"even though I'm the first to complain re Df not being further developed, but let us be reasonable."
I would fully agree with Airy on this one ;)
For the rest of the thread, I'm in favor of the OVF or at least a rangefinder system with projected informations "à la Fuji". The main point being the batteries. Last time I went to Istanbul with family for 10 days, I wanted to travel light, didn't have any computers, just enough SD cards and two batteries for the Df. I loaded the second one the last day because I wasn't sure of the first battery level as it just had got to the last mark. I believe I could have done with just one.
What gets me thinking about parts of India (or others in the world) were you don't get electricity (though you can buy AA batteries), which happens to be the most interesting parts to photography...
In film times I didn't buy an F3 because you needed a battery for the shutter speeds (minus one mechanical 1/250th). So I bought the rustic FM2n (I still have three of them, one for each shutter model). Apart the cell, everything works with no batteries !
And I'm not speaking of Monsoon when everything is wet, or sand deserts (when you have to stay several days with a cleaning kit and screwdrivers) !!!
While I've followed the mainstream on digitals and electronics (I'm even trying to dump the portable computer in favor of the iPad Pro) and I'm quite happy with it, I used to go to such remote places that I brought packs of film relying on a new button battery (one year charge and two or three of those didn't take a lot of space) for the cell. Those places didn't even have cars or trucks but horses or camels or yacks.
So if the mirrorless reigns "à la iPhone", with chargers everywhere, even for refugees crossing the sea on inflatable rafts, i'll go back to chemicals and my ever ready FM2's, even though I'm getting a bit old for those parts of the world (alas).
-
Frankly, I don't think that the mp3 format is appropriate as an example for this discussion.
The compression formats like mp3 and jpeg have been needed largely to compensate the bottleneck of the technology: the storage capacity and the bandwidth of the data transmission.
Also, the problem of mp3 is that the hope for the future development of the listeners' ears is neglected. The more sophisticated the ears become, the more details they can perceive and appreciate.
Unfortunately, the life cycle of a digital camera, DSLR or mirrorless, is a bit too short to wait for the growth of a user.
-
I'm afraid I'm not sure. Unlike the TV or the computer screen, the EVF will be turned off periodically by the power saving function. So, the burn-in could be less of a problem.
I did think that burn-in might be relevant with long exposures, but that is a WAG , because I don't know. My OLED TV periodically runs a pixel compensation cycle to combat burn-in, but a static image can still cause it if run long enough. Yes. there is a major difference in size between an OLED EVF and an OLED TV panel, but I don't know how they might compare in performance, or if it's really a concern WRT to cameras. I thought that you may know more about it.
-
I would fully agree with Airy on this one ;)
In film times I didn't buy an F3 because you needed a battery for the shutter speeds (minus one mechanical 1/250th). So I bought the rustic FM2n (I still have three of them, one for each shutter model). Apart the cell, everything works with no batteries !
Bought a Selenium based Gossen lightmeter then to be completely battery independent.
-
I did think that burn-in might be relevant with long exposures, but that is a WAG , because I don't know. My OLED TV periodically runs a pixel compensation cycle to combat burn-in, but a static image can still cause it if run long enough. Yes. there is a major difference in size between an OLED EVF and an OLED TV panel, but I don't know how they might compare in performance, or if it's really a concern WRT to cameras. I thought that you may know more about it.
Carl, I do have been aware of the concerns about the longevity of OLED in the earlier stage of its development. What I haven't been aware of is whether the image being taken is kept displayed on the monitor (either the viewfinder or the one on the back of the camera)? If I remember correctly, the image was kept displayed during the light composite on an Olympus body.
-
Have you tried adjusting the EVF brightness setting? Also, have you tried changing the Preview Picture/WB setting?
Yeah...that was the first thing I tried, back 2013.
On my current Fuji XE-2s, moving the EVF brightness control from 0 (factory normal) to +2 (the maximum) brightened it by....about .5 stops. Seems to work indentically regardless of the Preview Picture Effect setting or WB. Measured using a Minolta Spotmeter F.
I once measured the XE-1 EVF as being 13 stops darker than the bright daylight illuminated scene I was pointing it at.
In comparison, the D800 with 50/1.8 Ai lens(wide open for normal viewing) was about 3.5 stops darker than the scene.
-
Frankly, I don't think that the mp3 format is appropriate as an example for this discussion.
The compression formats like mp3 and jpeg have been needed largely to compensate the bottleneck of the technology: the storage capacity and the bandwidth of the data transmission.
Also, the problem of mp3 is that the hope for the future development of the listeners' ears is neglected. The more sophisticated the ears become, the more details they can perceive and appreciate.
Unfortunately, the life cycle of a digital camera, DSLR or mirrorless, is a bit too short to wait for the growth of a user.
The mp3 is relevant in two ways.
