A TRUE Game-Changer?

[Pea-n-Me]

I think it's going to come down one thing as far as view finders go... Do we want to actually see through the lens, or are we ok with the digital representation of what we would see though the lens.

The mirrorless cameras do have the size advantage. However, it's not like they can take a camera, remove the mirror and make it smaller while still being able to use the same lenses either. They either have to make new lenses (like Sony and Panasonic) or make an adapter (like Olympus) because a certain amount of distance is required between the lens and the media for focusing.

I recall reading when these were first released that the reason they felt comfortable going without an optical viewfinder is that market research showed most camera users don't use one (not counting people like us, apparently).

I'm sure I'll be picking up a PEN at some point. And I'll be interested to see where this all leads down the road.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I agree that it looks like a very interesting camera, but I don't understand the notion that it is a game changer. It's another entry into the EVIL market following Olympus, Panasonic, and Samsung. I agree that mirrorless cameras with large sensors may eventually take over the market, they are very, very far from being ready to do so now.

I read this review on the Luminous Landscape. It makes it sound like a nice camera crippled by a horrible user interface. The review basically concludes what ukcatfan does; it is a replacement for bridge cameras and not full function DSLRs. The main reason given in the review is that the interface makes it too darned hard to control the camera. That could be fixed with firmware if Sony decides it is important.

I'm in the camp that EVFs will eventually replace optical viewfinders. Doing so would provide lots of advantages. You could get realistic exposure simulation and DOF simulation. That would work much better than the DOF preview button. You could also add lots of useful information like zebra stripes, peaking, live histograms. These sorts of things are already available on the rear LCD, but it sucks trying to hold a camera stead at arms length. The biggest problem with EVFs is that the image quality is orders of magnitude too low to replace an optical viewfinder today. Assuming that they can improve to the point that they produce an image that is virtually indistinguishable from a mirrored system, I don't see why anyone would want an optical viewfinder. Unfortunately, we seem to be a long, long way from that point.

I'm excited about the EVIL cameras. I think the format has a lot of potential as a travel camera. I'm anxiously hoping that Canon gets in the game so that I don't have to build two non-interchangeable lens collections. I'm not too bothered yet, though, because none of the current cameras appears ready for prime time to me yet. The Sony looks nice, but it would replace my G9 as a fully-auto point and shoot for when I don't feel like carrying a full sized camera.

As for video, the NEX-5 appears to be an almost total bust. It looks like it goes into full auto mode and makes some horrible choices like a shutter speed of 1/250. That might be acceptable for quick and dirty "snapshot" video, but it's useless for any remotely serious video project. Canon learned their lesson with the 5D that the video market needs manual control and actually retrofitted the camera's firmware to allow it. I'm surprised that Sony ignored that lesson. That is another indication that they see this camera as a high quality point and shoot and not an ultracompact prosumer camera.

One thing that does look promising is that the lenses appear to be designed for electronic zoom control. I'd like for all the camera makers to start thinking ahead and adding the capability to do powered zooms on their lenses. That's important for video capability. Now that the convergence of video and stills is clearly happening, the lens makers need to do their part.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I recall reading when these were first released that the reason they felt comfortable going without an optical viewfinder is that market research showed most camera users don't use one (not counting people like us, apparently).

I'm sure I'll be picking up a PEN at some point. And I'll be interested to see where this all leads down the road.

Most camera users don't have one. Or in the case of point and shoots with an optical viewfinder (like the Canon G series), they are terrible. I agree that for non-camera people, a viewfinder is of little use because they won't bother. For a serious shooter, not having a viewfinder renders a camera practically useless as a serious tool. The exception would be people that always use a tripod (landscape/architectural shooters). The lack of a viewfinder is another indicator that Sony sees this camera as a large sensor point and shoot and not a compact DSLR.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

You didn't read what I said my friend. I said that viewfinders are here to stay. I stand firm by that position because it is without a question the best way to shoot. Holding a camera out in front of you is not the best form and results in not the best results. I DID say that LCDs might mature enough to replace the "optical" viewfinder (i.e. the flip up mirror). I can see the mirror becoming a thing of the past, but a camera without a viewfinder and only a big LCD on the back is NEVER going to be the tool of choice for serious photographers. I think we hold the same position and you just posted before you let my words sink in.

