Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Kevin Raber on August 02, 2018, 05:25:16 pm
-
I just published a short Rant/article about the looming Mirrorless Wars. It's going to get interesting. Check it out HERE (https://luminous-landscape.com/mirrorless-wars/)
-
Interesting read - but where are Leica SL and CL?
-
Did you watch the video?
-
Good job with the video!!! There's a number of people who think/hope that Canon will use the EOS mount on the new mirrorless 35mm camera. That seems absurd to me.
-
Did you watch the video?
Will do :)
-
Thank you Kevin - a really interesting video with some very possible predictions. To me the elephant in the room is cost. With respect to Canon and Nikon, I suspect that a significant number of people have already jumped ship and gone mirrorless elsewhere. So what will be their market, professional probably, but will that generate the volume? If the volume is not there they may try to recover the development costs through high margins and prices. That may cause even more to think very seriously about changing.
I still have a Canon 5D3 and mainly use it with a macro lens and a 100-400 Mk2 lens. My use of the macro is dropping as I am finding Fuji's focus stacking on my X-T2 exciting. For travel, the 5D3 is too heavy and bulky, so I use my Fuji, and others may well have gone to Sony, Olympus etc already. I print up to A3+ (13x19") and 24MP is enough for me. I cannot justify 40MP or more.
You point out at the end of your video, have fun. I am, so Canon and Nikon will have to do something remarkable to get me to spend money on new kit rather than on taking me places to have fun taking images.
-
I am very comfortable with Sony A7 system, that I have been using for nearly 4 years now. For landscape, travel, I don't need anything else: a couple of cameras, plus 3 lenses (21, 35. 70-200), all fit in a smaller backpack.
Whatever Canon comes up with, or Nikon, will not make me change.
-
I read:'
Canon is still quiet, and I believe they are working on something big. Wisely, they haven’t said anything yet. But Canon will have to use what I call the nuclear option to enter this market successfully. They will need to top everyone else in features, lenses, and performance."
The problem with Canon is- for years- that the sensors are not as good as Sony's.
It would be a big surpriose if they can compete with sony's BSI sensors especially since they are designed with mirrorless camera in mind.
-
I am very comfortable with Sony A7 system, that I have been using for nearly 4 years now. For landscape, travel, I don't need anything else: a couple of cameras, plus 3 lenses (21, 35. 70-200), all fit in a smaller backpack.
Whatever Canon comes up with, or Nikon, will not make me change.
For me it's the DP2 and the DP3 Merrill - two cameras with two outstanding lenses already attached. Not to mention the Merrill (Foveon) sensor. And at bargain prices too - around 500 Euros each. And I don't need a backpack (or tripod) :)
-
I read:'
Canon is still quiet, and I believe they are working on something big. Wisely, they haven’t said anything yet. But Canon will have to use what I call the nuclear option to enter this market successfully. They will need to top everyone else in features, lenses, and performance."
The problem with Canon is- for years- that the sensors are not as good as Sony's.
It would be a big surpriose if they can compete with sony's BSI sensors especially since they are designed with mirrorless camera in mind.
Plus Canon already tiptoeed in the mirrorless market which sort of negates a nuclear option.
They probably need a nuclear tech jump although i find it hard to imagine what tech jump that might be considering the diminishing returns of for example DR relative to current pro offerings. They also need to open up their mirrorless lensmount.
-
Hi Kevin,
Some nice speculations. Some comments:
16 bits are not needed as long as the individual pixels don't have DR exceeding 14 EV. The DR is defined as full well capacity divided readout noise. Most modern sensors are close to that limit. But if we make the pixels smaller, per pixel DR will decrease.
So, keeping pixel size, we would need 15 bits, sooner or later. Going to smaller pixels, 14 bits will be enough. The next generation of MF sensors are 14 bit wide, according to Sony spec sheets. There may be artificial ways of making them 16-bit, of course.
Interestingly the sensor used in the Phase One IQ3100 MP has a DR close to 15EV and the IQ3100MP actually have a 16 bit raw format, older Phase One backs were just 14 bits. That was a good engineering choice, but quite a bit of fake marketing.
What that means for mirrorless? It means that we may see 16 bit pipelines on large pixel cameras, like the Sony A7s#, but I would think that the A7s is sort of dead, as I guess that 8K is around the corner...
Of course, not everything that makes engineering sense translates to sales/marketing sense, but I would think that engineers still make a lot of the calls at Sony.
Would Nikon or anyone else make non 3:2 aspect ratio 43 mm diagonal sensor, that would be really nice!