One is that, as you point out, the mp3 was developed to allow a lot of files to be sent over limited bandwidth. The problem is that the music the listener is offered is shaped by the mp3; eg, if you play loud and soft notes simultaneously most listeners cannot hear the soft notes, so the mp3 discards them so save bandwidth. But if the mp3 is going to discard them, why bother playing them? We now have enough bandwidth that we do not need to discard all that music, but the music has not recovered. The photographic equivalent of bandwidth is display, and the equivalent of mp3 compression is down-sampling to fit on a phone screen. Not having a crystal ball, I do not know how cameras will be changed by the priority of pictures that look good on a phone screen. That would be OK if other cameras were made with other design goals. But what if they weren't? The curse of the mp3 is precisely that richer and more varied alternatives are permanently closed off because they are difficult to monetise in the prevailing social, esthetic and legal environment.
The second is that technology is not politically neutral: some technologies require a particular social and political environment and work because the people who control the technology are able to drive social and political change in their own interests. The social and political environment is not natural or spontaneous: the corporate sponsors of the mp3 manipulated the environment so that it could flourish (this why Jack's parable of the squirrels in the old growth forest and the birds in the undergrowth is misleading). The mp3 was designed to allow large numbers of files to be sent over limited bandwidth, which was good for the music industry but even better for illegal downloading. Therefore, the mp3 required a copyright regime heavily weighted towards Big Content, and the result was the creation of the moral panic about intellectual property "theft" and the DMCA, which opens the door to selling us, not a camera, but a "renewable non-transferable licence" to the firmware (https://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/did-the-supreme-court-pave-the-way-for-you-to-actually-be-able-to-legally-repair-your-car/ - the fly in the ointment of this case is that US government argued that extinction by first sale should be subject to a right of copyright owners to make persistence of copyright a condition of sale, so the Congress may be invited to change the law to make the USSC's decision irrelevant).
The mirrorless design is not favoured by the manufacturers for photographic reasons, but because more of its elements can be patented, so it suits a business model based on monetising intellectual property rights. It is not that the mirrorless design is bad for photography, but that the business model that is based on it is bad for photography in the same way as it is bad for music.
-
Yeah...that was the first thing I tried, back 2013.
On my current Fuji XE-2s, moving the EVF brightness control from 0 (factory normal) to +2 (the maximum) brightened it by....about .5 stops. Seems to work indentically regardless of the Preview Picture Effect setting or WB. Measured using a Minolta Spotmeter F.
I once measured the XE-1 EVF as being 13 stops darker than the bright daylight illuminated scene I was pointing it at.
That is very poor performance, and not something I have experienced on either of my X-T cameras.
-
It is not my impression that the photographers who need cold capable equipment is few.
Personally I do most of my nature photographs in the winter and especially those days when it is bitterly cold are photographically productive. This is because the snow looks different in those circumstances and there can be "sea smoke" coming out of open water that create interesting visual elements in the images. Ice crystals can also be interesting macro subjects themselves. I think a lot of landscape photographers who are familiar with these latitudes would find that these are some of the best of times to make images.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/32767793816/in/dateposted-public/
Furthermore, I find that while I do not regularly photograph wildlife, the bitter cold days create opportunities where interesting wildlife photographs can be made due to the circumstances changing the behavior of the animals and their priorities.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/38613108410/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/29886990273/in/dateposted-public/
-
The mp3 is relevant in two ways.
...
The mirrorless design is not favoured by the manufacturers for photographic reasons, but because more of its elements can be patented, so it suits a business model based on monetising intellectual property rights. It is not that the mirrorless design is bad for photography, but that the business model that is based on it is bad for photography in the same way as it is bad for music.
I didn't think about the camera or the data file formats from the patent point of view. Your explanation makes sense.
-
Apparently we would still have to wait for a whole year... :o :o :o
https://www.43rumors.com/new-competition-from-nikon-hitting-the-market-in-spring-2019/
-
Speaking of hybrid systems: noone has yet developed a hybrid DSLR viewfinder which would be a dream come true for people like me needing strong reading glasses but not glasses at all in the far field.
With a hybrid VF I could check my captures immediately after the shot in my VF, like I do using the Fuji 100T set to OVF and image review. Chimping is a burden, because I have to find and adjust my reading glasses to use the display on the back, while the Camera VF is corrected by the Diopter settings.
-
Speaking of hybrid systems: noone has yet developed a hybrid DSLR viewfinder which would be a dream come true for people like me needing strong reading glasses but not glasses at all in the far field.
Well it has been an area of study (and patenting) but the EVF insert would reduce the quality of the optical viewfinder image so it didn't make it into a product.
-
You could have two separate viewfinders, one real and one electronic. If they were the right distance apart you could use them simultaneously.
-
I don't know if it is what you are referring to but there is a well-defined phenomenon of loss of vision in one eye caused by looking at bright screens in the dark (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1514294).
