The shape of cameras to come...

[DemonDuck]

Here's the last few paragraphs of an interesting essay on the future of
digital cameras -- he describes the camera I'm waiting for...

http://www.gearlog.com/2009/10/death_of_the_dslr.php

The E-P1 and GF1 represent the first nail in the DSLR coffin. They clearly show that you can make a smaller, more convenient camera
with very few trade-offs, especially around quality. The cameras lack optical viewfinders (OVF), and some analysts believe that the
photo enthusiast would never be willing to forgo these, but this is a fallacy. Most new DSLR customers have been shooting for years
with digital point-and-shoots that don't have optical viewfinders, or at least not ones that were of much value. They're used to
shooting this way and can compose beautiful shots on an LCD. Just wander around Flickr to see thousands of photos that prove this point.

Canon and Nikon dwarf Olympus and Panasonic, so they have some time to react, but they clearly need to. The problem is that a new
mirrorless system requires a new line of lenses to provide the true benefits of the downscaled format, but both companies already
have two existing lines of lenses--one for their pro-level, full-frame sensored cameras and one for the consumer DSLRs cameras with
APS-sized sensors. Having a third line of lenses may be too much, so there's a fair chance we'll see the Big Two go in a different
direction.

Instead of focusing on another interchangeable lens format, the companies may release truly compact cameras with built-in zoom
lenses much like those in their existing PowerShot and Coolpix lines, but with large consumer-level DSLR sensors. This makes sense,
because ultimately, this is what consumers want--as they showed in the film days. Most digital camera sales still tend towards
compact units; as nice as the Micro Four Thirds cameras are, they don't slip into your pocket. You need to make a conscious decision
to carry them around.

Two small camera manufacturers--Sigma, primarily known for its after-market lenses, and Leica, known for its very pricey premium
cameras--were first out of the gate with all-in-one big-sensor cameras, the Sigma DP1 and DP2 and Leica X1. All unfortunately use
fixed-focal-length (non-zoom) lenses, which limit their appeal (as will the Leica's $2,000 price tag). Until these cameras can
incorporate zooms, they'll be limited to a very small enthusiast market.

But once they do (and my guess is that this will happen in mid-2010), watch out. Consumer-level DSLRs won't go away; they didn't in
the film days, and they won't now. But they'll become marginalized as more and more people turn toward more convenient alternatives.
History has a way of repeating itself.

Post by Ben Z. Gottesman

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

I am still waiting for high quality cameras that fill no more than a lenscap
for the back of the lens.  So in reality, the only thing filling anything,
would be the lens itself.  I'm sure there won't be any such camera hitting
the market in the next few years though.

E-P1 and GF1 are indeed interesting, and probably only the first of new
generations of high end cameras in more compact sizes.

3-5 years from now should offer a good array of choices for us.  .... I
hope.

Trausti

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Ken Warner <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Here's the last few paragraphs of an interesting essay on the future of
> digital cameras -- he describes the camera I'm waiting for...
>
> http://www.gearlog.com/2009/10/death_of_the_dslr.php
>
> The E-P1 and GF1 represent the first nail in the DSLR coffin. They clearly
> show that you can make a smaller, more convenient camera
> with very few trade-offs, especially around quality. The cameras lack
> optical viewfinders (OVF), and some analysts believe that the
> photo enthusiast would never be willing to forgo these, but this is a
> fallacy. Most new DSLR customers have been shooting for years
> with digital point-and-shoots that don't have optical viewfinders, or at
> least not ones that were of much value. They're used to
> shooting this way and can compose beautiful shots on an LCD. Just wander
> around Flickr to see thousands of photos that prove this point.
>
> Canon and Nikon dwarf Olympus and Panasonic, so they have some time to
> react, but they clearly need to. The problem is that a new
> mirrorless system requires a new line of lenses to provide the true
> benefits of the downscaled format, but both companies already
> have two existing lines of lenses--one for their pro-level, full-frame
> sensored cameras and one for the consumer DSLRs cameras with
> APS-sized sensors. Having a third line of lenses may be too much, so
> there's a fair chance we'll see the Big Two go in a different
> direction.
>
> Instead of focusing on another interchangeable lens format, the companies
> may release truly compact cameras with built-in zoom
> lenses much like those in their existing PowerShot and Coolpix lines, but
> with large consumer-level DSLR sensors. This makes sense,
> because ultimately, this is what consumers want--as they showed in the film
> days. Most digital camera sales still tend towards
> compact units; as nice as the Micro Four Thirds cameras are, they don't
> slip into your pocket. You need to make a conscious decision
> to carry them around.
>
> Two small camera manufacturers--Sigma, primarily known for its after-market
> lenses, and Leica, known for its very pricey premium
> cameras--were first out of the gate with all-in-one big-sensor cameras, the
> Sigma DP1 and DP2 and Leica X1. All unfortunately use
> fixed-focal-length (non-zoom) lenses, which limit their appeal (as will the
> Leica's $2,000 price tag). Until these cameras can
> incorporate zooms, they'll be limited to a very small enthusiast market.
>
> But once they do (and my guess is that this will happen in mid-2010), watch
> out. Consumer-level DSLRs won't go away; they didn't in
> the film days, and they won't now. But they'll become marginalized as more
> and more people turn toward more convenient alternatives.
> History has a way of repeating itself.
>
> Post by Ben Z. Gottesman
>  
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[DemonDuck]

Yup! Maybe less than that.  The big camera makers are out to make money
after all.  They are not so concerned about you having a closet full of
lenses you can't use anymore.  They already got the money for those...

