C'mon let's wake this forum up

[arthurking83]

..... but I'd challenge anyone here to show how shutter shock or mirror slap may have destroyed an other amazing photo. Yes, they may have a minor impact.....

I'm sure I read that the shutter shock on the A7r is of a serious concern in some genres(I'd say macro more than anything else).
I think it may have been Luminous Landscape where I saw some images where they compared the issue of affected images against non affected images.

I think the 36Mp may have added to the issue too.

D810 has EFC, I've never read any articles(or repute or note) where shutter shock is an issue with either of the D800 twins tho.

From the info I've found on the topic of shutter vibration in the A7r, it's much worse than it is from the D800E, and that most assume that it's due to the greater mass of the D800's body(which makes sense).
I read Swifty's comments re the shutter vibration issue on DSLRs vs mirrorless cameras, and my initial thoughts were that it'd be due to the mass of the entire system.
I had a horrid time in my early days with the D70s and 500/8(mirror lens) in that I can't ever remember getting a sharp image with this combo, except the odd flukey shot here and there.
After much mucking about, I found that adding weight to appropriate areas of the camera/lens/tripod setup helped a lot.
Mirror slap was the main issue, but the dinky vf on the(pentaprism) D70s didn't help.
A new focus screen plus a 1-2 kg lead shot bean bag helped massively.
Also the mounting of the camera/lens to the tripod made a difference too.
An arduous post on the topic is probably best avoided in this thread tho .. but in some cases less weight isn't necessarily better!

D800E is not unaffected by shutter vibration, it just appears to be to a much lesser degree than the A7r.
In my 5000 images with the D800E, I can't say that shutter shock has ruined any photos of mine. My lack of ability and due diligence has tho!

Does it make a difference to images .. depends on the circumstances really .. but I wouldn't want shutter shock affected images at high magnifications!

Apparently Sony has updated the shutter mechanism in the A7II(as well as the lens mount).

[martycon]

You are right Brad, while we are not pros and on a mission, we should still keep our recording equipment readily accessible, and convenient, such as 4/3 or micro ditto, or even a P & S. Consider how much dramatic breaking news footage is provided by mobile phone cameras. Viewers do not care whether it is sharp, as long as it is current and dramatic.

[MissionMan]

Interesting perspective from Samsung

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/780...in-three-years

[Arg]

Yes, I saw that. If right, it is the flag for Canikon to enter the fray.

[Arg]

.....properly I mean!

[arthurking83]

I think it's inevitable that CaNikon will change the lower/consumer oriented DSLR lineup to mirrorless types, as it's technically 'cheaper' to build them this way.

The upper/enthusiast/pro DSLR lineup is a different story tho.

While a lot of folks argue on the relative merits of an EVF compared to an OVF .. many(like myself) still prefer a well designed OVF for many reasons.

The lower end Nikon D3xxx/D5xxx and Canon x000D/x000D type models are aimed at a market that don't really care about OVF/EVF differences.
This market segment just want a cheaper price point.
And to be honest, most if not all these lower end/mass market model types only use pentamirror OVF designs anyhow, so the move to an EVF in this model lineup would most likely be an advantage anyway you look at it.

So if this is a likely future scenario, then as the Samsung chap says .. mirrorless ILC's will of course dominate the ILC camera market.

I think it would be pretty unlikely that the Canon/Nikon market dominance will change in the next decade or so (that is, from where it currently sits).

[MissionMan]

I tend to agree with your statements, Arthur. I think the low end digital SLRs will move to Mirrorless and the top end will stay as Digital SLRs. I think the only question that remains is what will happen to the lens line if that happens, in other words, will Nikon and Canon have two sets of lens ranges and the lower end cameras using the mirrorless lens range

[Arg]

The only way to get the American market (which drives global product decisions, make no mistake) to move more rapidly to DSLM, would be to offer mirrorless cameras that are bigger and heavier than the DSLR models. 'cos, y'know, folks, bigger is better.

Say if Ricoh (formerly Pentax) releases a Micro 645 mirrorless body, as big as a 1DX, for $4500-$5000, with adapters for Canikon lenses to take 44mm circular (ok, cut off at 33mm high) image files (that can be cropped to portrait or landscape or square later -- no need to rotate the camera between shots) .....?

heh heh.... The US buyer will be thinking "Wow, it's huge, it must be the best, what a game changer etc, gotta have one" (remember, this is the country whose top 3 selling new cars are all pick-up trucks).

