What is this "The end of the SRL Digital Camera"

[Geo]

Hi Guys I'm so sorry if this topic was discuss before, so I not make any search about it but the reason are that this was freak me.
So check the link below


http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/is_this_the_end_of_the_slr_camera


What did you think

[Photon Phil]

It's nonsense, don't worry Geo. SLR's forever, and when we have an EMP for some unfortunate reason, the film SLRs will be ther to capture that for all to see.

P.S. It's good to see via your avitar that Spuds McKenzie is enjoying his golden years in Florida.

[Aeth]

Live view on my camera or live view through the lens... Neither of which match the resolution of a mirror.
No matter how many things they dub "HD" they will not compare to a single mirror. I like the pitch for the Panasonic camera. :/

[Geo]

OK Guys personally I'll don't change the pleasure to use the view finder, I think that use the view finder the photographer have more stability than use the live view.

[DDCSD]

LCD's often don't work in extremely cold conditions. :(

[Nistelrooydude]

No way, the day I abandon my DSLR for that thing will be the day that...well, I can't even think about it.

[Photo Gib]

I don't see SLR's going away in our lifetimes, but I do believe that there will be an increasing number of new photogs and a lot of pro-ams that will find this new technology appealing enough to go with it exclusively. We as photographers have to remember that not every user is like us. I, for one, used to have to remind myself regularly that Joe and Jane Smith have found point-and-click cameras to be sufficient for their uses. Therefore cameras like the ones in this article are going to be that much "more sufficient."

My take is that the article is sensationalized promotion that WILL hold true for a lot of users and next generation users - but not everyone. It reminds me of the Popular Science shorts that read definitively that hydrogen fuel cells will replace all combustion engines. The writer was trying to make a point at the expense of absolute accuracy and reality.

I love sharing my two cents. :cool:

[flyinbrian]

No way

[Coolhat]

I´m afraid the people praising the superiority of optical VF just do not get it. It is a whole different generation and a whole different view (no pun intented) on photography. It is not about the resolution, clarity, reliability or size of the VF. It is about instant feedback.

Old school photographers from film era are used to working half-blind. The are used to figuring out in their heads what the final photo will look like and what adjustments are needed to get the desired result. Ony after the film was processed did they know if they had been successful.

This is something film era photogs still take pride in. They like to boast how the do not need any stinking liveviews or playbacks on 3" screens, because they are such seasoned veterans and know the exact outcome even before they open their eyes. This is all very fine and dandy, but has absolutely no relevance for a photographer born on digital age.

Young photographers are used to getting instant feedback from their camera. They look at the EVF, try out what adjustments need to be done and take the picture. When these guys pick up their first DSLR, they look through the VF, adjust the exposure and go:"Hey, what´s going on? Nothing´s happening on the screen even though I changed the aperture!".

For younger photographers making crucial adjustments without any visual cue would be as absurd as driving eyes closed. To them a camera that doesn´t show you what happens when you do this and that is as archaic as a mechanical typewriter ("Hey, I don´t like this font, how do I change it?").

Old school photogs may despise theis new generation all they want, but it´s the future and nothings stopping it. I´m sure every single film era guy remembers numerous moments from the past, when they have wished they had had some way to check the picture in real time. Well now the technology is, if not already here, at least damn near. And as always, guys who had to get by without that convenience of new technology, try all they can to dismiss it. Suddenly, the restricions of old technology become a virtue, and the line between "real photography" and "P&S nonsense" is drawn.

But whatever. SLR will go the way of 35mm film, vinyl records, mechanical typewriters and such. It will not disappear completely, but will become a small niche for nostalgics who romanticize everything old, and bitter old school photogs who like to think they are better than others because they do things the "hard way".

[cdifoto]

It's just a blog. Anyone can write anything on a blog.

[Collin85]

Personally I don't see what's so wrong about SLRs becoming obselete. Best tools for the job - I say. If EVFs in the future are able to be improved to the point that they're practically indistinguishable to an optical VF, then there's nothing wrong with going that route. Heck, it'll make bodies lighter and smaller atleast (something I prefer).

Each to their own.

PS Good on Panasonic lately. First the LX3 to spoil the G10's party and now the innovative G1.

[cdifoto]

Heck, it'll make bodies lighter and smaller atleast (something I prefer).
To me, smaller and lighter = shaky and uncomfortable.

[Nistelrooydude]

To me, smaller and lighter = shaky and uncomfortable.

For sure. And it'll just feel like a toy in your hand.

[dino8031]

Personally I'd love to see a large, high resolution EVF from which I can make real time adjustments to the image.

