SLR vs P&S

CJinAustin wrote in post #8134247
I don't know about Canon but Olympus just did it... Uses the same sensor as their DSLR's
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP1​/EP1A.HTM

And the amazingly small size (see link below) certainly changes everything; currently this sort of technology doesn't compete well with DSLR's, but someday it just might...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP1​/ZBEAUTY-17.JPG

Yeah, but I married into the Canon system ten years ago when I bought an Elan II. That is why I would like Canon to build something like the EP1 so I can still use my EF/EF-s lenses and EX flash.

funpig wrote in post #8134325
Yeah, but I married into the Canon system ten years ago when I bought an Elan II. That is why I would like Canon to build something like the EP1 so I can still use my EF/EF-s lenses and EX flash.

There is not a single Canon lens that would not totally negate the size advantage of a camera like the EP-1. If they made one, it would have to be a new lens system for it to be relevant.

I think EVF is inevitable but it doesn't necessitate the demise of SLRs. Maybe as we know them, but a TTL EVF without mirrors/prism needed, would reduce weight and size allowing us many options while still being able to use current lens systems.

10megapixel wrote in post #8134316
And an awkward silence falls upon the crowd...

oops... Did I make a forum faux pa?

Looking in a viewfinder has the absolute advantage before external screens that the viewfinder works in the brightest sunshine as well.

An EVF could do the same, of course, since it would screen off the sunshine from your eye. But you need to keep the electronics in that little screen running all the time whilst looking at it. Today's optical viewfinder doesn't need that.

CJinAustin wrote in post #8134365
oops... Did I make a forum faux pa?

lol...no. I was just waiting for this little camera to be brought up again in another thread like this... where people are wishing Canon would do something that other companies are already doing.

apersson850 wrote in post #8134387
Looking in a viewfinder has the absolute advantage before external screens that the viewfinder works in the brightest sunshine as well.

I do think it's inevitable that electronic viewfinders will somehow actually become better than a glass one. (I imagine live histogram in the viewfinder, etc.)

I would prefer to use both eyes...like the good old days.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

10megapixel wrote in post #8134448
I would prefer to use both eyes...like the good old days.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

Wow,,, a 200% viewfinder...

tkbslc wrote in post #8134347
There is not a single Canon lens that would not totally negate the size advantage of a camera like the EP-1. If they made one, it would have to be a new lens system for it to be relevant.

It doesn't have to be the same size as a four thirds camera. I would suggest keeping the APS-C sensor (bigger, less noise and better image quality). This would allow us to use the same mount and the existing Canon lenses.

I, for one, would be willing to forgo a viewfinder (optical or electronic). To me, a viewfinder is redundent. I stopped using the viewfinder years ago on my point and shoots, prefering to use the LCD. I think that half of the SD series don't even come with a viewfinder anyways, so obviously I am not alone. Today's newspaper has a photo of Tiger Woods walking through a crowd of people at the US Open. In the background of the photo were professional photographers as well as fans all trying to get a photo of Woods. I estimate only one out of ten photographers (even the ones with professional SLR's) actually had their eye on the viewfinder. I just think for a lot (but not all) of people, it is much easier to compose and shoot without limiting yourself to one eye squinting through a viewfinder.

I am not advocating the demise of the SLR. I just want the option of buying something by Canon similar to the Olympus EP1.

Is anyone looking at the Pentax Km / K2000? Not as a "serious pro-level" DSLR - but as the "step past the Bridge P&S" ones...?

After what I've been seeing on this Forum, I just know I'll never be happy until I get a "real" camera, a DSLR... After re-saving from getting my SX10 IS. I've looked at the online Reviews - and D/L'd the Manual for the Km.

While it doesn't have Live View, I find that I'm "holding steadier" - from the advice on the Forum here, using the viewfinder, anyway. Then it has a lot of functions very similar to the better Bridge Zooms - and the "Help" function that can be re-set to another function later.

That's all good for the newies like me - but it also has the DSLR type much larger sensor, and the changeable lenses. As I'm on a limited fixed income, the Km's ability to use "old" Pentax lenses in manual mode is a benefit - with the anti-shake in the camera body. I have a friend who says I can have her deceased father's mid to late 1990s lenses if I have a camera to use them on.

She says it was a "big heavy" film camera and thinks it was called a "Pentax Thousand something"...? Can anyone guess what it might have been - and know if those film-camera lenses are included in the "uses all Pentax lenses" with the Km?

That of course biases me in addition to the Km's newby-beginner features. At my vintage - pushing 61 - I'm never going to be a Pro or even an advanced Amateur - but it's a vast amount of fun and an interest that gets one out of the house and "doing things".

