Game Changer?

[Mike Farley]

I am not saying that this camera will alter photography on its own. Even the most radical change in photography since Fox Talbot, the introduction of digital imaging, was not actually an overnight revolution. It was a 20th century invention which did not come into its own until the 21st. From the announcement of the first digital camera in 1975, it was fully 30 years before the "new" technology became mainstream when the majority of people stopped using film.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/859964 ... ons-review

The GX7 does represent another step on the way to cameras becoming smaller and lighter by virtue of doing without a moving mirror and having electronic viewfinders instead. New manufacturers which do not have the 35 mm legacy of Canon and Nikon are entering the market place and challenging the incumbents. For Canon and Nikon, the benefit of having large systems helps them sell cameras now, but in 5 - 10 years the DSLR will seem as old fashioned as film. Both companies have made false starts with their mirrorless offerings and it remains to be seen how they will respond in the longer term. And, for that matter, how will all camera manufacturers counter the threat posed ny mobile phones?

[davidc]

Do you really think the dslr will be as obsolete as film? I mean, the EOS line of lenses has been going for 30 years spanning film and digital and though the underlying technology might be out of date with respect to newer models will we not simply be seeing "bigger/better" DSLRs?

Also, consider that when the paradigm shift of film to digital occurred, with all the opportunities it presented, cameras went from slr to dslr - i.e. essentially the same, just the sensor that was different.

Looking at the current models of cameras and the results other club members get from older models, the differences are not huge - side by side I doubt we could tell the difference between a 5d and 5dmk3 image unless you're into absurd levels of pixel peeping. Better ISO and AF systems in the newer models but the images it produces in the right hands are still cracking. So for me personally it'll need another paradigm shift that changes photorgaphy (like film > digital) because otherwise these new mirrorless cameras are doing the same as the line of gear I've invested in and at a similar price.

[Mike Farley]

Do you really think the dslr will be as obsolete as film? I mean, the EOS line of lenses has been going for 30 years spanning film and digital and though the underlying technology might be out of date with respect to newer models will we not simply be seeing "bigger/better" DSLRs?

In a word, yes. DSLR/SLR design is a compromise as having the mirror between the lens and film/sensor increases the rear focus beyond where it would naturally fall, so lenses have to be bigger as a result. That adds bulk and weight and most people are not prepared to lug heavy equipment around when they do not have to.

Also, consider that when the paradigm shift of film to digital occurred, with all the opportunities it presented, cameras went from slr to dslr - i.e. essentially the same, just the sensor that was different.

In the early days of digital, manufacturers adapted what they had and Canikon continued their existing domination, based on their legacy 35 mm systems. New entrants such as Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung and Fuji cannot compete with that, but instead are coming out with smaller, lighter systems which use EVFs and/or the rear screen. Sony is something of an oddball, having both a system based on the old Minolta Dynax cameras and a separate range of CSCs. Perhaps with today's announcement - http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/08/27 ... ra-for-400 - we are starting to see a convergence?

What is interesting is that digital was a hugely disruptive technology, which made life difficult for the incumbent manufacturers as their profits were made from film based products. Even Kodak, which invented digital imaging, has struggled and lost its dominance in the market which it held for well over a century. Hasselblad invested in digital early on, but closed its imaging division as at the time the results did not match those from film. The company nearly went out of business when sales of film cameras decreased. Leica was unprofitable, its future uncertain, until it was able to develop its digital M and S models. Now it cannot make enough of either to meet demand, even with some huge price hikes.

Now the new players to the market are taking on Canikon by manufacturing smaller/lighter cameras. What the current crop of CSCs lack are the lenses, mainly. m4/3 is currently best in this regard, Sony in particular has concentrated more on the cameras than the optics. All have some way to go before they can match the Canikon duopoloy, but it will happen and these will be lenses designed for digital, rather than film. Canon and Nikon know that they have to adapt, but do not want to lose sales of their DSLR systems while they change. There is an interesting parallel with what happened with the introducton of digital as new entrants take on the older ones using newer technology.

With its CSC system, Nikon went for something which would not compete with its DSLRs, but overpriced it and sales have not met its expectations. Canon made a half hearted effort with the EOS-M, but the new sensor announced in the forthcoming 70D is optimised for a mirrorless system, not DSLRs. I expect some significant developments by Canon over over the next 3 - 4 years.

Looking at the current models of cameras and the results other club members get from older models, the differences are not huge - side by side I doubt we could tell the difference between a 5d and 5dmk3 image unless you're into absurd levels of pixel peeping. Better ISO and AF systems in the newer models but the images it produces in the right hands are still cracking. So for me personally it'll need another paradigm shift that changes photorgaphy (like film > digital) because otherwise these new mirrorless cameras are doing the same as the line of gear I've invested in and at a similar price.