Trausti Hraunfjord wrote:

> I am still waiting for high quality cameras that fill no more than a lenscap
> for the back of the lens.  So in reality, the only thing filling anything,
> would be the lens itself.  I'm sure there won't be any such camera hitting
> the market in the next few years though.
>
> E-P1 and GF1 are indeed interesting, and probably only the first of new
> generations of high end cameras in more compact sizes.
>
> 3-5 years from now should offer a good array of choices for us.  .... I
> hope.
>
> Trausti
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Ken Warner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's the last few paragraphs of an interesting essay on the future of
>> digital cameras -- he describes the camera I'm waiting for...
>>
>> http://www.gearlog.com/2009/10/death_of_the_dslr.php
>>
>> The E-P1 and GF1 represent the first nail in the DSLR coffin. They clearly
>> show that you can make a smaller, more convenient camera
>> with very few trade-offs, especially around quality. The cameras lack
>> optical viewfinders (OVF), and some analysts believe that the
>> photo enthusiast would never be willing to forgo these, but this is a
>> fallacy. Most new DSLR customers have been shooting for years
>> with digital point-and-shoots that don't have optical viewfinders, or at
>> least not ones that were of much value. They're used to
>> shooting this way and can compose beautiful shots on an LCD. Just wander
>> around Flickr to see thousands of photos that prove this point.
>>
>> Canon and Nikon dwarf Olympus and Panasonic, so they have some time to
>> react, but they clearly need to. The problem is that a new
>> mirrorless system requires a new line of lenses to provide the true
>> benefits of the downscaled format, but both companies already
>> have two existing lines of lenses--one for their pro-level, full-frame
>> sensored cameras and one for the consumer DSLRs cameras with
>> APS-sized sensors. Having a third line of lenses may be too much, so
>> there's a fair chance we'll see the Big Two go in a different
>> direction.
>>
>> Instead of focusing on another interchangeable lens format, the companies
>> may release truly compact cameras with built-in zoom
>> lenses much like those in their existing PowerShot and Coolpix lines, but
>> with large consumer-level DSLR sensors. This makes sense,
>> because ultimately, this is what consumers want--as they showed in the film
>> days. Most digital camera sales still tend towards
>> compact units; as nice as the Micro Four Thirds cameras are, they don't
>> slip into your pocket. You need to make a conscious decision
>> to carry them around.
>>
>> Two small camera manufacturers--Sigma, primarily known for its after-market
>> lenses, and Leica, known for its very pricey premium
>> cameras--were first out of the gate with all-in-one big-sensor cameras, the
>> Sigma DP1 and DP2 and Leica X1. All unfortunately use
>> fixed-focal-length (non-zoom) lenses, which limit their appeal (as will the
>> Leica's $2,000 price tag). Until these cameras can
>> incorporate zooms, they'll be limited to a very small enthusiast market.
>>
>> But once they do (and my guess is that this will happen in mid-2010), watch
>> out. Consumer-level DSLRs won't go away; they didn't in
>> the film days, and they won't now. But they'll become marginalized as more
>> and more people turn toward more convenient alternatives.
>> History has a way of repeating itself.
>>
>> Post by Ben Z. Gottesman
>>  
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[mrjimbo-2]

Ken Ken Ken... your on the Nikon group not the Canon group  sir.. I can take a 20 year old Nikon lens and still make wonderful images on my D700....
Of all the camera outfits they have done the best job, I think, for the image-maker's wallet in the areas you speak to..

jimbo
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ken Warner
  To: [hidden email]
  Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 5:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] The shape of cameras to come...


    Yup! Maybe less than that. The big camera makers are out to make money
  after all. They are not so concerned about you having a closet full of
  lenses you can't use anymore. They already got the money for those...