But IMHO the biggest problem, in getting Canikon to change, isn't the market acceptance of mirrorless, it's the fact that all their lenses are designed to optimize PDAF. And, although some hybrid sensors are out there, it kind of cripples some of the AF advantages of mirrorless via CDAF. So Canikon, to deliver true high performance DSLM systems, will need to issue new lenses. Like µ4/3 did. Canikon will be loathe to do that.

I don't think it will be a pitched battle over ten years. I think there will be a tipping point, followed by a rout. Exactly what the tipping point will be is something for speculation.... but it will come, and might only be clearly identified during the rout.

[MissionMan]

The only way to get the American market (which drives global product decisions, make no mistake) to move more rapidly to DSLM, would be to offer mirrorless cameras that are bigger and heavier than the DSLR models. 'cos, y'know, folks, bigger is better.

Say if Ricoh (formerly Pentax) releases a Micro 645 mirrorless body, as big as a 1DX, for $4500-$5000, with adapters for Canikon lenses to take 44mm circular (ok, cut off at 33mm high) image files (that can be cropped to portrait or landscape or square later -- no need to rotate the camera between shots) .....?

heh heh.... The US buyer will be thinking "Wow, it's huge, it must be the best, what a game changer etc, gotta have one" (remember, this is the country whose top 3 selling new cars are all pick-up trucks).

But IMHO the biggest problem, in getting Canikon to change, isn't the market acceptance of mirrorless, it's the fact that all their lenses are designed to optimize PDAF. And, although some hybrid sensors are out there, it kind of cripples some of the AF advantages of mirrorless via CDAF. So Canikon, to deliver true high performance DSLM systems, will need to issue new lenses. Like µ4/3 did. Canikon will be loathe to do that.

I don't think it will be a pitched battle over ten years. I think there will be a tipping point, followed by a rout. Exactly what the tipping point will be is something for speculation.... but it will come, and might only be clearly identified during the rout.

The challenge with mirrorless at Canikon in it's current format is that they would be unlikely to ever issue a whole set of professional lenses because most people who intend going down the professional path are likely to invest in DSLR lenses for future compatibility. I think the path of least resistence is most likely to simply be a current Canikon mount on a mirrorless camera because as people buy into a new mount, it may impact sales of their more professional ranges due to people being tied to glass and the professional ranges probably have a bigger margin for them.

I'm still not 100% convinced about market direction though. For example, if I want a compact camera, I use my iPhone. The picture quality is good enough for what I want in a smaller size. If I want decent pictures, I use a DSLR. It's not to say I'm representative of all people, but my mum and a lot of her friends no longer carry cameras because phone quality now is good enough for what they need. They no longer print pictures so a mobile phone is good enough for Facebook. Given the bulk of camera sales are on the low end, I think this is likely to have a bigger impact.

[arthurking83]

The only way to get the American market (which drives global product decisions, make no mistake) to move more rapidly to DSLM, would be to offer mirrorless cameras that are bigger and heavier than the DSLR models. 'cos, y'know, folks, bigger is better.

...... (remember, this is the country whose top 3 selling new cars are all pick-up trucks).

.....

It's not just a matter of bigger is better .. it's(IMO) a blend of size/price and convenience.

If it were only a matter of bigger=better, then Nikon would be selling D300s's and D810's by the boatload, and the D3300's/D5500's/D7100's/D610's and D750's would all be much less significant to Nikon's lineup as they currently are.

As for the US car sales figures, I tend not to look at market figures on the face of it. It may well be, but my theory is that the most obvious reasons for those large van/ute/wagon type vehicles being the top three, is a simple case of businesses churning old worn out costly to repair vehicles, for newer tax incentivized 'investments'.
Not knowing US tax laws, my guess is that to keep the US Auto industry afloat, the government has tax rebates/kickbacks for vehicle investment.

US based busineses dwarf Aussie business purchasing ability.
Looking at it from the 'most obvious' viewpoint, one would assume that the average American would prefer a massive van/ute/wagon type vehicle over a more sensible family type vehicle such as the Honda CR-V/Accord or Toyota Camry type vehicle.

