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

View Poll Results: which mirrorless format would you prefer?
FF 2 22.22%
APS-C 4 44.44%
4/3rds 1 11.11%
1/1.6" 2 22.22%
1/2.5" 0 0%
1/3" & smaller 0 0%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 22, 2009, 12:07 PM   #11
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 43
Default

"
And if you DO want to print...

You can't create detail that doesn't exist by interpolation."

Yes, but you don't need 300dpi to get a good print either.

Every time you look at an image on your computer monitor, that fact is obvious.

The difference is that your monitor has a much higher fill-factor than an inkjet printer. Why?
touristguy87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2009, 12:07 PM   #12
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 43
Default

"Compare that to the situation where APS-C camera bodies can use all the FF lenses that have been available for years, even decades, in addition to thelenses that are exclusuvely APS-C."

...yes, and as I said later in that post, the same holds for 4/3rds. Even more so. On top of that a mirrorless camera can take the shorter subframe and ff lenses.

Likewise a mirrorless ff could take the shorter fullframe lenses that won't work on a mirror camera. And a ff can still take a subframe lens, most DX-mount lenses will mount and AF just fine on a FX body.

It's not like any one type benefits in ways that the other cannot unless it is physically impossible to mount the lens on that body. And if that's the case there are always the low-end subframes that will take it, and they are so cheap as to be throw-ins. I don't think that there is a body out there that doesn't have a wide range of lenses that it is *possible* to mount on the body, the question is whether the desired lens can be mounted on the desired body and still provide the functionality that the shooter wants. This is actually one advantage of an EVF body, you don't have to worry about shimming or even replacing the focus-screen to get proper focus.


touristguy87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2009, 12:24 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

************ wrote:
Quote:
"Compare that to the situation where APS-C camera bodies can use all the FF lenses that have been available for years, even decades, in addition to thelenses that are exclusuvely APS-C."

...yes, and as I said later in that post, the same holds for 4/3rds. ...
How? By forgoing autofocus and autoexposure? Like THAT'S gonna happen!
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2009, 12:29 PM   #14
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 43
Default

"What's the point of buying a camera with an interchangeable lens, if there's only one lens that will fit it? How much does the situationimprove when a second lens becomes available?"

LOL you know that more lenses will come out that fit on that body over time.

The question is what is the point of buying the camera when it first comes out, knowing that the firmware will be buggy and more features will be added to later models, driving the price of that model down. When the D40 first came out it was around $600 retail with the 17-55 AF-I lens, there were hardly any AF-I lenses, and now you can pick them up for $200 on ebay and there are plenty of AF-I lenses. I suspect that people will be dumping G1s & D90s on ebay too now that the G1-H is out. What would you do with a Rebel once the 40D came out with the same sensor and far more advanced electronics, or even the 30D with much better AF? How many people bought a brand-new 5D or D3 last summer, and can't get half of what they paid for it now?

Anything that comes out now with a glaring hole in its feature-set (like the 5dMk2) is destined for oblivion. As good as it is, without a pop-up flash, body-IS, the wireless flash controller and good weather-sealing, *plus* the fact that you can't mount EF-S lenses on it, the D700 is still killing the 5DMk2 & even the A900 is taking a good chunk of its market-share. Why do people buy it? Because they have EF lenses. How many of them would sell their entire stock of Canon gear and go Nikon or Sony if they could get a decent price?

I think that the lenses are a factor but the *real* issue is how good the body is. The lenses will come out, for good bodies.



touristguy87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2009, 12:38 PM   #15
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 43
Default

"How? By forgoing autofocus and autoexposure? Like THAT'S gonna happen!"

Sure it will, especially with LV & EVFs.
AE is no big deal for portrait and landscape shooters, or people who use AEB.

Manual-focus shooters, bokeh-hunters and macro-shooters will be happy to do that, to mount their favorite lenses, especially if they get proportionally-better performance out of the lens with the higher FOV-crop, in terms of sharpness across the frame, center-sharpness at a given Fstop, and DOF. And people who want really fast, sharp AF are not going to go with CDAF anyway. Not to mention that with the average crappy low-end entry-level lens on a similar body you probably won't get a sharp focus even with a PDAF system, certainly not a sharp shot across the frame at anything below F8.

People are going to ditch crappy gear regardless of the feature-set, and people are going to ditch skimpy gear for gear with a better feature-set. That doesn't mean that all shooters need all the features that they can get, or even all the performance. Sometimes it's better to use simple gear that does a few things well, and reliably-so. There *are* plenty of people who are happy to sacrifice AF and AE for the ability to mount their favorite lenses on 4/3rds cameras. See if you can find an old KM MF Hexanon lens on eBay, for example, people are snapping them up and mounting them on OM mount 4/3rds because with a few tweaks they snap right on and they're sharp as hell. Same with FD mount on EF-S cameras.
touristguy87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2009, 1:19 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 978
Default

There were a couple of point and shoots, the Fuji F30 and its successor,the F31fd, which had remarkably good picture quality and low noise at ISO 800 and 1600. They were 6 megapixel cameras.Fuji entered the maximummegapixel race with the F50fd, a 12 megapixel camera. Image quality at higher ISO's deteriorated.