I'd appreciate any comments and advice re the above - I'm starting at a very low level!

TIA, Dave.

vadim_c wrote in post #8130891
I like the feeling holding an SLR in my hands, It is reasonably heavy, feels solid, and the sound of the shutter is so sweet. But...
Everything points that DSLRs are doomed, and will disappear sooner than we expect.
The mirror, mechanical shutter, optical viewdinder just have no chance against an LCD or similar viewfinder, and elecronic shutter.
LCD brightness does not depend on the lens apperture, it can contain useful information, it is possible to magnify a part of the view fnally making manual focus something to consider. The only limiting factor for LCD is resolution but it came so close to the level after which a human eye cannot recognize separate pixels.
The limiting factor for an electronic shutter is the speed the image can be read from the sensor but the potential here is huge, unlike mechanical shutter that did not imporve much in the latest 30 years.

Apparently the cameras soon resemble somehow advanced rear lens caps, and will cost not much more.

I guess I will miss the mirror/shutter sound

This is simply daft, and i'm not entirely certain you know your camera spec mate; you simply can't replicate all the lens technology digitally for decades, and you don't have to be a decades old pro to figure that one. How are you going to squeeze the equivalent of a 1.2 85mm combined with a 600mm into one body the size of an iPhone? It's not really going to happen is it? And even if that does it's going to take a decade or two to perfect reliant on pixels as opposed to mirrors

Even the DSLR bodies have many years of evolution to them; you just have to look at a Hasselblad to realize how much more is to come out of the peasant's kit we use on Canon, Nikon etc, plus I think people who take their photography seriously prefer the handling of an SLR body, sort of thing

funpig wrote in post #8134559
It doesn't have to be the same size as a four thirds camera. I would suggest keeping the APS-C sensor (bigger, less noise and better image quality). This would allow us to use the same mount and the existing Canon lenses.

I, for one, would be willing to forgo a viewfinder (optical or electronic). To me, a viewfinder is redundent. I stopped using the viewfinder years ago on my point and shoots, prefering to use the LCD. I think that half of the SD series don't even come with a viewfinder anyways, so obviously I am not alone. Today's newspaper has a photo of Tiger Woods walking through a crowd of people at the US Open. In the background of the photo were professional photographers as well as fans all trying to get a photo of Woods. I estimate only one out of ten photographers (even the ones with professional SLR's) actually had their eye on the viewfinder. I just think for a lot (but not all) of people, it is much easier to compose and shoot without limiting yourself to one eye squinting through a viewfinder.

I am not advocating the demise of the SLR. I just want the option of buying something by Canon similar to the Olympus EP1.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. Even the tiny 50mm 1.8 is about 2 inches long and 2.5" wide. That means that even with an ultrathin 1" inch camera body, you still have at minimum, a 3" thick kit. Good luck fitting that in your pocket.

And if you have to bring a bag, might as well sport a 40D.

Also, you keep referencing "squinting" through a viewfinder. The apparent image seen through a viewfinder is much larger than 2.5"

CJinAustin wrote in post #8134247
I don't know about Canon but Olympus just did it... Uses the same sensor as their DSLR's
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP1​/EP1A.HTM

And the amazingly small size (see link below) certainly changes everything; currently this sort of technology doesn't compete well with DSLR's, but someday it just might...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EP1​/ZBEAUTY-17.JPG

I think that Oly is going to be an excellent camera, I might just get one for times when lugging the SLR is too much.

I've been advocating for such a beast for a long time....or better yet a digital rangefinder like the Leica M8 except a little cheaper than $5000.

I know people will call for a Canon EF mount version of the Oly concept, but the EF mount register distance is going to make the camera rather thick no matter what you do. This is why a body like the Oly but using a lens line from rangefinders will ultimately make more sense.

Yup. The canon register distance is 44mm, so there is no way that a Canon version of this camera can be much thinner than 50mm plus lens. It's simply not going to be a pocket camera in the EF line.

JeffreyG wrote in post #8134727
Yup. The canon register distance is 44mm, so there is no way that a Canon version of this camera can be much thinner than 50mm plus lens. It's simply not going to be a pocket camera in the EF line.

Even going a step farther and envisioning a new standard like micro aps-c with a reduced register distance like the micro 4/3, there would still need to be brand new ultrathin lenses for this to be worthwhile. And while a micro to EF mount adapter could exist, the point I was making is that Canon lenses are not very short, not any of them, so there is just no way to get a small kit with EF lenses.