Is DSLR concept of camera obsolete?

[Hypernym]

I have read about Panasonic G1 (and its HD version) - http://www.g1hd.net/, there is a comparison and it doesn't look good for DSLR. What do you think?

[Csae]

1 word.

Hype.

[laydros]

I'd argue that the G1 is more like a smaller DSLR that would render the high end super zoom P&S obsolete.

[raven15]

Maybe for consumers, it will be obsolete. And the EVF may have applications in future low light photography as a kind of night vision. The lack of mirror flipping noise could be beneficial. The size is nice. But, fact is, you can't beat an optical viewfinder for speed and reliability.

[Rooz]

this is not new information. its not bad news for dslr nor does it signal the "end" of that sort of format. its still the regular old noisy sensors that cant compete in DR or low light perfomance of a larger sensor. its bad news for superzooms but mostly, it signals the beginning of the end for regular 4/3rds which will be gone in a few years.

despite the size/ weight "advantages", 4/3rds has not taken off anywhere near as much as i suspect they thought. sony in particular, with their built in IS, have destroyed them.

[raven15]

its still the regular old noisy sensors that cant compete in DR or low light perfomance of a larger sensor.

Not very accurate. First, the sensor size difference between 4/3's and even the largest compact or superzoom is about the same as the difference between APS-C and 35mm "full frame" cameras. I would say that is quite a difference.

Second, in spite of this, so far noise is better than that of a number of the slightly larger APS-C sensors. I have actually read of people switching from Sony to Olympus for the better ISO performance. I think one reason many people buy Sony is the name, if they said Minolta the same cameras wouldn't sell half as well.

Now, if you mean a 4/3 sensor can't compete with a 35mm full frame sensor, then you are quite correct. If anything, I think (contrary to many) that eventually small sensors will prevail, because as sensors improve a larger sensor become unnecessary.

[cdifoto]

Too big to pocket, to small to be comfortable. But hey, at least it comes in red and blue.

[Rooz]

we'll agree to disagree then. :) it wont matter how much technology goes into it, they simply cannot compete due to their size of sensor. MP's will continue to rise and this will put smaller sensors at an even larger disadvantage.

what 4/3'rds camera can compete noise wise with the better performing aps-c sensors like a d300 or 40d ? i think aps-c is only a few years away from playing a cameo role actually. FX and larger is the future imho.

i think m4/3'ds is a far better concept cos the size difference is more significant. at the end of the day a 4/3rds camera cant fit in your pocket and to me, that negates the point of buying one. i either want the whole bag or something like a little fuji i can slip in my top pocket...say a G9 would be as big as i'd be prepared to go. thats just me though.

[cdifoto]

That's how I am Rooz. I prioritize either convenience or quality. I don't take a middle road on both. Besides, a little Fuji is WAY less costly than one of those new fangled R&D recovery priced jobbies. I can avoid pixel-peeping if I'm just snapping around.

[raven15]

No, I agree, I would say a typical Canon or Nikon is about one stop better at ISO than it's nearest Olympus competitor. Except the D40x, which I felt was worse (I haven't looked at the D60). However, one stop will only buy about five minutes when the sun sets, in outdoors use.


i think m4/3'ds is a far better concept cos the size difference is more significant.
You are probably correct. I don't think it will fit in pockets though. The sensor is the same size, only the distance to the lens changed, though that will allow most lenses to be slightly smaller.

In the electronics industry the trend is always smaller in everything except DSLR's. I can't imagine that will continue forever. I'd like the 4/3's companies, at least, to realize that 10 megapixels is enough for all electronic uses and the vast majority of printing. In a year or two a camera with less resolution could make great marketing: twice the DR, half the noise! In three years an average 12 megapixel sensor for 4/3's would be better than a D300 is now, if they leave the megapixel race. That's what I'm after.



"Did you hear they invented a new device that lets you look though any wall?"
"No, what?"
"It's called a window."

"Did you hear there is a new viewfinder with infinite resolution and no lag?"
"Really?"
"Yeah, it's a piece of glass that lets you see right through the lens!"

[GotToyota?]

http://www.g1hd.net/img/canon_eos450d_vs_panasonic_g1.jpg

It's still larger than the most common point and shoot. You will still need a bag so why not go DSLR?

[Hypernym]

Thank you for your opinions, but I think you have missed some stuffs.

1. Size of G1's viewfinder is comparable with fullframe DSLR. Low end DSLR rather have somethig like a "black tunnel" and when I want bigger viewfinder, camera body have to be bigger too. G1 has amazing ratio body size / viewfinder size - there is no DSLR with such a ratio.