I assume that what folks call 'eye strain' is something painful. I have not experienced pain from EVFs. I will not consciously do anything that causes pain to my eyes in order to use a camera...any camera, for any reason.
The experiment in the link describes 'Transient Monocular Vision Loss' caused by staring at a bright thing in a dark ambient condition.
Using an EVF in daytime is staring at a dark thing in a bright ambient condition.
If I could walk through the world wearing dark sunglasses, and only take the glasses off when looking through the Fuji XE EVF, then the EVF would seem nice and bright.
-
Another concern of a mirrorless camera is the fully exposed sensor, especially when you have to change lenses under dusty or splashy conditions. The tens of thousands of dollar digital backs are formidable in this regard. ::)
Cameras like New Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7 had a shutter curtain that closes during the lens change. Of course, that was to prevent the film from the exposure, but that could be applied to the mirrorless cameras in order to protect the image sensor.
Most of the mirrorless cameras have mechanical shutters. I wonder why nobody has implemented this function. ::)
-
Akira, that was a concern of mine when I got my first Olympus E-M1 mirrorless camera.
I now have two E-M1s and despite many many lens changes they have not so far picked up dust bunnies, whereas my DSLRs would have had their sensors buried in dust had they been exposed to the same levels of lens changing without sensor cleaning. Maybe the lack of a mirror or perhaps less bellows effects with Olympus lenses or sensor coatings could be partial answers as to what I have experienced. How are your Panasonics M43 cameras in this respect, as I understand that some of the Panasonic cameras use sensors from the same supplier?
-
Akira, that was a concern of mine when I got my first Olympus E-M1 mirrorless camera.
I now have two E-M1s and despite many many lens changes they have not so far picked up dust bunnies, whereas my DSLRs would have had their sensors buried in dust had they been exposed to the same levels of lens changing without sensor cleaning. Maybe the lack of a mirror or perhaps less bellows effects with Olympus lenses or sensor coatings could be partial answers as to what I have experienced. How are your Panasonics M43 cameras in this respect, as I understand that some of the Panasonic cameras use sensors from the same supplier?
Hugh, I've used various m4/3 camears and DSLRs, and my experiences with both types of cameras are exactly the same as yours. Even when I spotted some dusts, they could be easily removed using my HEPA JET blower with the exposed sensor facing downwards. I would say that their anti-dust coating seem to work really well, and the dusts were not sticky.
On the other hand, the dusts on the sensor of DSLRs seems to be stickier than those of mirrorless cameras. I would assume that the most of the dust bunnies on the sensor come from the mirror mechanism and they are oily.
Nevertheless, the fact that the sensors of mirrorless cameras are completely exposed persists.
As for the sensors of the Panasonic cameras, I believe they are produced in-house.
-
The experiment in the link describes 'Transient Monocular Vision Loss' caused by staring at a bright thing in a dark ambient condition.
Using an EVF in daytime is staring at a dark thing in a bright ambient condition.
It depends whether the photographer closes the eye not at the viewfinder. If the photographer closes the eye not using the EVF, it is the same as the published cases: one eye looking at a relatively bright screen and one in the dark. If both eyes are open and the EVF is relatively dark, the sides are reversed, as it were, but there is still one eye dark adapted and the other not, so when both of them look at the same illumination the mis-match between the eyes is perceived as malfunction.
Evidence against it being just the relative dullness of the EVF is that SLR viewfinders are also dull: if you look through the SLR viewfinder with a lens of f/4 maximum aperture the viewfinder is 1/64 as bright as the ambient light (not 1/16; image brightness = scene luminance divided by 4N^2 where N is relative aperture = F, so if N = 4 the image brightness is 1/64 of the scene luminance; as an aside this also tells you that the largest aperture a lens can have is f/0.5).
-
On the other hand, the dusts on the sensor of DSLRs seems to be stickier than those of mirrorless cameras. I would assume that the most of the dust bunnies on the sensor come from the mirror mechanism and they are oily.
The D600 oil spot issue was caused by the shutter, not the mirror mechanism, as far as I know. I'm wondering which cameras do you see oily spots on?
Only in a few cases have I had sensor spots where they weren't removed simply by applying air flow (I used to use a blower but now a vacuum because the latter keeps the sensor clean for a longer time). I am not saying it's not possible to have oily spots but I just haven't run into them on cameras newer than the D3X (which doesn't have the sensor shaker). On the D3X I do see a few spots at smallish apertures but in my other cameras I find it rare to see a spot that sticks.
Blowing the dust tends to move it around in the mirror box and it may end up in the corners and when the mirror moves the air around they can reappear on the sensor at times. By using a vacuum they are removed permanently and this has been very effective for me, of course one has to be careful and I use the MIN setting and rest the tip of the vacuum against the bayonet to avoid accidents.
