Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
The Mirrorless disruption
Page 1 of 9 next> last>>
Jan 1, 2019 03:38:27   #
JD750 Loc: SoCal
 
D-SLR means Digital-SLR. There is a new guy in town.

I have several D-SLRs and also a M43 mirrorless kit. I have been shooting with M43 since circa 2005. M43 has been my go-to travel kit. Last year I bought a new Mirrorless body: an Olympus OM-D EM-5 Mii (Olympus has long model designations). Wow my only regret was that I waited so long.

I find that the electronic viewfinder on the OM-D lets me see exactly what the picture will be before I snap it. I usually use the M mode, and I find that I am ignoring the exposure meter, checking light and shadow, etc, and instead looking directly at the EVF, the light and shadow, and color .That saves time and gives me a better result more quickly than using my DSLR. It also saves stupid mistakes with WB as wrong WB color is immediately obvious and when using WB for creative effect it is immediately obvious.

So the M43 moved from go-to travel to go-to everyday camera. I carry it with me. It's sitting about 2' (61 cm) away from me as I type this.

I am glad that camera giants Canikon have finally woken up to reality. Viva la competition!

I still shoot with SLRs and I can't wait to get my hands on a Nikon Z camera as I have a lot of great Nikon glass that I could use with the Z. I expect mirrorless versions will quickly replace the D-SLRs.

Reply
Jan 1, 2019 04:37:00   #
Shutterbug57
 
There is no doubt that MLICs let you get good shots fast; my Fuji X-T2 sure does. If that is the only goal, the MLIC is a great tool - and probably the future. I find I hone my craft better with manual cameras and film.

Reply
Jan 1, 2019 04:46:27   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
I've been shooting DSLR'S for a long time and your posting is the first time I've seen anyone hyphenate DSLR as D-SLR, really, first time.
I'm also grateful you took the time to explain what the D actually stands for, although I'm still grasping at straws trying to figure out what SLR stands for. Sorry, just kidding.
I'm just curious when it comes to the whole mirrorless camera thing. I'm curious because mirrorless cameras predate DSLR'S. Yes, they really do. I didn't say MILC'S or mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, I simply said mirrorless, because any camera without a mirror is in fact mirrorless. My Canon G1X III is not an MILC but it is mirrorless. My Canon M50 is an MILC and also mirrorless. Sounds a wee bit confusing but it's really not. What I don't quite understand is why people who call DSLR'S, DSLR'S, also call MILC'S Mirrorless. Why not MILC'S?! I almost bought an EOS R but decided, I don't really need a MILC full frame. There's nothing wrong with the 3 Canon full frame bodies I already own. So I'll wait and see what the crafty Canon engineers come up with next.
I'm happy with my little M50 although it does look a bit silly with a EF 100-400L lens attached to it. Far less silly with my EF 24-105L attached.
I really see no pressing issue that would make me want to rush out and spend big bucks on a new MILC when my DSLR'S work just fine. Sure there are a few features MILC'S have that my DSLR'S don't, but the bottom line is, they both do the same thing, record images digitally.
My go to pocket camera is my G1X III. It is a 24 megapixel APS-C camera that really does fit in many pockets, and it also has a really nice electronic view finder. The camera that's sitting a couple feet from me is a few years old, my EOS 5DSr and it's still capable of recording images with mind boggling details. I wonder what Canon will replace it with...?!
OBTW, there is no Canikon! Canon and Nikon are totally independent of each other.

Reply
 
 
Jan 1, 2019 05:41:52   #
miked46 Loc: Winter Springs, Florida
 
I am starting to find myself reaching for the Canon M50, more than my 80D, especially when we have a family event. I guess as I go further into the year, my 80D will end up being the backup.

Reply
Jan 1, 2019 07:39:07   #
Fotomacher Loc: Toronto
 
I have 3 camera bodies and a good arsenal of prime lenses and a few fixed aperture zooms. My bodies are F5, D810 and E-M1.1. The m4/3 body is the one i use for more casual imaging although it is more than capable of helping me capture stellar shots. (Example attached). I am more comfortable with my Nikon bodies when I am shooting for my portfolio.

