DSLR sales static, mirrorless heavy growth?

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

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jul 20, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    That graph represents no more than the hopes of one particular
    manufacturer of mirrorless cameras.

    But it may be right. The game changer will be Canon's mirrorless
    offering, due to be announced on Monday July 23.
    Bruce, Jul 20, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    The 2010-12 graphs are obviously accurate though. The years after are
    RichA, Jul 20, 2012
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Hopeful guesses. I fear that Canon's mirrorless offering will kill
    off Panasonic's DSLM.
    Bruce, Jul 20, 2012
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Well, Canon is big, but it's just one company. Too bad Nikon dropped
    the ball with their meagre offering. I feel the V1/J1 are soon to be
    history and Nikon will be forced to release something decent.
    RichA, Jul 20, 2012
  6. RichA

    ray Guest

    As the new owner of a Panasonic G3 (having run through all the reviews
    and other information I could find) I see the major handicap for
    mirrorless cameras being the relative dearth of models with a viewfinder.
    ray, Jul 20, 2012
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    After a slow start, the Nikon J1 and V1 are selling reasonably well.
    The Nikon sales rep told us to expect a high end 1 Series body before
    too long.

    Personally, I agree with you. ;-)
    Bruce, Jul 20, 2012
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    And yet, I wonder who exactly are buying them? They aren't
    enthusiasts, if you use Dpreview's forum as any indication, it's dead,
    dead, dead. Also, a "high-end" body for that sensor is the ultimate
    (IMO) "sensor swine before body pearls" offering. They are now
    talking about a higher-end OM-D body and I'm not even sure if people
    will want to pony-up say $1500.00 or so for a body with a 4/3rds
    sensor? It could end up like Olympus's E-3/5 downfall. The one of
    the most ridiculous things was looking down the throat of the E-3, a
    big body and seeing the tiny sensor...But who am I to judge what might
    transpire? Both offerings could be aimed at "creating" a new market
    RichA, Jul 21, 2012
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Nikon's 1 Series appeals most strongly to people trading up from a p&s
    or bridge camera who don't want the weight and bulk of a DSLR. The
    cameras sell especially well to women.

    A high end body for the 1 Series should broaden the system's appeal to
    more advanced photographers. But ultimately, that appeal will be
    limited by the 10 MP sensor.

    Personally, I can't take it seriously because of the small sensor size
    and the 2.7X crop factor which makes a nonsense of using F mount
    lenses on a 1 Series body.

    The high end OM-D body will be quite different. It will appeal to
    serious photographers. We are told that, at the same time, there will
    be a significant price drop for the E-M5.

    The 16 MP Sony sensor in the E-M5 is a very good performer. So good
    that DxO Labs couldn't quite believe what they measured and are
    apparently testing another sample to confirm. I guess what surprised
    them is the excellent dynamic range.

    The Panasonic G5 also has very good dynamic range, approximately 12
    stops between ISO 160-400. I think the OM-D is probably a stop
    better, which will unfortunately overshadow the G5's excellent

    Of course most m4/3 users will never obtain anywhere near these
    figures because they don't shoot RAW. Shooting JPEGs yields a dynamic
    range that is 1-2 stops less.
    Bruce, Jul 21, 2012
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I can't help but wonder if Panasonic made a mistake by keeping their
    best sensors from Olympus? Now, they have another camera with a Sony
    sensor in it to contend with.
    RichA, Jul 21, 2012
  11. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    I can see why Panasonic did that; why give all your best sensors to
    your closest competitor? But their decision does seem to have
    backfired quite spectacularly.
    Bruce, Jul 21, 2012
  12. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    How is an 8 bit file "1-2 stops less" than a 12-13 bit one?

    Trevor, Jul 22, 2012
  13. I thought Panasonic and Olympus jointly developed the 4/3 system. I
    never researched the patents, assuming, maybe incorrectly, that any
    patents were held jointly. And again, I never researched any corporate
    decisions, and have no knowledge of R & D by each individual company
    beyond that initial cooperation. If each company pursued their own R &
    D independently AFTER any original patents, then it would stand to
    reason that each would make improvements independently. After all, they
    ARE competitors.