If I shoot in a dusty environment so that I notice some buildup around the lens mount I take the camera to be cleaned at service, but this is something I have had to do only a couple of times. Usually my own vacuum at MIN settings applied once a year does the trick. In my landscape camera, I usually shoot at f/9 to f/11, sometimes f/13 (for water flow) and I can't recall the last time I saw a spot in my landscapes in D8x0 cameras. I keep the automated sensor shaking on so that it is activated when the camera power is recycled. I have this habit of turning the camera off whenever I'm not actively shooting so this way the sensor actually gets a shaking quite often. :)
-
The D600 oil spot issue was caused by the shutter, not the mirror mechanism, as far as I know. I'm wondering which cameras do you see oily spots on?
I've found dust spots on all DSLRs I've owned; two D7000s, a D610 and two D750s. I said "oily" because the dusts couldn't be removed using HEPA JET blower (well, I should have said "sticky".). On the other hand, the dust spots on the mirrorless cameras could be in general easy to be blown off with the HEPA.
-
Ok, so the mirror mechanism could spill oil but the shutter is closed when the mirror is moving, so it would then land on the shutter and from there it would end up on the sensor. I suppose that is possible.
There may be a few spots that I haven't noticed in my newer cameras that might show up at f/22, it's just that in my normal shooting I haven't noticed any (except on the 2007/2008 cameras which didn't have dust shakers and the air flow design was different as well I believe). On the D3X, there are a few spots but on D800/D810/D850/D5 it has never been a problem.
I guess it is possible the oil spillage depends on the climate (temperature and humidity) or other factors that might explain why some have problems and others do not.
-
Oil has a refractive index of about 1.5 - the same as glass. Because of surface tension a drop of oil forms a plano-convex lens shape on a sensor, so it appears as a bright spot with a darker rim. A dark spot is not oil.
-
- How and why is it that at dpreview.com and also other photo related discussion fora one gets the impression that mirrorless is the only thing and that DSLR syatems and glass viewfinders with no power consumption and sensors that are blacked out and protected between shots will soon be history?
I think this got answered pretty much - DPREVEIW is promoting sales, and latest and greatest inspire most interest. Also digital photography is heavily reliant on new breakthroughs, and mirrorless is one such "breakthrough".
- How representative are those who give that abovementioned impression?
Sony in particular has saturation-bombed the internet via ambassadors and Vloggers attending their launch events. There is a symbiotic relationship between Vloggers and companies spending vast amounts of marketing dollars, so I think that what all the hype around mirrorless represents is marketing dollars.. notnecessarily a global shift in photography to mirrorless. So, not very representative
- Who, and how many, are those who are ready to dump functional, reliable and capable systems from Nikon, Canon and Pentax in favor of the Sony system which seems to be mysteriously popular with hobbyist photographers?
I for one am one who has gone out and gotten a mirrorless camera (Sony A7R3). I think we'll have to wait for the storm to pass to know how many have done so, but anecdotally I see a lot of used Canon and Nikon lenses on sale on E-Bay, and prices seem to be going down.. i.e. more supply than demand. Good time to be a DSLR shooter though.
- What are, in your opinion, the relative merits of DSLRs and mirrorless, and what is the future of these systems?
I've tried 2 mirrorless systems to date - Fuji (X-E1) and Sony (A7R3). Merits are the ability to use essentially ANY lens out there. In my case I can now use a 1960's vintage Canon 50mm f0.95 and it is truly spectacular. Not so much the Fuji but certainly with the Sony I can use full frame manual focus lenses and get the shot in focus via the very good electronic viewfinder. The newer Sony with its better battery actually performs really well, and I get a day's worth of shooting or more before having to charge the battery. Not nearly as good as a DSLR (Nikons mostly)so if I was travelling up a mountain for a week then I'd need a lot of batteries. Still, for everyday use quite usable. Autofocus with my Nikon lenses works reasonably well with some, and attrociously with others. I believe Canon lenses perform better, although I haven't tried that. Definitely a plus as with one camera body your can mix and match lenses from different makers, picking the best in category (Nikon 70-200E and Canon 50mm f1.2 EF for example). The sensor stabilisation is defintely a plus, making older manual lenses as well as more modern lenses essentially stabilised, although not nearly as well as optically stabilised lenses. Definitely a plus for mirrorless, although it's not exclusively a mirrorless thing (Pentax K-1 anyone?!). On the seriously negative side of the equation is the impractical size of mirrorless cameras, and the beastly size of Sony full frame lenses, that manage to be larger than Canikon equivalents! This is truly ridiculous! The bodies are uncomfortable and you must get a grip in order to.. get a grip! I'll take the ergonomics of a D3 over a A7R3 any day. However small camera size does have its advantages when travelling, shooting where you're not really supposed to. Silent shooting is another advantage, although Nikon's D850 also does that, although you need to use the LCD to focus. The Sony does it using the EVF which is more intuitive. So close cigar for DSLR's on that one, but ultimately point goes to Mirrorless.
