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

View Poll Results: Will the Evil equal or replace the DSLR
It will match it but not replace it 0 0%
It will replace it 4 19.05%
It will be it's own thing along side DSLR, Bridge, and P&S 14 66.67%
No Clue 3 14.29%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 31, 2010, 3:21 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default DSLR vs EVIL

What do you all think about the Evil camera catching up to a dslr in all abilities. High action and so on, that one day it will replace the dslr? Or will it be it's own thing.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 31, 2010, 6:24 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

EVIL camera bodies will have to have their own selection of lenses in order to take advantage of the smaller, lighter bodies. dSLR lenses are designed to focus on an image sensor a certain distance away, and so won't work on an EVIL body. If they use the same lenses, then the bodies will have to be big enough to accomodate a mirror box, and nothing would be gained by having an EVIL body.

Since dSLRs will always be the flagship products, manufacturers will always have more and better lenses for dSLRs, making EVIL cameras a second tier product with fewer lens choices.

It would also make sense for EVIL bodies to have smaller image sensors. Putting the lens closer to the sensor means a higher probability of vignetting and field curvature, so using a smaller image sensor simply crops off the bad parts. But only a few manufacturers make 4/3 sensors which are the next logical step down from APS-C sensors. I really don't see Canon or Sony buying sensors from someone else, which means they'd have to make their own. And if EVIL cameras are 4/3 (or m4/3), I really don't see Sony making a camera that can use a Panasonic lens.

I really think EVIL will be a half hearted attempt to make P&S digicams with a small assortment of mediocre lenses, and their small production numbers will make them as expensive as entry level dSLRs anyway.

EVIL is a small market niche that 4/3 is uniquely positioned to dominate. I say let them have it.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Jan 31, 2010 at 6:27 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2010, 7:48 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
EVIL camera bodies will have to have their own selection of lenses in order to take advantage of the smaller, lighter bodies. dSLR lenses are designed to focus on an image sensor a certain distance away, and so won't work on an EVIL body. If they use the same lenses, then the bodies will have to be big enough to accomodate a mirror box, and nothing would be gained by having an EVIL body..
You mean besides mechanical reliability due to simpler design, lack of vibration of mirror flipping up before shooting, and potentially shorter blackout of VF?

The reason for the mirror box and prism was to be able to frame a shot as the lens sees it. If it can be done electronically to a satisfactory level, why not? SLRs replaced rangefinders, except for a few die-hards, and I see EVILs doing the same to DSLRs. As of the latest I have heard, or been able to look at myself, the technology isn't quite there, but it is gaining rapidly.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2010, 8:18 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Anything you can do with a small image sensor, you can do better with a large image sensor. Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Sony have 20+ years of producing autofocus lenses that will all fit on their current dSLRs (with varying degrees of compatibility.) Olympus never had autofocus lenses for their film cameras, so leaving their manual focus lenses behind worked for them when they went digital. I beleive that's a big part of why Olympus has such a small market share; they started from scratch and they're playing catch-up.

EVIL cameras, whoever makes them, will be in the same position. But they're already behind Olympus.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2010, 8:24 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,231
Default

You seem to be limiting EVILs to the 4/3 system. Samsung already has an APS-c version. I'm betting there will be a 35mm EVIL in the future.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2010, 8:53 PM   #6
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i expect that there will be EVILS with varying size sensors. they will gain in popularity as the technology improves, especially in the areas of refresh rate, and gain in low light.

At least for now, I see room on the playing field for both. The lack of a flapping mirror makes them, even with today's refresh rates, a great asset for landscape/cityscape shooters that do longer exposures. However, it will be a while before they are at the level to offer anything for someone that shoots sports or action.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2010, 9:07 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
You seem to be limiting EVILs to the 4/3 system. Samsung already has an APS-c version. I'm betting there will be a 35mm EVIL in the future.

brian
I suggested that a smaller image sensor in a smaller body made sense, especially considering the potential for vignetting and field curvature with a shorter lens-to-sensor distance, and mentioned 4/3 because it already existed.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2010, 9:37 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

I wouldn't be caught dead with an EVIL camera today!

And this is because there are still advantages to a mirror, today!

Within ten years these technological problems will be dealt with and I wont be caught dead with a mirror...

The arguments about sensor size, blah, blah, blah will all disappear once the electronic viewfinder matches the optical viewfinder. High end users, whether pros or hobbyists will never be satisfied with less than the quality we now have, let alone something worse.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2010, 8:22 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Every EVIL model available today attempts to correct the shortcomings of the available lenses (vignetting, rectilinear distortion, sharpness, etc.) and they do it in such a way that you can't turn it off. They correct rectilinear distortion by playing with the pixels which results in an even greater loss of sharpness in areas where the lens isn't very sharp to start with. Then they try to compensate for this lack of sharpness by cranking up the "sharpness" which just increases the contrast which has negative effects all by itself.

Maybe someday they'll be able to make better lenses for these cameras so that blurring the image in the edges and corners in order to correct rectilinear distortion, and then sharpen the image to correct the blurring they just did, won't be necessary. But some of the same problems still occur in SLR lenses, and they've been trying to got those right for several decades.

I'm not optimistic.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Feb 1, 2010 at 10:56 AM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2010, 11:11 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Olympus never had autofocus lenses for their film cameras, so leaving their manual focus lenses behind worked for them when they went digital.
Actually, Olympus DID make AF OM cameras and lenses....
dnas 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 8:48 AM.