Bloomberg hints at DSLR coffin being nailed

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Sep 11, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    Robert Coe, Sep 11, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 11/09/2011 9:57 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:22:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA<> wrote:
    > : http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/09/canon-tempting-fate-being-mirrored/
    >
    > They might as well say that Canon is "tempting fate" by continuing to put the
    > lens on the front side of the camera.
    >
    > How do you manage to keep turning up all this bullhockey, Rich? It must be a
    > full-time job.
    >

    Gee I think Nikon and Canon aren't going anywhere too soon, 2010 stats.

    ALL digicams (including interchangeable lens systems):
    Canon........ 19%
    Sony......... 17.9
    Nikon........ 12.6
    Samsung...... 11.1
    Panasonic..... 7.6
    Kodak......... 7.4
    Olympus....... 6.1
    Fujfilm....... 4.9
    Casio......... 4.0
    Pentax....... 1.5
    Other......... 7.9

    Interchangeable lens only (DSLR, mirrorless, etc.):
    Canon....... 44.5%
    Nikon....... 29.8%
    Sony........ 11.9%
    Others...... 13.8%
    Mike, Sep 11, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:02:29 -0400, Mike <> wrote:

    >On 11/09/2011 9:57 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:22:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA<> wrote:
    >> : http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/09/canon-tempting-fate-being-mirrored/
    >>
    >> They might as well say that Canon is "tempting fate" by continuing to put the
    >> lens on the front side of the camera.
    >>
    >> How do you manage to keep turning up all this bullhockey, Rich? It must be a
    >> full-time job.
    >>

    >Gee I think Nikon and Canon aren't going anywhere too soon, 2010 stats.
    >
    >ALL digicams (including interchangeable lens systems):
    >Canon........ 19%
    >Sony......... 17.9
    >Nikon........ 12.6
    >Samsung...... 11.1
    >Panasonic..... 7.6
    >Kodak......... 7.4
    >Olympus....... 6.1
    >Fujfilm....... 4.9
    >Casio......... 4.0
    >Pentax....... 1.5
    >Other......... 7.9
    >
    >Interchangeable lens only (DSLR, mirrorless, etc.):
    >Canon....... 44.5%
    >Nikon....... 29.8%
    >Sony........ 11.9%
    >Others...... 13.8%


    Is that revenue or unit sales?
    John A., Sep 11, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 11/09/2011 11:11 AM, John A. wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:02:29 -0400, Mike<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 11/09/2011 9:57 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:22:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA<> wrote:
    >>> : http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/09/canon-tempting-fate-being-mirrored/
    >>>
    >>> They might as well say that Canon is "tempting fate" by continuing to put the
    >>> lens on the front side of the camera.
    >>>
    >>> How do you manage to keep turning up all this bullhockey, Rich? It must be a
    >>> full-time job.
    >>>

    >> Gee I think Nikon and Canon aren't going anywhere too soon, 2010 stats.
    >>
    >> ALL digicams (including interchangeable lens systems):
    >> Canon........ 19%
    >> Sony......... 17.9
    >> Nikon........ 12.6
    >> Samsung...... 11.1
    >> Panasonic..... 7.6
    >> Kodak......... 7.4
    >> Olympus....... 6.1
    >> Fujfilm....... 4.9
    >> Casio......... 4.0
    >> Pentax....... 1.5
    >> Other......... 7.9
    >>
    >> Interchangeable lens only (DSLR, mirrorless, etc.):
    >> Canon....... 44.5%
    >> Nikon....... 29.8%
    >> Sony........ 11.9%
    >> Others...... 13.8%

    >
    > Is that revenue or unit sales?
    >

    Sorry current Industry "Market Share"