  Trausti Hraunfjord wrote:
  > I am still waiting for high quality cameras that fill no more than a lenscap
  > for the back of the lens. So in reality, the only thing filling anything,
  > would be the lens itself. I'm sure there won't be any such camera hitting
  > the market in the next few years though.
  >
  > E-P1 and GF1 are indeed interesting, and probably only the first of new
  > generations of high end cameras in more compact sizes.
  >
  > 3-5 years from now should offer a good array of choices for us. .... I
  > hope.
  >
  > Trausti
  >
  > On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Ken Warner <[hidden email]> wrote:
  >
  >>
  >> Here's the last few paragraphs of an interesting essay on the future of
  >> digital cameras -- he describes the camera I'm waiting for...
  >>
  >> http://www.gearlog.com/2009/10/death_of_the_dslr.php
  >>
  >> The E-P1 and GF1 represent the first nail in the DSLR coffin. They clearly
  >> show that you can make a smaller, more convenient camera
  >> with very few trade-offs, especially around quality. The cameras lack
  >> optical viewfinders (OVF), and some analysts believe that the
  >> photo enthusiast would never be willing to forgo these, but this is a
  >> fallacy. Most new DSLR customers have been shooting for years
  >> with digital point-and-shoots that don't have optical viewfinders, or at
  >> least not ones that were of much value. They're used to
  >> shooting this way and can compose beautiful shots on an LCD. Just wander
  >> around Flickr to see thousands of photos that prove this point.
  >>
  >> Canon and Nikon dwarf Olympus and Panasonic, so they have some time to
  >> react, but they clearly need to. The problem is that a new
  >> mirrorless system requires a new line of lenses to provide the true
  >> benefits of the downscaled format, but both companies already
  >> have two existing lines of lenses--one for their pro-level, full-frame
  >> sensored cameras and one for the consumer DSLRs cameras with
  >> APS-sized sensors. Having a third line of lenses may be too much, so
  >> there's a fair chance we'll see the Big Two go in a different
  >> direction.
  >>
  >> Instead of focusing on another interchangeable lens format, the companies
  >> may release truly compact cameras with built-in zoom
  >> lenses much like those in their existing PowerShot and Coolpix lines, but
  >> with large consumer-level DSLR sensors. This makes sense,
  >> because ultimately, this is what consumers want--as they showed in the film
  >> days. Most digital camera sales still tend towards
  >> compact units; as nice as the Micro Four Thirds cameras are, they don't
  >> slip into your pocket. You need to make a conscious decision
  >> to carry them around.
  >>
  >> Two small camera manufacturers--Sigma, primarily known for its after-market
  >> lenses, and Leica, known for its very pricey premium
  >> cameras--were first out of the gate with all-in-one big-sensor cameras, the
  >> Sigma DP1 and DP2 and Leica X1. All unfortunately use
  >> fixed-focal-length (non-zoom) lenses, which limit their appeal (as will the
  >> Leica's $2,000 price tag). Until these cameras can
  >> incorporate zooms, they'll be limited to a very small enthusiast market.
  >>
  >> But once they do (and my guess is that this will happen in mid-2010), watch
  >> out. Consumer-level DSLRs won't go away; they didn't in
  >> the film days, and they won't now. But they'll become marginalized as more
  >> and more people turn toward more convenient alternatives.
  >> History has a way of repeating itself.
  >>
  >> Post by Ben Z. Gottesman
  >>
  >>
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >


 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.42/2473 - Release Date: 10/31/09 21:14:00

  ----------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.42/2473 - Release Date: 10/31/09 21:14:00


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Trausti Hraunfjord]

Controls etc.... well.... if Apple went into making pro-cameras, there would
be no buttons, no dials.  Their cameras would be designed in the "perfect"
manner... where you'd have it all, without all the bells and whistles that
get in the way... aka iPhone, iPod, iShuffle, iMac, iWhatever and iEtc.

