Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?

Reply
Thread Tools

The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?

 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2010
There is no shortage of people who claim that DSLRs are on their way
out of fashion, and that mirrorless (or EVIL) cameras will take over.
They claim that the recent , very significant improvements in the
quality of electronic viewfinders makes them as good as, or better
than a traditional reflex viewfinder.

However, the DSLR protagonists argue that the EVIL cameras suffer
because their contrast-detect AF is too slow. To address this issue,
Sony brings out an "SLT" camera that has the complication of a fixed
pellicle mirror to enable the faster phase-detect AF of SLRs to be
used on the mirrorless versions (A33, A55) of their Alpha range of
DSLRs. It suffers from serious ghosting and overheating problems.

Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor
size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system
that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any
other AF system, including phase-detect.

The Lumix GH2 needs no pellicle mirror and therefore has no risk of
ghosting. Yet it is claimed to have even faster AF than the Sony A33
and A55, even though their AF systems are phase-detect.

If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop
similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that
Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
DSLRs will suddenly disappear.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Superzooms Still Win
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2010
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:15:38 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>There is no shortage of people who claim that DSLRs are on their way
>out of fashion, and that mirrorless (or EVIL) cameras will take over.
>They claim that the recent , very significant improvements in the
>quality of electronic viewfinders makes them as good as, or better
>than a traditional reflex viewfinder.
>
>However, the DSLR protagonists argue that the EVIL cameras suffer
>because their contrast-detect AF is too slow. To address this issue,
>Sony brings out an "SLT" camera that has the complication of a fixed
>pellicle mirror to enable the faster phase-detect AF of SLRs to be
>used on the mirrorless versions (A33, A55) of their Alpha range of
>DSLRs. It suffers from serious ghosting and overheating problems.
>
>Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
>Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
>Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor
>size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system
>that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any
>other AF system, including phase-detect.
>
>The Lumix GH2 needs no pellicle mirror and therefore has no risk of
>ghosting. Yet it is claimed to have even faster AF than the Sony A33
>and A55, even though their AF systems are phase-detect.
>
>If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop
>similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that
>Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
>DSLRs will suddenly disappear.


They still have to get rid of that archaic, mechanically fragile, short
live-span, shutter-speed-crippling, moving-subject distorting, obnoxiously
noisy, and image-shaking focal-plane shutter. And a way to prevent sensor
grunge. By creating a sealed camera and lens combo that will cover all the
zoom range one might ever need. Or bundled with high-quality optical
system-matched focal-length adapters to increase that range temporarily if
need be.

[I still don't like that I have to play the manufacturer mix & match game
when finding the best wide-angle and tel-extenders from other companies for
the best performance. But it does end-up affording some unique surprises.
Like the fisheye adapter I found for under $100 that surpasses the image
quality of a $1500 Nikkor. Giving my superzoom cameras a seamless and
CA-free zoom range from 9mm to 36mm EFL, with low distortion CA-free
full-frame starting at 16mm EFL.]

Oh wait, they've already done all this. Many years ago. It started back
about 2001 or so. Each year since there's always a couple or few models
that always beat the image quality of DSLRs released the same years. Huh.
How about that. I wonder why none of you ever hear about it. Oh, that's
right. You (collective plural) can't find what you're not looking for, or
intentionally close your eyes to, in order to justify that money you've
thrown at the system you have foolishly locked yourself into financially.
Some of you would rather depend on financially-biased slanted reviews meant
to con people into the "now you need a better lens" con game, rather than
test these cameras for yourself to find out you're being lied to. Oh well.
Sometimes the desirable bliss of self-induced ignorance is much more
important than pursuing reality. And some just can't give up that tattered
old T-shirt and torn jeans from last century. Just put another patch job
over that old stitching (flopping-shutter dslr design), that'll make it
better.

1/10th of a century already gone, and they still scream and cry about the
previous century's camera design limitations, like they are worth holding
onto for some bizarre reason. It *is* time to throw out the baby out with
the bath-water when you find out it's the rotting and fetid baby that has
been poisoning the water all along.









 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2010
On 9/30/2010 7:15 AM, Bruce wrote:

> If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop
> similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that
> Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
> DSLRs will suddenly disappear.


For years Panasonic has had great cameras--if you go solely be the
specifications. In actual use they have always been mediocre except in
ideal shooting conditions.

