Coming soon.... Smaller DSLRs

[webshark3]

Just thought the Disney folk struggling to determine if they want a P&S or a heavy DSLR at the World would like to know.....

Just announced, the new m4/3 standard should allow for mirror-less cameras (yes you must use the LCD), with small interchangeable lenses. The result should be a Large sensor camera roughly the Size of a large compact (think G9, Ricoh GR, or Sigma DP1, or larger prosumers).

They won't be super-slim, but have great "drop in your cargo pants or purse" capability. Could be a great Disney companion.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0808/08080501microfourthirds.asp

 

[boBQuincy]

I am always looking to reduce the size and weight of my camera gear, while still retaining image quality. Still, my initial thoughts on this are not that good. Taking a photo using the LCD is awkward, and with a long lens it is a recipe for blur. The article mentions a high quality EVF, yet none exist in my opinion. There is nothing like looking through the lens for clarity and accuracy.

But, the system looks to be just right for a good coupled viewfinder, as used by Leica. With lenses up to maybe 100mm (35mm equiv) it would be just great. The question is, will anyone offer such a camera at a reasonable price or do the manufacturers all think we want LCD and EVF?

The sensor is a mixed bag, better than P&S but not as good as APS-C, and full frame is still coming down in price (if not in size). As for price, it would have to be close to the Rebel and D40 to compete.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I saw that yesterday. Good news for us 4/3 users if we want to pick up something smaller and lighter in the future.

Phil: This is without doubt the most exciting digital photography announcement this year. It's fair to say that this "extension / addition" to the Four Thirds standard is finally able to deliver on the original promise of that format; considerably smaller and lighter lenses and bodies. Olympus are however keen to stress that this in no way replaces Four Thirds which will continue with new Four Thirds bodies and lenses in the future.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I think it's a wonderful idea, but I also agree with Bob about the annoyance of being forced to use an LCD. They are not only a challenge outdoors, they also suck battery life (which on a small camera will be at a premium).

I don't understand why C/N don't come out with a rangefinder body that also uses their lenses (via adapters) and a set of smaller lenses. If they did that, I'd buby the body and a core set of mini lenses. As it is, I'll definitely take a look at the new mini-Oly.

 

[webshark3]

The LCD doesn't bother me. I would probably use a prime (or primes) with such a system since I'd want to keep it "pocketable". From there, I could use a good external OVF (like on my current DP1).

 

[webshark3]

I think it's a wonderful idea, but I also agree with Bob about the annoyance of being forced to use an LCD. They are not only a challenge outdoors, they also suck battery life (which on a small camera will be at a premium).

My DP1 gets great battery life on the LCD. They have made great improvements over the last few years. Without a Flash, I have shot 300-400 RAW on a single charge.

I don't understand why C/N don't come out with a rangefinder body that also uses their lenses (via adapters) and a set of smaller lenses.

I'm afraid the answer is simple. People aren't asking for them.

What are people asking for? More internal memory.
(can't find the article. I'll track it down)

 

[fitzperry]

Thom Hogan (and no doubt others; I just happened to be on his site) refers to this technology as "EVIL" (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens).

Incidentally, he also has purported specs on a D90 (with video capability?)

 

[webshark3]

Yes, I have a feeling few companies will use EVIL in their Marketing. Maybe Disney Photo Ops can take advantage at MNSSHP:

"Hey want a Family Photo? It's EVIL....."

 

[fitzperry]

I can't help seeing Austin Powers in the television advertising

 

[handicap18]

Thom Hogan (and no doubt others; I just happened to be on his site) refers to this technology as "EVIL" (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens).

I like that!

If it doesn't have mirrors then how can it be an SLR. The R part refers to reflex. Doesn't that mean that it reflects off the mirrors to show you what the lens is seeing. I can't see an electronic view finder giving a very big view. Don't the current dSLR's that have live view have a more limited view compared to looking through the view finder.

I can see there being a market for it, but probably a small market. Or would it be bigger than the current bridge camera's. It certainly would be more expensive.

Incidentally, he also has purported specs on a D90 (with video capability?)

There has been a rumor about a D90 with video capability for many years. It also includes an MP3 Player.... lol.

A D90 that would be a replacement for the D80 would have a target audience of advanced amateur photographers and pro's looking for a backup. That type of camera wouldn't have video. At least I'd certainly be surprised if it did.

Looking at some of the posts on a few nikon web sites, many are also skeptical of the video. Though the info from Hogan seem's a little more on target with what people are expecting for a D80 replacement.

I would be interested in a D80 replacement, but I still really like what the D300 offers.

We'll see what happens in Sept. Price will ultimately be the biggest factor.

 

[fitzperry]

I like that!

If it doesn't have mirrors then how can it be an SLR. The R part refers to reflex. Doesn't that mean that it reflects off the mirrors to show you what the lens is seeing. I can't see an electronic view finder giving a very big view. Don't the current dSLR's that have live view have a more limited view compared to looking through the view finder.

I was thinking the same thing about the mirrors. I think you're correct about the limited view with the evf too--but then again I've never even turned on the live view on my D300.

I can see there being a market for it, but probably a small market. Or would it be bigger than the current bridge camera's. It certainly would be more expensive.

If they're marketed correctly, I could see them selling quite successfully. I personally know a lot of people who don't want to lug around an slr but would spend a little cash to get something that performs better than the p&s cameras they currently own. And the never ending parade of posters here looking for a p&s that performs well in low light seem perfectly suited for this.

There has been a rumor about a D90 with video capability for many years. It also includes an MP3 Player.... lol.

I just carry my iPod in my camera bag.

A D90 that would be a replacement for the D80 would have a target audience of advanced amateur photographers and pro's looking for a backup. That type of camera wouldn't have video. At least I'd certainly be surprised if it did. Looking at some of the posts on a few nikon web sites, many are also skeptical of the video. Though the info from Hogan seem's a little more on target with what people are expecting for a D80 replacement.

I was surprised to see that too. But Thom Hogan usually identifies his rumors as such, and based on my (admittedly cursory) read of his description I inferred that it was based on some actual info from Nikon. But then again, maybe not.

I would be interested in a D80 replacement, but I still really like what the D300 offers.

We'll see what happens in Sept. Price will ultimately be the biggest factor.

I was hoping for a D80 replacement this spring and went ahead and got the D300 because of the trips we had planned for the summer. I'm so glad I had it, but given a choice between the two I might have gone for a D90 and another lens. It will be interesting to see where the D90 is priced.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

If it doesn't have mirrors then how can it be an SLR.

I believe that, although it's the title of this thread, they're not calling it an SLR. They're calling it a "Micro Four Thirds".

Olympus and Panasonic have announced a new, mirrorless format / lens mount based on (and compatible with) Four Thirds. The Micro Four Thirds system uses the same sensor size (18 x 13.5 mm) but allows slimmer cameras by removing the mirror box and optical viewfinder.

 

[handicap18]

That makes a little more sense. Thanks for the info.

 

[Groucho]

I glanced at the Hogan site and agree with him on one thing... there's no reason that anyone couldn't do the same thing with an APS sensor. To get the benefit of the micro-4/3rds, you need to buy all new lenses. Knowing Olympus, you may be looking at some expensive (if high quality) lenses. I don't smell huge success here.

I think a better idea is more like Sigma's DP1, only do it "right" - fast response (the DP1 is apparently shockingly slow), at least some zoom (3-5x), and full PnS functionality, including video. Make it as small as possible, keep the megapixels reasonable, and you've got a camera that will be extremely appealing to folks "in the know" who want a lightweight camera with high IQ, and hopefully it could be marketed successfully. Start selling sensor size instead of megapixels.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

This article goes into a little more detail, and he mentions the possiblility of video capability in them as well.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1217960634.html

To get the benefit of the micro-4/3rds, you need to buy all new lenses

Unless you already have 4/3 lenses, in which case you'd just need an adaptor.

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[boBQuincy]

I think a better idea is more like Sigma's DP1, only do it "right" ...Start selling sensor size instead of megapixels.

I agree completely! For me the lack of a viewfinder and any zoom is a deal breaker. I don't care for the Foveon sensor either. Make a camera as small as possible with some zoom, a decent size sensor, and an optical viewfinder and I will buy it (but I can't afford Leica prices).

 

[Groucho]

Unless you already have 4/3 lenses, in which case you'd just need an adaptor.

I would say that the main benefit of the micro-4/3rds is size. Adding an adapter gets you a package that's just as large, depth-wise, as a standard 4/3rds camera - that's not giving you much advantage IMHO. I think the point, too, is that the micro 4/3rds lenses will be even smaller (though I didn't pay enough attention to know for sure or how much smaller.) The adapter also means one more thing to fiddle with. It's especially a pain when dealing with multiple 4/3rds lenses and micro 4/3rds lenses, when some need an adapter and some don't. (I do through similar steps with my M42 adapter - fortunately, that's just a tiny piece of metal, not a decent-size hunk of plastic like the 4/3rds adapter will be.)

 

[Groucho]

I agree completely! For me the lack of a viewfinder and any zoom is a deal breaker. I don't care for the Foveon sensor either. Make a camera as small as possible with some zoom, a decent size sensor, and an optical viewfinder and I will buy it (but I can't afford Leica prices).

Sounds like you won't be seeing anything this size with an optical viewfinder... at least not a TTL one. It would be neat to see someone make a rangefinder in such a design, but that's such a niche product that it'd be a tough sell, both to customers and to the beancounters at the companies.

One other thing, such a dream camera should have IS, too. I have no idea if any micro 4/3rds cameras will have IS - I doubt it, considering that their current small DSLRs don't have it; plus they're going to have to keep the prices fairly low.

 

[webshark3]

I believe that, although it's the title of this thread, they're not calling it an SLR. They're calling it a "Micro Four Thirds".

Correct. I just titled it that way, as some of the articles are marketing it as a mirror-less SLR. And to Novices, you know the Department Stores Reps will push them as "like SLRs but smaller".

But we really know it's just m4/3.

 

[webshark3]

I agree completely! For me the lack of a viewfinder and any zoom is a deal breaker. I don't care for the Foveon sensor either. Make a camera as small as possible with some zoom, a decent size sensor, and an optical viewfinder and I will buy it (but I can't afford Leica prices).

The DP1 (like the Ricoh GRs) are a niche product. Their users prefer a high quality external OVF to poor internal ones, and wouldn't want them if they had zooms. The lenses are near flawless and perfectly matched. We may be a minority, but a internal (poor) OVF and zoom would be a deal breaker for me too (in the opposite direction).

Sigma and Ricoh are serving a niche.

The Foveon requires good post-processing, but man it it SHARP! I've really come to appreciate it's images, and am definitely preferring them over my Bayer cameras.