    Mike
    Mike, Sep 11, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:17:12 -0700, Irwell <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:30:35 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
    >
    >> Mike wrote:
    >>> On 11/09/2011 11:11 AM, John A. wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:02:29 -0400, Mike<> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 11/09/2011 9:57 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:22:31 -0700 (PDT),
    >>>>>> RichA<> wrote:
    >>>>>> :
    >>>>>> http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/09/canon-tempting-fate-being-mirrored/
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> They might as well say that Canon is "tempting fate" by continuing
    >>>>>> to put the
    >>>>>> lens on the front side of the camera.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> How do you manage to keep turning up all this bullhockey, Rich? It
    >>>>>> must be a
    >>>>>> full-time job.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Gee I think Nikon and Canon aren't going anywhere too soon, 2010 stats.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ALL digicams (including interchangeable lens systems):
    >>>>> Canon........ 19%
    >>>>> Sony......... 17.9
    >>>>> Nikon........ 12.6
    >>>>> Samsung...... 11.1
    >>>>> Panasonic..... 7.6
    >>>>> Kodak......... 7.4
    >>>>> Olympus....... 6.1
    >>>>> Fujfilm....... 4.9
    >>>>> Casio......... 4.0
    >>>>> Pentax....... 1.5
    >>>>> Other......... 7.9
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Interchangeable lens only (DSLR, mirrorless, etc.):
    >>>>> Canon....... 44.5%
    >>>>> Nikon....... 29.8%
    >>>>> Sony........ 11.9%
    >>>>> Others...... 13.8%
    >>>>
    >>>> Is that revenue or unit sales?
    >>> >
    >>> Sorry current Industry "Market Share"
    >>>
    >>> Mike

    >>
    >> In the US, world or Japan? The OP is talking about the Japanese market,
    >> primarily. From the linked story:
    >> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...rrors-means-opportunity-for-sony-cameras.html
    >> "Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales in [Japan]
    >> in July, surging from 5 percent in early 2009, according to BCN.
    >>
    >> Globally, sales of mirrorless cameras surged fivefold to 2.1 million
    >> units in 2010, and their share of the overall SLR market may climb to 23
    >> percent in 2011 from 16 percent, according to Macquarie Group Ltd.
    >> estimates last month.
    >> ...
    >> Mirrorless cameras have yet to catch on outside of Japan, allowing Canon
    >> to hang on to an estimated 45 percent share of the global market for
    >> SLRs. Nikon accounts for about 30 percent, according to researcher IDC."
    >>
    >> Heh: Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales"
    >> -mirrorless aren't SLRS! ;-)

    >
    >"What's in a name, that which we call a rose by any other
    >name will smell just as sweet"


    Let's call them SBPMs - Snappy-Boxy Picture Makers.
    John A., Sep 11, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Irwell Guest

    On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:30:35 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:

    > Mike wrote:
    >> On 11/09/2011 11:11 AM, John A. wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:02:29 -0400, Mike<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 11/09/2011 9:57 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:22:31 -0700 (PDT),
    >>>>> RichA<> wrote:
    >>>>> :
    >>>>> http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/09/canon-tempting-fate-being-mirrored/
    >>>>>
    >>>>> They might as well say that Canon is "tempting fate" by continuing
    >>>>> to put the
    >>>>> lens on the front side of the camera.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How do you manage to keep turning up all this bullhockey, Rich? It
    >>>>> must be a
    >>>>> full-time job.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Gee I think Nikon and Canon aren't going anywhere too soon, 2010 stats.
    >>>>
    >>>> ALL digicams (including interchangeable lens systems):
    >>>> Canon........ 19%
    >>>> Sony......... 17.9
    >>>> Nikon........ 12.6
    >>>> Samsung...... 11.1
    >>>> Panasonic..... 7.6
    >>>> Kodak......... 7.4
    >>>> Olympus....... 6.1
    >>>> Fujfilm....... 4.9
    >>>> Casio......... 4.0
    >>>> Pentax....... 1.5
    >>>> Other......... 7.9
    >>>>
    >>>> Interchangeable lens only (DSLR, mirrorless, etc.):
    >>>> Canon....... 44.5%
    >>>> Nikon....... 29.8%
    >>>> Sony........ 11.9%
    >>>> Others...... 13.8%
    >>>
    >>> Is that revenue or unit sales?
    >> >

    >> Sorry current Industry "Market Share"
    >>
    >> Mike

    >
    > In the US, world or Japan? The OP is talking about the Japanese market,
    > primarily. From the linked story:
    > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...rrors-means-opportunity-for-sony-cameras.html
    > "Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales in [Japan]
    > in July, surging from 5 percent in early 2009, according to BCN.
    >
    > Globally, sales of mirrorless cameras surged fivefold to 2.1 million
    > units in 2010, and their share of the overall SLR market may climb to 23
    > percent in 2011 from 16 percent, according to Macquarie Group Ltd.
    > estimates last month.
    > ...
    > Mirrorless cameras have yet to catch on outside of Japan, allowing Canon
    > to hang on to an estimated 45 percent share of the global market for
    > SLRs. Nikon accounts for about 30 percent, according to researcher IDC."
    >
    > Heh: Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales"
    > -mirrorless aren't SLRS! ;-)


    "What's in a name, that which we call a rose by any other
    name will smell just as sweet"
    Irwell, Sep 11, 2011
    #7
  8. John A. <> writes:

    > On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:17:12 -0700, Irwell <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:30:35 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
    >>
    >>> Heh: Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales"
    >>> -mirrorless aren't SLRS! ;-)

    >>
    >>"What's in a name, that which we call a rose by any other
    >>name will smell just as sweet"

    >
    > Let's call them SBPMs - Snappy-Boxy Picture Makers.