Best regards
Erik
I just published a short Rant/article about the looming Mirrorless Wars. It's going to get interesting. Check it out HERE (https://luminous-landscape.com/mirrorless-wars/)
-
The thing with Canon is they're not just a camera company. That's one thing Nikon has in it's favor, it has more skin in the game proportionally. I've a feeling that out of the two of them, Nikon has the biggest risks to take, and as such could well leapfrog to the top of the pile. A mirrorless equivalent to the D850? With an intelligent lens adaptor as well as a solid roadmap of new lenses? That would be a thing to see. The large lens mount is intriguing...
Happy with my X-T2 and exploring the Fuji lenses. I'll abide till I jump to MF.
-
Yes, interesting times. I think we are also going to see many things regarding the "software" of the cameras. EyeAF for sure only is a beginning. AI of any kind in cameras will be the next big thing.
-
It will be really interesting to see what Nikon does in terms of new lens designs vs. support for existing lenses. To me the whole point of mirrorless is to reduce both size and weight of the camera/lens combination. The longer Nikon teles and some of the fixed aperture zooms are quite heavy as well as large and this would potentially negate the use of a mirrorless system.
-
16 bits are not needed as long as the individual pixels don't have DR exceeding 14 EV.
Is this true? What about Nikon's trick of scaling the amount of photons/electrons in the A/D process? I thought it was the number of steps, not the range, that defined the bits per pixel required.
-
Technophiles of all stripes tend to confuse "what it would take to make ME buy it" with "what it would take for the product to be successful" and this is completely wrong. Technophiles (most people on LuLa and other photo forums) are early adopters, not majority buyers. Sony has made excellent headway into the early adopter market, and it is clear that both Canon and Nikon have decided that now is the time mirrorless goes mainstream and they intend to cut Sony off at the knees.
The challenge for Canon and Nikon is not about out-technologying Sony, but to translate their brand loyalty to a somewhat different product. They need to make people believe that it's still a Nikon camera, still a Canon, with everything it is that makes those cameras desirable, useful, good quality, good value, whatever characteristics it is that makes people buy a Nikon or a Canon today, but with a new and more modern idea of picture-making.
Trying to out-feature, out-tech the other guys is a mistake, and the opposite of what you want to do in this case. You end up with a product that is buggy and unreliable, because you let your engineers get ahead of themselves, and at the same time you lose some of the brand familiarity. Canon and Nikon are the stalwarts, for the most part their products Just Work and are both relatively easy and enjoyable to use.
The story is that this technology is now mature, proven out, ready for You the ordinary person, and We're The Company to bring it to you, because we are the stalwart.
-
Technophiles of all stripes tend to confuse "what it would take to make ME buy it" with "what it would take for the product to be successful" and this is completely wrong. Technophiles (most people on LuLa and other photo forums) are early adopters, not majority buyers. Sony has made excellent headway into the early adopter market, and it is clear that both Canon and Nikon have decided that now is the time mirrorless goes mainstream and they intend to cut Sony off at the knees.
The challenge for Canon and Nikon is not about out-technologying Sony, but to translate their brand loyalty to a somewhat different product. They need to make people believe that it's still a Nikon camera, still a Canon, with everything it is that makes those cameras desirable, useful, good quality, good value, whatever characteristics it is that makes people buy a Nikon or a Canon today, but with a new and more modern idea of picture-making.
Trying to out-feature, out-tech the other guys is a mistake, and the opposite of what you want to do in this case. You end up with a product that is buggy and unreliable, because you let your engineers get ahead of themselves, and at the same time you lose some of the brand familiarity. Canon and Nikon are the stalwarts, for the most part their products Just Work and are both relatively easy and enjoyable to use.
The story is that this technology is now mature, proven out, ready for You the ordinary person, and We're The Company to bring it to you, because we are the stalwart.
I don't think that out-featuring or ubertechnology is quite what we mean here. Certainly one doesn't need the big players to outdo one another, they need to be ergonomically superior, durable, and relyable. But a new mount means buying into a new set of more modern lenses, and considering that Canon's offerings are perceived as, well, long in the tooth for lack of a better term, people will perceive this as a decision moment.
Obviously, the low end just runs on the perceived superiority on the high-end which means that if Canon is gradually thought of as losing the technology race (which one way or another this game has become) the low-end will switch.
Whether pros will swich is obviously dependent on an entirely different set of criteria.
-
Many of us, I know I do, have much more invested in lens glass than we do in cameras. So when I looked to upgrade my camera a few years back, I ended st sticking with Canon because going to whole new lens system was too expensive. I accepted a few less features that I wanted but didn't really need. Now if I have to change lens systems, camera features dominate my choice, assuming that the lens system choices meet my needs. The economics of staying with Canon are gone.
