Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 23, 2009, 8:01 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

dlpin wrote:
Quote:
TCav wrote:
Quote:
... Sales projections from Japan ...
Well, the data are not projections, but actual sales figures in Japan. ...
Yes. You're right. I meant sales figures.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2009, 9:43 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 477
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
Fact #1: APS-C dSLRs have a larger selection of lenses that FF dSLRs.

Fact #2: The averageAPS-C dSLRcosts a lot less than the average FF dSLR.

My opinion is that, because of those two facts (plus a multitude of others),APS-C dSLRs outsell FF dSLRs.

My opinion is also that those two facts are not likely to change any time soon.

Therefore, my opinion is that APS-C dSLRs will continue to outsell FF dSLRs for the foreseeable future.

Furthermore, since my opinion is that APS-C isn't going anywhere anytime soon, my opinion is that there will be no "slide" for 4/3 to "pick up".

I presume you won't dispute the facts. I beleive my opinions are based on those facts, and are thereforeentirely rational and reasonable, but I welcome your attempts to dispute them.
Why should I bother disputing your opinions, as you're entitled to them, just as I am entitled to my opinions!!!

As for the facts, they are the facts right NOW. However, this thread is titled "Crystal ball", and it's about trying to "read" how the facts are likely to look in the future. My opinions are also based on current fact, but it's the reading of how things will progress in the future where our opinions diverge.

For example, you've said that FF DSLRs are more expensive than APS-C DSLRs, and that's true. However, I've also shown that the price differential between Nikon's lowest priced FF DSLR and its highest priced APS-C DSLR is becoming smaller. This is fact. It's my opinion that this difference will become so small that Nikon will drop the evolution of the D300 after the next model, and replace it with a FF DSLR. This is also rational and reasonable....it may or may not happen, but nobody except Nikon will be able to tell us that!!!

dnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2009, 3:51 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
mr.sneezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 203
Default

Heck I've opened a hornets nest !

All good debate though and I'm learning a lot from it, and many others besides myself will read this and make a purchasing decision one way or the other.

Question, slightly off topic though. Will any FF dSLRS be able to retrofit old manual glass like I have for my X-700 (MC/MD mount) with an adaptor?

A few things about the OP to get the subject on topic again.
The reason I'm interested in the future of 4/3 is that it's a good enough format for me as far as I read in the reviews. The high ISO, the focus, the dynamic range, all good enough for me. I base that assumption on my use of my lowly Hybrid (Fuji S6500fd).
I think the best images I've taken in my life (say since doing high school photography in 1984) have been in the last two years with the hybrid super zoom. The X-700 was great don't get me wrong, but live-view and the ability to review and retake has made me SO much better at getting a well composed and interesting shot.

The main attractions of the 4/3 (and m4/3) for me are:
1/ Price - An APS-C is just within my justifiable price range, likewise 4/3, FF not a hope really I'm afraid.
2/ Salvage - The ability to reuse glass if the body unit dies. Applies to all aforementioned formats though. Once bitten by a faulty hybrid, twice shy.
3/ Ability to reuse some old glass. Even if it just makes me feel better about my previous expenses with the old Minolta system...
4/ I have no great need for a real prism viewfinder, me and my hybrid have worked well without one, so 4/3 or m4/3 will too (EVF is a must though).

Sound to me like the jury is still out on the future of the 4/3, m4/3 formats, but perhaps looks like a modest purchase now won't be regretted...

mr.sneezy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2009, 9:24 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

mr.sneezy wrote:
Quote:
Question, slightly off topic though. Will any FF dSLRS be able to retrofit old manual glass like I have for my X-700 (MC/MD mount) with an adaptor?
There are adapters that will allow you to mount an MC/MD lens onto an A Mount, but they don't support autofocus or autoexposure, there's a setting you'll havet o change that will let the camera release the shutter without a lens (or at least, something it recognizes as a lens) attached. Most are teleconverters, so they'll increase the focal length and decrease the aperture of the lens you attach. Some are purely adapters and have no optics, so they are extension tubes, and can severly restrict the focusing range of the lens.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2009, 3:49 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

With the E30 and E620, it seems pretty clear to me where Olympus is concentrating their direction. Panasonic is the company with the failed DSLR system and the most to gain from the micro four-thirds, but they seem to be dragging their feet with this *system* almost as bad as they did with theirnow defunct DSLR's.

