The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Bruce, Sep 30, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    There is no shortage of people who claim that DSLRs are on their way
    out of fashion, and that mirrorless (or EVIL) cameras will take over.
    They claim that the recent , very significant improvements in the
    quality of electronic viewfinders makes them as good as, or better
    than a traditional reflex viewfinder.

    However, the DSLR protagonists argue that the EVIL cameras suffer
    because their contrast-detect AF is too slow. To address this issue,
    Sony brings out an "SLT" camera that has the complication of a fixed
    pellicle mirror to enable the faster phase-detect AF of SLRs to be
    used on the mirrorless versions (A33, A55) of their Alpha range of
    DSLRs. It suffers from serious ghosting and overheating problems.

    Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
    Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
    Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor
    size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system
    that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any
    other AF system, including phase-detect.

    The Lumix GH2 needs no pellicle mirror and therefore has no risk of
    ghosting. Yet it is claimed to have even faster AF than the Sony A33
    and A55, even though their AF systems are phase-detect.

    If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop
    similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that
    Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
    DSLRs will suddenly disappear.
     
    Bruce, Sep 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. They still have to get rid of that archaic, mechanically fragile, short
    live-span, shutter-speed-crippling, moving-subject distorting, obnoxiously
    noisy, and image-shaking focal-plane shutter. And a way to prevent sensor
    grunge. By creating a sealed camera and lens combo that will cover all the
    zoom range one might ever need. Or bundled with high-quality optical
    system-matched focal-length adapters to increase that range temporarily if
    need be.

    [I still don't like that I have to play the manufacturer mix & match game
    when finding the best wide-angle and tel-extenders from other companies for
    the best performance. But it does end-up affording some unique surprises.
    Like the fisheye adapter I found for under $100 that surpasses the image
    quality of a $1500 Nikkor. Giving my superzoom cameras a seamless and
    CA-free zoom range from 9mm to 36mm EFL, with low distortion CA-free
    full-frame starting at 16mm EFL.]

    Oh wait, they've already done all this. Many years ago. It started back
    about 2001 or so. Each year since there's always a couple or few models
    that always beat the image quality of DSLRs released the same years. Huh.
    How about that. I wonder why none of you ever hear about it. Oh, that's
    right. You (collective plural) can't find what you're not looking for, or
    intentionally close your eyes to, in order to justify that money you've
    thrown at the system you have foolishly locked yourself into financially.
    Some of you would rather depend on financially-biased slanted reviews meant
    to con people into the "now you need a better lens" con game, rather than
    test these cameras for yourself to find out you're being lied to. Oh well.
    Sometimes the desirable bliss of self-induced ignorance is much more
    important than pursuing reality. And some just can't give up that tattered
    old T-shirt and torn jeans from last century. Just put another patch job
    over that old stitching (flopping-shutter dslr design), that'll make it
    better.

    1/10th of a century already gone, and they still scream and cry about the
    previous century's camera design limitations, like they are worth holding
    onto for some bizarre reason. It *is* time to throw out the baby out with
    the bath-water when you find out it's the rotting and fetid baby that has
    been poisoning the water all along.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 30, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    For years Panasonic has had great cameras--if you go solely be the
    specifications. In actual use they have always been mediocre except in
    ideal shooting conditions.

    The market for high-end point and shoot/superzooms/EVIL cameras has been
    decimated by the falling prices of far more capable D-SLRs.

    Nothing developed so far replaces the tried and true focal plane shutter
    and mirror on a D-SLR.

    Nothing developed so far replaces the speed of phase-detect auto-focus
    on a D-SLR.

    Nothing developed so far replaces the ability to attach lenses directly
    to the camera body as on a D-SLR (rather than the hopelessly poor "lens
    adapters" that some people try (once) on their P&S cameras)).

    It would be wonderful if the Lumix DMC-GH2 is finally the camera that is
    able to overcome all the limitations of super-zooms and EVIL cameras,
    but based on Panasonic's history you should not hold your breath!

    So far, nothing would make me give up my Canon D-SLR and my Canon P&S
    cameras with CHDK installed. Between the D-SLR and P&S I'm covered for
    every eventuality. I don't think the slightly smaller size of the Lumix
    DMC-GH2 is going to make me move to a single camera as it's still much
    larger than my Canon P&S cameras.
     