However all the advantages above aren't enough for me to want to keep the Sony, and therefore it will be going on Ebay. I'll keep the Nikons for now, and maybe when Nikon comes out with it's own Mirrorless it will fix the shortcommings I've mentionned above. Make no mistake though, the Sony Mirrorless cameras are quite amazing, IQ is top-notch, some really useful features. Probably by Version 4 they will have it right
-
A fair set of observations, jd. In addition to the D800s, I stay with my Fuji XE-series camera for it's small size and unobtrusiveness. A Leica ($$$$$$) would do most, but not all, of what I do with the Fuji.
-
I've been waffling about making a post here. Oh well, for what it's worth I really like my D5300 as a small camera, I don't think I'd want anything smaller. And the new AF-P zooms match up real nice with it, the problem is I'm not much of a zoom guy so my main camera is a D750 and a couple primes. I think the lack of DX primes has not helped Nikon and is a reason why so many have tested the waters with Fuji and Sony, more because of the prime lens selection (especially Fuji) than getting after a smaller camera body. My wish list for DX would be a small 18mm f/2 and quality 35mm f/1.4. Doesn't seem likely. Why no DX primes? Probably a moot point now as Nikon moves towards their own mirrorless system, but it's kind of a shame because the DX cameras are really very good.
-
The real issue here is that there is a shortage of DX wide angle primes - primes from the FX line up are still fine on DX for the longer focal lengths (albeit at maybe the expense of added weight). So I agree with you that a modern 18mm f/2.0 DX would be a great start, followed by some more primes at even shorter focal lengths.
I've been waffling about making a post here. Oh well, for what it's worth I really like my D5300 as a small camera, I don't think I'd want anything smaller. And the new AF-P zooms match up real nice with it, the problem is I'm not much of a zoom guy so my main camera is a D750 and a couple primes. I think the lack of DX primes has not helped Nikon and is a reason why so many have tested the waters with Fuji and Sony, more because of the prime lens selection (especially Fuji) than getting after a smaller camera body. My wish list for DX would be a small 18mm f/2 and quality 35mm f/1.4. Doesn't seem likely. Why no DX primes? Probably a moot point now as Nikon moves towards their own mirrorless system, but it's kind of a shame because the DX cameras are really very good.
-
The real issue here is that there is a shortage of DX wide angle primes - primes from the FX line up are still fine on DX for the longer focal lengths (albeit at maybe the expense of added weight). So I agree with you that a modern 18mm f/2.0 DX would be a great start, followed by some more primes at even shorter focal lengths.
I don't think Nikon is being inattentive in not making DX wide-angle primes, I think they are saying that someone who uses primes a lot, especially wide-angle primes, is a natural FX user - and they are right. Plenty of wide primes for FX exist, old and new, expensive and cheap, small and light or big and heavy, a D750 is lighter than a D500 and roughly the same price, and you don't need all the AF resources of the D500 to use wide primes, so why not a D750?
Sure, there is no FX camera cost-competitive with a D7500, but I think that what Nikon is telling us by not making DX wide primes is that they just don't believe that enough DX camera owners users would buy wide DX primes to justify the expense of developing and making them. Lots of people say they are thinking about Fuji because they have the prime lenses Nikon DX lacks, but what do they buy? They buy zooms. Thom Hogan, eg, has gone on (and on) about the lack of DX wide primes, and how that is pushing people to Fuji, but his recommended Fuji travel kit uses zooms (http://www.sansmirror.com/articles/three-small-mirrorless.html). And his own recent kit for the NAB show was a D7500 + 10-20, 16-80 and 70-300, and as he says, with that kit "What’s an E-M1II going to do for me again?" (http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-purge.html). Let you use wide primes is what it is going to do - and forgetting it is not encouraging Nikon to take seriously talk about how badly they need to make DX wide primes.
-
The idea of DX primes would be they would be smaller, lighter, and less expensive. And in that sense provide competition with mirrorless systems. The new AF-P zooms meet this smaller, lighter, less expensive criteria, and they are of very good quality as well. To have to purchase a $1,500 or more FX camera to shoot a $700 28mm prime is not the best deal going for most people. A $500 DX camera with a $300 18mm prime sounds much more palatable. But...I think that ship has long sailed. Having two systems has not been an easy thing for Nikon to manage.
-
You could make smaller lenses for smaller formats. But apparently the long flange back of DSLRs seems to make it difficult to design smaller wideangles. A good example is (although they are zooms) the huge difference in size between Olympus 7-14mm/f4.0 for 4/3 and Panasonic 7-14mm/f4.0 zoom for m4/3.