I'll believe this G-seriesis going to really be a system when I actually see it. Until then,there is no crystal ball here. Panasonic may yet find a way for more money to be made in building bettermicrowave ovens or televisions and drop this just like they did their L-series DSLR's. They do compact digicams really well....that's about it.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2009, 5:12 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
dlpin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 143
Default

mr.sneezy wrote:
Quote:
Heck I've opened a hornets nest !

All good debate though and I'm learning a lot from it, and many others besides myself will read this and make a purchasing decision one way or the other.

Question, slightly off topic though. Will any FF dSLRS be able to retrofit old manual glass like I have for my X-700 (MC/MD mount) with an adaptor?

A few things about the OP to get the subject on topic again.
The reason I'm interested in the future of 4/3 is that it's a good enough format for me as far as I read in the reviews. The high ISO, the focus, the dynamic range, all good enough for me. I base that assumption on my use of my lowly Hybrid (Fuji S6500fd).
I think the best images I've taken in my life (say since doing high school photography in 1984) have been in the last two years with the hybrid super zoom. The X-700 was great don't get me wrong, but live-view and the ability to review and retake has made me SO much better at getting a well composed and interesting shot.

The main attractions of the 4/3 (and m4/3) for me are:
1/ Price - An APS-C is just within my justifiable price range, likewise 4/3, FF not a hope really I'm afraid.
2/ Salvage - The ability to reuse glass if the body unit dies. Applies to all aforementioned formats though. Once bitten by a faulty hybrid, twice shy.
3/ Ability to reuse some old glass. Even if it just makes me feel better about my previous expenses with the old Minolta system...
4/ I have no great need for a real prism viewfinder, me and my hybrid have worked well without one, so 4/3 or m4/3 will too (EVF is a must though).

Sound to me like the jury is still out on the future of the 4/3, m4/3 formats, but perhaps looks like a modest purchase now won't be regretted...
If 4/3s serves you right and fits in your budget, go for it. There is absolutely nothing that indicates that olympus will move away from dslrs any time soon. The only scenario is if micro 4/3s is such a phenomenal success that they give up on regular 4/3s. but even then this would be quite a few years away. So if the question is whether or not olympus will still be supporting 4/3s cameras in, say, 3 years, the answer must certainly be yes. The e-30 and e-620 have a new 4/3s sensor, and barring another major crisis they should keep pushing cameras with it for the foreseeable future.

Beyond that, if there is one thing we learned from the current crisis is that today's blue chip company might be tomorrows penny stock. There is not guarantee in any of these cases.

dlpin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2009, 9:55 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
mr.sneezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 203
Default

I cast my vote I guess, I bought an E-520 !

Thanks for all the advice.
Martin


mr.sneezy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2009, 11:15 AM   #38
Junior Member
 
garys17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 12
Default

Good choice, I made the same purchase and am very happy with my new gear.
garys17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2009, 10:40 AM   #39
E.T
Senior Member
 
E.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
Default

rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
The other issue with micro 4/3 is that the big boys (Canon/Nikon) could develop a micro APS sensor system, with all the advantages offered by micro 4/3 plus the benefits of a larger sensor.
But unless they change lens mount they can't get any other benefit from removing mirror than real continuous live preview. So it's either dragging along design/size limitations of current mounts or scrapping existing lens base advantage situation.
Also sensor of 4/3 isn't that much smaller than APS-C sensor and if megapixel count is kept at current level its capabilities would increase with advances in design/manufacturing tech.
And beyond bigger size of optics there's question of DOF: Smaller sensor gives always bigger DOF so ability to use larger aperture partially balances lower sensitivity of sensor. Smaller DOF isn't any all solving Holy Grail but sometimes plain disadvantage. Also there's IS built into body in Olympus vs. need to buy individually stabilized lenses, factor which has surely played role in Sony's increase of market share. Even more square 4/3 aspect ratio is beneficial in certain use by giving more vertical FOV. (what I've found 35mm equivalent focal length is calculated from diagonal FOV)
So it's anything else than black and white and I don't see any reason for demise of m4/3 except through machinations of propaganda machines of Canon and Nikon... whose benefit is trying to maintain status quo with every available mean.

And even if also Olympus decides to focuse to m4/3 introducing advances in sensors and electronics (where nearly all advances will happen because of mechanics being well matured) to 4/3 body is possible with low additional R&D.

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
Panasonic is the company with the failed DSLR system and the most to gain from the micro four-thirds
Panasonic's DSLR was for big part modification to hardware from Olympus so I don't see how it could be their DSLR system.
Most propably they just realized there aren't much market share to be captured with what's currently on market and strong association of Olympus to four thirds. For big market share Panasonic would have had to capture that from Canon and Nikon which would be extremely hard to do with market stranglehold of well oiled propaganda machines of those.
By combining best of DSLR (interchangeable optics and lot bigger sensor) to best of compact non-SLR full digicams (real live exposure preview and video) they have new market with potential for notable growth and possibility of capturing even some share from other leg still in film era DSLRs.