Totally agree. The main advances in recent sensor technology have been more pixels and better low light performance. At the print sizes we see in the club, once you go beyond 10 - 12 megapixels there is not going to be much advantage. Even Canon agrees with you, as it has been using basically the same 18 MP APS-C sensor for the past four years. I suspect that it is also the reason why camera sales are falling as once the era of rapid change in the early days passed, people no longer have such a need to upgrade frequently.

I still shoot with my DSLR for preference, but my Panasonic m4/3 cameras meet most of my needs when I do not want the bother of carrying a lot of heavy kit. Even when using a couple of consumer level lenses, I am happy with the results I get. For that reason I am no longer prepared to make significant investments in any more obsolescent DSLR equipment and when I do next make a major system camera purchase, it is more likely to be a CSC. EVFs are going to have to make a significant improvment before that happens, though.

[davidc]

Hmm, I'm not sure why you've singled out this camera as the herald of a new age. Reading the reviews it sounds an awful lot like the X100 in terms of EVF (gimmicky moving viewfinder notwithstanding). That has been happily well received by many but still not replaced anyone's DSLR - if anything, they are different cameras for different purposes. I don't see this as being anything truly special really, it looks a lot like the OM-D really.

I also think the rumours of the impending death of the dslr have been greatly overstated. You're right in saying these cameras need lenses but to warrant the R&D and production costs they need a market... and with so many of these things coming out the market for any given system is going to be diluted and therefore hard to pick out the "winner". Get one now and you could end up with the betamax of the camera world.

FWIW, my decision is to invest in a system that not only has a ton of quality products already available, is still 30 years on adding more, is one of the "big two" in camera terms and with tons and tons of third party support too. When will I be able to buy an underwater housing for a GX7 for instance?

I remember the last time a "game changer" was mentioned was with the Lytro camera. Look what happened there!

I don't agree it's game over for SLRs I'm afraid.

[Mike Farley]

Hmm, I'm not sure why you've singled out this camera as the herald of a new age. Reading the reviews it sounds an awful lot like the X100 in terms of EVF (gimmicky moving viewfinder notwithstanding). That has been happily well received by many but still not replaced anyone's DSLR - if anything, they are different cameras for different purposes. I don't see this as being anything truly special really, it looks a lot like the OM-D really.

My opening words to this thread were "I am not saying that this camera will alter photography on its own." Yes, it clearly has a lot of competitors in its sights and in some respects, such as the built in tiltable viewfinder, moves things on a little. The Fuji X100 is a compact with a smaller sensor and fixed lens. Did you mean the X-E1?

The point I was making is that this is part of an ongoing trend and many manufacturers, Canon and Nikon included, are announcing this type of camera.

I also think the rumours of the impending death of the dslr have been greatly overstated. You're right in saying these cameras need lenses but to warrant the R&D and production costs they need a market... and with so many of these things coming out the market for any given system is going to be diluted and therefore hard to pick out the "winner". Get one now and you could end up with the betamax of the camera world.

As I said in my initial thread, I think that this is going to play out over the next 5 - 10 years. Certainly failures like the Betamax, which was technically the better system, prove that some caution is necessary. But it also shows how things move on. The victor in that particular battle was VHS, but how many people use that nowadays? The DSLR could well be headed the same way.

FWIW, my decision is to invest in a system that not only has a ton of quality products already available, is still 30 years on adding more, is one of the "big two" in camera terms and with tons and tons of third party support too. When will I be able to buy an underwater housing for a GX7 for instance?

That is one of the great strengths of the Canikon systems and why they continue to outsell everything else at present.

I remember the last time a "game changer" was mentioned was with the Lytro camera. Look what happened there!

It took digital imaging 30 years to reach the mainstream. I would not write off light field technology just yet, the first incarnation of anything radically new is rarely successful commercially.

I don't agree it's game over for SLRs I'm afraid.

Some togs are already moving away from DSLRs for commercial work. At this year's Societies convention, I saw Damian McGillicuddy do a studio based shoot with an Olympus OM-D. OK, he has a commercial arrangement with Olympus to promote their cameras, but he made the valid point that he can now travel the world taking all the equipment he needs for a professional shoot on board the plane as hand luggage, rather than risk putting it in the hold, without sacrificing image quality.

http://www.damianmcgillicuddy.com/

Kirk Tuck has been on a number of commercial asigments with consumer level cameras, although admittedly he cannot make up his mind. He chucked out all his Canon gear, moved to more compact systems, sold those after a few months and as far as I am aware is currently using a combination of Sony DSLR and Nex systems. As a metaphor for where the camera industry is currently, that probably sums it up. Kirk lives in Austin, Texas, which is probably a great place to pick up secondhand gear!

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/