I think you're right. We're more on the same page than I first assumed. My apologies.

I hated to say it when I began the thread since this is more of a "stills" photography oriented forum, but I really see this as more of an evolution in the video arena and that's what I was interested in when I first saw it (and read about the forthcoming NEX-7 and the actual camcorder that will evolve from this species from Sony). My T2i ain't going anywhere anytime soon. I agree. DSLRs will have a place for some time to come.

What I do believe is this, if the NEX-7 (probably more so than the 5) lives up to the hype, it will certainly have a place in my stable. It seems that in order to make me happy, I'm either dragging 3 cameras around at WDW; a PnS, a DSLR and a video camera of some kind, or I'm so sick of dragging them all around that I take nothing at all, and I inevitably miss a shot of something I really wish I had had a camera for (sigh).

What I'm hoping for is that one camera that I can take and be satisfied with at Disney. I'm hoping that some iteration of this series will give me that. Fingers crossed.

 

[photo_chick]

I recall reading when these were first released that the reason they felt comfortable going without an optical viewfinder is that market research showed most camera users don't use one (not counting people like us, apparently).

I'm sure I'll be picking up a PEN at some point. And I'll be interested to see where this all leads down the road.

Exactly... consumers have become accustomed to the arm length stance when taking pictures. But that does still leave a lot of people who like thier traditional view finders and don't want to take the SLR out of DSLR. And really, DSLR's have become far more consumer than 35mm SLR's ever were anyway. So it seems a bit of a natural evolution.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I agree that it looks like a very interesting camera, but I don't understand the notion that it is a game changer. It's another entry into the EVIL market following Olympus, Panasonic, and Samsung. I agree that mirrorless cameras with large sensors may eventually take over the market, they are very, very far from being ready to do so now.

I'd agree that it's not a game changer but it may be changing the game of the EVIL camera's. Where it really differentiates in my opinion is the sensor size. Having an APS-C sensor is a big thing to me. The picture quality and noise control is rivaling the DSLR market in a much smaller body.

What I do believe is this, if the NEX-7 (probably more so than the 5) lives up to the hype, it will certainly have a place in my stable. It seems that in order to make me happy, I'm either dragging 3 cameras around at WDW; a PnS, a DSLR and a video camera of some kind, or I'm so sick of dragging them all around that I take nothing at all, and I inevitably miss a shot of something I really wish I had had a camera for (sigh).

What I'm hoping for is that one camera that I can take and be satisfied with at Disney. I'm hoping that some iteration of this series will give me that. Fingers crossed.

This is along the lines of what is peaking my interest in these camera's. When I first heard of them I did not think of it as an option although I had looked at the Oly PEN. What I didn't like about that camera though was the image/noise quality and expected this to be similar. Better than a P&S but not a DSLR. Now, after seeing the abilities of the NEX I think it's very probable I'll be picking one up at some point. Being a Sony shooter is a bonus b/c I can use my DSLR lenses via an adaptor should I wish. With a quality lens or two I would see it being a pretty much a stand alone system for me but also offering a very compact back-up body when I travel with my DSLR. Then I'll be carrying a lens around with an attachment on the back!

I'll be taking a look when they come out to see about the user interface and how the video does work. The next iteration in the NEX-7 is what I'll probably be giving a good look at but will see how I feel about the NEX-5.

One thing is certain - I do find it much more exciting than I though I would.