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 7:37 PM, mrjimbo <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Ken Ken Ken... your on the Nikon group not the Canon group sir.. I can take
> a 20 year old Nikon lens and still make wonderful images on my D700....
> Of all the camera outfits they have done the best job, I think, for the
> image-maker's wallet in the areas you speak to..
>
> jimbo
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ken Warner
> To: [hidden email] <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 5:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] The shape of cameras to come...
>
> Yup! Maybe less than that. The big camera makers are out to make money
> after all. They are not so concerned about you having a closet full of
> lenses you can't use anymore. They already got the money for those...
>
> Trausti Hraunfjord wrote:
> > I am still waiting for high quality cameras that fill no more than a
> lenscap
> > for the back of the lens. So in reality, the only thing filling anything,
> > would be the lens itself. I'm sure there won't be any such camera hitting
> > the market in the next few years though.
> >
> > E-P1 and GF1 are indeed interesting, and probably only the first of new
> > generations of high end cameras in more compact sizes.
> >
> > 3-5 years from now should offer a good array of choices for us. .... I
> > hope.
> >
> > Trausti
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Ken Warner <[hidden email]<kwarner000%40verizon.net>>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Here's the last few paragraphs of an interesting essay on the future of
> >> digital cameras -- he describes the camera I'm waiting for...
> >>
> >> http://www.gearlog.com/2009/10/death_of_the_dslr.php
> >>
> >> The E-P1 and GF1 represent the first nail in the DSLR coffin. They
> clearly
> >> show that you can make a smaller, more convenient camera
> >> with very few trade-offs, especially around quality. The cameras lack
> >> optical viewfinders (OVF), and some analysts believe that the
> >> photo enthusiast would never be willing to forgo these, but this is a
> >> fallacy. Most new DSLR customers have been shooting for years
> >> with digital point-and-shoots that don't have optical viewfinders, or at
> >> least not ones that were of much value. They're used to
> >> shooting this way and can compose beautiful shots on an LCD. Just wander
> >> around Flickr to see thousands of photos that prove this point.
> >>
> >> Canon and Nikon dwarf Olympus and Panasonic, so they have some time to
> >> react, but they clearly need to. The problem is that a new
> >> mirrorless system requires a new line of lenses to provide the true
> >> benefits of the downscaled format, but both companies already
> >> have two existing lines of lenses--one for their pro-level, full-frame
> >> sensored cameras and one for the consumer DSLRs cameras with
> >> APS-sized sensors. Having a third line of lenses may be too much, so
> >> there's a fair chance we'll see the Big Two go in a different
> >> direction.
> >>
> >> Instead of focusing on another interchangeable lens format, the
> companies
> >> may release truly compact cameras with built-in zoom
> >> lenses much like those in their existing PowerShot and Coolpix lines,
> but
> >> with large consumer-level DSLR sensors. This makes sense,
> >> because ultimately, this is what consumers want--as they showed in the
> film
> >> days. Most digital camera sales still tend towards
> >> compact units; as nice as the Micro Four Thirds cameras are, they don't
> >> slip into your pocket. You need to make a conscious decision
> >> to carry them around.
> >>
> >> Two small camera manufacturers--Sigma, primarily known for its
> after-market
> >> lenses, and Leica, known for its very pricey premium
> >> cameras--were first out of the gate with all-in-one big-sensor cameras,
> the
> >> Sigma DP1 and DP2 and Leica X1. All unfortunately use
> >> fixed-focal-length (non-zoom) lenses, which limit their appeal (as will
> the
> >> Leica's $2,000 price tag). Until these cameras can
> >> incorporate zooms, they'll be limited to a very small enthusiast market.
> >>
> >> But once they do (and my guess is that this will happen in mid-2010),
> watch
> >> out. Consumer-level DSLRs won't go away; they didn't in
> >> the film days, and they won't now. But they'll become marginalized as
> more
> >> and more people turn toward more convenient alternatives.
> >> History has a way of repeating itself.
> >>
> >> Post by Ben Z. Gottesman
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.42/2473 - Release Date: 10/31/09
> 21:14:00
>
> ----------
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.42/2473 - Release Date: 10/31/09
> 21:14:00
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[mrjimbo-2]

Constructively, miniaturization will certainly be a big part of the cameras of the future.. With more and more being built into the units.. Realistically, however their will probably be two types of cameras for ever.. What we call point and shoots will continue to get more sophisticated and probably dominate more and more of the market and the DSLR. Certainly they will continue to make strides in features and functions and this is all good. One of the things that we must all not forget is the photographer is what really makes the image.. not the fancy little box you hold in your hand.  Cameras will always be able to make record shots but only the shooter will be making art.. That being said I look at my hands ...two of them.. They need to be able to run all the controls on my camera... maybe some day we'll have voice commands but I think that's down the road a bit.. So where I'm going with this is that the package that is a camera will need to accommodate my hands to make all the adjustments I want to make.. That's also at 20/30 below when I'm wearing gloves.. So camera design will need to accommodate the ergonomics necessary to allow you and I to control our cameras in a meaningful way such that we can continue to make great images.. Soooooooooooo my friends Canon and Nikon will also need to work on evolution so that we can make our hands and fingers smaller to accommodate all these tiny cameras your figuring they'll make.. :-)) Anyway just poking fun but you get the drift.. If you need a 18 oz hammer then a 4 oz just won't get there. It will be fun to watch the changes ...we all see differently.. tis ok.. wouldn't it be fun to have ea time machine?

jimbo
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Trausti Hraunfjord
  To: [hidden email]
  Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 5:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] The shape of cameras to come...


    I am still waiting for high quality cameras that fill no more than a lenscap
  for the back of the lens. So in reality, the only thing filling anything,
  would be the lens itself. I'm sure there won't be any such camera hitting
  the market in the next few years though.

  E-P1 and GF1 are indeed interesting, and probably only the first of new
  generations of high end cameras in more compact sizes.

  3-5 years from now should offer a good array of choices for us. .... I
  hope.