When EVF is used in Pro-camcorders, why should be problem with reliability in cameras?

2. DSLR in live view mode focus very slowly - http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42690

3. FF - BF issue at DSLR

4. Olympus has a prototype of m4/3'ds camera which fits into pocket
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092208olympus_micro_four_thirds.asp

[GotToyota?]

I just don't think those settings will work as well as they claim. Just wait for DPreview and this place to review it, then give your judgment.

[Rooz]

4. Olympus has a prototype of m4/3'ds camera which fits into pocket
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092208olympus_micro_four_thirds.asp

aps-c sensors also have experimental cameras out there with the same principal. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092604sigmadp1.asp

once aps-c get this right and do squeze that large sensor into a small body like this. once they figure out how to get it to work well, then we're back to square one with aps-c outperforming 4/3ds sensors.

give me a rebel xsi anyday if i want small. if thats too small, the little oly 420 with the pancake lens is pretty cool too. but at the end of the day it may fit in a handbag but not your pocket.

[Hypernym]

Rooz:

Sigma DP1 doesn't have interchangable lens, thats a big difference.

M4/3'ds system is mainly about removing of mirror, I think. Mirrorless camera can be smaller (with big viewfinder ), unhearable, more durable (no mechanical parts ), no FF/BF issue and without shaking while taking photos.

If you want APS-C sensor, there are rumors, that Canon also plans a mirrorless camera - http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/a-mirrorless-rebel-in-2010-cr2/

[DonSchap]

I tell ya ... that is just what I want ... a dwarf camera. I fought tooth and nail to get Canon to finally release a "grippable" XT ... and they provided the XS. Now this, again!

Hell, I give up! LOL

[Rooz]

Rooz:

Sigma DP1 doesn't have interchangable lens, thats a big difference.


you're missing the point here. if you add even a moderate zoom lens on that oly prototype then its not pocket size is it ? THATS the big difference.

[stanj]

If someone likes the DSL, they only have to convince themselves based on their criteria. I don't see any sense in the debate as to which is better, obviously they appeal to different perceived needs.
For me, the marketing point of "convenient small size" appeals to someone moving from a P&S who values small over flexibility or usebility.
When searching for my first DSLR I liked the specs of the Canon 450D, it seemed like a very nice camera for a low price. But when trying in my hand, it was eliminated due to it being just too small to hold steady and minipulate the controls without bring it down from my eye and using both hands. Try as I might, there was no way to hold that small 450D where it felt secure in my hand or did not cramp my fingers. Add a few kg of lens to the equation and it would have been a tripod only device.
For me, the added size and weight of a larger body DSLR is a high priority. The weight and size of the body is a minor portion of any effective lens/accessory bag. When high performance plastic small lenses are developed the whole issue might need to be revisited. But until that time if possible at all, a 40cm long lens weighing 3 kg determines the real convenience characteristic of a particular camera technology mated to that lens.
A new form factor is obviously needed to make handholding a small DSL as stable and comfortable to use as serious amateurs and pros to seek mini-camera bodies.

[K1W1]

I see the G1 as the Rangefinder camera of the early 21st century.
In other words it's a camera that offers the versatility of interchangeable lenses with the small size that makes it attractive to a niche section of the market. For those who have a specific use for this type of product it will prove to be very effective but for most of the market the entry and mid level amateur DSLR will continue to be a less expensive and easier to use option.

I believe that the main reason for the G1s development is to allow Panasonic and Olympus a way of dropping 4/3 DSLR products by shifting emphasis towards micro 4/3. Those two companies will then be free to develop APS-C or even full frame sensor sized DSLR cameras without the ignominy of admitting that 4/3 as a DSLR option has been a marketing and technical failure thus loosing face and we all know that face is everything for Japanese Corporations.

[Hypernym]

Canon low-end DSLR are known for their bad ergonomics, it is a marketing, Canon force customers this way to buy higher models. I have Minolta A2, which is smaller than 450D and it fits perfectly into hand.

Dpreview.com about G1: "Despite being smaller in every dimension than the Olympus E-420 (the smallest DSLR on the market), the G1 features a respectably sized grip that fits well in the hand and puts both the shutter button and mode dial in easy reach. The 'push and turn' control dial avoids the need for any buttons to be held down when changing settings, meaning the AF/AE Lock button can be placed very conveniently. With the supplied lens mounted the G1 feels reassuringly 'dense' - it's heavy enough to feel solid and stable in the hand."

Of course that m4/3'ds system has and will have appropriate lenses to size of camera body.