As long as I can still use my EF mount lenses I'm on board with it.

From what I've seen so far the technology is still a ways away. Have you ever looking the viewfinder of an S5IS? Yuck.

[nuffi]

The article itself pointed out that they're targetting the 13 odd percent of the market that are considering dSLR, but are put off by things like size and weight of them, the viewfinders or other intangibles.

They know that they might get a few guys jumping down from dSLR, but not many and that isn't their aim. The dSLR market share are pretty devoted to their kits, as evidenced by the reaction to threads like "I'm selling my 5d Mark II" and "I've switched to nikon because...."

In other words, it is likely never to greatly impact on the dSLR market, and will certainly take a long long time before it does.

[brianch]

NEVERRRR

[Hermes]

Meh, this is aimed at consumers who want nice dinky little cameras that will fit in their handbags.

I doubt many professionals will give up their expensive 35mm lenses in order to switch to smaller sensors and contrast-detect AF any time soon.

[sjones]

I´m afraid the people praising the superiority of optical VF just do not get it. It is a whole different generation and a whole different view (no pun intented) on photography. It is not about the resolution, clarity, reliability or size of the VF. It is about instant feedback.

Old school photographers from film era are used to working half-blind. The are used to figuring out in their heads what the final photo will look like and what adjustments are needed to get the desired result. Ony after the film was processed did they know if they had been successful.

This is something film era photogs still take pride in. They like to boast how the do not need any stinking liveviews or playbacks on 3" screens, because they are such seasoned veterans and know the exact outcome even before they open their eyes. This is all very fine and dandy, but has absolutely no relevance for a photographer born on digital age.

Young photographers are used to getting instant feedback from their camera. They look at the EVF, try out what adjustments need to be done and take the picture. When these guys pick up their first DSLR, they look through the VF, adjust the exposure and go:"Hey, what´s going on? Nothing´s happening on the screen even though I changed the aperture!".

For younger photographers making crucial adjustments without any visual cue would be as absurd as driving eyes closed. To them a camera that doesn´t show you what happens when you do this and that is as archaic as a mechanical typewriter ("Hey, I don´t like this font, how do I change it?").

Old school photogs may despise theis new generation all they want, but it´s the future and nothings stopping it. I´m sure every single film era guy remembers numerous moments from the past, when they have wished they had had some way to check the picture in real time. Well now the technology is, if not already here, at least damn near. And as always, guys who had to get by without that convenience of new technology, try all they can to dismiss it. Suddenly, the restricions of old technology become a virtue, and the line between "real photography" and "P&S nonsense" is drawn.

But whatever. SLR will go the way of 35mm film, vinyl records, mechanical typewriters and such. It will not disappear completely, but will become a small niche for nostalgics who romanticize everything old, and bitter old school photogs who like to think they are better than others because they do things the "hard way".

How do you figure?

[cdifoto]

I´m afraid the people praising the superiority of optical VF just do not get it. It is a whole different generation and a whole different view (no pun intented) on photography. It is not about the resolution, clarity, reliability or size of the VF. It is about instant feedback.

Old school photographers from film era are used to working half-blind. The are used to figuring out in their heads what the final photo will look like and what adjustments are needed to get the desired result. Ony after the film was processed did they know if they had been successful.

This is something film era photogs still take pride in. They like to boast how the do not need any stinking liveviews or playbacks on 3" screens, because they are such seasoned veterans and know the exact outcome even before they open their eyes. This is all very fine and dandy, but has absolutely no relevance for a photographer born on digital age.

Young photographers are used to getting instant feedback from their camera. They look at the EVF, try out what adjustments need to be done and take the picture. When these guys pick up their first DSLR, they look through the VF, adjust the exposure and go:"Hey, what´s going on? Nothing´s happening on the screen even though I changed the aperture!".

For younger photographers making crucial adjustments without any visual cue would be as absurd as driving eyes closed. To them a camera that doesn´t show you what happens when you do this and that is as archaic as a mechanical typewriter ("Hey, I don´t like this font, how do I change it?").

Old school photogs may despise theis new generation all they want, but it´s the future and nothings stopping it. I´m sure every single film era guy remembers numerous moments from the past, when they have wished they had had some way to check the picture in real time. Well now the technology is, if not already here, at least damn near. And as always, guys who had to get by without that convenience of new technology, try all they can to dismiss it. Suddenly, the restricions of old technology become a virtue, and the line between "real photography" and "P&S nonsense" is drawn.