 

[rtphokie]

specs look great and I'm not opposed to a mirrorless SLR but this thing just looks too lightweight and flimsy for my tastes. Maybe it's previous Sony experience that colors my opinon

For me, there is a right weight for a camera. Too much and it's a burden, too little and it feels cheep and I have trouble keeping it steady sometimes. This looks way on the too light end of the scale to me.

 

[Groucho]

I think that there's a very good change that the Sonys will be game changers... in the EVIL camp. Sorry 4/3rds fans - I don't think they will stand a chance based on what we've seen so far. The Sonys are smaller and have much better high ISO performance and more features. If they price 'em right, they could dominate the EVIL market. It's too new for many people to have too much invested in lenses, plus there are so few available, so even current owners could have a fairly painless switch. Again - opinion here - this bodes very badly for 4/3rds in general, as Olympus seems to have put all the energy behind the EVIL cameras and not their full DSLRs... if m4/3rds don't get a serious share of the EVIL market, they are going to be in some serious trouble. They need to do some serious price drops - the m4/3rds seem very overpriced considering that they should be much simpler to produce than a DSLR.

It pains me that the Samsung EVIL is unlikely to make any real waves...

I could see EVHs in higher-end cameras getting some serious traction in the future. It certainly would be great to have user-selectable overlays, instant zoom for manual focus, the ability to shoot video without holding it like a PnS, etc... oh, and most importantly, the ability to make it most any size and brightness that the manufacturer wants - a pocket camera with a viewfinder that beats any FF DSLR, why not? We're not quite there yet but I don't see any reason why we won't get there.

That being said, I am perfectly happy with a good old-fashioned optical viewfinder; the only real appeal of the EVIL cameras to me is the ability to mount virtually any lens every made on them.

 

[mom2rtk]

I do like being able to hold my P & S away from my face to frame the shot, but just can never imagine doing that with a DSLR. The weight is just too much to hold out for very long. And it seems that your face makes a great brace to hold it still!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

When I first heard of them I did not think of it as an option although I had looked at the Oly PEN. What I didn't like about that camera though was the image/noise quality and expected this to be similar. Better than a P&S but not a DSLR.

They have the same 4/3 sensor as Olympus dSLRs.

I think that there's a very good change that the Sonys will be game changers... in the EVIL camp. Sorry 4/3rds fans - I don't think they will stand a chance based on what we've seen so far. The Sonys are smaller and have much better high ISO performance and more features. If they price 'em right, they could dominate the EVIL market. It's too new for many people to have too much invested in lenses, plus there are so few available, so even current owners could have a fairly painless switch. Again - opinion here - this bodes very badly for 4/3rds in general, as Olympus seems to have put all the energy behind the EVIL cameras and not their full DSLRs... if m4/3rds don't get a serious share of the EVIL market, they are going to be in some serious trouble. They need to do some serious price drops - the m4/3rds seem very overpriced considering that they should be much simpler to produce than a DSLR.

Groucho, you know I luv ya but you've been predicting the demise of Olympus and 4/3 as long as I've known you. (Olympus has been doing fairly well since 1919.)

OK, so I'll give you the high ISO disadvantage - to a degree. (There are other dSLRs that aren't great in the high ISO dept either. And users, no matter what camera they buy, really need to examine their own personal styles of shooting to determine how much that will be an issue that affects them and whether or not they can work with and/or around it, but I digress.) But image quality, I would have to disagree - unless you want to split hairs.

There are many features about the 4/3 and m4/3, in particular Olympus cameras, that make them desirable for those who use them, namely image quality and color, in body IS, auto dust reduction, excellent glass quality, aesthetics, ergonomics, size, etc.

Right now Oly is concentrating on m4/3, understandably, but they've made it clear that they are committed to their dSLR market for the long term as well. I do agree the price is a bit steep. But as usual, to each his own. My own sense of this is that Olympus had such a jump on the market, the PEN may be the camera that sets the standard and even becomes the name for whatever is to come after it. Of course, I could be wrong. Time will tell. Not everyone uses cameras the way people like us do, so our perspectives may be a little jaded. Most people just want a simple, popular camera that takes good pictures.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

They have the same 4/3 sensor as Olympus dSLRs.

Sorry - I may not have been clear enough. I'm not 100% but I think you're clarifying that the PEN has the same 4/3 sensor as the Olympus DSLRs. I was referring to what I expected with the NEX cameras. But they have the 1.5 crop APS-C sensor - same as the DSLR's and I wasn't expecting that.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Sorry - I may not have been clear enough. I'm not 100% but I think you're clarifying that the PEN has the same 4/3 sensor as the Olympus DSLRs. I was referring to what I expected with the NEX cameras. But they have the 1.5 crop APS-C sensor - same as the DSLR's and I wasn't expecting that.

Gotcha. The Sony certainly looks like a nice camera, and if I used a Sony dSLR, I'd definitely be interested in having one as a supplemental camera (as I am in the PEN).

 

[Groucho]

Groucho, you know I luv ya but you've been predicting the demise of Olympus and 4/3 as long as I've known you. (Olympus has been doing fairly well since 1919.)

Not really predicting the demise that much in the past, but it does seen that they've gambled their future on the m4/3rds.

OK, so I'll give you the high ISO disadvantage - to a degree. (There are other dSLRs that aren't great in the high ISO dept either. And users, no matter what camera they buy, really need to examine their own personal styles of shooting to determine how much that will be an issue that affects them and whether or not they can work with and/or around it, but I digress.) But image quality, I would have to disagree - unless you want to split hairs.

There are many features about the 4/3 and m4/3, in particular Olympus cameras, that make them desirable for those who use them, namely image quality and color, in body IS, auto dust reduction, excellent glass quality, aesthetics, ergonomics, size, etc.

Right now Oly is concentrating on m4/3, understandably, but they've made it clear that they are committed to their dSLR market for the long term as well. I do agree the price is a bit steep. But as usual, to each his own. My own sense of this is that Olympus had such a jump on the market, the PEN may be the camera that sets the standard and even becomes the name for whatever is to come after it. Of course, I could be wrong. Time will tell. Not everyone uses cameras the way people like us do, so our perspectives may be a little jaded. Most people just want a simple, popular camera that takes good pictures.

High ISO performance is a huge feature among educated consumers (and someone dropping the big bucks for an EVIL hopefully will educate themselves!) The only-OK high-ISO performance of the Samsung NX is one of the big reasons that I suspect that won't be a big success (and I wish it would be, for purely selfish reasons. )

Image quality is not necessarily bad with the m4/3rds cameras but it is certainly not better than anyone else; and again, the smaller-than-APSC sensor is proving to offer only negatives - not only the ISO performance but the unavoidable loss of DoF - while the body and lenses are no smaller than Sony's. Again, this doesn't mean that they are bad cameras, and obviously lots of people love the m4/3rds - but they may love the Sonys just as much or much. Oh, and none of the m4/3rds cameras have in-body IS, do they?

As for their DSLRs... most are getting fairly old now (they're all well over a year old except the E600 which is just a stripped-down E620), and their top-of-the-line camera is two-and-half years old now! (To be fair, so is Sony's top APSC camera, the A700, but at least there are rumors of a replacement.) And when was the last time they introduced any new 4/3rds (not m4/3rds) lenses? Their actions are speaking louder than their words.

Hey, don't feel bad - if they do drop 4/3rd DSLRs completely, maybe you'll be able to pick up some of their great very-expensive lenses for bargain prices.

 

[handicap18]

After more thinking on this I think I see another advantage. Durability and reliability. With less moving parts (Mirror) the design may prove much more reliable. I was always taught that anything mechanical is due to fail.

This to me doesn't make much sense based on the fact that you can take a film SLR that was made 40-50 years ago and is COMPLETELY manual and will take great pictures. Everything about it is mechanical. No electronics what so ever. No battery needed. Nothing. Yet it still takes great pictures today. If thats not reliable, then I don't know what is.

Putting in the electronics makes it more convenient to use. IMO, it doesn't make it more reliable.

 

[photo_chick]

agreed handicap18. The mirror and prism designs have been proven and refined over a half a century now. They're pretty reliable.

I'd be more concerned about a sensor or electronics failing me.

 

[ukcatfan]

This to me doesn't make much sense based on the fact that you can take a film SLR that was made 40-50 years ago and is COMPLETELY manual and will take great pictures. Everything about it is mechanical. No electronics what so ever. No battery needed. Nothing. Yet it still takes great pictures today. If thats not reliable, then I don't know what is.

Putting in the electronics makes it more convenient to use. IMO, it doesn't make it more reliable.

agreed handicap18. The mirror and prism designs have been proven and refined over a half a century now. They're pretty reliable.

I'd be more concerned about a sensor or electronics failing me.

Just to play the devil's advocate, I have on thing to add. Back in the film days people might only take a couple rolls per day at some place like WDW. People take more shots than that per ride now. So, maybe the old film ones didn't fail because they were never used as much as a DSLR.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Not really predicting the demise that much in the past, but it does seen that they've gambled their future on the m4/3rds.

And probably rightfully so.

High ISO performance is a huge feature among educated consumers (and someone dropping the big bucks for an EVIL hopefully will educate themselves!)

As we see every day here, not everyone does educate themselves before such a big purchase.

But even when people do, as I said before, high ISO performance isn't the end all be all to everyone as it is to some. Low ISO performance is excellent, and higher ISO may not be as good as some (though is on par with others), but it's certainly both avoidable and usable in most instances.

none of the m4/3rds cameras have in-body IS, do they?

Of course the Olympus m4/3 cameras, just like most of their dSLRs, have in body IS. No worries about paying for stabilized lenses.

As for their DSLRs... most are getting fairly old now

I just upgraded to the newer E30 and I love it.

Hey, don't feel bad - if they do drop 4/3rd DSLRs completely, maybe you'll be able to pick up some of their great very-expensive lenses for bargain prices.

I've already picked up just about all of the Olympus high quality lenses I want at bargain prices. One more and I should be all set. You just have to know how to work it.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Other than the annoying 4/3 aspect ratio, I don't see 4/3 as being dramatically different than APS-C. Sensor size affects low light performance, DOF, and resolution. Here are some popular sensor sizes:

Typical P&S - 38mm
Micro 4/3 - 225mm
APS-C - 370mm
Full Frame - 864mm

There is obviously a HUGE difference between a typical P&S and a Micro 4/3. It's roughly 6 times larger. The difference between Micro 4/3 and APS-C, a roughly 1.6x increase in area is noticeable, but not nearly as big. In fact, the jump from APS-C to FF, at 2.3x, is significantly larger.

I haven't seen a Micro 4/3 camera (EVIL or not) that I personally find compelling, but the same is true for all EVIL cameras. I consider the APS-C sensor size (all other things equal) to be an advantage of Micro 4/3, but not necessarily an insurmountable one.

 

[photo_chick]

Just to play the devil's advocate, I have on thing to add. Back in the film days people might only take a couple rolls per day at some place like WDW. People take more shots than that per ride now. So, maybe the old film ones didn't fail because they were never used as much as a DSLR.

That is a good point.. However, We're keeping DSLR's for like, what, 5 years maybe before we move on to new technology. My 60 year old Pentax has had just as many shots taken, easily more than triple what I took over the 5 years I used my Rebel XT, and it still works perfectly. My XT on the other hand has some issues with the light meter and a couple of buttons on it don't like to work sometimes.

But really, what the mirrorless cameras lack in mechanical parts they make up for in electronics. So there are still just as many things that can go wonky on them.