    I would appreciate any updating on my underlying assumption.
    Alan Lichtenstein, Jul 22, 2012
  14. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    I'm unaware of any camera that can adjust curves before saving to jpeg, and
    I sure as hell find it easier to do it at my leasure afterwards, than try to
    do it with each shot as I take it, even if they did, so I don't have any use
    for saving 8 bit jpeg only files in camera. They *WILL* lose DR.

    Since many only map Jpeg to Srgb, that is indeed true.

    Trevor, Jul 23, 2012
  15. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    But how many camera's can correct gamma to your choice before saving to
    Jpeg? And why would you want to stuff around with gamma for every shot
    whilst shooting rather than save raw and do it later?
    Saving to Jpeg in camera is simply for those who don't know any beter, or
    whose camera's can't do anything else IMO.

    Trevor, Jul 23, 2012
  16. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    What is displayed on the little LCD screen is not as important as what is
    saved to file however.

    Exactly, which *IS* the problem!

    Right, me too.

    Sure, if that's what you are after. I have no use for that either.
    Many people are happy with photo's from their iphones, and RAW files sure
    aren't necessary (or posible) with those. Neither could you claim they had
    "12-14 bits" dynamic range :)

    Exactly my point all along.

    Sure, but claiming they don't lose dynamic range (or only 1 or 2 bits) is
    what I objected to.

    Can't see much point in non standard jpegs myself. I only use RAW for my
    use, and use Srgb when converting to jpeg for the internet, because anything
    else is pointless.

    Not moot when I save it as Jpeg in PS, and my camera never does anyway. Not
    once in over ten years have I found it necessary to ever save as Jpeg in a
    DSLR. And some can now convert files from RAW to Jpeg in camera if I ever
    do. :)
    Perhaps if I ever have a need to shoot a huge burst rate/length that is
    beyond my RAW capabilities, but can be met with Jpeg I would use it.
    Otherwise throwing away up to half the camera's performance holds no appeal
    for me.

    Trevor, Jul 23, 2012
  17. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    Exactly, and a one size fits all, can often mean one size fits nothing.

    Trevor, Jul 23, 2012
  18. Oh, so you never heard of a camera where you could set "contrast"?
    Or (Canon) Picture Styles?

    That's adjusting the curves before saving to JPEG.
    Only if the curve is too steep.

    Oh, BTW, how much DR does your output medium (screen, print,
    ....) have? That's where you loose DR!

    You'll find that most DSLRs also map to Adobe RGB (1998) and
    often indicate that with a leading _ in the filename.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 23, 2012
  19. You lose information any time you save in JPEG (e.g. after
    converting your RAWs). It's called lossy compression for a reason.

    Whether that information is useful to you is a different question.
    It's trivial to devise a linear 5 bit format that has more dynamic
    range than a 14 bit RAW from a camera. (Just use bigger steps!).

    So what's the reason an 8 bit format with variable step size
    can't encode as much DR as your camera's RAW? You claim it
    cannot. So ... prove it.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 23, 2012
  20. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    It *is* the problem for those claiming dynamic range is not affected.

    Now that much is true at least.

    If they are happy yes, not when they claim there is no loss of dynamic range

    Yep, and were outsold well and truly by film camera's.

    5 stops, hell what film were you using? But yes slides were definitely
    inferior to current digital. That's why I don't use it any more.

    How sad for you. Whilst I have *many* great photo's taken on film of all
    sorts (it's the image after all) I sure wish I had todays equipment 40 years
    ago! I can only imagine what people will be able to take for granted 40
    years from now.

    I don't, neither do I care for those who make false claims.

    Nope, simply correcting the change of subject.

    Never said otherwise.

    Never said otherwise, although many simply do not know any better. Jpegs are
    fine for the P&S brigade of course.

    Trevor, Jul 24, 2012
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.