Captured with Olympus E-M1.1
Captured with Olympus E-M1.1...
(Download)

Captured with Olympus E-M1.1
Captured with Olympus E-M1.1...
(Download)

Reply
Jan 1, 2019 08:42:19   #
Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.
 
JD750 wrote:
D-SLR means Digital-SLR. There is a new guy in town.

I have several D-SLRs and also a M43 mirrorless kit. I have been shooting with M43 since circa 2005. M43 has been my go-to travel kit. Last year I bought a new Mirrorless body: an Olympus OM-D EM-5 Mii (Olympus has long model designations). Wow my only regret was that I waited so long.

...snip...


Interesting! You must have been one of the original testers? Or did you start shooting mirrorless with a 4/3 camera? Or other format?
Bit of history:
2004–2008. The first mirrorless camera commercially marketed was the Epson R-D1 (released in 2004, a range finder camera) (Sensor‎: ‎23.7 x 15.6 mm, 1.53 × FOV crop).
The Micro Four Thirds system, whose first camera was the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1, was released in Japan in October 2008.

(Don't want to insult you about the year; besides photography, I also like history!)

Reply
Jan 1, 2019 09:10:21   #
BebuLamar
 
JD750 wrote:
D-SLR means Digital-SLR. There is a new guy in town.

I have several D-SLRs and also a M43 mirrorless kit. I have been shooting with M43 since circa 2005. M43 has been my go-to travel kit. Last year I bought a new Mirrorless body: an Olympus OM-D EM-5 Mii (Olympus has long model designations). Wow my only regret was that I waited so long.

I find that the electronic viewfinder on the OM-D lets me see exactly what the picture will be before I snap it. I usually use the M mode, and I find that I am ignoring the exposure meter, checking light and shadow, etc, and instead looking directly at the EVF, the light and shadow, and color .That saves time and gives me a better result more quickly than using my DSLR. It also saves stupid mistakes with WB as wrong WB color is immediately obvious and when using WB for creative effect it is immediately obvious.

So the M43 moved from go-to travel to go-to everyday camera. I carry it with me. It's sitting about 2' (61 cm) away from me as I type this.

I am glad that camera giants Canikon have finally woken up to reality. Viva la competition!

I still shoot with SLRs and I can't wait to get my hands on a Nikon Z camera as I have a lot of great Nikon glass that I could use with the Z. I expect mirrorless versions will quickly replace the D-SLRs.
D-SLR means Digital-SLR. There is a new guy in to... (show quote)


There wasn't M43 in 2005. There were the 4/3 but those are also DSLR.

Reply
 
 
Jan 1, 2019 17:09:11   #
JD750 Loc: SoCal
 
Morning Star, Bedulamar,

It could have been 2008, my memory is a little fuzzy going back that far.

Ok yep, I opened Aperture and I have pics from the DMC-G1 starting in 2008.

Reply
Jan 1, 2019 17:40:37   #
Bipod
 
JD750 wrote:
D-SLR means Digital-SLR. There is a new guy in town.

I have several D-SLRs and also a M43 mirrorless kit. I have been shooting with M43 since circa 2005. M43 has been my go-to travel kit. Last year I bought a new Mirrorless body: an Olympus OM-D EM-5 Mii (Olympus has long model designations). Wow my only regret was that I waited so long.

I find that the electronic viewfinder on the OM-D lets me see exactly what the picture will be before I snap it. I usually use the M mode, and I find that I am ignoring the exposure meter, checking light and shadow, etc, and instead looking directly at the EVF, the light and shadow, and color .That saves time and gives me a better result more quickly than using my DSLR. It also saves stupid mistakes with WB as wrong WB color is immediately obvious and when using WB for creative effect it is immediately obvious.

So the M43 moved from go-to travel to go-to everyday camera. I carry it with me. It's sitting about 2' (61 cm) away from me as I type this.

I am glad that camera giants Canikon have finally woken up to reality. Viva la competition!

I still shoot with SLRs and I can't wait to get my hands on a Nikon Z camera as I have a lot of great Nikon glass that I could use with the Z. I expect mirrorless versions will quickly replace the D-SLRs.
D-SLR means Digital-SLR. There is a new guy in to... (show quote)

Move over hamburger, the cheeseburger has come to town!