Similar 'obvious' traits probably exist in the camera sales figures charts.
Many make noises about how strongly mirrorless sales figures are growing year on year .. but the reality is, the percentage value is increasing only, while actual sales figures/manufacturing figures are increasing, but actual sales growth is basically steady(year on year).
You may get a spurious increase in one particular month compared to another, but this will have been due to a new product coming to market, rather than every photographer suddenly realising that mirrorless is the way to go.

I reckon MM is a good general representation of the market in general:

They no longer print pictures so a mobile phone is good enough for Facebook. Given the bulk of camera sales are on the low end, I think this is likely to have a bigger impact.

This is the most probable cause for sales figures at the moment. It's hard to say exactly what's happening as everyone purchases for different reasons.
But if the bigger is better mentality persists, then if as MM says mobile devices are acceptable as the smaller photography device, then smaller cameras(ie. mirrorless) are the most likely specific market to be cannibalised by technological improvements in smart phone camera products.

If you take CIPA sales figures(on face value), and look at November sales figures, total sales/production figures for SLR cameras was down by about 20% in Nov '14 compared to Nov '13.
That is, Nov '14 sales for SLR cameras was 81% of the value for Nov '13(worldwide).

If you look at the figures for what CIPA describes as so-called mirrorless cameras, compact system cameras, rangefinder cameras with interchangeable lens and interchangeable unit system cameras, and similer cameras
Nov '14 sales figures were only 73% of what Nov '13 sales figures were!

mirrorless sales figures are as stagnant, volatile and susceptible to market swings, as are any other camera type.

If I were CaNikon, and I needed to bring to market an 'apparently' cheaper to manufacture mirrorless type camera, it'd have to be based upon the current lens lineup. No if's or buts!
If that means I need to produce a viable on sensor PDAF mechanism, and that this will take time(years) to perfect due to some inherent technical difficulty .. then so be it.

This is a far better prospect for not losing millions of dollars if the market happens to swing in another direction suddenly!
There should be a (kind of) insurance policy, in that if the market swings in an alternate direction to what appears to be the current trend, then having lost only the R&D effort in the one camera is less of a shock to the company's bottom line, than is the dual effort of a new camera AND some introductory lenses for it.

Nikon's 1 series is a classic example of this issue(as is Sony's FE mount) .. the market is just not strong enough to ensure a decent return on investment in a timely manner for R&D on new lenses, that may ultimately just not sell well.
It's great that Sony has a roadmap of lenses it will bring to market soon .. but that takes time and money. I'm almost totally convinced that (because Sony has been losing money hand over fist over the past few decades!! ), that the finance department has a greater role in the fact that Sony has so few lenses for the FE mount. The rationale will be something along the lines of "get back some money on what you currently offer before we commit more money to more stuff that may ultimately fail in doing the same!"

I'm sure CaNikon know this, and this is the major sticking point.
If they were to create a new mount type(least likely scenario), then they would have to create a perfectly usable adapter system for the legacy lenses out there. If not, the probability is quite high that the new system is going be a commercial failure.

Remember that all these guys are in it for the money .. pure and simple. They're not in it for the technical achievement, or to give us(the consumer) what we want.

sorry .. long post again

[Arg]

Thanks for the long post. Lots to think about!

[arthurking83]

Strangely(and explains why I have a specific interest in the topic) is based around future compatibility with what I've currently invested in.
For the immediate future, I can't see myself updating the D800E unless something really uber, in terms of ability, pops up.
eg. if a potential D900 type camera has eye tracking focus point selection feature .. or maybe 100Mp sensor with similar or better ISO qualities to what I currently have access too.

But if this camera comes in with an EVF, and the mount type is not the same F type(ie. shorter flange distance) and my lenses can't operate fully with an adapter .. then obviously my past investment in gear has been a waste(in a manner of speaking).

Whilst it's obvious that the old lenses will still work ok with my old cameras, I don't buy a new camera(for it's uber features) to keep using the older cameras!

So if a mirrorless Nikon comes to market with a feature I'm highly interested in, but my lenses can't fully work with an adapter(ie. Nikon's current FT-1, Nikon F-mount to Nikon 1 mount adapter) then I obviously have to start an investment in lenses all over again.
Obviously not good for me. But potentially good for Nikon(although highly unlikely that they will get much out of me for lenses).

[Arg]

I appreciate that big kit DSLR owners are kind of stuck, if a better lighter smaller alternative comes along, that fully meets real needs, but means changing the whole kit. They will be the last to leave, and longest to argue against the change. I just hope one of them remembers to turn off the lights.

OTOH people who are perfectly happy with DSLR, why even be here discussing the new wave? Just keep driving in a straight line, stop looking down the alleys. Nothing for you here.

[ameerat42]

That sounds a bit 1 + 1ish, Arg. I notice you open with an "if", then speculate about their behaviour, and conclude there's no hope for them.

I have a digital SLR (and a number of compacts). I'm sure any type of camera has its advantages. Will you get me a mirrorless? There ya go. Ta.

[ricktas]

I appreciate that big kit DSLR owners are kind of stuck, if a better lighter smaller alternative comes along, that fully meets real needs, but means changing the whole kit. They will be the last to leave, and longest to argue against the change. I just hope one of them remembers to turn off the lights.

OTOH people who are perfectly happy with DSLR, why even be here discussing the new wave? Just keep driving in a straight line, stop looking down the alleys. Nothing for you here.

But you seem to be assuming that to take up these 'new' cameras, people have to leave their 'old' cameras. I am considering a move into this equipment segment as I see benefits for using smaller, high quality, gear for some genre. Particularly Street Photography, which I want to explore more. Smaller gear tends to be less obtrusive and I can probably get away with aiming a smaller bit of kit at someone in public, than I could a D800 with nice 70-200 lens attached. Yet I would probably not take a small mirrorless out to stick on a tripod and get a lovely sweeping wide angle sunset over water.

I see these new cameras as an adjunct, not a swap! Both DSLR and mirrorless more compact models can co-exist side by side. I think those suggesting the mirrorless is the future are forgetting that more than one format can exist peacefully side-by-side.

[farmmax]

I with Rick on this one. I'm a DSLR user, but with some arthritis in my hands, the mirrorless has great appeal. I can't see my DSLR going out the door, because it can do things a miirrorless cannot. I'll keep it for those tasks, but would move to a mirrorless when I need to be more mobile. I'd particularly like it for street photography also, because my DSLR just attracts too much attention.

[MissionMan]

I appreciate that big kit DSLR owners are kind of stuck, if a better lighter smaller alternative comes along, that fully meets real needs, but means changing the whole kit. They will be the last to leave, and longest to argue against the change. I just hope one of them remembers to turn off the lights.

OTOH people who are perfectly happy with DSLR, why even be here discussing the new wave? Just keep driving in a straight line, stop looking down the alleys. Nothing for you here.

Because mirrorless doesn't actually match DSLR performance and doesn't have the selection of lenses. That's a reality, it doesn't. It's not a subjective opinion based thing.

Until such time as it does, people will keep driving in a straight line, because like me, they're driving in a BMW and the only side roads they see have potholes. Most of them are happy to take a detour, but the detours are all dirt at the moment.

[bcys1961]

Because mirrorless doesn't actually match DSLR performance and doesn't have the selection of lenses. That's a reality, it doesn't. It's not a subjective opinion based thing.

Until such time as it does, people will keep driving in a straight line, because like me, they're driving in a BMW and the only side roads they see have potholes. Most of them are happy to take a detour, but the detours are all dirt at the moment.

While I potter along the pothole filled side of the road in my second rate Olympus OMD ,eating your BMW dust can you give me some reading material on what aspects of my vehicle are not as good as your BMW. And also how you take into account the quality of the driver .

[MissionMan]

While I potter along the pothole filled side of the road in my second rate Olympus OMD ,eating your BMW dust can you give me some reading material on what aspects of my vehicle are not as good as your BMW. And also how you take into account the quality of the driver .

Driver always has an impact. I saw a professional race driver do faster lap times around nuremburgh in a van than the topgear team in a BMW.

But to answer your question, the autofocus system with sports. Simple.

Show me what mirrorless offering will give comparative results to my D750 with my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, let alone a D4S

[bcys1961]

Driver always has an impact. I saw a professional race driver do faster lap times around nuremburgh in a van than the topgear team in a BMW.

But to answer your question, the autofocus system with sports. Simple.

Show me what mirrorless offering will give comparative results to my D750 with my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, let alone a D4S

That's good. I don't do sports!