bmattock
Veteran
Worth a read, interesting video with it as well. At least he didn't drop the bloody thing!
I agree that eventually the SLR is doomed. When that will occur, I have no idea. I think EVF still has some ways to go to replace an optical viewfinder, let alone a decent pentaprism. Just my opinion.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...meras_are_the_future_news_291805.html?aff=rss
They also note that they read the forums. Which forums? Dunno.
As to their target audience for these cameras...
Bloody well lets me out, then.
I agree that eventually the SLR is doomed. When that will occur, I have no idea. I think EVF still has some ways to go to replace an optical viewfinder, let alone a decent pentaprism. Just my opinion.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...meras_are_the_future_news_291805.html?aff=rss
They also note that they read the forums. Which forums? Dunno.
As to their target audience for these cameras...
Bloody well lets me out, then.
George S.
How many is enough?
I could see it coming, couldn't you? New cameras are already almost all electronic, so why wouldn't a manufacturer just add a tiny bit more electronics and a teeny more software to eliminate a moving mirror mechanism?
FrankS
Registered User
ironic isn,t it?
here we (rff) are, at the leading edge of camera design (in a way).
what's old is new again.
here we (rff) are, at the leading edge of camera design (in a way).
what's old is new again.
Mackinaw
Think Different
I think the first sentence in the article is the most telling, meaning, it's cheaper for the manufacturer to design and build a mirrorless camera. That alone is incentive to go that route.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Cheaper to build and you can price them at the high end of the market.
Avotius
Some guy
I dont think optical viewfinders will ever go away. They are so much easier to use than viewing on LCD's. Pros will still demand them and even though my EP1 is very useful especially for product photos, it is not so great for action photos.
pvdhaar
Peter
No, it doesn't 'require explanation', it requires better AF performance.. And it's very hard to beat the kind of AF sensors that can be put in an SLR mirrorbox.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Avotius .... your statement is based on technology we currently have available ... not what may be around the corner!
Personally I'm not interested in an EVF to replace my DSLR's mirror and prism system ... hang on, I don't have a DSLR!
amateriat
We're all light!
Keith: Just how "around-the corner" really good EVF technology is, bluntly, is open to question. The fact that I (among others here), moved largely to RFs is a metric involved in this, but doesn't explain the whole story. Having extensively used one of the first halfway-decent digital cameras with an EVF (Olympus C-8080), I can tell you the concept definitely has legs; I'm just waiting for the better execution. None of this stuff comes close to replacing my Hexar RFs, to give one example. Better stuff can be done, and, IMO, should be. I think we're seeing the first stirrings of innovation, but as far as when we'll see truly innovative stuff we can buy and just get out there with, that's anyone's guess.
- Barrett
- Barrett
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Well, without film we don't really need the mirror, but I think the mirror will survive until a decent EVF or OVF can be made for less cost than the current mirror/prism system. Who knows whether it's next year or five years out, but it is on the way.
btgc
Veteran
As one kind of cameras will saturate market, manufacturers will roll out next big thing. Now when every dog has DSLR, mirrorless cameras are proposed as smaller (not exactly cheaper) alternatives. People are willing to upgrade, that matters for market.
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
Yes except, for that minor "overwhelmingly 35mm film cameras many of which don't have meters, let alone anything as advanced as back loading, zoom lenses, AE, AF, IS, LV or any of the other two letter acronyms that have been added to the market the last 40 odd years" detail.
But the mirrorless bit! We have that down pat! Go us on the leading edge (in a way)! We are so very advanced and consumer friendly that clearly we are going to get way more market share any day now! Wait for it, wait for it...
(only on RFF... shakes head)
Cheers,
-Gautham
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The great thing is, the future has a way of not taking over. Buggy-whip manufacture may not be what it was, but you can still buy buggy whips...
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I have used a Panasonic with an EVF a few years ago and think that the system has merit if in the future the manufacturers can greatly improve their performance. These types of cameras seem to be gaining acceptance and the incentive of cheaper production costs while maintaining price levels, meaning greater profit will spur the improvements needed. How fast it will happen is unknown but I think it will happen. Personally I would like to see it happen.
Bob
Bob
Avotius
Some guy
Avotius .... your statement is based on technology we currently have available ... not what may be around the corner!
