[quote name='mst' timestamp='1284994069' post='2990']
It's my impression that AF speed is not really the problem to be solved. At least from my experience with the G1, the AF ist certainly fast enough for most applications.
The issue that needs a better solution is AF tracking for moving subjects.
-- Markus
[/quote]
AF with mFT lenses is quite fast, yes. But I think he was talking about mounting lenses with PD-AF logic via an adapter. The "SLR legacy" lenses.
It's pretty obvious that no mirror is the future. When is another matter, I don't think the Canon EOS 1D Mark V will be without a mirror and optical viewfinder, but probably VI.
I'll be very surprised if VI has a mirror (and the rest of that generation of cameras).
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1284990012' post='2980']Give it a few more years and I am sure it is curtains for the (D)SLR.[/quote]
Why not? For the time being I prefer a good viewfinder over a screen, anytime, anywhere.
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1284991781' post='2986']
I think PD-AF is the key here. Once they have a way to implement that into a mirrorless or come up with an alternative way to AF fast in a mirror less, I think the SLR is toast (apart from special applications which means $££€€). Considering how quickly the transition went with film, I would give it 2 years from now.
[/quote]
Yep, this decade marks the end of the SLR concept. Once you realize that a micro-system can give you images as good as DSLRs it's obvious that it's the beginning of the end. We're already seeing a dramatic shift and it's accelerating on a monthly basis. Lenses are all that's missing right now and once Canon and Nikon will introduce their micro-systems (I reckon at the PMA) the APS-C DSLR market is doomed.
Full format DSLRs are here to stay for a while in the professional segment but even today this market has a volume share of just 10% (although some like to feel that it's closer to 90%).
I wouldn't give it two years but 5-8 though. The move from film to digital was simpler because you could keep the lenses. It simply takes a while to recognize the advantages of a micro system. Asia shows the way this time because they've always been early adopter.
Looking back to basics, what are the "faults" of SLRs that are "fixed" with EVILs? The main one I see is body size, and possibility smaller wider-angle lenses from the shorter mount distance. No benefit at longer focal lengths though.
I agree once they crack a decent AF system the DSLRs will be an endangered species, but I think we're a long way from that. We haven't seen the true DSLR killer yet.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
anyscreenamewilldo
Unregistered
another 2 cents worth - this person can't see the point of a tiny (say um aps-c cam of whatever type) when the lenses are huge and made of (unfortunately)heavy glass, unless you just want to shoot wide shots with the smaller lenses (which is indeed a useful thing)
so when the smaller sensor = the bigger quality = the smaller lenses, then why not -
but then, a large screen on the back to see what's what in the picture? = excellent idea - so then, is phone cam the ultimate candid camera (with a tiny zeiss lens of course :-) . . . just try to imagine phone cam with a 300mm equivalent lens poking out for that special candid shot -
. . . or better still, ipad cam? (lovely to have a larger screen for older eyes) - but i think i've gone off topic, again
09-20-2010, 06:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-20-2010, 06:29 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1285003049' post='2996']
Yep, this decade marks the end of the SLR concept. Once you realize that a micro-system can give you images as good as DSLRs it's obvious that it's the beginning of the end. We're already seeing a dramatic shift and it's accelerating on a monthly basis. Lenses are all that's missing right now and once Canon and Nikon will introduce their micro-systems (I reckon at the PMA) the APS-C DSLR market is doomed.
Full format DSLRs are here to stay for a while in the professional segment but even today this market has a volume share of just 10% (although some like to feel that it's closer to 90%).
I wouldn't give it two years but 5-8 though. The move from film to digital was simpler because you could keep the lenses. It simply takes a while to recognize the advantages of a micro system. Asia shows the way this time because they've always been early adopter.
[/quote]
Asia is also not a totally good benchmark, as it is also a gadget market. Remember that Asia also has a very low personal computer saturation, that people use cellphones much more than we can imagine.
Yes, for the part of the DSLR market that is the domain of the snap shooters the "micro-system" obviously is a good alternative. Not so for the more serious enthusiast and photographer, though. For them, "micro" makes less sense, as the lenses themselves will never be "micro".
The SLR will be given "back" to the photographer, with obviously a bit a smaller market share.
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1285004238' post='2997']
Looking back to basics, what are the "faults" of SLRs that are "fixed" with EVILs? The main one I see is body size, and possibility smaller wider-angle lenses from the shorter mount distance. No benefit at longer focal lengths though.
[/quote]
The mirror box imposes a lot of design constraints on the lens. The last lens has to be about 5cm (2 inch) away from the sensor. If you have a look, many micro designs build closer to the sensor. For prime lenses this matters up to about 50mm focal lenght, which on APS-C and 4-3rd is a small tele lens.
enjoy
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1285007314' post='2999']
The SLR will be given "back" to the photographer, with obviously a bit a smaller market share.
[/quote]
Niche products will be more expensive.
enjoy
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1285003049' post='2996']
The move from film to digital was simpler because you could keep the lenses.
[/quote]
Where is the digital body to go with my Contax lenses? In general most people needed a new WA and often existing designs where plagued by CA, which in the early days was an issue.
enjoy
|