Samsung is another giant but they have even less photography expertise (practically none) than Panasonic and control/feature wise their new body reflects that and is plain bloated pocket Point&Pray compared to Panasonic GH1. Also pushing another new lens mount alone by such company will be hard now that m4/3 is already out with both long time known camera maker and economically/resourcefully big maker behind it.


TCav wrote:
Quote:
M4/3 is a P&S digicam with the bother and expense of interchangeable lenses. They even put a pentaprism hump on it to make it look like something it wasn't, because they didn't want it to look like what it was.
Same P&S argument could be said about all entry level DSLRs with their lack of dials for direct control of both aperture and exposure compensation...
Speaking of that where's even the real utility of direct control to exposure compensation when you need to post-preview picture for seeing that exposure was like you want? Really only thing more advanced than in optical peep-though holes of small compacts is precise framing and control of focusing.
(but agree about Panasonic currently lacking knowledge for making real camera, unlike Olympus)
Quote:
Larger image sensors require larger and more complex lenses. M4/3 is all that without the capability or flexibility of FF, APS-C, or even 4/3.
Someone here once said that Olympus lenses were more telecentric than lenses for other dSLRs, and the smaller image sensor helped with that. BecauseĀ*M4/3 lenses mount even closer to the image sensor, they have to be even more telecentric, and they have to do it through a smallerĀ*lens mount.
The obstacles are formidable.
And APS and especially FF sensors with mirror then don't need notably bigger optics than M4/3? Required image circle size is huge factor for optics size requirement.
Ability to move lens closer to sensor without mirror in the way enables smaller mount size. Also that extra space taken by mirror itself is big obstacle limiting design choises in wide angle lenses.
If short lens-sensor distance is such bad problem then why are we even seeing these compact cameras with huge zoom ranges from wide angle to rather long tele?

You have shipload of shares in legacy baggage/did Canon&Nikon high priests tell to do so or why such determination to thrash anything new which might challenge old "gods"?

TCav wrote:
Quote:
I think APS-C is here to stay, and that Full Frame is the new Medium Format. FF dSLRs are outside the financial grasp of most people, and even as the prices for FF dSLRs drops, so, to, will the prices of APS-C dSLRs.
Correct.
Outside physical requirements bigger sensor will be always much more expensive than plain surface area difference would lead to think: Manufacturing costs of single wafer are same and probability of critical fault in single die rises in direct relation to its area which along with one die taking bigger part of wafer leads to notably bigger waste percentage meaning production cost per usefull product rises further and lot.
Good example of that are PC graphics cards: Ati has cheaper/easier to manufacture ~950 million transistor die vs. Nvidia's 1450 million transistor die which enabled very agressive price competition from them when Nvidia struggled long with manufacturing yield problems.

But so it's also true that Canon hasn't introduced high quality lenses to cover holes made to existing line up because of "crop factor" of APS-C sensor.
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2009, 11:59 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

E.T wrote:
Quote:
TCav wrote:
Quote:
Larger image sensors require larger and more complex lenses. M4/3 is all that without the capability or flexibility of FF, APS-C, or even 4/3.
Someone here once said that Olympus lenses were more telecentric than lenses for other dSLRs, and the smaller image sensor helped with that. BecauseM4/3 lenses mount even closer to the image sensor, they have to be even more telecentric, and they have to do it through a smallerlens mount.
The obstacles are formidable.
And APS and especially FF sensors with mirror then don't need notably bigger optics than M4/3? Required image circle size is huge factor for optics size requirement.
Ability to move lens closer to sensor without mirror in the way enables smaller mount size. Also that extra space taken by mirror itself is big obstacle limiting design choises in wide angle lenses.
If short lens-sensor distance is such bad problem then why are we even seeing these compact cameras with huge zoom ranges from wide angle to rather long tele?
The photoreceptors on digital image sensors are at the end of tubes. If the light comes at the photoreceptor at an angle (such as when the photoreceptor is near the edge or corner of the image sensor), some of that light isn't going to make it all the way down the tube. Hence the need for telecentricity. The mirror boxes in APS-C dSLRs using FF lenses makes telecentricity easier to acheive, and removing the mirror box and mounting the lens closer makes telecentricity more difficult to acheive. And doing all that through a smaller mount makesit eventougher.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:30 AM.