The market for high-end point and shoot/superzooms/EVIL cameras has been
decimated by the falling prices of far more capable D-SLRs.

Nothing developed so far replaces the tried and true focal plane shutter
and mirror on a D-SLR.

Nothing developed so far replaces the speed of phase-detect auto-focus
on a D-SLR.

Nothing developed so far replaces the ability to attach lenses directly
to the camera body as on a D-SLR (rather than the hopelessly poor "lens
adapters" that some people try (once) on their P&S cameras)).

It would be wonderful if the Lumix DMC-GH2 is finally the camera that is
able to overcome all the limitations of super-zooms and EVIL cameras,
but based on Panasonic's history you should not hold your breath!

So far, nothing would make me give up my Canon D-SLR and my Canon P&S
cameras with CHDK installed. Between the D-SLR and P&S I'm covered for
every eventuality. I don't think the slightly smaller size of the Lumix
DMC-GH2 is going to make me move to a single camera as it's still much
larger than my Canon P&S cameras.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joel Connor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2010
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:56:14 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>For years Panasonic has had great cameras--if you go solely be the
>specifications. In actual use they have always been mediocre except in
>ideal shooting conditions.


How would you know? We ALL know that you have never owned even one camera
in your lifetime. This has been proved hundreds of times.

Your use of cameras and visiting parks with them is just as delusional as
your story about helping to install a computer controlled geyser in
Yellowstone.

<http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101>


We ALL know you are a psychotic role-playing troll living an imaginary
online life, one who had never touched any real camera, ever. Don't you get
that yet?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Russ D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2010
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:56:14 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>Nothing developed so far replaces the tried and true focal plane shutter
>and mirror on a D-SLR.


Now why would anyone want to? Why would anyone want to invent another
mechanical contraption that induces a 90-150ms shutter lag in having to
move all that crap out of the way? Why would anyone want to invent another
viewfinder that's only 95-97% accurate? Why would anyone want to invent
another viewfinder that is useless in low light, and can't be used for
precision manual focusing? Why would anyone want to invent another shutter
that limits flash sync to last-century 1/250th second shutter speeds? Why
would anyone want to invent another shutter that distorts the shapes of
anything that's moving faster than 1/250th of a second? Why would anyone
want to invent another system that jars the camera so bad that it blurs
your images from camera shake, halving that expensive lens resolution? Why
would anyone want to do that again? It's been a pain in the ass for a whole
century. I can't imagine a world of photography having to put up with that
**** for another century.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Russ D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2010
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:56:33 -0500, Russ D <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:56:14 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>Nothing developed so far replaces the tried and true focal plane shutter
>>and mirror on a D-SLR.

>
>Now why would anyone want to? Why would anyone want to invent another
>mechanical contraption that induces a 90-150ms shutter lag in having to
>move all that crap out of the way? Why would anyone want to invent another
>viewfinder that's only 95-97% accurate? Why would anyone want to invent
>another viewfinder that is useless in low light, and can't be used for
>precision manual focusing? Why would anyone want to invent another shutter
>that limits flash sync to last-century 1/250th second shutter speeds? Why
>would anyone want to invent another shutter that distorts the shapes of
>anything that's moving faster than 1/250th of a second? Why would anyone
>want to invent another system that jars the camera so bad that it blurs
>your images from camera shake, halving that expensive lens resolution? Why
>would anyone want to do that again? It's been a pain in the ass for a whole
>century. I can't imagine a world of photography having to put up with that
>**** for another century.


Ooops, we forgot to add:

Why would anyone want to invent another mechanical train like that which is
so damn noisy, intrusive, and disrespectfully inconsiderate to others that
they are banned from being used in most public performances, ceremonies,
and public buildings? Why would anyone want a shutter and mirror mechanism
that's so noisy that it scares away most wildlife, or draws the attention
of dangerous wildlife in your direction? Why would ANYONE want that ****
again?



 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2010
On Sep 30, 10:15*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
> DSLRs will suddenly disappear.


It is inevitable that mirror-penta prism cameras will die off. Cost
is the driver. Unless Nikon and the like want to jump prices up to
$8000-$15000 for top of the line DSLRs. Course, knowing Nikon, it
would be in-character.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2010
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:46:57 -0500, Superzooms Still Win <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
: On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:15:38 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: >There is no shortage of people who claim that DSLRs are on their way
: >out of fashion, and that mirrorless (or EVIL) cameras will take over.
: >They claim that the recent , very significant improvements in the
: >quality of electronic viewfinders makes them as good as, or better
: >than a traditional reflex viewfinder.
: >
: >However, the DSLR protagonists argue that the EVIL cameras suffer
: >because their contrast-detect AF is too slow. To address this issue,
: >Sony brings out an "SLT" camera that has the complication of a fixed
: >pellicle mirror to enable the faster phase-detect AF of SLRs to be
: >used on the mirrorless versions (A33, A55) of their Alpha range of
: >DSLRs. It suffers from serious ghosting and overheating problems.
: >
: >Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
: >Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
: >Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor
: >size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system
: >that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any
: >other AF system, including phase-detect.
: >
: >The Lumix GH2 needs no pellicle mirror and therefore has no risk of
: >ghosting. Yet it is claimed to have even faster AF than the Sony A33
: >and A55, even though their AF systems are phase-detect.
: >
: >If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop
: >similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that
: >Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
: >DSLRs will suddenly disappear.
:
: They still have to get rid of that archaic, mechanically fragile, short
: live-span, shutter-speed-crippling, moving-subject distorting, obnoxiously
: noisy, and image-shaking focal-plane shutter. And a way to prevent sensor
: grunge. By creating a sealed camera and lens combo that will cover all the
: zoom range one might ever need. Or bundled with high-quality optical
: system-matched focal-length adapters to increase that range temporarily if
: need be.
:
: [I still don't like that I have to play the manufacturer mix & match game
: when finding the best wide-angle and tel-extenders from other companies for
: the best performance. But it does end-up affording some unique surprises.
: Like the fisheye adapter I found for under $100 that surpasses the image
: quality of a $1500 Nikkor. Giving my superzoom cameras a seamless and
: CA-free zoom range from 9mm to 36mm EFL, with low distortion CA-free
: full-frame starting at 16mm EFL.]
:
: Oh wait, they've already done all this. Many years ago. It started back
: about 2001 or so. Each year since there's always a couple or few models
: that always beat the image quality of DSLRs released the same years. Huh.
: How about that. I wonder why none of you ever hear about it. Oh, that's
: right. You (collective plural) can't find what you're not looking for, or
: intentionally close your eyes to, in order to justify that money you've
: thrown at the system you have foolishly locked yourself into financially.
: Some of you would rather depend on financially-biased slanted reviews meant
: to con people into the "now you need a better lens" con game, rather than
: test these cameras for yourself to find out you're being lied to. Oh well.
: Sometimes the desirable bliss of self-induced ignorance is much more
: important than pursuing reality. And some just can't give up that tattered
: old T-shirt and torn jeans from last century. Just put another patch job
: over that old stitching (flopping-shutter dslr design), that'll make it
: better.
:
: 1/10th of a century already gone, and they still scream and cry about the
: previous century's camera design limitations, like they are worth holding
: onto for some bizarre reason. It *is* time to throw out the baby out with
: the bath-water when you find out it's the rotting and fetid baby that has
: been poisoning the water all along.

I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in
countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never
seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or
firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in
order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you,
on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter
should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not?

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr. Strat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
> Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
> Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor
> size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system
> that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any
> other AF system, including phase-detect.


Panasonic <snicker>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr. Strat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Russ D
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Why would anyone want to invent another mechanical train like that which is
> so damn noisy, intrusive, and disrespectfully inconsiderate to others that
> they are banned from being used in most public performances, ceremonies,
> and public buildings? Why would anyone want a shutter and mirror mechanism
> that's so noisy that it scares away most wildlife, or draws the attention
> of dangerous wildlife in your direction? Why would ANYONE want that ****
> again?


Do you sit down to pee too?

What a whiny pussy!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: End of Kodak consumer relationship / patent froth to follow Noons Digital Photography 0 08-25-2012 11:34 AM
Re: End of Kodak consumer relationship / patent froth to follow RichA Digital Photography 0 08-24-2012 09:48 PM
index of string from beginning of line vs beginning of file Jesse B. Ruby 9 03-27-2010 04:04 PM
eleiminate \n from beginning and end of string paul.rusu@gmail.com XML 1 12-19-2005 11:03 PM
Beginning of the end for AOL? Gary G. Taylor Computer Support 27 12-07-2003 11:42 AM



Advertisments