    SMS, Oct 1, 2010
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Joel Connor Guest

    How would you know? We ALL know that you have never owned even one camera
    in your lifetime. This has been proved hundreds of times.

    Your use of cameras and visiting parks with them is just as delusional as
    your story about helping to install a computer controlled geyser in
    Yellowstone.

    <http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101>


    We ALL know you are a psychotic role-playing troll living an imaginary
    online life, one who had never touched any real camera, ever. Don't you get
    that yet?
     
    Joel Connor, Oct 1, 2010
    #4
  5. Bruce

    Russ D Guest

    Now why would anyone want to? Why would anyone want to invent another
    mechanical contraption that induces a 90-150ms shutter lag in having to
    move all that crap out of the way? Why would anyone want to invent another
    viewfinder that's only 95-97% accurate? Why would anyone want to invent
    another viewfinder that is useless in low light, and can't be used for
    precision manual focusing? Why would anyone want to invent another shutter
    that limits flash sync to last-century 1/250th second shutter speeds? Why
    would anyone want to invent another shutter that distorts the shapes of
    anything that's moving faster than 1/250th of a second? Why would anyone
    want to invent another system that jars the camera so bad that it blurs
    your images from camera shake, halving that expensive lens resolution? Why
    would anyone want to do that again? It's been a pain in the ass for a whole
    century. I can't imagine a world of photography having to put up with that
    shit for another century.
     
    Russ D, Oct 1, 2010
    #5
  6. Bruce

    Russ D Guest

    Ooops, we forgot to add:

    Why would anyone want to invent another mechanical train like that which is
    so damn noisy, intrusive, and disrespectfully inconsiderate to others that
    they are banned from being used in most public performances, ceremonies,
    and public buildings? Why would anyone want a shutter and mirror mechanism
    that's so noisy that it scares away most wildlife, or draws the attention
    of dangerous wildlife in your direction? Why would ANYONE want that shit
    again?
     
    Russ D, Oct 1, 2010
    #6
  7. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : >There is no shortage of people who claim that DSLRs are on their way
    : >out of fashion, and that mirrorless (or EVIL) cameras will take over.
    : >They claim that the recent , very significant improvements in the
    : >quality of electronic viewfinders makes them as good as, or better
    : >than a traditional reflex viewfinder.
    : >
    : >However, the DSLR protagonists argue that the EVIL cameras suffer
    : >because their contrast-detect AF is too slow. To address this issue,
    : >Sony brings out an "SLT" camera that has the complication of a fixed
    : >pellicle mirror to enable the faster phase-detect AF of SLRs to be
    : >used on the mirrorless versions (A33, A55) of their Alpha range of
    : >DSLRs. It suffers from serious ghosting and overheating problems.
    : >
    : >Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
    : >Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
    : >Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor
    : >size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system
    : >that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any
    : >other AF system, including phase-detect.
    : >
    : >The Lumix GH2 needs no pellicle mirror and therefore has no risk of
    : >ghosting. Yet it is claimed to have even faster AF than the Sony A33
    : >and A55, even though their AF systems are phase-detect.
    : >
    : >If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop
    : >similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that
    : >Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
    : >DSLRs will suddenly disappear.
    :
    : They still have to get rid of that archaic, mechanically fragile, short
    : live-span, shutter-speed-crippling, moving-subject distorting, obnoxiously
    : noisy, and image-shaking focal-plane shutter. And a way to prevent sensor
    : grunge. By creating a sealed camera and lens combo that will cover all the
    : zoom range one might ever need. Or bundled with high-quality optical
    : system-matched focal-length adapters to increase that range temporarily if
    : need be.
    :
    : [I still don't like that I have to play the manufacturer mix & match game
    : when finding the best wide-angle and tel-extenders from other companies for
    : the best performance. But it does end-up affording some unique surprises.
    : Like the fisheye adapter I found for under $100 that surpasses the image
    : quality of a $1500 Nikkor. Giving my superzoom cameras a seamless and
    : CA-free zoom range from 9mm to 36mm EFL, with low distortion CA-free
    : full-frame starting at 16mm EFL.]
    :
    : Oh wait, they've already done all this. Many years ago. It started back
    : about 2001 or so. Each year since there's always a couple or few models
    : that always beat the image quality of DSLRs released the same years. Huh.
    : How about that. I wonder why none of you ever hear about it. Oh, that's
    : right. You (collective plural) can't find what you're not looking for, or
    : intentionally close your eyes to, in order to justify that money you've
    : thrown at the system you have foolishly locked yourself into financially.
    : Some of you would rather depend on financially-biased slanted reviews meant
    : to con people into the "now you need a better lens" con game, rather than
    : test these cameras for yourself to find out you're being lied to. Oh well.
    : Sometimes the desirable bliss of self-induced ignorance is much more
    : important than pursuing reality. And some just can't give up that tattered
    : old T-shirt and torn jeans from last century. Just put another patch job
    : over that old stitching (flopping-shutter dslr design), that'll make it
    : better.
    :
    : 1/10th of a century already gone, and they still scream and cry about the
    : previous century's camera design limitations, like they are worth holding
    : onto for some bizarre reason. It *is* time to throw out the baby out with
    : the bath-water when you find out it's the rotting and fetid baby that has
    : been poisoning the water all along.