Another problem is 1.5x crop factor. You have to make lenses of shorter focal length to achieve the equivalent angle of view by retaining the same flange back. A 20mm equivalent for the DX format is 13.3mm, which requires the more extreme retrofocus design which should result in a bigger lens.
Yes, I would have to admit that the DX 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 is almost the same in size as the FX 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5, and the DX can offer a wider angle of view. So, there is possibility, but I would still doubt if you could make it any "smaller".
-
You could make smaller lenses for smaller formats. But apparently the long flange back of DSLRs seems to make it difficult to design smaller wideangles. A good example is (although they are zooms) the huge difference in size between Olympus 7-14mm/f4.0 for 4/3 and Panasonic 7-14mm/f4.0 zoom for m4/3.
Another problem is 1.5x crop factor. You have to make lenses of shorter focal length to achieve the equivalent angle of view by retaining the same flange back. A 20mm equivalent for the DX format is 13.3mm, which requires the more extreme retrofocus design which should result in a bigger lens.
Yes, I would have to admit that the DX 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 is almost the same in size as the FX 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5, and the DX can offer a wider angle of view. So, there is possibility, but I would still doubt if you could make it any "smaller".
Great explanation. Thank you.
-
You could make smaller lenses for smaller formats. But apparently the long flange back of DSLRs seems to make it difficult to design smaller wideangles. A good example is (although they are zooms) the huge difference in size between Olympus 7-14mm/f4.0 for 4/3 and Panasonic 7-14mm/f4.0 zoom for m4/3.
Not familiar with the flange distance of M4/3, but there is no way they could design a 7mm lens without a telecentric design (unless the rear of the lens is extending way inward to the shutter curtain). I think someone here pointed out earlier that among prime lenses there is a very small range of focal lengths that can benefit in simplicity by not needing to be telecentric (from memory 20mm or so to 50mm?). Also can someone remind me, isn't zoom lenses telecentric by their nature? Telephoto lenses can actually be shorter with a longer register/flange distance as part of their "length" resides in the body.
Design priorities are likely as important for lens sizes. It seems that the trend in full frame DSLR lenses lately, especially the professional ones, has been priority of optical quality over size, although there are some nice exceptions like the 300PF + the efforts to make the long exotics lighter without compromising optical quality.
-
You could make smaller lenses for smaller formats. But apparently the long flange back of DSLRs seems to make it difficult to design smaller wideangles. A good example is (although they are zooms) the huge difference in size between Olympus 7-14mm/f4.0 for 4/3 and Panasonic 7-14mm/f4.0 zoom for m4/3.
Another problem is 1.5x crop factor. You have to make lenses of shorter focal length to achieve the equivalent angle of view by retaining the same flange back. A 20mm equivalent for the DX format is 13.3mm, which requires the more extreme retrofocus design which should result in a bigger lens.
Yes, I would have to admit that the DX 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 is almost the same in size as the FX 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5, and the DX can offer a wider angle of view. So, there is possibility, but I would still doubt if you could make it any "smaller".
Compare the various DX 18-55 zooms with the old AIS 18/3.5. The zooms are f/3.5 at 18mm, so they have the same focal length and aperture, but covering a smaller image circle, and far smaller size (52mm filter compared to 72mm). If the 18-55 were a prime instead and the aperture increased to f/2.8 I am sure they could make a DX 18/2.8 which is just as small and probably shorter.
Would a DX 18/2.8 would be fast enough or wide enough to satisfy DX shooters? I think going significantly wider would cause the lens to grow in size for the reasons Akira mentioned. I guess a DX 16/2.8 (24m FX equivalent) would be possible in a reasonably compact 62mm filter - by comparison the AFS 16-80/2.8-4 has 72mm filter, but zooms are usually much larger than primes of similar focal length.
Nikon DX lenses have the same back-focus distance as FX lenses. In theory the back-focus could be shorter since the reflex mirror can be proportionally smaller than FX format. That would permit wide lenses (primes and zooms) that are more compact. For some reason Nikon chose not to take this path. Early DX cameras were based on existing film cameras and still used a full sized reflex mirror. Perhaps Nikon also wanted their DX lenses to be fully compatible with film cameras and FX digital, although I don't see much benefit in this. Canon's AF-S lenses for their APS-C cameras have shorter back focus distance than regular "full frame" EF lenses, although they don't seem to take full advantage of this feature, the back-focus is hardly shorter than regular lenses, and lenses equivalent to Nikon DX lenses are about the same size.
-
Nikon DX lenses have the same back-focus distance as FX lenses. In theory the back-focus could be shorter since the reflex mirror can be proportionally smaller than FX format. That would permit wide lenses (primes and zooms) that are more compact. For some reason Nikon chose not to take this path. Early DX cameras were based on existing film cameras and still used a full sized reflex mirror. Perhaps Nikon also wanted their DX lenses to be fully compatible with film cameras and FX digital, although I don't see much benefit in this. Canon's AF-S lenses for their APS-C cameras have shorter back focus distance than regular "full frame" EF lenses, although they don't seem to take full advantage of this feature, the back-focus is hardly shorter than regular lenses, and lenses equivalent to Nikon DX lenses are about the same size.