  Trausti

  On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Ken Warner <[hidden email]> wrote:

  >
  >
  > Here's the last few paragraphs of an interesting essay on the future of
  > digital cameras -- he describes the camera I'm waiting for...
  >
  > http://www.gearlog.com/2009/10/death_of_the_dslr.php
  >
  > The E-P1 and GF1 represent the first nail in the DSLR coffin. They clearly
  > show that you can make a smaller, more convenient camera
  > with very few trade-offs, especially around quality. The cameras lack
  > optical viewfinders (OVF), and some analysts believe that the
  > photo enthusiast would never be willing to forgo these, but this is a
  > fallacy. Most new DSLR customers have been shooting for years
  > with digital point-and-shoots that don't have optical viewfinders, or at
  > least not ones that were of much value. They're used to
  > shooting this way and can compose beautiful shots on an LCD. Just wander
  > around Flickr to see thousands of photos that prove this point.
  >
  > Canon and Nikon dwarf Olympus and Panasonic, so they have some time to
  > react, but they clearly need to. The problem is that a new
  > mirrorless system requires a new line of lenses to provide the true
  > benefits of the downscaled format, but both companies already
  > have two existing lines of lenses--one for their pro-level, full-frame
  > sensored cameras and one for the consumer DSLRs cameras with
  > APS-sized sensors. Having a third line of lenses may be too much, so
  > there's a fair chance we'll see the Big Two go in a different
  > direction.
  >
  > Instead of focusing on another interchangeable lens format, the companies
  > may release truly compact cameras with built-in zoom
  > lenses much like those in their existing PowerShot and Coolpix lines, but
  > with large consumer-level DSLR sensors. This makes sense,
  > because ultimately, this is what consumers want--as they showed in the film
  > days. Most digital camera sales still tend towards
  > compact units; as nice as the Micro Four Thirds cameras are, they don't
  > slip into your pocket. You need to make a conscious decision
  > to carry them around.
  >
  > Two small camera manufacturers--Sigma, primarily known for its after-market
  > lenses, and Leica, known for its very pricey premium
  > cameras--were first out of the gate with all-in-one big-sensor cameras, the
  > Sigma DP1 and DP2 and Leica X1. All unfortunately use
  > fixed-focal-length (non-zoom) lenses, which limit their appeal (as will the
  > Leica's $2,000 price tag). Until these cameras can
  > incorporate zooms, they'll be limited to a very small enthusiast market.
  >
  > But once they do (and my guess is that this will happen in mid-2010), watch
  > out. Consumer-level DSLRs won't go away; they didn't in
  > the film days, and they won't now. But they'll become marginalized as more
  > and more people turn toward more convenient alternatives.
  > History has a way of repeating itself.
  >
  > Post by Ben Z. Gottesman
  >
  >

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.42/2473 - Release Date: 10/31/09 21:14:00

  ----------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.42/2473 - Release Date: 10/31/09 21:14:00


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Pat Swovelin-3]

On 10/31/2009 5:33 PM, mrjimbo's hamster got loose on the keyboard and
typed ...:

> Constructively, miniaturization will certainly be a big part of the
> cameras of the future.. With more and more being built into the
> units.. Realistically, however their will probably be two types of
> cameras for ever.. What we call point and shoots will continue to get
> more sophisticated and probably dominate more and more of the market
> and the DSLR. Certainly they will continue to make strides in features
> and functions and this is all good. One of the things that we must all
> not forget is the photographer is what really makes the image.. not
> the fancy little box you hold in your hand. Cameras will always be
> able to make record shots but only the shooter will be making art..
> That being said I look at my hands ...two of them.. They need to be
> able to run all the controls on my camera... maybe some day we'll have
> voice commands but I think that's down the road a bit.. So where I'm
> going with this is that the package that is a camera will need to
> accommodate my hands to make all the adjustments I want to make..
> That's also at 20/30 below when I'm wearing gloves.. So camera design
> will need to accommodate the ergonomics necessary to allow you and I
> to control our cameras in a meaningful way such that we can continue
> to make great images.. Soooooooooooo my friends Canon and Nikon will
> also need to work on evolution so that we can make our hands and
> fingers smaller to accommodate all these tiny cameras your figuring
> they'll make.. :-)) Anyway just poking fun but you get the drift.. If
> you need a 18 oz hammer then a 4 oz just won't get there. It will be
> fun to watch the changes ...we all see differently.. tis ok.. wouldn't
> it be fun to have ea time machine?

The big problem with PnS cameras is their physical size and LCD viewing
screen vs. a dedicated viewing system.  In practical use you have to
hold an LCD screen viewing system camera in front of you to frame the
shot which means that the camera is "floating" in front of you.  Compare
that to a dedicated viewing system camera that you "bolt" onto your face
and becomes one with you thereby forming a much more rigid system than a
camera that's held in front of you.  Hold a PnS in front of you and try
to keep the shot framed when you're shooting high speed action and
you'll readily see the superiority of having a camera "bolted" to your
face during the same shooting situation.

IMHO for that reason alone no matter how good PnS cameras are they will
*always* be a mass-market cameras and DLSRs will continue to be
pro-level cameras.

> jimbo




Pat Swovelin
Cool Guy @ Large

[DemonDuck]

The G1 GH1 have viewfinders that you use as you describe and are not
dslr's.  True their viewfinders are said to be less satisfactory than
a pentaprism or pentamirror but they will get better.

And I understand that a lot of people like rangefinder cameras.