    Best version I've heard is "EVIL": Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable
    Lens.

    Somehow I doubt it'll catch on; but it's my favorite and I'm going to
    keep pushing it whenever I can. Miracles are possible! After all,
    "SCSI" is pronounced "scuzzy" :).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 12, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:

    >Bruce wrote:
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> John A. <> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:17:12 -0700, Irwell <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:30:35 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Heh: Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales"
    >>>>>> -mirrorless aren't SLRS! ;-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "What's in a name, that which we call a rose by any other
    >>>>> name will smell just as sweet"
    >>>>
    >>>> Let's call them SBPMs - Snappy-Boxy Picture Makers.
    >>>
    >>> Best version I've heard is "EVIL": Electronic Viewfinder
    >>> Interchangeable Lens.
    >>>
    >>> Somehow I doubt it'll catch on

    >>
    >>
    >> Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine editors
    >> seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.
    >>
    >> Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

    >
    >I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some number of
    >dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote controls, etc. In
    >those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system cameras, and I think it is
    >reasonable to call them such.
    >
    >Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
    >appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
    >old 8700, really.



    I accept your point about CSC. However, it is very difficult to find
    a precise term that adequately describes mirrorless cameras.

    The use of ILC is highly confusing because any SLR or rangefinder
    camera with interchangeable lenses is also an ILC. Surely the whole
    idea is to come up with a term that differentiates mirrorless cameras
    from these?
    Bruce, Sep 12, 2011
    #9
  10. "Neil Harrington" <> writes:

    > Bruce wrote:


    >> Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine editors
    >> seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.
    >>
    >> Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)


    > I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some number of
    > dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote controls, etc. In
    > those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system cameras, and I think it is
    > reasonable to call them such.


    I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
    if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
    camera.

    > Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
    > appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
    > old 8700, really.


    Just calling the whole category ILCs at least makes sense.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 12, 2011
    #10
  11. Bruce <> writes:


    > The use of ILC is highly confusing because any SLR or rangefinder
    > camera with interchangeable lenses is also an ILC. Surely the whole
    > idea is to come up with a term that differentiates mirrorless cameras
    > from these?


    I dunno, I think perhaps the point is to emphasize that they have a lot
    more in common with DSLRs and Leica rangefinders than they do with P&Ss.

    My whole time in photography we've used "SLR" to mean "serious
    camera", basically, and just quietly accepted that an M4 was a serious
    camera even though it wasn't an SLR. And that sheet-film cameras were
    too, but most people didn't even know they existed.

    "Serious camera" is no good, it's a value judgment, and people will game
    it badly. But ILC isn't too bad an alternative. The difference in
    "seriousness" (subjectively, as viewed by me) between an Olympus EPL-2
    and a Nikon D3100 is smaller than that between the D3100 and a D3. Of
    course, that does let the Pentax Q system sneak in, and it shouldn't :) .
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 12, 2011
    #11
  12. "Neil Harrington" <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> John A. <> writes:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:17:12 -0700, Irwell <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:30:35 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Heh: Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales"
    >>>>> -mirrorless aren't SLRS! ;-)
    >>>>
    >>>> "What's in a name, that which we call a rose by any other
    >>>> name will smell just as sweet"
    >>>
    >>> Let's call them SBPMs - Snappy-Boxy Picture Makers.

    >>
    >> Best version I've heard is "EVIL": Electronic Viewfinder
    >> Interchangeable Lens.
    >>
    >> Somehow I doubt it'll catch on;

    >
    > It won't, for obvious reasons, except among people who don't like them.


    I do have to point out that I like them, own one, and love that
    designation.

    But I accepted long ago that I'm weird :) .

    >> but it's my favorite and I'm going to
    >> keep pushing it whenever I can. Miracles are possible! After all,
    >> "SCSI" is pronounced "scuzzy" :).

    >
    > Yes, but "scuzzy" is not such a commonly understood word as "evil."


    Yeah, probably.