But whatever. SLR will go the way of 35mm film, vinyl records, mechanical typewriters and such. It will not disappear completely, but will become a small niche for nostalgics who romanticize everything old, and bitter old school photogs who like to think they are better than others because they do things the "hard way".
I kind of agree. But it's a long way off before an EVF can keep up with a live view to allow action shooting. I welcome that day though, assuming I'm not dead first.

[gjl711]

I love what Panasonic is doing and sure hope it catches on. Bring it on guys, bury the current SLR with better technology. I would love if the 5D MkIII comes out and it is smaller, lighter, easier to carry, yet has a large sensor, interchangeable lenses, and a integrated EVF that is so chocked full of features that it allows shooting in situations where today's current SLRs just cant. I would love to see a IR mode allowing manual focus in near darkness and seeing the image in the EVF as if it were daylight. I would love to see a high contrast B/W mode or being able to zoom in. I would love to see the mirror and shutter gone. Imagine shooting with P/S quietness. No more announcing to the room, hey look at me I got a huge and loud camera.. Ain't I great..

For me all that matters is the final image. The device that catches it is completely irrelevant. If my cell phone could capture images equal to my 5D or 50D I'd dump my gear in a heartbeat. Byt alas, cell phones, P/Ses, compacts, and the Panasonic just aren't quite there yet.

[alt4852]

For me all that matters is the final image. The device that catches it is completely irrelevant. If my cell phone could capture images equal to my 5D or 50D I'd dump my gear in a heartbeat. Byt alas, cell phones, P/Ses, compacts, and the Panasonic just aren't quite there yet.

yea, i think that's the biggest rift that's being formed among users. i completely understand the trend that it's going in and i commend progress like this. the problem is, many people (myself included) are not full blown professionals who use photography as their main source of income. sure i can land clients and do shoots, but at the end of the day the lure of photography is the experience just as much as the pictures are. if i was only involved with photography for a paycheck, i could understand how making the process as simple and user friendly as possible is optimal.

i like street photography. though if i could magically spawn all the images that i think would look amazing into my computer, it would completely miss the point. the final image is NOT the bottom line for me. going out, seeing a scene, waiting for the elements to move into frame, and capturing it in the manner i want is nearly as important as the resulting image. recently, i've been shooting with my old film slr and a rangefinder for good measure. when i go out with those two cameras and three lenses, it's not all about nailing a shot anymore, it's about the experience.. and i think that in itself is worth quite a lot.

[gjl711]

... it's not all about nailing a shot anymore, it's about the experience.. and i think that in itself is worth quite a lot.Which is why they will never go away. There are still folks shooting large format. Not many, but every once in a while you run into one.

[tmoore99]

The way I see it, the cornerstone of image quality is the lense; i.e. capturing the light. From there though, the technology behind the lens is anybody's guess if we're talking about a camera of the future.

[gjl711]

The way I see it, the cornerstone of image quality is the lense; i.e. capturing the light. ...And the sensor. They have to go together. Great lens, crappy sensor = crappy picture. All the features and packaging is just window dressing.

[tmoore99]

Great lens, crappy sensor = crappy picture.

No doubt, but don't we know the CMOS has met or exceded the IQ of a 35mm filmstrip over the last few years? Maybe the sensor of the future will be meeting or exceding IQ of the human eye; and, perhaps, as radically different from CMOS as CMOS is from film.

[Karl Johnston]

Meh, who cares what it is as long as it produces the same quality or better, doesn't matter if the tech evolves. If it works better for cheaper it will be used more and DSLRs will get cheaper, just like film cameras did. All about preference, i wouldn't worry too much since it's just a blog

[sjones]

yea, i think that's the biggest rift that's being formed among users. i completely understand the trend that it's going in and i commend progress like this. the problem is, many people (myself included) are not full blown professionals who use photography as their main source of income. sure i can land clients and do shoots, but at the end of the day the lure of photography is the experience just as much as the pictures are. if i was only involved with photography for a paycheck, i could understand how making the process as simple and user friendly as possible is optimal.

i like street photography. though if i could magically spawn all the images that i think would look amazing into my computer, it would completely miss the point. the final image is NOT the bottom line for me. going out, seeing a scene, waiting for the elements to move into frame, and capturing it in the manner i want is nearly as important as the resulting image. recently, i've been shooting with my old film slr and a rangefinder for good measure. when i go out with those two cameras and three lenses, it's not all about nailing a shot anymore, it's about the experience.. and i think that in itself is worth quite a lot.

Exactly.

As far as technology moving on, of course…someday, cameras might be contained in contact lenses, and as for EVF advancments, if it can replicate the clarity of an optical viewfinder, then the traditional DSLR could be on its way out in our lifetime.