Personally I'm not interested in an EVF to replace my DSLR's mirror and prism system ... hang on, I don't have a DSLR!
Indeed, its technology we have had for a long time no less. The problem....the bloody camera companies have forgot what optical viewfinders are! Its so annoying that I think it would be awesome to have my own startup camera company that makes digital point and shoots with big damn viewfinders like we used to have
wgerrard
Veteran
We make an error when we look at the future of mirrorless cameras by framing it within our perspectives. We need to look at it from the perspective of folks who buy their cameras at the local Big Box store or the mall.
Isn't the primary complaint of DSLR owners the size and weight of the cameras? A 4/3 solution gives them lighter, smaller cameras. Of course, they could run out and buy rangefinders. That, however, requires they first know that rangefinders exist. Most folks don't.
We'd notice slow AF. So might an experienced DSLR shooter. People moving up from a P&S -- presumably a major target for mirrorless cameras -- have no basis for comparison. The performance of their first mirrorless camera will establish their expectations.
Likewise, most folks do not have the experience of looking through a big bright optical viewfinder. Nor will they. They're used to peering through constrained DSLR and P&S viewfinders that are not necessarily that much brighter than an EVF.
Every reason exists to expect mirrorless cameras to get cheaper and better. The best will always take a premium price, but the best tech from two years ago will go cheap. At least to the camera companies. There's no guarantee they will see an incentive to make cheaper cameras based on older tech.
Isn't the primary complaint of DSLR owners the size and weight of the cameras? A 4/3 solution gives them lighter, smaller cameras. Of course, they could run out and buy rangefinders. That, however, requires they first know that rangefinders exist. Most folks don't.
We'd notice slow AF. So might an experienced DSLR shooter. People moving up from a P&S -- presumably a major target for mirrorless cameras -- have no basis for comparison. The performance of their first mirrorless camera will establish their expectations.
Likewise, most folks do not have the experience of looking through a big bright optical viewfinder. Nor will they. They're used to peering through constrained DSLR and P&S viewfinders that are not necessarily that much brighter than an EVF.
Every reason exists to expect mirrorless cameras to get cheaper and better. The best will always take a premium price, but the best tech from two years ago will go cheap. At least to the camera companies. There's no guarantee they will see an incentive to make cheaper cameras based on older tech.
bmattock
Veteran
Bill is correct. And well said, too.
ZeissFan
Veteran
The pros, especially those who shoot sports, will continue to need a real viewfinder. An electronic viewfinder is insufficient.
If you are going to replace something, you have to assume that the original is flawed or insufficient. The SLR prism is neither.
For a sports photographer, trying to focus on a specific player running down the field with an electronic viewfinder isn't practical. Electronic viewfinders will have to get A LOT better for them to replace an optical viewfinder. They'll have to be just like an SLR prism viewfinder. At that point, why bother?
I'd rather see R&D go into image quality than in replacing the SLR prism viewfinder.
However, on the consumer end, it wouldn't surprise me to see the consumer dSLR replaced by technology that's less expensive and still gives the consumer a good photo. And it fits within the current shooting style that you don't need to hold your camera to your face to take a photo.
If you are going to replace something, you have to assume that the original is flawed or insufficient. The SLR prism is neither.
For a sports photographer, trying to focus on a specific player running down the field with an electronic viewfinder isn't practical. Electronic viewfinders will have to get A LOT better for them to replace an optical viewfinder. They'll have to be just like an SLR prism viewfinder. At that point, why bother?
I'd rather see R&D go into image quality than in replacing the SLR prism viewfinder.
However, on the consumer end, it wouldn't surprise me to see the consumer dSLR replaced by technology that's less expensive and still gives the consumer a good photo. And it fits within the current shooting style that you don't need to hold your camera to your face to take a photo.
wgerrard
Veteran
Are there enough sports photographers, et al, to sustain a market for cameras with optical viewfinders?
Ade-oh
Well-known
Yes, because a lot of wannabe sports photogs will buy them too. IMHO, the consumer camera doesn't have much of a future at all because most people will be happy with what their cellphone camera gives them. The camera in my iPhone is certainly better than the consumer digital p & s I bought a few years ago, and both produce very acceptable snapshots: why buy a camera at all if you aren't an enthusiast?