I think the reasoning behind Dx keeping f mount instead of going with an adapter took into account a few things.
First, changing mount for digital would be a difficult thing due to the large number of existing lenses. At that time, there was not the same feeling about digital as there is now. I recall many arguments with people who thought digital would never replace film. Volume of digital SLRs was also low. Throwing a new mount into that mix would have been crazy.
The first dx lenses were somewhat smaller and cheaper as they did not need as large of an image circle. I don’t know what the case is now, but it is my recollection from that time.
I think at that time, Nikon was also quite worried that dx was the largest practical format. I think they found over time that they could manufacture larger sensors, build faster electronics to process larger files and also charge higher prices.
-
Just to change the direction of this discussion back towards the original question (Why the appeal of mirrorless?), Thom Hogan has a revealing article on his site today, about a Sony freebie he went on (http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/sony-kando-20.html). It tells a great deal about how Sony creates the impression that they and their cameras are, as Thom puts it, "Fun, fascinating, fervent, festive, and fruitful. [...] It makes you want to create more photos, and more interesting photographs. It makes you want to stretch yourself and your gear to its limits."
How is the trick done? A lot is known about how it is done, because the pharmaceutical industry does it exactly the same way and that has been studied intensively for years. Most people think the key is obvious: the money - a lot of money, in this case. In fact, it isn't the money - although generosity is important. The key is in how you get to go: "To get into Kando, you have to submit an essay as to why you should be there, and point to a body of work. I did, and I was accepted." Of course, the actual selection criteria are quite different from what they tell the "applicants": "I noticed most of the 150 that were accepted all had very visible and different kinds of Internet presence". They didn't want photographers, they wanted "opinion leaders".
This is straight out of the doctors-and-drug-companies playbook: there you are, working away in [name of city] and no one ever tells you what great work you are doing, and along comes Big Pharma/Sony and they think (or pretend to think) your research/photography is really good. Often, they also tell you they really want your input about their exciting, cutting-edge developments, and that makes sense, because you are an exciting, cutting-edge person. Of course you get there and you feel creative and interesting and want to stretch yourself. And those positive feelings transfer to the people who made you feel like that.
-
Just to change the direction of this discussion back towards the original question (Why the appeal of mirrorless?), Thom Hogan has a revealing article on his site today, about a Sony freebie he went on (http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/sony-kando-20.html). It tells a great deal about how Sony creates the impression that they and their cameras are, as Thom puts it, "Fun, fascinating, fervent, festive, and fruitful. [...] It makes you want to create more photos, and more interesting photographs. It makes you want to stretch yourself and your gear to its limits."
How is the trick done? A lot is known about how it is done, because the pharmaceutical industry does it exactly the same way and that has been studied intensively for years. Most people think the key is obvious: the money - a lot of money, in this case. In fact, it isn't the money - although generosity is important. The key is in how you get to go: "To get into Kando, you have to submit an essay as to why you should be there, and point to a body of work. I did, and I was accepted." Of course, the actual selection criteria are quite different from what they tell the "applicants": "I noticed most of the 150 that were accepted all had very visible and different kinds of Internet presence". They didn't want photographers, they wanted "opinion leaders".
This is straight out of the doctors-and-drug-companies playbook: there you are, working away in [name of city] and no one ever tells you what great work you are doing, and along comes Big Pharma/Sony and they think (or pretend to think) your research/photography is really good. Often, they also tell you they really want your input about their exciting, cutting-edge developments, and that makes sense, because you are an exciting, cutting-edge person. Of course you get there and you feel creative and interesting and want to stretch yourself. And those positive feelings transfer to the people who made you feel like that.
+ 1
(Les Olson, you really nailed this one)
-
"And those positive feelings transfer to the people who made you feel like that."
And so you buy one or the other or both, because they each have relative merits.
-
"And those positive feelings transfer to the people who made you feel like that."
And so you buy one or the other or both, because they each have relative merits.
But is the decision based on the relative merits or on the positive feelings? Doctors who take gifts from drug companies have always claimed that it was an insult to say that the gifts had any effect on their judgment. Well, they do, every doctor, every time. The fact is that we, as humans, are highly susceptible to emotional influences on decision-making.
The thrust of the original post was that the positive vibe surrounding mirrorless and the negative vibe surrounding dSLRs is not explained by their relative merits, objectively considered. It is explained by the emotional impact of Sony's marketing. There is nothing wrong with making choices based on emotional responses, but it is a problem when the emotional responses are manipulated by the people who benefit from your choices. If each person makes their choices based on their emotional responses, that is fine. It is not fine when a doctor makes choices about your treatment based on their feelings about drug companies. It is also not fine, though much less important, to have to buy your camera equipment in a market dominated by marketing aimed at other people's emotions, instead of relative merits, objectively considered.
