Wall Street Journal article on the booming market for mirrorless digital cameras

[steelydam]

Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony mentioned prominently. Sounds like these companies are selling a lot of them. Good for them, good for us. Link below:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...88Z0ZhpgeZ0Z0Z0Z0Z0&mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_tech

 

[ray*j*gun]

Micro 4/3 sensors are quit small aren't they?

 

[Thardy]

Micro 4/3 sensors are quit small aren't they?

The same thing was said about APS-C sensors not long ago.

Relative sizes of sensors.

 

[chris00nj]

Some interesting statistics in that article. 75% of SLR users are male, but 70% of mirrorless users are female.

 

[Thardy]

It's funny because males will complain about the size and weight of SLRs, but women actually do something about it!

 

[jsrockit]

"The new cameras especially are a hit among Japanese women. Budding female photo enthusiasts in the country are known as Camera Girls, and manufacturers are targeting them with nontraditional camera colors such as "fiery pink" and "sensual brown." The companies also offer accessories such as camera straps and cases meant to appeal to women."

Haha. I thought Leicas were the only fashion accessory cameras. 😉

 

[Paul Luscher]

Micro 4/3 sensors are quit small aren't they?

I've been shooting for four years with the Olympus E-3, which has a 4/3 sensor. I've been quite happy with the results. Given the advances in technology, I can't buy into the idea that "size does matter" re sensors, and that they have to be big to be any good.

I'm looking forward to the EM-5. The advantages of a rangefinder (small size, quiet operation, quick shooting), with the features of a DSLR. KInda like the old OMs....

 

[cmedin]

Micro 4/3 sensors are quit small aren't they?

Well, they are to APS-C what APS-C is to full frame.

Personally, the only issue I can find with shooting 4/3 is that if you are into very thin depth of field your options are limited. But other than that, I find no negatives about my E-M5 + 20/1.7 combo. Absolutely razor sharp optics and lovely rendering, and the dynamic range of the E-M5 puts my FF 1DsII to shame.

Also, check this out:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/...m-d-e-m5-vs-nikon-d800-for-high-iso/#comments

 

[stewmander]

I too am becoming less concerned with sensor size, now that the pixel wars seem to have slowed, it seems sensor size isnt such an important factor once your above the super tine P&S sensors. I am looking at the Oly EP sieres of cameras now...

Depth of field is the main issue with the non full frame sensors, but there are always ways around that

 

[easyrider]

I have not been paying much attention to these "mirrorless" cameras but last weekend I attended a photo show here in Toronto and was able to play with a Nikon V1. Very impressive.

Nikon had a guest speaker, Vancouver photographer Nick Didlick, who uses these for sports and also showed a video shot with the camera. Very impressive and I will certainly consider it in the future. I shoot with a D300 and Canon s90 that I carry with me but the small size and excellent quality of the V1 blew me away.
I also own two screw mount Leicas (IIIb and IIIc) and a Rollei Automat 3.5 as wel as a Rollei 35 but these are mainly to play with although my grandson is being taught to develop film at his school so they may get more frequent use.

Here is Nick Didlick's web page:
http://nickdidlick.com/

 

[charjohncarter]

(D)SLR is old tech, mirrorless (digital) will soon become the old SLR style of the future; IMHO........................ As you all know; women are always right.

 

[kuzano]

And as Women are prone to say....

And as Women are prone to say....

It's funny because males will complain about the size and weight of SLRs, but women actually do something about it!

It's not the size that counts, it's how well you wield it!!!

And to answer the other uninformed poster, the 4/3, and same size micro 4/3 sensor is not a small sensor in the sense of size related to Point/Shoot. It is only marginally smaller than the APS-C sensors in the current crop DX cameras of Canon and Nikon.

Here is a chart comparing sizes. The 4/3 and same size micro 4/3 sensor is about four up the chart from the APS-C used by Canon. To make matters a little more vague... APS-C is not a standard. There are small size differences between one MFRs APS-C and anothers.

http://www.jeffreysward.com/editorials/sensorsz.htm

 

[willie_901]

What counts in terms of signal quality is the sensor surface area because surface area determines the maximum photon count possible.

With total areas of 864 mm squared for 24x36, 370 for APS-C and 225 for m4/3 sensors, the differences are not small.

Of course sensor pitch, and several other factors significantly impact the overall performance of a sensor as a system. So the surface area only affects the upper limit of performance.

It is clear m4/3 sensors perform well and they getting better. Physics does not support the claim that the very best small sensor performance is similar to the performance of the very best larger sensors.

Today, it is certainly true cameras with smaller sensor areas perform at a high level. The m4/3 system's commercial success represents irrefutable evidence large numbers of photographers find the m4/3 smaller sensor area does not compromise their goals. This means people can enjoy the advantages of a compact camera without significant penalty. But it does not mean a larger sensor area with a similar overall efficiency is no longer important. There will always be situations where more signal makes a significant difference in image quality.

Does anyone buy the highest performing m4/3 camera because it's sensor outperforms the highest performing APS-C equipped camera? Convenience is only reason I carry an APS-C mirrorless camera with me everyday instead of a DSLR with 24x36 mm sensor.