Same dinky patty. Same "secret sauce".
But now with a big fat slice of pastuerized processed cheese food! Yum!

It's "one size fits all" in the shrinking digital camera market -- at least
for the top sellers: Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. But now you can get your
dinky color sensor in two flavors: DSLR and EVIL/MILK. (Just
don't expect DSLRs and their lens mounts to stay around --- the goal
of mirrorless is to cut manufacturing costs--less labor to assemble.)

Even McDonald's doesn't just sell hamburgers and cheeseburgers.

But Sony, Canon. Nikon, etc. just sell only color digital sensors--rather than the
higher-contrast, higher-resolution and lower=noise monochrome sensor. For that,
you have to go to Leica.

And 100% of Sony's sales and 99% of Nikon and Canon's are miniature format
("full-frame" in marketing-speak) or smaller sensors! It's a small world after all...

Uh ,where's the beef? What happened to 8" x 10"? 4" x 5"? or even 120 formats? How
come the only affordable cameras -- and the flagship ones!--have dinky sensors? Kodak's
Brownies were mostly medium or large format: 120/220, 616, 620, etc. You grandma shot
a more professional, high resolution, higher contrast format than you do! It just wasn't
encrusted with computer gadgetry.

Moreover, what happened to B&W? Decolorized is not the same at all.

But now you can get your dinky color sensor with a big fat slice of Electronic Viewfinder.
Sure, it's lower resolution and lower contrast than an optical viewfinder, but it has two
things you can't get with optics: a time lag and a big battery drain.

We all love dead batteries, don't we? Especially when the batteries are expensive non-standard
battery packs. Recharging is so much fun! Replacing even funner! But batteries are a profit
center for Canon and Nikon. (You don't think they could be designed to use a industry-standard
battery?)

Joe Consumer can be induced to buy anything: bacon-double-greaseburgers, Pet Rocks,
Tickle Me Elmo, Snuggies, the Atkins Diet, Chia Pets....and EVIL/MILC cameras.

Got to get me some of that EVIL/MILC! Consume, consume!

Reply
Jan 1, 2019 22:30:24   #
JD750 Loc: SoCal
 
Bipod wrote:
<snip..> What happened to 8" x 10"? 4" x 5"? or even 120 formats? How
come the only affordable cameras -- and the flagship ones!--have dinky sensors? <snip>


You seem a little disgruntled.

Why no large sensors? Because the cost of manufacturing that size sensor is prohibitively expensive.

Reply
Jan 1, 2019 22:47:46   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
JD750 wrote:
You seem a little disgruntled.

Why no large sensors? Because the cost of manufacturing that size sensor is prohibitively expensive.


And he insists that he is not a troll.

If this post of his doesn’t prove it, nothing will.

Reply
 
 
Jan 1, 2019 22:47:55   #
f8lee Loc: New Mexico
 
Bipod wrote:
.....

But Sony, Canon. Nikon, etc. just sell only color digital sensors--rather than the
higher-contrast, higher-resolution and lower=noise monochrome sensor. For that,
you have to go to Leica.

And 100% of Sony's sales and 99% of Nikon and Canon's are miniature format
("full-frame" in marketing-speak) or smaller sensors! It's a small world after all...

Uh ,where's the beef? What happened to 8" x 10"? 4" x 5"? or even 120 formats? How
come the only affordable cameras -- and the flagship ones!--have dinky sensors? Kodak's
Brownies were mostly medium or large format: 120/220, 616, 620, etc. You grandma shot
a more professional, high resolution, higher contrast format than you do! It just wasn't
encrusted with computer gadgetry.

Moreover, what happened to B&W? Decolorized is not the same at all.

But now you can get your dinky color sensor with a big fat slice of Electronic Viewfinder.
Sure, it's lower resolution and lower contrast than an optical viewfinder, but it has two
things you can't get with optics: a time lag and a big battery drain.

We all love dead batteries, don't we? Especially when the batteries are expensive non-standard
battery packs. Recharging is so much fun! Replacing even funner! But batteries are a profit
center for Canon and Nikon. (You don't think they could be designed to use a industry-standard
battery?)
..... br br But Sony, Canon. Nikon, etc. just sel... (show quote)


Your observations are not completely wrong.