PnS cameras are just one possible mirrorless design.

> The big problem with PnS cameras is their physical size and LCD viewing
> screen vs. a dedicated viewing system.  In practical use you have to
> hold an LCD screen viewing system camera in front of you to frame the
> shot which means that the camera is "floating" in front of you.  Compare
> that to a dedicated viewing system camera that you "bolt" onto your face
> and becomes one with you thereby forming a much more rigid system than a
> camera that's held in front of you.  Hold a PnS in front of you and try
> to keep the shot framed when you're shooting high speed action and
> you'll readily see the superiority of having a camera "bolted" to your
> face during the same shooting situation.
>
> IMHO for that reason alone no matter how good PnS cameras are they will
> *always* be a mass-market cameras and DLSRs will continue to be
> pro-level cameras.
>
>> jimbo
>
>
>
>
> Pat Swovelin
> Cool Guy @ Large
>

[Pat Swovelin-3]

On 10/31/2009 5:59 PM, Ken Warner's hamster got loose on the keyboard
and typed ...:
> The G1 GH1 have viewfinders that you use as you describe and are not
> dslr's. True their viewfinders are said to be less satisfactory than
> a pentaprism or pentamirror but they will get better.
>
> And I understand that a lot of people like rangefinder cameras.
>
> PnS cameras are just one possible mirrorless design.

It's not the mirrorless design I'm referring to, it's the way the camera
is held and operated.  That's the significant difference between the two
designs.

>> The big problem with PnS cameras is their physical size and LCD viewing
>> screen vs. a dedicated viewing system. In practical use you have to
>> hold an LCD screen viewing system camera in front of you to frame the
>> shot which means that the camera is "floating" in front of you. Compare
>> that to a dedicated viewing system camera that you "bolt" onto your face
>> and becomes one with you thereby forming a much more rigid system than a
>> camera that's held in front of you. Hold a PnS in front of you and try
>> to keep the shot framed when you're shooting high speed action and
>> you'll readily see the superiority of having a camera "bolted" to your
>> face during the same shooting situation.
>>
>> IMHO for that reason alone no matter how good PnS cameras are they will
>> *always* be a mass-market cameras and DLSRs will continue to be
>> pro-level cameras.
>>
>>> jimbo

Pat Swovelin
Cool Guy @ Large

[DemonDuck]

I'm incorrect.  The G1 and GH1 are dslr's.  They just don't
have a mirror.

Ken Warner wrote:

> The G1 GH1 have viewfinders that you use as you describe and are not
> dslr's.  True their viewfinders are said to be less satisfactory than
> a pentaprism or pentamirror but they will get better.
>
> And I understand that a lot of people like rangefinder cameras.
>
> PnS cameras are just one possible mirrorless design.
>
>> The big problem with PnS cameras is their physical size and LCD viewing
>> screen vs. a dedicated viewing system.  In practical use you have to
>> hold an LCD screen viewing system camera in front of you to frame the
>> shot which means that the camera is "floating" in front of you.  Compare
>> that to a dedicated viewing system camera that you "bolt" onto your face
>> and becomes one with you thereby forming a much more rigid system than a
>> camera that's held in front of you.  Hold a PnS in front of you and try
>> to keep the shot framed when you're shooting high speed action and
>> you'll readily see the superiority of having a camera "bolted" to your
>> face during the same shooting situation.
>>
>> IMHO for that reason alone no matter how good PnS cameras are they will
>> *always* be a mass-market cameras and DLSRs will continue to be
>> pro-level cameras.
>>
>>> jimbo
>>
>>
>>
>> Pat Swovelin
>> Cool Guy @ Large
>>
>

[luca vascon-3]

If`we wanna shift the discussion on more solid basys we have to
consider the whole image market.
Hybridation between photo and movie cameras etc.
EP1 experience is one thing to be inserted in the whole story.
Leica format is coming from movie 35mm perforated film, 5dmk2 gave
back leica format to 35mm size movie world.
The subject of analysies should be the body design in the user's
context. TO adapt a DSRL to real movie use you have to spend 1000 to
3000eur more in mattebox, followfocus, rails, larger monitor, and
expecially HANDLES. I see room for large design inprovements, once the
market exploration and segment redefinition period is gone.

In compact camera world, you all know how much I like them... I own a
PenFT from '70s and I'm proud of it... Time for a redefinition of
Leica concept, time for REBIRTH of the concept of Contax G1-G2.

Compact cameras with fixed zoom and Dsrl sensor is not coming yet,
1 because people is already happy with the quality they already have
2 because the producing costs have lowered and the margin is big, and
it is "product cow"time
3 because such cameras would be definitely larger than current sleek
pocket digital cameras
4 because BRIDGE CAMERAS are at the end of their segment life, as it
was in early 90, and it is that enthusiast segment that will be taken
or replaced.

Sigma Panasonic Olympus are taking a speial place on their own. They
are costing MORE than an entry level Dslr.
Leica is going on its own specific segment.