And guess who else was in Monterey recently, and came back with a review of a Sony camera? DPReview (https://www.dpreview.com/videos/6290579546/dpreview-tv-sony-rx10-iv-review). Funnily enough, they don't mention that Sony paid for the trip (although the Youtube video does, in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it kind of way).
-
Just to change the direction of this discussion back towards the original question (Why the appeal of mirrorless?), Thom Hogan has a revealing article on his site today, about a Sony freebie he went on (http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/sony-kando-20.html). It tells a great deal about how Sony creates the impression that they and their cameras are, as Thom puts it, "Fun, fascinating, fervent, festive, and fruitful. [...] It makes you want to create more photos, and more interesting photographs. It makes you want to stretch yourself and your gear to its limits."
How is the trick done? A lot is known about how it is done, because the pharmaceutical industry does it exactly the same way and that has been studied intensively for years. Most people think the key is obvious: the money - a lot of money, in this case. In fact, it isn't the money - although generosity is important. The key is in how you get to go: "To get into Kando, you have to submit an essay as to why you should be there, and point to a body of work. I did, and I was accepted." Of course, the actual selection criteria are quite different from what they tell the "applicants": "I noticed most of the 150 that were accepted all had very visible and different kinds of Internet presence". They didn't want photographers, they wanted "opinion leaders".
This is straight out of the doctors-and-drug-companies playbook: there you are, working away in [name of city] and no one ever tells you what great work you are doing, and along comes Big Pharma/Sony and they think (or pretend to think) your research/photography is really good. Often, they also tell you they really want your input about their exciting, cutting-edge developments, and that makes sense, because you are an exciting, cutting-edge person. Of course you get there and you feel creative and interesting and want to stretch yourself. And those positive feelings transfer to the people who made you feel like that.
Tom Hogan....ya da ...ya da ...ya da
Pay and talk internet amps never cease to amaze me,
C1P used by a large number of working pros if not the largest number is just waiting for Tom Hogan advice and he delivered by the shovel.
I am yet to see anyone enlarging any panel to work on an image. It is a bit silly to comment on a Panel taking space over an image when the demonstrator is doing it to "demonstrate".
Nevermind that Tom Hogan should know that in a professional environment, photographers work with dual monitors for both C1P and Photoshop. And I am not talking yet of the gear used for pro Color Grading.
As for the so called "grading" dialog" which in fact is the Color Balance panel. It might occur to Tom Hogan that it is available in different modes namely the "3-way" mode with three dials or circles for the Shadow - Midtone and Highlight as he puts it. The other modes are a single dial for each of the Shadow - Midtone and Highlight.
In fact the total number of dials available are 5: Master - 3way (3 dials) - Highlight - Midtone - Shadow.
He really should pay more attention to his blurb!!
-
I'm sticking with my DSLRs.
Lately I've been reading about concerns about eye injury from long term use of mirrorless EVFs. The eye is very close to the light source, and certain wavelengths (blue?) can damage the retina and possibly cause cataracks and macular degeneration.
I have friends who will not buy a mirrorless camera because of these concerns...
-
Against which looking into strong sunlight or laser radiation with an SLR with an optical view finder can definitely damage eyes.
And yes, I concede that if the intensity in a mirrorless EVF is cranked up too much eye damage may result.
I'm sticking with my DSLRs.
Lately I've been reading about concerns about eye injury from long term use of mirrorless EVFs. The eye is very close to the light source, and certain wavelengths (blue?) can damage the retina and possibly cause cataracks and macular degeneration.
I have friends who will not buy a mirrorless camera because of these concerns...
-
Twice in the first paragraph about Capture One, Hogan uses the term 'Field Workflow', which I take to mean photo editing done on a single laptop screen.
-
Against which looking into strong sunlight or laser radiation with an SLR with an optical view finder can definitely damage eyes.
And yes, I concede that if the intensity in a mirrorless EVF is cranked up too much eye damage may result.
Ha ha...I am convinced that my EVFs (in the 2 Fujis I have) are too feeble and dark to be a threat to vision, but it pays for everyone to be alert for the possibility of health issues with any technology, OLEDs included.
Also, I'm viewing through anti-UV coated eyeglasses.
-
Dpreview's business model is to promote sales of new camera equipment;
......
I believe the camera review website industry has a strong motivation to push people to buy the new and make people unhappy with the old, because they live off advertisement clicks. They do not care about what is best for the photographer.
I think everyone knows the Amazon now owns dpreview.com so it's definitely in the sales generation mode... churn, churn, churn!