    > A problem with "EVIL" is that everyone who uses it in connection with ILCs
    > seems to be doing so with a smirk. Good luck with your dedication to the
    > project, but it will never catch on. :)
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 12, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Irwell Guest

    On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:42:00 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > "Neil Harrington" <> writes:
    >
    >> Bruce wrote:

    >
    >>> Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine editors
    >>> seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.
    >>>
    >>> Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

    >
    >> I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some number of
    >> dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote controls, etc. In
    >> those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system cameras, and I think it is
    >> reasonable to call them such.

    >
    > I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
    > if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
    > camera.
    >
    >> Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
    >> appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
    >> old 8700, really.

    >
    > Just calling the whole category ILCs at least makes sense.


    You have stumbled on the truth, ILC is a good choice,
    and extend that to include ILRC for the reflex version.
    SLR dates from the old film days when there were Double Lens Reflex
    and Single Lens Reflex.
    Irwell, Sep 12, 2011
    #13
  14. In article <>, Bruce
    <> writes
    >"Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
    >>appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
    >>old 8700, really.

    >
    >
    >I accept your point about CSC. However, it is very difficult to find
    >a precise term that adequately describes mirrorless cameras.
    >
    >The use of ILC is highly confusing because any SLR or rangefinder
    >camera with interchangeable lenses is also an ILC. Surely the whole
    >idea is to come up with a term that differentiates mirrorless cameras
    >from these?
    >

    Wouldn't the obvious one then be "MILC" - mirrorless interchangeable
    lens camera?
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
    Kennedy McEwen, Sep 12, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    Irwell Guest

    On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:47:39 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

    > On 2011-09-12 13:39:07 -0700, Irwell <> said:
    >
    >> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:42:00 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Neil Harrington" <> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Bruce wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine editors
    >>>>> seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)
    >>>
    >>>> I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some number of
    >>>> dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote controls, etc. In
    >>>> those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system cameras, and I think it is
    >>>> reasonable to call them such.
    >>>
    >>> I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
    >>> if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
    >>> camera.
    >>>
    >>>> Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
    >>>> appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
    >>>> old 8700, really.
    >>>
    >>> Just calling the whole category ILCs at least makes sense.

    >>
    >> You have stumbled on the truth, ILC is a good choice,
    >> and extend that to include ILRC for the reflex version.

    >
    > What reflex versions?

    That which is now called DSLR?

    Isn't this really an Interchangeable lens system with
    a reflex mirror, or pentaprism?
    Actually the digital part could be dropped in the description so the
    ILC/ILRC would suffice to distinguish between them and we can get rid of
    the silly mirrorless tag.
    The first film reflex cameras had fixed lens.
    Mine was a Houghton Butcher Ensign 120 film version dating
    from the 1920/30s.
    > There is no bending or redirection of the light path to an OVF.
    > I certainly shouldn't have point out that in the case of both SLR & TLR
    > the light traveling through the lens, to the VF to the eye, is "bent"
    > or "reflexed". With the "ILC", including those with an EVF there is no
    > "bending" of the light path. So no inclusion of an "R" is necessary.


    Exactly, the ILRC would be for Interchangeable Lens Reflex Cameras
    and ILC for those with EVFs or just LCDs.
    Like we used to have a few years back 35mm cameras, and 35 mm SLRs
    Irwell, Sep 13, 2011
    #15
  16. Irwell <> writes:

    > On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:42:00 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    >> "Neil Harrington" <> writes:
    >>
    >>> Bruce wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine editors
    >>>> seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.
    >>>>
    >>>> Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

    >>
    >>> I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some number of
    >>> dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote controls, etc. In
    >>> those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system cameras, and I think it is
    >>> reasonable to call them such.

    >>
    >> I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
    >> if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
    >> camera.
    >>
    >>> Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
    >>> appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
    >>> old 8700, really.

    >>
    >> Just calling the whole category ILCs at least makes sense.

    >
    > You have stumbled on the truth, ILC is a good choice,
    > and extend that to include ILRC for the reflex version.
    > SLR dates from the old film days when there were Double Lens Reflex
    > and Single Lens Reflex.


    And interchangeable lens TLR ("twin" rather than "double" was the common
    term). And nobody called view cameras "SLD" (for "Single Lens Direct"),
    but it fits.

    For many purposes, specifying reflex vs. non-reflex isn't important, but
    that can just be omitted if you don't care.

    (Bought my first SLR in 1969.)
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 13, 2011
    #16
  17. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

    > On 2011-09-12 13:39:07 -0700, Irwell <> said:
    >
    >> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:42:00 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Neil Harrington" <> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Bruce wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine editors
    >>>>> seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)
    >>>
    >>>> I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some number of
    >>>> dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote controls, etc. In
    >>>> those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system cameras, and I think it is
    >>>> reasonable to call them such.
    >>>
    >>> I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
    >>> if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
    >>> camera.
    >>>
    >>>> Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
    >>>> appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
    >>>> old 8700, really.
    >>>
    >>> Just calling the whole category ILCs at least makes sense.

    >>
    >> You have stumbled on the truth, ILC is a good choice,
    >> and extend that to include ILRC for the reflex version.

    >
    > What reflex versions?
    > There is no bending or redirection of the light path to an OVF.
    > I certainly shouldn't have point out that in the case of both SLR &
    > TLR the light traveling through the lens, to the VF to the eye, is
    > "bent" or "reflexed". With the "ILC", including those with an EVF
    > there is no "bending" of the light path. So no inclusion of an "R" is
    > necessary.


    I think his point is that ILC includes (today) DSLR and NEX and Micro
    Four Thirds and Pentax Q and other things -- they're all Interchangeable
    Lens Cameras.

    Some of them, the DSLRs, do still have Reflex viewfinders.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 13, 2011
    #17
  18. For a name, I like QUINCY:

    Quality, Interchangeable-lens, Camera

    I can see it already: "My Quincy has more megapixels than yours...."
    David J Taylor, Sep 13, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Kennedy McEwen <> wrote:

    >In article <>, Bruce
    ><> writes
    >>"Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
    >>>appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
    >>>old 8700, really.

    >>
    >>
    >>I accept your point about CSC. However, it is very difficult to find
    >>a precise term that adequately describes mirrorless cameras.
    >>
    >>The use of ILC is highly confusing because any SLR or rangefinder
    >>camera with interchangeable lenses is also an ILC. Surely the whole
    >>idea is to come up with a term that differentiates mirrorless cameras
    >>from these?
    >>

    >Wouldn't the obvious one then be "MILC" - mirrorless interchangeable
    >lens camera?



    Obvious, perhaps, but singularly unattractive as a marketing term.

    That aspect wasn't obvious?
    Bruce, Sep 13, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    Irwell Guest

    On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:28:27 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

    > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> "Neil Harrington" <> writes:
    >>
    >>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>>> John A. <> writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:17:12 -0700, Irwell <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:30:35 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Heh: Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales"
    >>>>>>> -mirrorless aren't SLRS! ;-)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "What's in a name, that which we call a rose by any other
    >>>>>> name will smell just as sweet"
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Let's call them SBPMs - Snappy-Boxy Picture Makers.
    >>>>
    >>>> Best version I've heard is "EVIL": Electronic Viewfinder
    >>>> Interchangeable Lens.
    >>>>
    >>>> Somehow I doubt it'll catch on;
    >>>
    >>> It won't, for obvious reasons, except among people who don't like
    >>> them.

    >>
    >> I do have to point out that I like them, own one, and love that
    >> designation.

    >
    > Then I stand corrected, at least in your case.
    >
    >>
    >> But I accepted long ago that I'm weird :) .
    >>
    >>>> but it's my favorite and I'm going to
    >>>> keep pushing it whenever I can. Miracles are possible! After all,
    >>>> "SCSI" is pronounced "scuzzy" :).
    >>>
    >>> Yes, but "scuzzy" is not such a commonly understood word as "evil."

    >>
    >> Yeah, probably.
    >>
    >>> A problem with "EVIL" is that everyone who uses it in connection
    >>> with ILCs seems to be doing so with a smirk. Good luck with your
    >>> dedication to the project, but it will never catch on. :)


    Like Reagan and the Soviet regime.
    Irwell, Sep 13, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. nota chance

    person(s) nailed for sending of the mic lock

    nota chance, Aug 21, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    648
    Paul - xxx
    Aug 22, 2004
  2. dwacon

    Did I get nailed?

    dwacon, Jul 12, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    389
    Walter Mautner
    Jul 13, 2005
  3. deryck  lant
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    338
    deryck lant
    Dec 12, 2003
  4. Annika1980

    NAILED BY THE 20D !

    Annika1980, Jul 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    536
    Bill K
    Jul 6, 2006
  5. Peter KERR

    cause of spam nailed

    Peter KERR, Jan 26, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    532
    Peter KERR
    Feb 1, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page