As for me I'm waiting for a fullframe Cosina Voigtlander, to use with
all my old lenses.

2009/11/1 Ken Warner <[hidden email]>:

> I'm incorrect.  The G1 and GH1 are dslr's.  They just don't
> have a mirror.
>
> Ken Warner wrote:
>> The G1 GH1 have viewfinders that you use as you describe and are not
>> dslr's.  True their viewfinders are said to be less satisfactory than
>> a pentaprism or pentamirror but they will get better.
>>
>> And I understand that a lot of people like rangefinder cameras.
>>
>> PnS cameras are just one possible mirrorless design.
>>
>>> The big problem with PnS cameras is their physical size and LCD viewing
>>> screen vs. a dedicated viewing system.  In practical use you have to
>>> hold an LCD screen viewing system camera in front of you to frame the
>>> shot which means that the camera is "floating" in front of you.  Compare
>>> that to a dedicated viewing system camera that you "bolt" onto your face
>>> and becomes one with you thereby forming a much more rigid system than a
>>> camera that's held in front of you.  Hold a PnS in front of you and try
>>> to keep the shot framed when you're shooting high speed action and
>>> you'll readily see the superiority of having a camera "bolted" to your
>>> face during the same shooting situation.
>>>
>>> IMHO for that reason alone no matter how good PnS cameras are they will
>>> *always* be a mass-market cameras and DLSRs will continue to be
>>> pro-level cameras.
>>>
>>>> jimbo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pat Swovelin
>>> Cool Guy @ Large
>>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>
>
>

--
Luca Vascon.

www.canalview.it
www.officinepanottiche.com

[erik_leeman]

What I would like to have is a *wireless* monocular or HUD viewfinder, so I can see what the camera sees trough its lens without having to hold it at all if necessary. To be able to look around freely AND at the same time be able to read camera data and compose my shots, now that would be nifty! No viewfinder of ANY kind on the camera itself for me please!

Cheers!

Erik Leeman

(www.erikleeman.com)

--- In [hidden email], Ken Warner wrote:
>
> I'm incorrect.  The G1 and GH1 are dslr's.  They just don't
> have a mirror.

[daniel reetz]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Keith Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> >The G1 and GH1 are dslr's. They just don't have a mirror.
>
> SLR = single lens reflex. (Or self-loading rifle, but that'd be a
> different mailing list entirely...)
>
> Assuming the mirror action is where the 'reflex' part of the name
> comes from, would a mirrorless 'SLR' really qualify as a reflex
> camera? Or would it be a dSL instead?

I think DSC (digital still camera) is the most apt description (except
that some of them do motion, yar). Other digital camera subsystems use
the terminology "TTL" or "through the lens", which might be a
reasonable way to talk about a camera with an active electronic
viewfinder.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the day when we drop "digital" from
the abbreviation entirely. By now, digital must be eclipsing film in
numeric terms, and I think we'll soon reach the point where it's more
important to call something a "film camera" because we'll all
understand that most cameras are digital and expect photographs to be
taken with digital sensors. After all, we don't call cars "horseless
carriage" anymore.

Daniel Reetz

[luca vascon-3]

Perception of the market and user interface look is what makes sense today.

From a point of view that is now merely technical and hystorical, SLR
was adopted to separate from TLR... and always a mirror is involved.
Poor little allaround limited spinoffs of the REAL thing, the View Camera.
:-)



2009/11/1 Keith Martin <[hidden email]>:

>>The G1 and GH1 are dslr's. They just don't have a mirror.
>
> SLR = single lens reflex. (Or self-loading rifle, but that'd be a
> different mailing list entirely...)
>
> Assuming the mirror action is where the 'reflex' part of the name
> comes from, would a mirrorless 'SLR' really qualify as a reflex
> camera? Or would it be a dSL instead?
>
> k
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>
>
>

--
Luca Vascon.

www.canalview.it
www.officinepanottiche.com

[Keith Martin-2]

>The G1 and GH1 are dslr's. They just don't have a mirror.

SLR = single lens reflex. (Or self-loading rifle, but that'd be a
different mailing list entirely...)

Assuming the mirror action is where the 'reflex' part of the name
comes from, would a mirrorless 'SLR' really qualify as a reflex
camera? Or would it be a dSL instead?

k

[Greg Nuspel]

DTL - digital through lens


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Keith Martin
  To: [hidden email]
  Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 5:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] The shape of cameras to come...


    >The G1 and GH1 are dslr's. They just don't have a mirror.

  SLR = single lens reflex. (Or self-loading rifle, but that'd be a
  different mailing list entirely...)

  Assuming the mirror action is where the 'reflex' part of the name
  comes from, would a mirrorless 'SLR' really qualify as a reflex
  camera? Or would it be a dSL instead?

  k


 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[mrjimbo-2]

Keith,
You may just have something there. Actually theirs still a lot of elements that will go into the evolution of the camera's of tomorrow. The new D3s will have video ....that feature will probably play more into the features of tomorrows camera's ...while many of us don't need it  we now understand that it's not a costly add on as the infrastructure is already there. I think we all have to also realize that as more features are added power for these little guys becomes more important.. So does performance in temperature extremes.. Camera electronics don't like to work in really cold weather. It stands to reason that they will develop cameras for all the geeks and yup maybe their will be a camera that straps on ones forehead...To each their own I guess. I feel that they will always need a camera that can be used with our intelligence rather then what they program into them. Maybe many would want that to go away and just get what they perceive is the perfect picture from the camera. Me , I'm enjoying the heck out of what their making now.. and I'm looking forward to what their coming up with .. the new D3s with it's high iso is incredible.. I can actually use that feature big time.. What will drive tomorrow's cameras is actually us in the long run.. They, in the end, will deliver what we want as that is what will sell.. Theirs a lot of guessing going on in the process I'm sure but in the end that what will drive tomorrows cameras.. Fact is we are all quite lucky and many of us possibly a bit impatient to be able to be in an era where so much is changing so fast. Looking for what we think is the perfect camera... In the end all they are is a tool and really not much more.  So when will we see in camera HDR...  :-))   evil grin..

jimbo
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Keith Martin
  To: [hidden email]
  Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 5:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] The shape of cameras to come...


    >The G1 and GH1 are dslr's. They just don't have a mirror.

  SLR = single lens reflex. (Or self-loading rifle, but that'd be a
  different mailing list entirely...)

  Assuming the mirror action is where the 'reflex' part of the name
  comes from, would a mirrorless 'SLR' really qualify as a reflex
  camera? Or would it be a dSL instead?

  k


 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.42/2473 - Release Date: 10/31/09 21:14:00

  ----------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.42/2473 - Release Date: 10/31/09 21:14:00


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Bjørn K Nilssen]

On 1 Nov 2009 at 12:16, Keith Martin wrote:

> >The G1 and GH1 are dslr's. They just don't have a mirror.
>
> SLR = single lens reflex. (Or self-loading rifle, but that'd be a
> different mailing list entirely...)
>
> Assuming the mirror action is where the 'reflex' part of the name
> comes from, would a mirrorless 'SLR' really qualify as a reflex
> camera? Or would it be a dSL instead?

It is a real problem knowing what to call it. In some web shops they are in the SLR
department, and in others they are in the P&S/digital camera department.

But IMO there should be a new department called System Cameras, eventually with sub-
departments for mirror/mirror-less types (or anachronistic/modern ;-).

--
Bjørn K Nilssen - http://bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D

[DemonDuck]

I wonder if there will ever be a time when you can piece
together a camera like you piece together a PC.

I'll have a 12mpx Fuji sensor and a Canon sensor board
with a Leica lens mount and an Olympus body please...

Bjørn K Nilssen wrote:

> On 1 Nov 2009 at 12:16, Keith Martin wrote:
>
>>> The G1 and GH1 are dslr's. They just don't have a mirror.
>> SLR = single lens reflex. (Or self-loading rifle, but that'd be a
>> different mailing list entirely...)
>>
>> Assuming the mirror action is where the 'reflex' part of the name
>> comes from, would a mirrorless 'SLR' really qualify as a reflex
>> camera? Or would it be a dSL instead?
>
> It is a real problem knowing what to call it. In some web shops they are in the SLR
> department, and in others they are in the P&S/digital camera department.
>
> But IMO there should be a new department called System Cameras, eventually with sub-
> departments for mirror/mirror-less types (or anachronistic/modern ;-).
>

[mrjimbo-2]

Ken ,
Take a couple of aspirin ...hopefully you'll feel better by tomorrow.....LOL


jimbo
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ken Warner
  To: [hidden email]
  Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 9:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] The shape of cameras to come...


    I wonder if there will ever be a time when you can piece
  together a camera like you piece together a PC.

  I'll have a 12mpx Fuji sensor and a Canon sensor board
  with a Leica lens mount and an Olympus body please...

  Bjørn K Nilssen wrote:
  > On 1 Nov 2009 at 12:16, Keith Martin wrote:
  >
  >>> The G1 and GH1 are dslr's. They just don't have a mirror.
  >> SLR = single lens reflex. (Or self-loading rifle, but that'd be a
  >> different mailing list entirely...)
  >>
  >> Assuming the mirror action is where the 'reflex' part of the name
  >> comes from, would a mirrorless 'SLR' really qualify as a reflex
  >> camera? Or would it be a dSL instead?
  >
  > It is a real problem knowing what to call it. In some web shops they are in the SLR
  > department, and in others they are in the P&S/digital camera department.
  >
  > But IMO there should be a new department called System Cameras, eventually with sub-
  > departments for mirror/mirror-less types (or anachronistic/modern ;-).
  >


 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.42/2473 - Release Date: 10/31/09 21:14:00

  ----------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.42/2473 - Release Date: 10/31/09 21:14:00


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]