Opinion: Small Mirror-less Camera Bodies. Good for the market?
So with all these new, smaller form factor, mirror-less interchangable lens high-end cameras, will the dimminutive sizes be a hindrence to usage and ergonomics? Will they be a boon to portability and stealth?
If you are a DSLR user, what is your opinion? Would you buy in to the mirror-less design for your kit? Would you dissmiss them as a dead-end product catagory?
And if you haven't shot with full sized DSLR's, would these mirror-less bodies and interchangable lenses be a game changer for you in moving up from a point and shoot camera?
Will point and shoots be supplanted by camera phones, moving the low end game to mirror-less?
If you are a DSLR user, what is your opinion? Would you buy in to the mirror-less design for your kit? Would you dissmiss them as a dead-end product catagory?
And if you haven't shot with full sized DSLR's, would these mirror-less bodies and interchangable lenses be a game changer for you in moving up from a point and shoot camera?
Will point and shoots be supplanted by camera phones, moving the low end game to mirror-less?
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
0
Comments
If Canon were to introduce a FF mirror-less camera, with the AF of a DSLR and the ability to take my EF lenses, why not? I could imagine a FF DSLR with the body the size of an Olympus OM-1 or a Leica M9. It seems a natural progression - one I would buy into. In fact the shot you posted shows that's exactly what Canon may be up to.
Mumon is right! "Every day is a good day!"
http://www.keithbroadphotography.com/
... I think that there is plenty of room for the entry level through professional level "mirror based" dSLRs.
(For myself, I am resigned to using a simple P&S for simple snapshots and a number of dSLRs for everything else.)
Yes, I think that the current mirrorless technology based cameras will most likely displace the advanced digicams first, and later replace the entry level digicams. The interchangeable lens versions will be a welcome addition in smaller form-factor camera systems. They are already strong in sales for Japanese markets.
Yes, I think that the trend for more and more advanced cell-phone-cameras will continue and they will kill off the basic P&S cameras.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
They'll be good for portability.
They're a useful part of an enthusiast's kit. They're good for travel, or whenever you want to go small/light but still want the control/IQ of a DSLR.
I suspect that cell phone cameras will replace point and shoots. Lower-end mirrorless cameras may become the step up from cell phone cameras. I suspect that a small number of point and shoots will remain on the market.
The market is basically about having something to sell, anything, and creating desire for it.
Phone camera users use photos to make remarks, they mainly serve the purpose of text, are part of live conversations, are relevant only while the conversation is live, exist only in the cyberspace environment eg of FB, and these images have as much archival interest to their users as last week's shopping list.
For the majority of p&s/mirrorless/etc users the attractions are spending money on fashion - gadgetry as conspicuous consumption, and convenience. Content, as in getting the shot, eg of the kid, of the dog, of the holiday etc, pushes most other considerations into the background. Still, the quality is way better than from a Brownie Box 50 years ago. The ante on quality has certainly been lifted, without much of a change of role for the device for most users, but IQ doesn't go much further than expectations. Why would it?
So "new tech" is closely linked to behaviour in where and how much it penetrates.
Personally, in photography, I like as much as possible to work with photons rather than electrons, or in other words with analog rather than digital. Much of the "new tech" relies on filling in with software what cannot be obtained optimally of "real" data. The wrong balance as far as I'm concerned, for what I want. I opt for my big, "old tech" eyes rather than microscopic bionic implants ;-)
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I use an S95 (wife's) every now and then, and for what it is, its a great little cam that shoots RAW, so that's useful to me when traveling light. An iPhone 4s, if it shot RAW, is getting real real close, and they'll eventually win out. However, if I were to bring my current EF lenses anywhere, I wouldn't have use for yet more camera bodies, even if they were mirror-less and smaller; I'd just use what I already have.
Now, if I were new to semi-pro cams, a small camera body might seem initially attractive, but once you move into a 70-200 L IS f/2.8, for example, it becomes counter productive due to the cam/lens mass difference (and it would kinda look stupid) like this.
Oh, that. Not a 1DXX, or even a 1Dxs. Doesn't have a name yet. I might be under an exclusive NDA, so I shouldn't really talk about it. What I can say is that the ergonomics of the thing, being that small, are not working for me. And I have small hands.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Kind of funny.
I use my latest cam, a Canon T3i with a Canon 300 f2.8is with a 2X tc, and I like the size/feel of that
better than when I use the same lens combo on my 5DMKII.
And I have hands large enough to palm a basketball.
I think the smaller cameras are great, the problem is (at least for Sony) they didn't make enough
lenses in that mount to give people many choices.
If in that form, they could make lenses much smaller, lighter, I would think that market will really take off.
Think of a Canon 7d, with a 100-400 lens, that takes up half the room, and half the weight.
Even with the slight delay in the EVF, just shoot early and hold the button down at 8-10 shots per sec.
When they get to that point, I'll jump in with both feet, but until the lenses catch up with the bodies, I'm out.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
If you need 70-200 @ 2.8, then you're right. However, many things you'd be shooting with that (like sports, or wildlife) would be shot with a monopod or tripod. If the lens is already on a tripod, then certain mirrorless cameras would have advantages. Depending on the sensor size (eg Nikon 1), you could get a bit of extra reach. With the electronic shutter, you could get a really high frame rate. For sports, though, we'd need a mirrorless with good fast continuous AF.
What if you just need a 50mm? Or a 35/85mm combo? With some small pancake primes, I can see mirrorless cameras taking off for street shooters and the like. Family snaps, travel... why take my DSLR setup when I can get 90% of the image quality from a camera that weighs 1/4 as much? Especially if it's a family event or something where my primary focus isn't taking photos. Throw a DSLR + 50mm around my neck, or stick my mirrorless + 50mm pancake in my pocket?
I wonder about the 90%??? 90% of what - large format quality?
You are not describing gear here so much as your behaviour and purpose. My point in my post above. Careful not to put the cart before the horse, iow the tech before your need for the tech! Eg in another context, there is some beautiful tech around creating a gaming environment and playing video games at home. You can dedicate a whole room to a multi display immersive experience with sound and kinetic feedback and play the latest games at the highest frame rate in 3D. It's all there for the buying, but do you have it? If not why not? If not, for you it might as well not exist! Same with camera tech.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I picked up an E-P2 kit awhile back and love it, it's so much better than carrying around a Dslr kit when just wandering about. I usually just leave it in he car so I'll always have something with me. So long as you understand it's strengths and weaknesses they're a great little camera to have and in no way would it replace a Dslr kit. And for portability and stealth it's great buy, I even managed to get mine into the last BB King show I attended.
The only problem that I could foresee is in the lens selection department. I believe they'll need to start churning out more native mount glass options to keep the format alive(personally I'd like to see more pancake lenses).
I suppose I'd go the micro four thirds route if I was coming from the P&S camp, although I've never owned a P&S as I never could get past the lag.
I imagine so, why carry another item about when one will do just fine. Well that and it seems lots of folks are deeming their activities so important that they need to upload them as fast as possible and a smartphone lets them do just that.
5D2/1D MkII N/40D and a couple bits of glass.
One thing not mentioned here is the impact of gender. I just turned 30, all my friends are getting married and cranking out kids. By a huge margin, the women are the photographers, sharing images with friends and family. Smaller form factors and appearance play a huge part in the purchase decision.
"cranking out kids" and snapshots! Yep, that says a lot. And I repeat, that how well something catches on depends more on lifestyle factors than pure geeky glee over tech.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix