micro 4/3 slr?

[jagarch]

Is it possible for a manufacturer to make a micro 4/3'rds SLR?
I'm thinking something along the lines of the Pentax System 10 or the Olympus Pen F. These were small cameras with small frame sizes but actual mirrors and viewfinders.
Are they going with perceived popular demand for an electronic viewfinder, or does the micro 4/3rds system itself make a mirror impossible because of a design limitation?

 

[scottwallick]

You mean like a Lumix DMC-G1?

There's not going to be a mirrored SLR in MFT. The whole point of MFT is a mirrorless system [1].

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

The regular 4/3ds cameras are SLRs.

 

[Michael Da Re]

The regular 4/3ds cameras are SLRs.

Exactly! And the E420 really isn't a whole lot bigger than the EP-1 or 2. Plus it's cheaper.

Mike D.

 

[jagarch]

I understand what you guys are getting at. But maybe I should have said this,

Is it possible to make a digital camera the size of a Pentax 10 system or Olympus Pen F, with interchangable lenses, an actual mirror box and viewfinder (not an electronic viewfinder), and a small sensor size (equivalent to 110 or 35mm half frame)?

If it is possible, is it possible to do it with micro 4/3rds? Or would it have to be a system redesign because the flange distance is too short to mount the mirror and the electronics behind the lens? As electronics shrink and grow thinner, then would it be possible to stuff a mirror box in there?

 

[splitimageview]

No, it's not possible to do it with micro 4/3, as the micro 4/3 design specification is sans mirror.

 

[quietmouse]

There is not enough room for a mirror. That's why they are smaller. As, "electronics shrink and grow thinner" technology will improve in other areas as well. This means improved EVF's as well. Having a mirror in your camera is a thing of the past which will soon be eliminated.

 

[Michael Da Re]

Pe rhaps something like the E330 mirror system may work, but I don't think it would be better than an EVF because of the size it would have to be just to fit.

 

[splitimageview]

It would take a tiny mirror which equates to a tiny viewfinder, which is what an E420 has. Why? Give me a huge EVF like a G1 any day...

 

[Michael Da Re]

All 4/3rd cameras have small viewfinders compared to other systems, but that doesn't make them any less effective in the right hands.

 

[jagarch]

There is not enough room for a mirror. That's why they are smaller. As, "electronics shrink and grow thinner" technology will improve in other areas as well. This means improved EVF's as well. Having a mirror in your camera is a thing of the past which will soon be eliminated.

This is a very interesting point. Following that logic, will pro SLRs switch to EVFs? There is plenty of room in a big camera for either a mirror or an EVF. If the EVF is an improvement on the mirror, why haven't pros been demanding EVFs in their SLRS?

The Pen F strikes me as a very usable size. I don't think that digital cameras have too many features to fit in that size camera. A camera like the Canon G10 has plenty of features and is smaller than a Pen F.

I haven't used a Pentax 110. But I have used lots of small cameras like the Olympus Pen D3 and the Rollei 35, and I don't see why an slr couldn't be very usable at that size.

I guess what I'm getting at is, what is the future for prosumer cameras for the next 15 years? Will SLR's stay the same size, limited by lenses and mounts based on 35mm sensor sizes? Will everyone go over to EVF's and little non-optical-viewfinder cameras? Isn't my idea somewhat in between these two extremes?

 

[Benjamin]

Why bother?

 

[tic]

I think its interesting to note that the imaging area of m4/3 is the same as a film frame from the 110 film used in the pentax auto 110, 13x17mm. Obiviously, pentax managed to to put a mirror assembly (and an aperture mechanism) between _their_ lenses and the film. That is not to say that it could be done with (all or any) lenses complying to the m4/3 specs. I think a digital Auto 110 with a sensor of 4/3 size would be great fun, but probably not a commerically viable product.

 

[Harry Lime]

I understand what you guys are getting at. But maybe I should have said this,

Is it possible to make a digital camera the size of a Pentax 10 system or Olympus Pen F, with interchangable lenses, an actual mirror box and viewfinder (not an electronic viewfinder), and a small sensor size (equivalent to 110 or 35mm half frame)?

If it is possible, is it possible to do it with micro 4/3rds? Or would it have to be a system redesign because the flange distance is too short to mount the mirror and the electronics behind the lens? As electronics shrink and grow thinner, then would it be possible to stuff a mirror box in there?

Yes, it is possible. They could use something like the rotating shutter that was in the analog PEN and a mirror system for viewing.

But it will be a cold day in hell before a camera like that is made, because of the tyranny of the masses. The fanboys and gadget dorks, who represent the vast majority of buyers, have decided that optical viewfinders are for luddites, old geezers and communists.

So, yes. It is perfectly feasible, but will probably never happen.

 

[Harry Lime]

Why bother?

Because EVF stink.

 

[semilog]

Kirk Tuck just posted some interesting thoughts about the evolution of digital cameras and EVFs.

 

[Dwig]

There is not enough room for a mirror. ...

The mirror is NOT the issue. The issue is the focusing screen. This screen must have the same dimensions as the sensor, or slightly smaller if you are willing to accept less than 100% viewing accuracy. Fitting the focusing screen between the shutter assembly and the back side of the lens mount, with its accompanying electronic connections, is the issue.

At present, nothing along the lines of the Pentax 110 or Pen F, in terms of the ratio between image format and total camera size, is possible. In a short time we will likely see EVF cameras with only a rear LCD, no eyelevel EVF, that approach the Pen F's body-to-format ratio. It will likely be quite some time before the electronics shrink enough for eyelevel EVF cameras can reach that point. By the time electroinics shrink enough that that body-to-format ratio can be achieved with a bulky optical SLR VF system we will likely have eyelevel EVFs that be every bit as good, if not better.

 

[splitimageview]

Some EVFs actually have a wonderful fragrance. 🙂

Maybe you just have used the stinky ones?

 

[jagarch]

At present, noting along the lines of the Pentax 110 or Pen F, in terms of the ratio between image format and total camera size, is possible. In a short time we will likely see EVF cameras with only a rear LCD, no eyelevel EVF, that approach the Pen F's body-to-format ratio. It will likely be quite some time before the electronics shrink enough for eyelevel EVF cameras can reach that point. By the time electroinics shrink enough that that body-to-format ratio can be achieved with a bulky optical SLR VF system we will likely have eyelevel EVFs that be every bit as good, if not better.

This is very informative.

It seems to me that in essence the EVF vs SLR debate is similar to the 60's SLR vs Rangefinder debate - striking the balance between smaller size and more robust features. But there was and is a market for an in-between size camera with professional controls, which is exactly why Pentax and Olympus came up with their small SLR designs. Aren't professionals interested in smaller, lighter cameras? When the Pen F came out, did people say, "It's too small to be usable"?

Maybe they overestimated the size of that market, and thus the discontinuation of those cameras.

So what you guys are saying is, it is possible to make a small, mirrored digital SLR, say 3/4 or even 1/2 of the size of a standard one. But it would entail an entirely new lens mount, a little bigger than micro 4/3rds.

Rather than develop this over the past couple years, olympus/sony/panasonic chose m4/3 which necessitates EVF with current electronics sizes. They were betting on the future. So we just have to sit back and wait for the better EVF.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Because EVF stink.

Not for long, most likely.