DPReview Enthusiast Camera Recommendation

[davidc]

I thought that I would follow up my previous post with another about a professional also buying a Panasonic G6.

A pro buying a m43 does not equal the death of the DSLR

I bet if I spent long enough I could find a number of articles of pros trying them and sticking with proper kit

Stewards inquiry - Candlish retains the trophy.

[Mike Farley]

Non-DSLR manufacturer in "I don't think DSLRs will survive, but we have these products" shocker From a site called "Mirrorless Rumors" no less... I'd call that a biased source!

The quote was an extract from the interview which was on another site and the reference given. I simply linked to it to save you having to read the whol;e thing.

Not convincing I'm afraid. While the low end of the market might split out amongst CSCs, smartphones and APS-C sized devices I think proper kit using FF or larger sensors is still going to be around, and the DSLR will be there.

That will depend on what happens with sensor technology. m4/3 is not much smaller than APS-C and while FF is better, the differences are not so great as you might imagine. Pros are producing quality work with m4/3 and the clients are not complaining.

If you want to see just how good a small sensor can be, look at this comparison between a Canon G10 and a 45 MB medium format back.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

The major advantage DSLRs have is that all the HUGE market for DSLR kit will still be there - I'll still be able to take photos on the platform I've invested in whereas the m43 crowd have shown they are changing tech all the time and leaving behind legacy platforms. Until a massive change in tech comes around and renders everything obsolete (like digital did to film, and even then the big guys lenses STILL work) the DSLR platform will still be the pinnacle in terms of quality. m43 is a trade off, no different to parts of the DSLR system, but the only real gripe people are levelling at DSLRs is "oh they are a bit heavy" which will a) improve, b) is highly individual and c) much less of a tradeoff than the limitations of m43.

Not sure where you get the idea that m4/3 technology is constantly changing, although admittedly I would not be too happy if I had invested heavily in 4/3 gear. That said, some of the Olympus 4/3 lenses are among the best produced for any format. Sony is the company which is continually bringing out new designs and then abandoning them after a couple of years or so.

DSLRs, and the SLRs on which they are based, are a compromise to achieve through the lens viewing. Optimum lens design requires a short distance between the exit from the rear pupil and the light recording medium, but putting a mirror in the way means that the distance has to be much greater. Lenses have to be much bigger to compensate. Comparing a Leica M prime to its (D)SLR equivalent will show just how compact a lens can be for FF. Whilst Canon has demonstrated withe the EOS 100D that it is possible to shrink the size of a DSLR body, unless there is a radical change in lens technology it will not be possible to make them smaller and lighter.

Mirrorless technology means smaller and lighter gear, optimum lens design, through the lens viewing and cheaper manufacturing costs. The EVF also means that the photograher can have more information in the viewfinder. With a live histogram on the Panny G3, I can compensate for exposure without having to take my eye from the viewfinder. Every company which makes 35 mm kit (apart from Pentax) has produced a mirrorless system and it is the way the market is going to end up sooner or later.

The crowd goes wild!

For Farley.

[Mike Farley]

I thought that I would follow up my previous post with another about a professional also buying a Panasonic G6.

A pro buying a m43 does not equal the death of the DSLR

I bet if I spent long enough I could find a number of articles of pros trying them and sticking with proper kit

No doubt you can, but the enthusiasm for an entry level camera is surprising.

My previous post documents the reasons why mirrorless has such great potential and quite a lot has already been achieved in a relatively short period. The technology is only going to improve.

Incidentally, did you know that Canon has only introduced one new lens this year, the 200 - 400 which was actually announced a couple of years ago. I wonder what their lens designers are doing? Nikon's senior engineers are also similarly quiet. They couldn't be working on new systems could they?

Candlish disqualified after an appeal.

[davidc]

Rain stopped play over the weekend.

I'm not sure you can count Canon only introducing one new lens this year as a sign the SLR is on it's way out, nor Nikon - rather if you take a look at their history of only introducing a couple of lenses a year AND having already produced a colossal catalogue there aren't many (any?) new focal lengths, zoom ranges or designs to go for. They have already done them, and in that respect proven they are committed to continue to produce & support their offerings (across film and digital indeed, which shows how good they are at planning and being consistent).