[Hypernym]

K1W1:

It doesn't seem that Panasonic aims to some niche. G1 is being sold for only 3 months and it is among 19 best-seller DSLR in Japanese market for the year of 2008 - http://www.slashgear.com/two-big-continue-to-stomp-digital-slr-market-in-japan-3128291/

[erichlund]

K1W1:

It doesn't seem that Panasonic aims to some niche. G1 is being sold for only 3 months and it is among 19 best-seller DSLR in Japanese market for the year of 2008 - http://www.slashgear.com/two-big-continue-to-stomp-digital-slr-market-in-japan-3128291/

First of all, perhaps 50-70% of sales are usually in the last 3 months of the year. That's retail. It's the annual commercialization of religion thing. Then ...

19th!!! If you actually look at the list, they cannibalized their own partner in 4/3. The only cameras below them on the list with an under $2000 price tag are Oly 4/3 models. Every significant consumer model with an APS-C model was ahead of the G1.

Now...getting away from stats, it's still a fine little camera, and will fit well within a certain niche market. But, despite the fact that the D700 is over $2000, it still made this consumer cam list. That should tell you something. There is definitely a strong market for cameras that perform. The first company to put a no crop sensor (FX is a Nikon thing, Rooz) in a consumer priced camera (<$1500) is going to make a serious killing.

[Hypernym]

erichlund:

You have forgot Pentax flag ship - K20D, it is significant APS-C camera, but it isn't on the list.

When I look away from stats, I see all those normal people, which want to take photos from vacation, celebrations and put them into photo album or upload on the web. And for this they really DON'T need bulky full frame camera.

And you can see in the stats, what is selling most - small cameras for normal people. And G1 aims exactly to this market segment.

[Csae]

I read the comments and lol'd a bit.

There is some math problems going on over there which makes the entire thing lose alot of credibility for me.

Its one thing to say that the G1 will be a great camera, its another thing to say that it will kill D-Slrs.

I own a camera that doesn't show up on the list and im actually happy with that. When you factor in Lenses, flashes, tripods, filters, etc etc. An advanced amateur or professional is worth alot more then a normal 1 lens consumer. Not to mention its one thing to sell 5 x Canon Xsis +lens at 600$, and another to sell just one canon 5d mk2 +lens.

[raven15]

Well, I guess I must be in the niche, if I were to receive a free D700 tomorrow, I'd put it on ebay (after much hard thought). Much as I'd like the dynamic range, it's just too big to be practical, unless you photograph within a hundred yards of a car, or have a pack llama. I can carry my E-410 with 14-54 lens a through whole day of tourism or high altitude hiking and my arms will just be getting tired by the end of the day. Add 3/4 pound or so to get the weight of the nearest equivalent APS-C camera and that would not be practical.

I have read a few accounts of people who have used the G1 and none has ever been negative. By all accounts it is a well designed and fully functional camera, losing no ground to its DSLR competitors. I prefer my small cameras to be gripless a la E-420 because at that size the grip is as much an impediment as a benefit, but I assume those will come.

I don't anticipate Olympus abandoning the 4/3 market anytime soon, unless by some freak chance micro four thirds really takes off, stealing significant chunks of both P&S and DSLR's sales. Even then, I'd expect one or two models to continue. Actually, after the APS-C manufacturers make their own versions of mirrorless cameras, I wouldn't be surprised if the APS-C DSLR's were axed before Olympus DSLR's. Canon and Nikon have not really put that much into development of their APS-C systems, and at very best the APS-C lenses are average. From a consumer's perspective, it makes no sense to spend a huge amount of money on a large 35mm lens for an itsy APS-C sensor, just to get decent lens performance and build quality. Ultimately, I think they would jettison their APS-C DSLR's in a heart beat, because a smaller mirrorless camera will require less material and thus ultimately be cheaper, while offering all of the IQ performance. Hopefully, the various manufacturers will put some effort into making decent lenses for the new format (but maybe not...).

So, and other people have probably been leading to this, I think ultimately the DSLR market will go to entirely full frame or entirely mirrorless, with very few small sensor DSLR's. Probably the high end model lines such as a Canon 50D, Sony A700, and Nikon D300 will carry on for a while. Interestingly, Olympus DSLR's could have as large a niche in that market as they have had had so far. They would easily offer the smallest optical viewfinder cameras, with all the current advantages of smaller, cheaper, and better glass vs. full frame. In fact, the niche could even be larger.

Now, whether all that mouth-running has any bearing on the future I don't know :).

[cdifoto]

erichlund:

You have forgot Pentax flag ship - K20D, it is significant APS-C camera, but it isn't on the list.