First, as JD750 mentioned already, the reason there aren't larger format digital sensors today is that the manufacturing process becomes prohibitively expensive (in fact, that's why "DX" crop sensor chips were made to begin with - the silicon wafer can contain a larger number of smaller rectangles, and since a single microscopic flaw could essentially ruin an entire imaging chip the yield rates for larger imaging chips was much lower. There was a time when there were digital scanning backs for view cameras - not for sports photography but in essence a scanner fitted to your Graflex mount that would run the sensor across the field - and those were pretty pricy as I recall.

As to the reason only Leica makes a true monochrome chip: again, it's a matter of cost/benefit. ALL digital chips are inherently monochrome (well, except Foveon) - to create the colors a pattern of Red Green and Blue filters is laid on top of the individual photo sites. This is done in the so-called Bayer pattern, except for the Fuji X-Trans chips that use a slightly different pattern (but still RGB filters, one over each photo site). That's one reason why a raw file is not an image - the demosaicing process decides what actual color should appear at pixel 10,10 based on the readings given by the adjacent photo sites with their different color filters. Anyway, the standard manufacturing process is to add the filter layer - to NOT add the layer, ironically, means a bit of retooling and slowing things down. That increases cost. That, plus the assumption that a tiny minority of people are interested in B&W shooting is why Leica can charge so much for their Monochrome. Well, plus - Leica.

I agree about the EVF - I like my X-T3 a lot (and the X-T1 and X-T2 before it) and appreciate how the EVF works fine even with a 10 stop ND filter on the lens so reframing is not a PITA. But there is a definite slight time lag between when something actually happens and I see it in the EVF - a perceptible difference as compared to the near-instantaneous matter of photons bouncing off mirrored surfaces. Also, despite the resolution of the EVF the fact remains that a CPL's effect is almost impossible to see when twisting it on the front of the lens, which is not the case with an OVF. So for those reasons I still have my DSLR.

As tech improves (which it obviously will) and EVFs become ever better, that differential will become moot, of that I have little doubt. But these are tools with which one makes images - different circumstances may require different tools.

It's not all hokum.

Reply
Jan 1, 2019 22:51:36   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
Bipod wrote:
Move over hamburger, the cheeseburger has come to town!

Same dinky patty. Same "secret sauce".
But now with a big fat slice of pastuerized processed cheese food! Yum!

It's "one size fits all" in the shrinking digital camera market -- at least
for the top sellers: Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. But now you can get your
dinky color sensor in two flavors: DSLR and EVIL/MILK. (Just
don't expect DSLRs and their lens mounts to stay around --- the goal
of mirrorless is to cut manufacturing costs--less labor to assemble.)

Even McDonald's doesn't just sell hamburgers and cheeseburgers.

But Sony, Canon. Nikon, etc. just sell only color digital sensors--rather than the
higher-contrast, higher-resolution and lower=noise monochrome sensor. For that,
you have to go to Leica.

And 100% of Sony's sales and 99% of Nikon and Canon's are miniature format
("full-frame" in marketing-speak) or smaller sensors! It's a small world after all...

Uh ,where's the beef? What happened to 8" x 10"? 4" x 5"? or even 120 formats? How
come the only affordable cameras -- and the flagship ones!--have dinky sensors? Kodak's
Brownies were mostly medium or large format: 120/220, 616, 620, etc. You grandma shot
a more professional, high resolution, higher contrast format than you do! It just wasn't
encrusted with computer gadgetry.

Moreover, what happened to B&W? Decolorized is not the same at all.

But now you can get your dinky color sensor with a big fat slice of Electronic Viewfinder.
Sure, it's lower resolution and lower contrast than an optical viewfinder, but it has two
things you can't get with optics: a time lag and a big battery drain.

We all love dead batteries, don't we? Especially when the batteries are expensive non-standard
battery packs. Recharging is so much fun! Replacing even funner! But batteries are a profit
center for Canon and Nikon. (You don't think they could be designed to use a industry-standard
battery?)

Joe Consumer can be induced to buy anything: bacon-double-greaseburgers, Pet Rocks,
Tickle Me Elmo, Snuggies, the Atkins Diet, Chia Pets....and EVIL/MILC cameras.