While the smaller form factor of m43 and CSCs in general certainly have appeal and merits of their own, I always think it's prudent to be wary about "bandwagonning" so early in the lifetime of a product. Cases in point, APS film was touted as being the next big thing, look what happened. Lytro cameras (smaller even than CSCs) touted as revolutionising photography. Where are they now? (Producing an SLR, actually )

In a nutshell, I bought the system I have now after looking at all the options - including CSCs - and decided that for a long term, reliable solution it would have everything I could possibly want. If some new game-changer comes along then I'll look at it then but based on the evidence, m43 is not giving me anything new, better or cheaper. The system I've chosen has given me the power to learn and offers the quality and back catalogue for that to continue for a hugely long time. After all, having the kit to take the pictures I want NOW is more important than waiting for kit that theoertically might do it in a possibly better package eventually. Those photographers saying "I'm not buying any more SLR kit" smacks a little of

a) cutting their nose off to spite their face - so you'd rather MISS a ton of shots waiting for that perfect camera?
b) falling into the old trap of the kit being more important than the photographer and their creative vision

Turning this a bit more personal, if you (Mike) are not getting any more SLR kit (which I thought I saw you post somewhere), what is it about the new kit that you think will make you a better photographer or let you achieve that you cannot do using the system you have already invested in.

I've not really touched on the physics side of things whereby the bigger your sensor and optics the more light you can capture and the better quality image you can ultimately produce. Small is good for carrying, large is better for quality; it's the very nature of light. Software can correct some flaws but not all. It's the reason why all the telescopes worldwide aren't m43 sized Considering that the weight/size difference isn't that great between the two systems - both are man portable! - I fail to see why one would want to unproven, constantly changing, flavour of the month, scientifically sub-optimal technology.

This is my trophy - I have won.

[Mike Farley]

Oh dear, I do seem to have touched a raw nerve. It is worth going back to the initial post of this thread, where I merely reported on DPReview's obervations about the current state of m4/3 systems, having nominated the snappily named OM-D E-M1 as its camera of the year. I then added my own views about the merits of electronic and optical viewfinders, being a user of both.

To be clear, cameras are merely tools and just about any modern digital model will produce good results that can be printed up to A3 or A2 size, which is as much as most will ever need. Heck, some people are even doing well with film. Equipment choice is mainly down to personal preference and budget.

That all said, the manufacturers do have a problem. We are not buying enough of their products. The heady days of a few years ago when digital technology was changing quickly are over. Back then, a new camera brought significant benefits and upgrading was usually a no brainer. These days, there is little to differentiate newer models which has resulted in sales falling year on year and over supply. The main incumbents are Canon and Nikon, which between them sell the vast majority of cameras, with both depending mainly on DSLR sales. Their threats come from newcomers such as Samsung and Sony which know that they cannot compete in DSLR territory, so are looking for new types of products to disrupt the market in the same way that digital caused a switch from film.

Both Canon and Nikon know that in time they will need to respond if they are to maintain their market lead. The problem is more acute for Nikon as it is solely a manufacturer of optical goods and unlike its competitors does not have other product lines to fall back on when times are hard. The trick for both companies is to do this without jeopardising sales of their existing products, i.e. DSLRs. Nikon tried to do this by introducing its 1 series of cameras which it thought might appeal tho those upgrading from mobile phones and digital compacts. It might have had more success had it priced the cameras more keenly, but they are too expensive compared to DSLRs with their bigger sensors. Then soon after launch Nikon compounded the problem by selling off surplus older models at a substantial discount, which had the unfortunate effects of not only upsetting early adopters but also cheapening the brand.

The upshot is that all the manufacturers need to do something to persuade us to start buying their cameras again, which they will probably do by introducing new technology and reducing manufacturing costs. This could well mean new systems, albeit with upgrade paths from existing ones to ensure continuing lock in of committed purchasers. What this new technology will be is anyone's guess, although improved EVFs seem set to feature heavily and I would not be surprised if there are improved sensors as well. The days of Bayer could be coming to an end.