    I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in
    countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never
    seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or
    firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in
    order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you,
    on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter
    should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 1, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce

    Mr. Strat Guest

    Panasonic <snicker>
     
    Mr. Strat, Oct 1, 2010
    #8
  9. Bruce

    Mr. Strat Guest

    Do you sit down to pee too?

    What a whiny pussy!
     
    Mr. Strat, Oct 1, 2010
    #9
  10. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/why-digital-cameras-have-mechanical-shutters.html
     
    Ofnuts, Oct 1, 2010
    #10
  11. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    Is that why you bought a Nikon DSLR? So you could feel closer to the
    manufacturer you whine about most?
     
    Bruce, Oct 1, 2010
    #11
  12. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    A complete non sequituur.
     
    Bruce, Oct 1, 2010
    #12
  13. Bruce

    peter Guest

    As is not responding to uncomfortable questions.
     
    peter, Oct 1, 2010
    #13
  14. Sure, in every photo newsgroup there must live a troll (or, in
    our case, a poor and stupid excuse for one) that is drawn towards
    a shutter. Unfortunately, our stupid and poor excuse for a troll
    mistakes a Canon for a cannon and a shutter for a trigger ---
    the resultant explosion of ignorance of course scares away most
    normal people and draws the attention of troll hunters.

    Trolls are the dangerous wildlife of the usenet.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 1, 2010
    #14
  15. Read: It's noisy as hell. Think of a Canon crop camera with
    25 MPix or a full frame with 64 MPix.
    .... and if you believe that without independent 3rd party
    tests, I've got a lot of bridges I can sell you.
    It also has no lenses and can't attach filters to reduce the
    chance of ghosting.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 1, 2010
    #15
  16. You gots to try harder, o pest of many nyms- or maybe you guys are
    hanging out at the same coffee shop:

    72.251.115.59 - "Russ D"
    72.251.115.59- "Joel Conner".

    Posting minutes apart.

    Shame on you!
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 1, 2010
    #16
  17. Not usually- but I had been under the impression you used a re-mailer to
    hide your host. Did you used to?

    It's a slow day, I am bored, and you provide the occasional whiff of
    diversion. Plus you foam so easily.....
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 1, 2010
    #17
  18. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    We'll see when it comes out, but given Panasonic's history of noisy
    cameras no one should get their hopes up.

    Micro 4:3 is shaping up to be the APS film of the 21st century.
    Are you sure? Why would you not be able to attach filters to Micro 4:3
    lenses?
     
    SMS, Oct 1, 2010
    #18
  19. Bruce

    John A. Guest

    First rule of twit-filter club: don't talk about twit-filter club.
     
    John A., Oct 1, 2010
    #19
  20. Bruce

    Ofnuts Guest

    Hmm. Don't remember seeing a picture of some dangerous wildlife from
    you. You only show us pictures of moths. And as far as I can tell, these
    aren't that much scared by shutter noise.
     
    Ofnuts, Oct 1, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.