When I look away from stats, I see all those normal people, which want to take photos from vacation, celebrations and put them into photo album or upload on the web. And for this they really DON'T need bulky full frame camera.

And you can see in the stats, what is selling most - small cameras for normal people. And G1 aims exactly to this market segment.
As said before, adding a lens kills the entire "compact" thing.

[K1W1]

K1W1:

It doesn't seem that Panasonic aims to some niche. G1 is being sold for only 3 months and it is among 19 best-seller DSLR in Japanese market for the year of 2008 - http://www.slashgear.com/two-big-continue-to-stomp-digital-slr-market-in-japan-3128291/

So with Olympus and Panasonic having a COMBINED market share of just over 5% in the DSLR market in Japan according to your figures I think that very much makes them niche players.

[erichlund]

Awe, now don't go confusing them with logic.

[Hypernym]

So with Olympus and Panasonic having a COMBINED market share of just over 5% in the DSLR market in Japan according to your figures I think that very much makes them niche players.

Niche is not about size of market share, niche is very specific market segment - http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/niche+market.html

[Hypernym]

I read the comments and lol'd a bit.

There is some math problems going on over there which makes the entire thing lose alot of credibility for me.

Its one thing to say that the G1 will be a great camera, its another thing to say that it will kill D-Slrs.

I didn't say that. I think that evil concept (electronic viewfinder interchangable lens) will kill DSLR, at least low end ones.

[raven15]

Don't worry, Hypernym, I know what you are saying, there could be substantial advantages to a smallish camera with good image quality. There was a similar group bashing image stabilization, then suddenly everyone had it in their own cameras and changed their minds. Individually they usually are more rational (and polite), but sometimes a group feedback thing gets going.

Rumor on the internet has it that micro 4/3 was entirely invented by Panasonic, and Olympus was only made aware of it at the last minute. The evidence of this is: 1) all of Panasonic's DSLR lenses can contrast autofocus on m4/3 but only Olympus lenses made in the last year will, 2) Panasonic had a production model G1 by the time Olympus had a mock-up. (Point number one is not negligible, it means that if Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax create a mirrorless design their users must buy entirely new lenses if they decide to switch too. Panasonic and Olympus lenses will for the most past work on m4/3).

In all likelihood, micro fourthirds is a Panasonic market grab. It may very well be successful. A year ago, most of the P&S, compact, or superzoom cameras I would buy were Canon. Now, they are mostly Panasonic. I would say momentum is so far on Panasonic's side.

[K1W1]

Rumor on the internet has it that micro 4/3 was entirely invented by Panasonic, and Olympus was only made aware of it at the last minute.

Here are some facts for you to consider amongst the rumours.

Most but not all Olympus cameras are actually manufactured under contract by Sanyo (who also manufacture Nikon P&S FWIW). Panasonic have recently purchased Sanyo so now we have this situation.

Panasonic own the company that manufactures most of Olympus' cameras.
Panasonic and Olympus compete strongly in the Japanese P&S market and also world wide.
Panasonic and Olympus are technology partners on the 4/3 scheme.


I for one can't see a long term benefit in that relationship for Olympus.

[Rooz]

arguing with 4/3rds people is a losing battle. there are very few that provide impeccable results as a showcase on what they can do and too many that quote numbers, stats and other such nonsense. luckily there are quite few Oly guys here that break the mould and actually shoot great pictures.

"kill dslr" i mean...please. this guy should be banned for sheer stupidity.

[K1W1]

"kill dslr" i mean...please. this guy should be banned for sheer stupidity.

No be worried. The 5% market share could rise to 5.1% then they will take that as a sign from heaven that the tide has swung their way. If I were you I'd have my D300 on ebay before the bottom drops out of the DSLR market completely.

[Hypernym]

Lol, you still don't get it, Canon probably will kill its own low end DSLRs - Rebel will be mirrorless.

[erichlund]

Good news for Nikon.

[Csae]

Meh, i always thought live view would kill the mirroirs eventually.

But its taking a god damn long time.

[shshsh]

It's still larger than the most common point and shoot. You will still need a bag so why not go DSLR?

Because it's a different concept?

Because you can adjust settings prior to shooting and still see what you will get? Forget about today's DSLR live view implementations. They are a sorry excuse.

I am really sad that Sony chose to discontinue the R1. It did have shortcomings (autofocus slow and unreliable in low light, tele only 120mm equiv.), but it was a great camera: ISO great until 400, usable up to 800, great lens with good wide angle (24mm equiv.), outstanding ergonomics. I loved the Rolleiflex-type waist level shooting; this is so much more inconspicuous than holding a camera in front of your face.