I'm not sure you can count Canon only introducing one new lens this year as a sign the SLR is on it's way out, nor Nikon - rather if you take a look at their history of only introducing a couple of lenses a year AND having already produced a colossal catalogue there aren't many (any?) new focal lengths, zoom ranges or designs to go for. They have already done them, and in that respect proven they are committed to continue to produce & support their offerings (across film and digital indeed, which shows how good they are at planning and being consistent).

Many of Canon's lens designs date back to the early 90s and would benefit from an update to newer technology. Some have been updated recently, but one perennial model consistently commented on as requiring an update is the 100-400 dust sucker. It's a good lens, but has mechanical issues and an old fashioned trombone design. I doubt if Canon is ever going to replace it. If Canon wants to keep its lens designers occupied updating current systems, there is plenty of scope. That it does not seem to be so doing could well mean that it is utilising its resources elsewhere.

While the smaller form factor of m43 and CSCs in general certainly have appeal and merits of their own, I always think it's prudent to be wary about "bandwagonning" so early in the lifetime of a product. Cases in point, APS film was touted as being the next big thing, look what happened. Lytro cameras (smaller even than CSCs) touted as revolutionising photography. Where are they now? (Producing an SLR, actually )

Who is "bandwaggoning"? I would always advocate caution before buying into any system. With an open system and a number of manufacturers supporting it, m4/3 is currently better placed than any of the opposition in the CSC arena. Indeed, one can argue that with more than one company behind it, it has an unique advantage.

In a nutshell, I bought the system I have now after looking at all the options - including CSCs - and decided that for a long term, reliable solution it would have everything I could possibly want. If some new game-changer comes along then I'll look at it then but based on the evidence, m43 is not giving me anything new, better or cheaper. The system I've chosen has given me the power to learn and offers the quality and back catalogue for that to continue for a hugely long time. After all, having the kit to take the pictures I want NOW is more important than waiting for kit that theoertically might do it in a possibly better package eventually. Those photographers saying "I'm not buying any more SLR kit" smacks a little of

a) cutting their nose off to spite their face - so you'd rather MISS a ton of shots waiting for that perfect camera?
b) falling into the old trap of the kit being more important than the photographer and their creative vision

You have made a choice about the equipment you use, which is your perogative. There is never a perfect time to buy anything as there will always be something better a year or two down the line. The important thing is to make an informed choice depending on what is available at the time you decide to buy. DSLRs are not going away tomorrow, but I expect the scene to look much different in four or five years from now. Don't forget that it is not just DPReview naming the E-M1 as their camera of the year, so m4/3 is already becoming well established.

Turning this a bit more personal, if you (Mike) are not getting any more SLR kit (which I thought I saw you post somewhere), what is it about the new kit that you think will make you a better photographer or let you achieve that you cannot do using the system you have already invested in.

I might have mentioned not looking to acquire a lot of new kit in conversation, but it is less likely (although not impossible) that I would have made such a statement on the forum. My purchases are always predicated on whether new kit will produce better results or increase the opportunities for me to take photographs. One reason for not buying a lot of new DSLR gear is that what I have pretty much meets my needs at present.

Interestingly, Canon seems to agree with me on this point. My 7D, bought in 2010, has a sensor which over the past four has been used in a number of different models with only minor alterations. According to DxOMark, the new sensor in the 70D performs very similarly and the main change seems to be on sensor AF. In its current incarnation, that only makes sense for shooting video or using live view, but would seem more suited for a camera with an EVF. Canon is simply not giving me any reason to upgrade. There is a similar position with its pro models, with many 1Ds Mk III owners viewing the 1Dx more as 1D IV upgrade to full frame than a camera to which they aspire.

I've not really touched on the physics side of things whereby the bigger your sensor and optics the more light you can capture and the better quality image you can ultimately produce. Small is good for carrying, large is better for quality; it's the very nature of light. Software can correct some flaws but not all. It's the reason why all the telescopes worldwide aren't m43 sized Considering that the weight/size difference isn't that great between the two systems - both are man portable! - I fail to see why one would want to unproven, constantly changing, flavour of the month, scientifically sub-optimal technology.

Agreed that sensor size will have an impact on things such as DOF, but the difference in image quality between sensor sizes is not as great as you seem to think and has not been for some years (see my previous post). I am far from alone in wanting to carry a lighter bag when I am out and about, neither do I have any complaints about the results I get from more compact equipment. DSLRs are big due to optical design compromises and 35 mm film legacy considerations. These days it simply is not necessary to carry all that weight.

This is my trophy - I have won.

This an obsolete style of trophy and a new improved version will be along shortly.

[davidc]

I think it's probably best to "agree to disagree" on whether the rumours of the DSLRs death have been greatly exaggerated or not

Though no "nerve touching" or problems at all from me, I think it's an interesting debate (I had the same one with people at work). That discussion was catalysed by one guy who sold all his DSLR kit (he hinted at over £20k sold on ebay) to invest in m43 kit - he's a semi pro with oodles of spare income - and bought literally everything for his chosen m43 (which annoyingly escapes me at the moment and he's now not online).

Before he went away with it for a holiday he was thrilled about how all the extraneous kit was now gone and he had just what he needed. Came back saying it was the biggest mistake of his life, the shot quality suffered, lacked the range and flexibility of what he could do before - basically, the only thing he enjoyed was the weight saving.

Anecdotal story, but his isn't the only one I've heard and until there are tangible benefits for m43/CSCs over weight I see them as immature tech. Whereas the 6D is a considerable upgrade over the 7D (and 550D which is it's baby brother) and I can absolutely make use of the expanded features of that, a major driver in my plan to upgrade in the new year

I'm also out of tennis related comparison jokes.

[Mike Farley]

As you say, we are probably not going to convince each other. Whilst m4/3 is currently the most mature of the mirrorless offerings in terms of lenses which are available, that situation might not endure. Sony supposedly has a roadmap which will see it introduce 15 lenses in its new FE mount by 2015. That might be something of a record, as Sony has only produced a few lenses for its new mounts before moving on to the next thing. Those optics will be based on full frame sensors, so might not be especially small, but with the RX1 Sony has already demonstrated its ability to put a large sensor in a relatively compact body.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/the-full ... late-2015/

I would like to think that over the next few years the manufacturers will devise new ways to improve image quality other than by simply increasing the MP count. We long ago passed the stage when most people had sufficient to produce decent A3 or A2 prints and, as I said in my previous post, the camera companies will need to find new ways to persuade us to part with our cash.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/wil ... -ever.html

It would interesting to find out which camera your friend settled on when he took the m4/3 route, but I am surprised by his experience which runs contrary to me own. Given the sum he raised on eBay, it sounds as though he had previously been shooting full frame. If he was pixel peeping on the monitor, the files might not have looked so impressive, but the differences become much less marked in prints and DPIs.

I shall miss you serving up your tennis jokes. It was a great game lobbing them back as you smashed them over the net seeking to gain an advantage.

[Mike Farley]

Thought I would just add this link from Thom Hogan's DSLRbodies website, which gives a balanced view of the current situation regarding DSLR vs mirrorless. He agrees with David that DSLRs offer the best all round soluton at present, but also says that this situation will not prevail for ever. I wonder if, as Hogan hints, the next few years are going to be as interesting as those at the beginning of the century when digital was first introduced?

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the ... lance.html

[Mike Farley]

Here's another article, this time by Michael Reichmann on Luminous Landscape, examining the merits of full frame, APS-C and MFT. In particular, he looks at the forthcoming changes which Sony's new A7/R models could herald, especially for those who want full frame.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essay ... myth.shtml

As MR says in his conclusion, it is getting interesting. I cannot think of another period when photographers had such a wide range of camera types from which to choose and I doubt whether that choice is going to become smaller in the next couple of years or so.

[Mike Farley]

A couple more votes for the Olympus. I believe that both authors do actually own the camera and Michael Reichmann's comment that Olympus is run by people who understand the needs of photographers* is illuminating.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... -2013.html

A featured comment in this post concerns the current lack of wide angle options for m4/3 lenses. Not a particular issue for me. Maybe my 2014 photo project should be to improve this aspect of my photography?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... tml#update

* Integrity is another matter completely. Not the first time that the people at the coalface have been let down by those in charge of a company.