What the heck does that have to do with a discussion of the merits of APS-C vs. 4/3 vs FF sensor cameras?

Most people buying cameras today do not have your budget or critical eye. For many of the them, an 8" X 10" print of an entry level point and shoot, like a Kodak C813, looks good enough. In fact, it looks very good to them. For others, slightly more demanding, a higher level point and shoot is required. They appreciate the increased sharpness, the added dynamic range, the color quality or whatever. I have a superzoom, a Panasonic FZ28. I bought it because I can't afford to buy a DSLR with a high quality (and high priced) telephoto lens. Also, I can't get a DSLR with such a lens into some sports venues unless I have a press pass or pro photographer's credentials.

I have had friends with expensive point and shoots ($500 plus) trade them in for smaller, cheaper cameras because they were easier to carry and even pocketable.

I think most first time DSLR buyers are happy with the APS-C cameras. Despite their limitations, they are happy with them. There are a number of other potential buyers who are be happy to shell out the money for smaller, lighter 4/3 or micro 4/3 cameras. They do not care (at this time) to compare their images with those taken with larger sensor cameras. They con't care that they can't shoot at ISO 6400 and get low noise images.

Most camera buyers don't read forums at Steve's or dcresource or dpreview or even read their camera manuals very thoroughly. They just want something light and easy to use and somewhat affordable. I think that is who the makers of the new smaller sensor DSLR's are aiming at.They are not aiming at guys like you, Mr. Touristguy 87.

PS. Mark 1616 is a nice guy, a knowledgable photographer, and a helpful mentor for many newbies on this forum - a definite non-idiot.

robbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2009, 2:40 PM   #17
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 43
Default

"Also, I can't get a DSLR with such a lens into some sports venues unless I have a press pass or pro photographer's credentials. "

...well, there must be *some* good reason for this

I read in the paper the other day about a guy who took a DSLR to a Redskins game, his camera was confiscated and he was detained by security. The fact that he happened to be Indian might have had something to do with it.

You know they have sharpshooters, now, at most NFL games? Who do you think they are licensed to kill, from the top of the stadium, looking down at 65,000 people? Just anyone with a personality-issue?


touristguy87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2009, 2:42 PM   #18
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 43
Default

"PS. Mark 1616 is a nice guy, a knowledgable photographer, and a helpful mentor for many newbies on this forum - a definite non-idiot. "

That doesn't mean he's a "definite non-idiot". Just that for these reasons, you don't think of him as such.

I'm not even going to ask you why you felt the need to bring this up now, "Mr.".

touristguy87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2009, 2:51 PM   #19
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 43
Default

"There were a couple of point and shoots, the Fuji F30 and its successor,the F31fd, which had remarkably good picture quality and low noise at ISO 800 and 1600. They were 6 megapixel cameras.Fuji entered the maximummegapixel race with the F50fd, a 12 megapixel camera. Image quality at higher ISO's deteriorated.

What the heck does that have to do with a discussion of the merits of APS-C vs. 4/3 vs FF sensor cameras? "

Good question. Do you have an answer for why you brought this up now?

Is this relevant to the discussion at hand or not?

I think that it is, and indeed it follows the same logic that one might use in choosing subframes over a fullframe. Perhaps the implementation wasn't the best but the general principles still apply. Smaller sensors mean less glass and lower bulk for the same image FOV and DOF. Now if the glass actually used and/or the electronics used in-camera are junk then the IQ will suffer, but still.

As you said, for most people that's good enough. And the issue becomes that the better gear is too good. Not worth the price, size & weight. No question that this is relevant. But one can argue that great glass in front of a great sensor with great supporting gear will give great shots that are "good enough" for most cases. And that is true even for average gear shot well. So there are 7 ways to skin this cat without resorting to ff gear, and one must reasonably ask is the cost worth the benefit for the shots that I want to take. Only a fanboi would be afraid to confront that question head-on.
touristguy87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2009, 2:57 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
dlpin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 143
Default

I completely disagree with the notion that lens availability is what determines differences in marketshare.

Why? Because it is not any of the major manufacturers don't offer the basic stuff. All manufacturers offer the basic zooms and primes, so I really dont think that it is the more specialized lens offerings that lead to such a difference in marketshare.

Look at the top 40 best selling lens of february in 2009:
http://bcnranking.jp/category/subcat...108_month.html

Very few are sort of exclusive to any system. Almost all of them are the basic zooms and the 25-50 mm primes that every single manufacturer has. For the entry level user, anything beyond the basic is pretty much irrelevant, and that is where the market is.

Differences in marketshare are determined partly because of the body features, and there so far most people seem to have found that the olympus is not small enough for its portability to make up for its IQ shortcomings, something that the 4/3rds manufacturers seem to have noticed as they go for the e-620 and the micro 4/3rds.

But, for the most part, marketing is what really matters. Talk to an owner of a major camera store, and the tale will be similar. Canon and Nikon offer higher commissions, margins, more training, spend more on ads, etc.

And the proof of this is that the panasonic G1, despite the fact that it was release almost 6 months after the e-520 and e-420, was the best selling 4/3rds camera of 2008 in Japan.

If panasonic invests anywhere near what nikon and canon spend on marketing and distribution, 4/3rds marketshare will grow.
dlpin 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 4:56 AM.