I had 70-80% keepers with the R1 (the rest typcially being duplicates to avoid birds flying through the image in the wrong moment or horizon not really straight).

This is vastly different with the Nikon D700. OK, I am still learning to tame that beast. It will hopefully improve over time. Still, it's more trial and error; there is no live histogram, no usable live preview.

Yes, space on CF cards is cheap these days. But I value my time, and time spent weeding out countless duplicates for that one combination of settings that delivered what I really wanted is not exactly my idea of having a good time.

Many compacts are disappointing, in particular when you come from the DSLR world, knowing what image quality today's technology can deliver. But most of that is to be attributed to tiny image sensors and tiny optics. If you have both in a reasonable size (such as in the Sony R1), it's a whole new ballgame. That's when ergonomics come into play. And that's when a DSLR's mirror and lack of really usable live view and histogram can really be limiting.

All those who will now stand up and claim that a real photographer who knows his business doesn't need those childish gimmicks please remember similar instances in the history of technology when people made similar claims:


If god wanted man to fly, he would have given him wings.


640 kilobytes are enough for everybody (Bill Gates).


The patent office can be closed now. Everything that can possibly be invented is invented now. (US Commissioner of Patents, 1899)

:D

[Hypernym]

Yeah, I agree, electronic viewfinder has many advantages, but I understand, when somebody prefers optical one.

BTW: G1 was just reviewed: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/

[erichlund]

And in that review, the biggest shortcoming of the camera, the viewfinder in low light. He went so far as to call it "nearly unuseable". In good light, it's a fantastic camera. Up through ISO 800, it appears to have as much or more detail as its APS-C competitors. Get over ISO 800 and the APS-C cameras pull ahead (OK, maybe not the Sony, but they're new at this stuff, and have not figured out noise yet).

So, going back to the top post in this thread: Is the dSLR concept obsolete?

Definitive Answer: Absolutely NOT. EVF still not particularly useful for low light.

[erichlund]

Because it's a different concept?

I am really sad that Sony chose to discontinue the R1. It did have shortcomings (autofocus slow and unreliable in low light, tele only 120mm equiv.), but it was a great camera: ISO great until 400, usable up to 800, great lens with good wide angle (24mm equiv.), outstanding ergonomics. I loved the Rolleiflex-type waist level shooting; this is so much more inconspicuous than holding a camera in front of your face.

I had 70-80% keepers with the R1 (the rest typcially being duplicates to avoid birds flying through the image in the wrong moment or horizon not really straight).

This is vastly different with the Nikon D700. OK, I am still learning to tame that beast. It will hopefully improve over time. Still, it's more trial and error; there is no live histogram, no usable live preview.

Many compacts are disappointing, in particular when you come from the DSLR world, knowing what image quality today's technology can deliver. But most of that is to be attributed to tiny image sensors and tiny optics. If you have both in a reasonable size (such as in the Sony R1), it's a whole new ballgame. That's when ergonomics come into play. And that's when a DSLR's mirror and lack of really usable live view and histogram can really be limiting.

:D

The R1 was a nice camera, but I'm not sure there was much point in a camera that's as big as a dSLR and under-performs (and just sorta OK at ISO 800 is under-performing), especially when you have the same size package, but cannot change lenses.

Hang in there with the D700. If you are getting a lot of rejects, you will need to figure out why. I assure you, it's not the camera (unless it is truly defective). It's possible you are not applying enough gray matter to your shots. Some people say take lots of photos to improve your reject rate. I tend to disagree. I say take fewer photos, and think about what you are trying to achieve with each one. Applying more thought will result in better photos, and over time, that thought process will become second nature.

Go out on a theme shoot, and apply the same thinking to many shots. For instance, choose a theme, whether it be flower macros, landscapes, people, and shoot only that. Forget about shooting targets of convenience. By concentrating on one type of shot, you are drilling yourself to understand all that goes into that type of shot.

Whenever possible, I try to limit the variables I have to deal with. I often put only one lens on the camera, and I don't even bother with a bag. When it's a prime, I have only one focal length to deal with. However, I do have, and use, zooms.

I believe the D700 allows you to set up 4 different sets of user settings. Set them up for different types of shooting. My D200 is less thorough in this capability, but I still have it available. For instance, you might have one set up for flash, one for high ISO, and one for general day shooting, one for portraits. I don't know what you shoot, so that would be up to you.

Hope these suggestions help.

[Rooz]

in other words...nothings changed. lol

[K1W1]

I thought that this thread had died. :confused: