Canon mirrorless let-down (maybe)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. RichA

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 22/07/2012 20:35, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Joe Kotroczo
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> Is the DSLR really dying?
    >>>
    >>>> It will be a slow death. The mirrorless offering is still at the
    >>>> beginning, but classical DSLRs will for sure disappear sooner or later.
    >>>
    >>> You keep saying this.
    >>> However, for that to happen several huge technological leaps need
    >>> to be made. Whether that'll happen before or after flying cars,
    >>> holiday trips to the moon colonies or driving (i.e. with a human
    >>> at the wheel) being illegal --- or at all --- is open to debate.

    >>
    >> Which technological leaps would that be?

    >
    > eliminating the latency of evf and improving its dynamic range.


    Interesting points.

    As I mentioned, I own a camera with a EVF and had not noticed either of
    these to be an issue.

    Maybe I don't notice latency as being an issue because I mostly shoot
    stuff that doesn't move. :) And as for the dynamic range, why, it's
    what-you-see-is-what-you-get. It's got roughly the same dynamic range as
    the picture I'm going to take, so I believe that to be a non-issue.

    But I guess there will always be some who prefer to stick with an
    optical viewfinder, and they will be buying at the upper end of the
    market. We saw the same thing happening in the digital cinema camera
    market, Arri first introduced the Alexa with an EVF, and then followed
    up with a much more expensive "Studio" version featuring an optical
    viewfinder. Most people are happy with the EVF, some are happy to pay
    premium to get the OVF. Their competition (Red) still is EVF only.

    Seeing that the Canon 650D already does the AF on-sensor and doesn't
    need the mirror for AF, I guess it's only a matter of time before the
    engineers whip out their little calculators and figure that putting in
    an EVF is cheaper than whole flappy mirror and pentaprism malarkey.


    --
    Illegitimi non carborundum
     
    Joe Kotroczo, Jul 22, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 23/07/2012 2:36 a.m., Joe Kotroczo wrote:
    > On 22/07/2012 12:53, Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
    >> Joe Kotroczo wrote:

    >
    > (...)
    >>>> Is the DSLR really dying?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> With good electronic viewfinders becoming available, and on-sensor phase
    >>> AF, what is the point of keeping the flappy mirror?
    >>>

    >> Could you please elaborate? My understanding, which may be limited, was
    >> that EVF cameras had to use the contrast-based AF rather than the faster
    >> phase detection AF found in mirror box cameras. Has the technology now
    >> changed to permit phase detection AF in EVF cameras? If so, I have not
    >> seen anything to that effect, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't
    >> exist.

    >
    > Fuji has launched on-sensor phase detection in 2010.
    > <http://www.dpreview.com/news/2010/8/5/fujifilmpd>
    >
    > It's also used in the Nikon 1.
    > <http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3281713418/nikon-1-system-first-impressions>
    >
    > "(...) incorporates a 'Hybrid' autofocus system that employs both Phase
    > and Contrast Detection focus methods"
    >
    > Or in Nikon marketing speak:
    > "Nikon 1 is equipped with both a "focal plane phase-detection AF" superb
    > for shooting fast action and a "contrast-detect AF" excellent for
    > capturing subtle details in poorly lit areas".
    > "http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/bodies/v1/features02.htm"
    >
    > So it appears to be technically possible, which means it should only a
    > matter of time before we see it being widely used.
    >
    > Also, I would be extremely surprised if Canon was to launch a Nikon 1
    > competitor without phase detection AF. They'd get slaughtered in the
    > trade rags.
    >
    >> Of course, you're not referring to SONY's translucent mirror technology
    >> which does use phase detection AF, are you?

    >
    > No, Sony still uses a separate phase detection sensor for the AF, hence
    > they need for the translucent mirror.
    >
    > But I do own a Sony A77, and the EVF on that is really good IMO. I like
    > it a lot.
    >

    The EVF on the A77 really is very good. It's very clear and high enough
    resolution so that it compares well (IMO) with an FX dslr VF. Also, I
    didn't see any of the flickering effect that I've seen with other EVFs
    when there's some artificial lighting in the scene. In normal room
    lighting it was also excellent - I didn't try it out in dim lighting, so
    don't know how well the EVF holds up in that situation.
    But there's still some latency/lag - I doubt it's enough to be any
    problem in most cases and for most people. DSLR owner who doubt this,
    should at least visit a camera shop and try one of these out (note that
    the lower end Sony pellicle cameras have a lower res EVF - you need to
    try an a77)
    As a (D)SLR user for +40 years - I think I'd be happy with the a77 EVF.

    As for on sensor PDAF, in poor light, then the Nikon one series revert
    to CDAF. Is this going to be an ongoing limitation of on-sensor PDAF?
     
    Me, Jul 22, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 23/07/2012 9:58 a.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>, says...
    >> Seeing that the Canon 650D already does the AF on-sensor and doesn't
    >> need the mirror for AF, I guess it's only a matter of time before the
    >> engineers whip out their little calculators and figure that putting in
    >> an EVF is cheaper than whole flappy mirror and pentaprism malarkey.

    >
    > The technology has made giant leaps forward in the past few years, and
    > there is still room to improve. The only thing which will keep the DSLR
    > market moving for a while is the huge investment in DSLR lenses.
    >
    > By the way, when are we going to see a full-frame or MF mirrorless
    > cameras? Especially with MF the benefit of mirrorless would be great,
    > because of the big size of the mirror (and related stuff).
    >

    I'm a Nikon user, and a bit frustrated by Nikon's slow response to
    implementing a larger format (ie than "1 system") mirrorless system.
    But I don't share RichA and others opinion that they have deliberately
    done this to milk every last dollar out of the DSLR market:
    *If they go mirrorless with reduced flange distance, then that's
    probably the end of F-mount. Sure - they could retain the same bayonet,
    but existing lenses will need an extension tube anyway, so they may as
    well take the opportunity to introduce a new mount with wider bayonet.
    *lenses designed for this system (to be used without extension tube)
    won't work on (d)slrs. Backwards compatibility is an issue, even though
    they've had to face this before, ie "G" lenses will not work on old slr
    bodies. But if the system is not a big commercial success, then they
    risk orphaning these new lenses. They've probably created an orphan
    with the "1 system", but their traditional (d)slr user was not the
    target market for that system.
    *If they go this way (reduced flange distance) then they've locked
    themselves in to needing on-sensor PDAF, and/or vastly improved CDAF
    systems, to match the performance of slr PDAF. It's not guaranteed that
    this will be the case any time soon.
    *if they go the other way - keeping the F-mount, with the same flange
    distance, then this keeps some options open (to have dslr and
    mirrorless, perhaps even pellicle as per Sony), but loses the
    opportunity for a new lens mount, and loses one of the advantages of
    mirrorless - compact size bodies.
    *They're not going to completely dump dslrs overnight - whatever they do
    - they still need to have a viable system and upgrade path for users. So
    IMO, it's understandable that they haven't rushed in.

    This pisses me off a bit - I want a "mirrorless D800" - now! 36mp FX
    lends itself to landscape, Sony's a77 has eliminated my concerns about
    EVFs in general, the body could be much more compact, and surely much
    less expensive than the D800.
     
    Me, Jul 22, 2012
    #23
  4. RichA

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 22/07/2012 22:34, Me wrote:

    (...)
    > As for on sensor PDAF, in poor light, then the Nikon one series revert
    > to CDAF. Is this going to be an ongoing limitation of on-sensor PDAF?


    How does the AF in the EOS 650D perform? Compared to the EOS 600D?


    --
    Illegitimi non carborundum
     
    Joe Kotroczo, Jul 23, 2012
    #24
  5. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 23/07/2012 7:00 p.m., Joe Kotroczo wrote:
    > On 22/07/2012 22:34, Me wrote:
    >
    > (...)
    >> As for on sensor PDAF, in poor light, then the Nikon one series revert
    >> to CDAF. Is this going to be an ongoing limitation of on-sensor PDAF?

    >
    > How does the AF in the EOS 650D perform? Compared to the EOS 600D?
    >
    >

    I don't know, but the on-sensor PDAF is for LV mode, so surely couldn't
    be worse than CDAF in LV mode in previous models, but to quote DPReview
    from their preview;

    "Overall, while Canon says that the Hybrid AF system means live view
    focus is considerably improved, it still says there is a noticeable
    performance difference between live view AF and using the conventional
    autofocus sensor. This is underlined by the camera continuing to offer
    the 'Quick AF' mode in live view, which quickly flips the mirror down so
    the stand-along phase-detection sensor can be used.

    Reading between the lines, this either means the company thinks hybrid
    AF isn't yet ready to act as the sole AF method in a mirrorless camera,
    or that it thinks mirrorless customers would have lower expectations
    than DSLR buyers."

    The EOS ***d models have never offered blistering AF performance
    (particularly tracking), so there's probably a very long way to go
    before on-sensor PDAF will be ready to render the dslr obsolete at the
    higher end.
     
    Me, Jul 23, 2012
    #25
  6. nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Joe Kotroczo


    >> >>> Is the DSLR really dying?


    >> >> It will be a slow death. The mirrorless offering is still at the
    >> >> beginning, but classical DSLRs will for sure disappear sooner or later.


    >> > You keep saying this.
    >> > However, for that to happen several huge technological leaps need
    >> > to be made. Whether that'll happen before or after flying cars,
    >> > holiday trips to the moon colonies or driving (i.e. with a human
    >> > at the wheel) being illegal --- or at all --- is open to debate.


    >> Which technological leaps would that be?


    > eliminating the latency of evf and improving its dynamic range.


    * Enough battery life without too much weight and size.
    800-900 shots CIPA is what current DSLRs can do, double
    that with a battery grip.

    * EVF bright enough in full sun conditions when used with
    sunglasses.

    * EVF dark enough at night so it doesn't blind the eye looking
    at it.

    * Being able to run the sensor for hours on end. Yeah, video
    cameras do that all the time, but they don't have the size nor
    the resolution. (And then there is heat and battery use).

    * fast AF without the mirror box. Fast means: as fast as PDAF.

    * AF capable of tracking and predicting movement --- without the
    mirror box.

    * AF still works well when the camera's going at full FPS.

    * Oh, and the EVF should be calibrated. And recalibratable
    by the user.

    * 'retina display' EVF.

    That's for a start. Wake me when we get all that in a camera
    one can actually buy.
    That's the leap part. Making it work. Not just 'it's possible,
    theoretically'. It's possible, today, theoretically, to fly a
    manned mission to the asteroid rings and bring back one of them ...

    And, not to forget: The camera needs all the range and lens speed
    and low noise at high and low ISO it's mirror bretheren can offer.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 23, 2012
    #26
  7. Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    > By the way, when are we going to see a full-frame or MF mirrorless
    > cameras? Especially with MF the benefit of mirrorless would be great,
    > because of the big size of the mirror (and related stuff).


    Well, just use a MF body where you don't look through a mirror,
    and replace the ground glass for the shot with the MF back.
    Same as with large format cameras. (They use scanning backs ...)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 23, 2012
    #27
  8. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:49:34 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    : Joe Kotroczo <> wrote:
    : >"The EOS 650D has a new 'Hybrid CMOS' sensor that now includes pixels
    : >dedicated to phase detection autofocus (in a similar fashion to Nikon's
    : >1 J1 and 1 V1 mirrorless cameras). The Hybrid AF system uses these to
    : >set the lens quickly to roughly the correct distance, then uses contrast
    : >detection AF to fine-tune focus."
    : ><http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-650d-rebel-t4i>
    : >
    : >So I guess it's a good bet the new Canon mirrorless will have the same
    : >sensor as the 650D.
    :
    : Yes, it has. Same size, same features, same 1.6X crop factor. Even
    : the standard 18-55mm zoom lens is similar. A very different approach
    : to Nikon's 1 Series.

    One could infer that without reading a word of the technical specs, just from
    the fact that it doesn't come in pink.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 28, 2012
    #28
    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. Old Gringo

    Of Intrest ? Maybe Yes, Maybe No

    Old Gringo, Oct 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    609
    Old Gringo
    Oct 11, 2004
  2. quasi/various/bob [7.13.86.42]

    OT: Let me in! Let me in!

    quasi/various/bob [7.13.86.42], May 29, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    695
    The Rev [MCT]
    May 30, 2006
  3. Daniel
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    407
    Daniel
    May 11, 2004
  4. iL_weReo

    Maybe it will; maybe it won't

    iL_weReo, Oct 11, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    559
    Desk Rabbit
    Oct 13, 2009
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    352
    Peter
    Sep 8, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page