However, just because someone uses real paint, a paintbrush, and a canvas instead of a Photoshop filter does not mean they are bitter, nostalgic romantics. The process is, as alt4852 correctly pointed out, important for some people, and the the tactile qualities of the tool can also play a role in the enjoyment of a hobby or pursuit. If these people comprise a "niche," so what, in the overall scheme of things, DSLR users are a "niche" compared with the telephone camera and point & shoot demographic.

I started photography as a serious hobby with a digital camera, never thinking I would use a film camera. Then I picked up a film rangefinder, and digital has since been retired. Nothing Luddite about it, no philosophical point being made, just a personal preference.

Just to note, Coolhat, using instant feedback to make adjustments is only an advantage if your subject is largely static…a lot of "half blind" photographers throughout the past century managed to take photos that have yet to be surpassed despite evolving technologies, and the young ones might want to keep this in mind.

[DigitalSoCal]

The ads on that page are redonkulous

I couldn't even read the article they annoyed me that much

[gjl711]

The ads on that page are redonkulous

I couldn't even read the article they annoyed me that muchThere are a lot, aren't there.

[manipula]

Dare I ask how many of the doubters here have used a G1?

I have, and I reckon it's innovative enough that I wouldn't be surprised to find that as the years develop you're more likely to find manufacturers following Panasonic, than to find FF sensors being developed for cheaper cameras say. I think the thing's revolutionary.

[sjones]

Dare I ask how many of the doubters here have used a G1?

I have, and I reckon it's innovative enough that I wouldn't be surprised to find that as the years develop you're more likely to find manufacturers following Panasonic, than to find FF sensors being developed for cheaper cameras say. I think the thing's revolutionary.

The release of Canon FD and Leica M mount adaptors have already made the G1 all the more intriguing for several folks:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/leica-lens-to-p.html

[manipula]

I personally think with the likes of the RED system making HD video and high end stills a 'designed-from-the-outset' option, and the fact that according to the Panasonic chaps I've dealt with, the G1+ or G2 or whatever it's called will have full HD, and there's a HD designed video slanted lens already in the works, the notion of a single system designed to give everything is becoming reality.

Nikon and Canon have showed they are aware and interested in this via their D90 and 5D2, but the basic design of the cameras puts them at a disadvantage straight away. People have asked me a lot recently with the advent of the new 5D how soon til consumer cameras get FF chips. The answer was always unlikely due to the manufacturing issues, but that was countered with the fact any manufacturing issues can be ironed out with development. The answer now for me would be that I think it's more likely the companies will have to compete with G1's and RED systems than bother to worry about FF sensors or other expected developments. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if the G1 isn't a highly influential model. And it's an utter joy to use, takes beautiful photos.

[therealmr]

Let technology and innovation take it's course; and through the piles of research and testing, a better camera will evolve and take over what we view as our current technology. It's been happening since before film SLRs were developed - and look at how far photography has come!

And don't worry, I'm sure they'll make a fatty body just for us to feel like we're actually holding something =D

[gjl711]

...And don't worry, I'm sure they'll make a fatty body just for us to feel like we're actually holding something =D
Could be like the old boom boxes of the 80s. Basically a little radio sitting in a huge box and a bunch of batteries to make it feel heavy. :)

[cvt01]

Wouldn't this technology allow really fast lenses? I thought the reason we don't have f/2 or faster zooms today is that a zoom like that would be too bulky (like the 24-70 already is).
The other aspect of it is the camera size. Yes those P&S people like the small size, but what if they implement this technology in a professional level camera like the 1D They could incorporate some breaktrough things which they simply could not fit in before because of the lack of real estate inside the camera. I'm thinking like a fully functioning GPS even bigger faster buffer memory, a built in superfast 256GB solid state drive and other stuff. That would be neat...
I admit I don't know much about video but how come that in the professional vidoecameras can get away with an EVF but we need the prism, mirror and the rest of the stuff?

[fiorano94]

The DSLR will always have at least 1 user...me.

I'll never, ever, ever use a P&S. Never.

[jhkphoto]

that's dumb its just another system of many. we saw it in film and we are seeing it again

[Karl Johnston]

LCD's often don't work in extremely cold conditions. :(
Bull****..unless you're talking about a cold colder than -44C then that's just a rumor.

*points to location<<<*

[DDCSD]

Bull****..unless you're talking about a cold colder than -44C then that's just a rumor.

*points to location<<<*

OK, I should have spelled it out. LCD's won't work as an electronic viewfinder in extremely cold environments for a few reasons. They get slow and blurry or simply stop showing an image.

They'll work OK for still image review.

Here is a few threads over at the RED forums about EVF and LCD problems in cold temps.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24914

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=366004

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24107


Canon XL1 problems with EVF in cold weather:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-xl1s-xl1-watchdog/7505-evf-cold-weather.html


LCD= Liquid Crystal Display

It may not be water, but it still has liquid properties. That means it can start to freeze up and that makes it not work properly.

[gjl711]

OK, I should have spelled it out. LCD's won't work as an electronic viewfinder in extremely cold environments for a few reasons. They get slow and blurry or simply stop showing an image...Your making the assumption that only yesterdays technology can be used. There are many other options out there like OLED, PLED, LEP, SED, and many others some still in the lab but others very ready for comercilization.

[DDCSD]

Your making the assumption that only yesterdays technology can be used. There are many other options out there like OLED, PLED, LEP, SED, and many others some still in the lab but others very ready for comercilization.

I simply made the statement that LCD's don't work all that well in very cold weather, and then was told that I was full of it.

I then pointed out several sources that backed up my assertion that LCD's don't work all that well in very cold weather.

[Damian75]

First off let me say I am a techie through and through but what you have going on is the slow devaluing of knowledge and information. This is seen even in current digital photography, the I will just keep shooting and turning dials till it comes out right without really knowing what your are doing. If you truly know how things work you know what results you will get by making certain changes, film was a measure of how well you knew your craft there was no just keep randomly changing things till it comes out right. This knowledge was the difference between snapping a picture and making art and that sadly is getting lost as the cameras get smarter instead of the user.

[lonelyjew]

First off let me say I am a techie through and through but what you have going on is the slow devaluing of knowledge and information. This is seen even in current digital photography, the I will just keep shooting and turning dials till it comes out right without really knowing what your are doing. If you truly know how things work you know what results you will get by making certain changes, film was a measure of how well you knew your craft there was no just keep randomly changing things till it comes out right. This knowledge was the difference between snapping a picture and making art and that sadly is getting lost as the cameras get smarter instead of the user.

That's one way of looking at it but people do have this magical ability to learn as they go. If someone really cares to learn they'll pay attention to what works when, chimping at first, but later knowing what settings work. I've been trying to learn through both reading, watching, and chimping for only about a year but I've seen a lot of progress in myself. I'd imagine, unless I had formal training, I'd be way way behind if I was using film. I suppose this all depends on the attitude of the photog and how willing and eager they are to learn.

IRT to the topic
I suppose I understand nostalgia but blind adherence to something inferior for simply the sake of holding on isn't something I'm a fan of. I'm in no way saying that this camera is going to be superior to today's SLR's, just that there is no sense in being terrified of progress. If "SLR like" cameras that had excellent real time viewfinders with 100% coverage were to come out with a contrast autofocus system that worked as well as phase autofocus I really don't understand why these would be in any way inferior to a mirror and pentaprism. It'd be great to have a viewfinder that could amplify light to make it easier to shoot in darker settings or a viewfinder that would allow your view to zoom to make precise focus adjustments. A shiny mirror and fancy prism aren't why I bought my camera, I bought it because it can take great pictures, if a camera came around that could take better pictures, was smaller and lighter, and happened to be missing said mirror and prism I would gladly take the camera that takes better images.

[sjones]

...I suppose I understand nostalgia but blind adherence to something inferior for simply the sake of holding on isn't something I'm a fan of. I'm in no way saying that this camera is going to be superior to today's SLR's, just that there is no sense in being terrified of progress. If "SLR like" cameras that had excellent real time viewfinders with 100% coverage were to come out with a contrast autofocus system that worked as well as phase autofocus I really don't understand why these would be in any way inferior to a mirror and pentaprism. It'd be great to have a viewfinder that could amplify light to make it easier to shoot in darker settings or a viewfinder that would allow your view to zoom to make precise focus adjustments...

The problem is when technology focuses more on convenience than on quality, and I think this might be an underlying concern. The mpeg revolution was, and still is, bad for the high-end audio geeks.

That said, you're right, if the electronic viewfinder (EFV) can provide the clarity and real time rendering of a scene, then it should prevail, potentially providing other benefits, such as the low light improvements that you mentioned.

At this point, some reviews actually criticized the Panasonic G1's EVF in low light situations. Also, a couple of weeks ago, I looked through the G1, and the EVF still stutters somewhat, so more progress is needed.

Still, given this specific camera's ability to use Leica M mount lenses, among others, and its size, I can see why some folks are picking them up.

[KenjiS]

3 reasons I rather dont want a G1 or these "things" taking over

1. Size, No thank you, I like my 30D with battery grip and my 70-200 f/2.8 on it thank you very much, I like a big bulky camera because I can hold it and steady it a lot better than that tiny little thing, And I dont have huge hands

2. Viewfinder, lovely, its tiny, hard to see, and it will torch my eye out :/ I already hate the 4:3rds viewfinders because I think they're practically unusable...

3. Sensor size, its 4:3rds, Not exactly the best of the DSLR formats in my opinion [WAY too small..VERY noisy at even moderate ISOs]

Oh and I saw the review of the lenses for it, they're not very good, You can save a lot and get a Rebel with a 18-55 and a 55-250 and have a much higher quality system thats not exactly too big

But I think the G1 is nice anyways, Id love to actually -try- one and see if the EVF is that bad..

But I'm still partial to my mirror and I dont want that going away anytime soon :/

[augenblick]

Coolhat Bravo My sentiments almost exactly..

[KenjiS]

I´m afraid the people praising the superiority of optical VF just do not get it. It is a whole different generation and a whole different view (no pun intented) on photography. It is not about the resolution, clarity, reliability or size of the VF. It is about instant feedback.

Old school photographers from film era are used to working half-blind. The are used to figuring out in their heads what the final photo will look like and what adjustments are needed to get the desired result. Ony after the film was processed did they know if they had been successful.

This is something film era photogs still take pride in. They like to boast how the do not need any stinking liveviews or playbacks on 3" screens, because they are such seasoned veterans and know the exact outcome even before they open their eyes. This is all very fine and dandy, but has absolutely no relevance for a photographer born on digital age.

Young photographers are used to getting instant feedback from their camera. They look at the EVF, try out what adjustments need to be done and take the picture. When these guys pick up their first DSLR, they look through the VF, adjust the exposure and go:"Hey, what´s going on? Nothing´s happening on the screen even though I changed the aperture!".

For younger photographers making crucial adjustments without any visual cue would be as absurd as driving eyes closed. To them a camera that doesn´t show you what happens when you do this and that is as archaic as a mechanical typewriter ("Hey, I don´t like this font, how do I change it?").

Old school photogs may despise theis new generation all they want, but it´s the future and nothings stopping it. I´m sure every single film era guy remembers numerous moments from the past, when they have wished they had had some way to check the picture in real time. Well now the technology is, if not already here, at least damn near. And as always, guys who had to get by without that convenience of new technology, try all they can to dismiss it. Suddenly, the restricions of old technology become a virtue, and the line between "real photography" and "P&S nonsense" is drawn.

But whatever. SLR will go the way of 35mm film, vinyl records, mechanical typewriters and such. It will not disappear completely, but will become a small niche for nostalgics who romanticize everything old, and bitter old school photogs who like to think they are better than others because they do things the "hard way".

Hey I'm from that generation and have plenty of friends who are not idiots and understand all of this, they want to learn photography and none of them NEED or want any of that to take very good pictures :/ alot of them have SLRs because they didnt like the EVF at all... (Oddly most of them shoot Nikon, im the sole Canon shooter)

The ones you refer to i dont call photographers, i call "myspace whores" the ones who think "photography" is photographing themselves in a mirror and applying retarded filters to it, adding glitter text or animation and then saying its art (Ok im not saying you couldnt do this and make it art, but im saying they're doing it in a non-artistic fashion)

Also for the record, Vinyl is coming back with my generation, a lot of newer albums are coming out on Vinyl again and older ones are being repressed on 180gram vinyl stock :/

[augenblick]

I think we are mixing the young generation desire to nostalgia to common practicalities of everyday use.

The expectation of viewfinder to be responsive (i.e. when you make changes on settings it should be reflected on EVF) has always been there.

New generation of DSLR users are wanting this and will come eventually kicking the bucket of traditional VF that we know today.

Even this Panasonic's tackle at the micro thirds concept is very attractive. Imagine the weight and the size you save from such a small set-up. Climb himalayas, kayak at amazon and you interchangeable lens camera can always be with you.

[badgerW]

Well, think about what an SLR is (film or digital). It was an improvement over a viewfinder camera because you could frame the shot visually through the exact same lens that would put the image on the film or sensor. So an SLR is more "direct" than a viewfinder, what your eye sees = what will be imaged.

In order to do this, the designers of the SLR had to come up with a mirror that flipped out of the way, and a pentaprism to flip the image over enough times to get it to come rightside up in the viewfinder. That adds a certain amount of weight, complexity, and size to a camera. The mirror takes up like 20mm of space on a full-frame SLR. That's 20mm distance between the back of the lens, and the film or sensor (add the depth for the shutter and other considerations, and you end up with approx. 40-45mm from the back of the lens to the film/sensor in most 35mm SLR's). That means that any lens less than ~40mm focal length will have to have a retrofocus design (notice the difference in size between, say, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 35mm f/1.4 lens.... a 50mm lens is an extremely simple design, while a 35mm lens has to focus "shorter" than its actual distance to the film).

Anyway, the SLR was a good idea, but in the end it is a complicated hack. Getting rid of that big ol' mirror will also get rid of approx. 20mm of distance from the lens to the sensor, making wide-angle lenses that much easier to design.... anybody ready for 10mm (35mm equiv.) super-ultra-wide lenses? Just wait, I bet they will be here when these new mirrorless SLR-like cameras hit their stride. Of course there are issues with the EVF, AF, etc... these will improve greatly.

[René Damkot]

making wide-angle lenses that much easier to design....
... and camera's much more difficult; look what Leica had to do to design the sensor for the M8...

[Matatazela]

Let's put it in another way...

When the automatic pistol started to become commonplace, the revolver was predicted to be extinct within 10 years.

There are now more revolver variants than ever, in more exotic materials and more calibres. There can be no doubt that until there are no more people willing to buy a revolver (or, more relevantly, a DSLR) they will remain, and - indeed - improve.

[Synovia]

Let's put it in another way...

When the automatic pistol started to become commonplace, the revolver was predicted to be extinct within 10 years.

There are now more revolver variants than ever, in more exotic materials and more calibres. There can be no doubt that until there are no more people willing to buy a revolver (or, more relevantly, a DSLR) they will remain, and - indeed - improve.

Yes there are, but the vast majority of handguns being actively used aren't revolvers.

[mattograph]

Let's put it in another way...

When the automatic pistol started to become commonplace, the revolver was predicted to be extinct within 10 years.

There are now more revolver variants than ever, in more exotic materials and more calibres. There can be no doubt that until there are no more people willing to buy a revolver (or, more relevantly, a DSLR) they will remain, and - indeed - improve.

To continue the analogy

They can have my body, but they'll have to pry my glass out of my cold, dead hands!

[Jacobredphoto]

To me, smaller and lighter = shaky and uncomfortable.

Wow, I always thought I was the only one who thought that since everyone always makes a big deal about something being light. I am much more at home with a lot of glass and a flash on my camera than without and there is no doubt that it makes more shaky for me anyways.

[mattograph]

Folks who think lighter is better have never fired a .44 magnum.

[Jethro790]

LCD's often don't work in extremely cold conditions. :(

What is considered extremely cold? I snowmobile about 3-4000 miles a year in Northern Maine and NH, and one trip I did was 27 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. The camera stayed in my Lowepro TLZ harnessed to my chest and worked flawlessly.

[DDCSD]

What is considered extremely cold? I snowmobile about 3-4000 miles a year in Northern Maine and NH, and one trip I did was 27 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. The camera stayed in my Lowepro TLZ harnessed to my chest and worked flawlessly.

Yes, but were you using live view the whole time instead of the optical viewfinder? It will usually work to display a static image, but will become pretty much unusable to view a refreshing image (which is what an EVF does). Put your camera in the freezer for an hour, take it out and scroll through the image review and see what happens. Then imagine what it will do at 0F and -20F.

Have a read of the links that I posted earlier for more details.

[Jethro790]

Yes, but were you using live view the whole time instead of the optical viewfinder? It will usually work to display a static image, but will become pretty much unusable to view a refreshing image (which is what an EVF does). Put your camera in the freezer for an hour, take it out and scroll through the image review and see what happens. Then imagine what it will do at 0F and -20F.

Have a read of the links that I posted earlier for more details.

I don't use live view. But I have no problem viewing my images and the histogram even at extreme cold temps. At least so far.

[DDCSD]

I don't use live view. But I have no problem viewing my images and the histogram even at extreme cold temps. At least so far.

The image will look fine, it is just that the transition of images will show some "ghosting" for a brief period.

[Karl Johnston]

Yes, but were you using live view the whole time instead of the optical viewfinder? It will usually work to display a static image, but will become pretty much unusable to view a refreshing image (which is what an EVF does). Put your camera in the freezer for an hour, take it out and scroll through the image review and see what happens. Then imagine what it will do at 0F and -20F.

Have a read of the links that I posted earlier for more details.
Not true; I've been out shooting northern lights in -50C for hours. Your lcd gets slow, but there's no permanent damage and they'll work just fine again time and time and time again once its warmed up.

[DDCSD]

Not true; I've been out shooting northern lights in -50C for hours. Your lcd gets slow, but there's no permanent damage and they'll work just fine again time and time and time again once its warmed up.


How do you say "not true" to what I said, and then say the exact same thing? I never said it would damage the screen. :rolleyes:

[Cali Agent]

This only means Willy Wonka can buy cameras for his Oompa Loompas
http://www.1halloween.net/images/cosoompa.jpg

[Karl Johnston]

How do you say "not true" to what I said, and then say the exact same thing? I never said it would damage the screen. :rolleyes:

An hour in -17 C isn't going to cause the LCD to work slowly, there's a big difference between shooting for hours in -50C an -17 C. Your camera will take that temperature no problem.

[DDCSD]

An hour in -17 C isn't going to cause the LCD to work slowly...


I'll bet money that the LCD screen on a camera that is exposed to -17C for one hour will be noticeably "slow".

[snakekid]

I like now the article stated it's a SLR size sensor. It totally is not it has roughly a 2.0 crop factor and the removal of the mirror has little to do with the size of the lens. The crop factor is what allows to smaller lenses like EF-S.

As for the camera be small and shakey i think it should get close to rebel no grip feel since the camera will be lighter and small which greatly detracts from the moment Allow you to put less force on your fingers to keep it in equilibrium.

As for a why a battery grip makes it feel better. Its a two part benefit.
Lets assume the mount point will be pivot point. The lens weight will provide some moment and so will the body. These two moments will try to negate each other most of the time the lens winning because of its length away from the pivot point. Now the batter grip
1 adds mass to the camera body making the "counter lens moment greater" if you will.
2. Gives us a distance for your fingers to apply its couple on allowing for a smaller force needed to balance.

[brecklundin]

I'll bet money that the LCD screen on a camera that is exposed to -17C for one hour will be noticeably "slow".

hmmm...now if you were from NoDak not the far more balmy & tropical SoDak you might know what ya be yakking about. ;) I think at -17C it's your eyeballs that slow down. But then again being from SoCal and having no interest in anything under, ohhhh, about +20C, I truly have no idea. Heck, I don't even believe the scale goes below +20C in nature. :D

[snakekid]

hmmm...now if you were from NoDak not the far more balmy & tropical SoDak you might know what ya be yakking about. ;) I think at -17C it's your eyeballs that slow down. But then again being from SoCal and having no interest in anything under, ohhhh, about +20C, I truly have no idea. Heck, I don't even believe the scale goes below +20C in nature. :D
It its doesnt go below +20C in nature we would have no snow...

But if the temperature is like -50degrees C like someone said before you should probably get inside and stop taking pictures before you turn into a popsicle. A delicious popsicle but one nonetheless.

[brecklundin]

It its doesnt go below +20C in nature we would have no snow...

Snow? what is that? Oh wait, you mean Snow White?

But if the temperature is like -50degrees C like someone said before you should probably get inside and stop taking pictures before you turn into a popsicle. A delicious popsicle but one nonetheless.

Oh, geeze, are you in Borneo? I understand they had/have cannibals there. So, geeze, another place on the globe to never visit...along with New Guinea. Knew a guy in college from New Gunea, roommates went in but never came out.

[DDCSD]

hmmm...now if you were from NoDak not the far more balmy & tropical SoDak you might know what ya be yakking about. ;) I think at -17C it's your eyeballs that slow down. But then again being from SoCal and having no interest in anything under, ohhhh, about +20C, I truly have no idea. Heck, I don't even believe the scale goes below +20C in nature. :D

:)

Well, -17C is only 0F, heck we had a few -5F days in the middle of March this year. :lol: It was 90F last Thursday, and snow on the ground on Saturday morning. :cry:

We did only get down to -40 (which is the same in C and F) this winter, but I didn't take my camera out so see if the LCD would work or not. It was hard enough to take myself outside. :lol:

[Karl Johnston]

I'll bet money that the LCD screen on a camera that is exposed to -17C for one hour will be noticeably "slow".
If it takes more than an hour at -50C to be noticeably slow....do the math :rolleyes: it's nitpicking though, eventually it will go slow..but I've never had a problem with it at that warm a temperature

[DDCSD]

If it takes more than an hour at -50C to be noticeably slow....

Bull, absolute bull.

[tmoore99]

What a fascinating thread. :)

Much of this discussion is germane to photographers living on the polar ice caps.

I'm the curious type though, and I wonder, will a (hypothetical) camera that won't even function at, say, below freezing temps, be useful?
I dare say yes.
Will it out-perform a high tech SLR?
It could.
Will it have an LCD screen?
Maybe, if it's old school. ;)