Got to get me some of that EVIL/MILC! Consume, consume!
Move over hamburger, the cheeseburger has come to ... (show quote)


What does your whining have to do with the OP’s thread?

This is what makes you a troll. On any other photography forum, you would have been banned a long time ago.

Reply
Jan 2, 2019 03:00:38   #
le boecere
 
Bipod wrote:
Move over hamburger, the cheeseburger has come to town!

Same dinky patty. Same "secret sauce".
But now with a big fat slice of pastuerized processed cheese food! Yum!

It's "one size fits all" in the shrinking digital camera market -- at least
for the top sellers: Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. But now you can get your
dinky color sensor in two flavors: DSLR and EVIL/MILK. (Just
don't expect DSLRs and their lens mounts to stay around --- the goal
of mirrorless is to cut manufacturing costs--less labor to assemble.)

Even McDonald's doesn't just sell hamburgers and cheeseburgers.

But Sony, Canon. Nikon, etc. just sell only color digital sensors--rather than the
higher-contrast, higher-resolution and lower=noise monochrome sensor. For that,
you have to go to Leica.

And 100% of Sony's sales and 99% of Nikon and Canon's are miniature format
("full-frame" in marketing-speak) or smaller sensors! It's a small world after all...

Uh ,where's the beef? What happened to 8" x 10"? 4" x 5"? or even 120 formats? How
come the only affordable cameras -- and the flagship ones!--have dinky sensors? Kodak's
Brownies were mostly medium or large format: 120/220, 616, 620, etc. You grandma shot
a more professional, high resolution, higher contrast format than you do! It just wasn't
encrusted with computer gadgetry.

Moreover, what happened to B&W? Decolorized is not the same at all.

But now you can get your dinky color sensor with a big fat slice of Electronic Viewfinder.
Sure, it's lower resolution and lower contrast than an optical viewfinder, but it has two
things you can't get with optics: a time lag and a big battery drain.

We all love dead batteries, don't we? Especially when the batteries are expensive non-standard
battery packs. Recharging is so much fun! Replacing even funner! But batteries are a profit
center for Canon and Nikon. (You don't think they could be designed to use a industry-standard
battery?)

Joe Consumer can be induced to buy anything: bacon-double-greaseburgers, Pet Rocks,
Tickle Me Elmo, Snuggies, the Atkins Diet, Chia Pets....and EVIL/MILC cameras.

Got to get me some of that EVIL/MILC! Consume, consume!
Move over hamburger, the cheeseburger has come to ... (show quote)


Your words: But Sony, Canon. Nikon, etc. just sell only color digital sensors--rather than the
higher-contrast, higher-resolution and lower=noise monochrome sensor. For that,
you have to go to Leica.

I'm wondering how many monochrome sensor cameras Sony, Canon and Nikon would sell, if they were to make the investment in developing and producing such. It might take a good long time to get a reasonable ROI....no?

Reply
Jan 2, 2019 03:54:16   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
Morning Star wrote:
Interesting! You must have been one of the original testers? Or did you start shooting mirrorless with a 4/3 camera? Or other format?
Bit of history:
2004–2008. The first mirrorless camera commercially marketed was the Epson R-D1 (released in 2004, a range finder camera) (Sensor‎: ‎23.7 x 15.6 mm, 1.53 × FOV crop).
The Micro Four Thirds system, whose first camera was the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1, was released in Japan in October 2008.

(Don't want to insult you about the year; besides photography, I also like history!)
Interesting! You must have been one of the origina... (show quote)


How about the history of photography and cameras?! You're way, way of on the date of the introduction of the first mirrorless camera.
The camera you mentioned is the first digital rangefinder camera, not the first mirrorless camera. A mirrorless camera is any camera that doesn't have a mirror. The first practical cameras without mirrors date back to the 19th century.
My first digital camera was the Sony Mavica CD-300 that I bought in spring of 2001. Still have it and it still works and I'm pretty sure it doesn't have a mirror, making it mirrorless.
What most people today refer to as mirrorless are actually MILC'S or mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. I believe the first MILC'S were marketed in fall of 2008.

Reply
Page 1 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.