Right now the one thing that Canon has going for it is the huge line of lens it has. A whole new camera with new mount will mean s whole new lens system which will take awhile to develop and make.
I know that Canon will probably come out with adapters for the old lens systems, but that's a sub-optimal solution because it'll have to add one more thing to stick on the lens and probably will compromise some of the lens features (auto focus speed, accuracy, or whatever).
I assume that the same things apply to Nikon.
-
Excellent video, I learned a lot.
I'm quite new to mirrorless, a few months with a new Sony to test the waters (RX-10 IV) coming from Canon 5DMII and lots of lens. I'll keep the Canon for awhile but I'm not missing it. My only 'learning curve' is getting used to the viewfinder. As Kevin talks about, there are advantages of it being based off the chip but after 40+ years of viewfinders that are not 'video' output, I'm finding it an adjustment in what I see, get and wrestling a bit with how that image seen there updates as I move the camera around for framing etc. I'm a bit too old in my ways to even use the LCD but I can see how in some cases, it's going to be much easier to shoot than using a viewfinder. Anyway, I'm happy with the very modest investment in this new technology. I may go full frame in the future and I can see just dumping all the Canon lens for newer technology that's better 'mated' to a new body.
As for the 14 bit vs. 16-bit, my understanding is that outside of massively more DR coming (wouldn't that be awesome compared to more MP), more bits here is mostly marketing than useful but I'm open to a better understanding of all this.
I also have to wonder how many need a 50MP let alone 100MP camera but again, I can see where it is necessary for those making huge prints.
-
It will be really interesting to see what Nikon does in terms of new lens designs vs. support for existing lenses. To me the whole point of mirrorless is to reduce both size and weight of the camera/lens combination. The longer Nikon teles and some of the fixed aperture zooms are quite heavy as well as large and this would potentially negate the use of a mirrorless system.
For me, size and weight are much less important. A little smaller than DSLRs is nice, but too small is not great either.
Excellent performance and ergonomics are more important to me. On-sensor focussing weems to have the potential of providing excellent auto-focus, but great lenses have to be big enough to accomodate the optical elements and motors. For professional cameras, that's OK with me.
I expect that Nikon's first mirrorless will be a tour-de-force mirrorless D850-class camera: high res, high dynamic range, lots of computational tricks like focus stacking and eye-focus. But what will the second and third be? I have a couple of thoughts (but absolutely no what Nikon will do.)
One possibility would be a less-expensive, smaller, lighter camera targeted at travel. Think full-frame Leica CL. Not really designed for ultimate performance, not really matched to long lenses, but very well-balanced with wides and the shorter zooms people most often travel with. Perfect for street photography, but only adequate for Formula One.
Another possibility, if Nikon wanted to make a splash in the video market, would be a low-light mirrorless that bests the Sony A7S. I don't expect this, but if they wanted to move aggressively into that space, a camera like that would do it. If it had a PL adapter and played nicely with non-Nikon wide lenses, that would be even better.
A third would be an expensive, medium-res, high-performance camera in the D5/A9 class with excellent weather sealing, class-leading data rates and autofocus and the like.
In the mediate-term, a lot depends on how clearly they set their design goals for the first several models. One camera for all doesn't seem like a strategy for success.
-
Hi,
This is a good article on the issue: https://www.strollswithmydog.com/how-many-bits-to-fully-encode-my-image/
Best regards
Erik
Is this true? What about Nikon's trick of scaling the amount of photons/electrons in the A/D process? I thought it was the number of steps, not the range, that defined the bits per pixel required.
-
Hi,
This is a good article on the issue: https://www.strollswithmydog.com/how-many-bits-to-fully-encode-my-image/
Best regards
Erik
That is a very good article Erik - thanks. The part at the end called "In fact it's even less" is what I was referring to. Also, the article describes how many bits to "fully encode my image". However, fully encoding and encoding what the human eye can differentiate are two different things. All I'm saying is that the amount of bits required to encode do not have to correlate to the DR EV amount. I'm guessing we are saying the same thing in different ways.
-
Hi,
Here is some more information from the same author: https://www.strollswithmydog.com/difference-between-data-and-information/
But, here are two easy explanations:
Let's assume that full well capacity (FWC) is around 64 000 electron charges, let's assume the readout noise is 4 electron charges. In that case we need a sixtin bit number to account for each electron of the full well, but the last two bits will just contain the readout noise.
Now, let's assume the we have FWC = 64000 and let's assume that we expose a mid tone three stops below saturation. The electron count in the well is in that case 64000 / 2^3 -> 64000 / 8 -> 8000
Photon arrival is Poisson distributed, that means that standard of deviation is sqrt(electron count), that sqrt(8000) -> 89. That would mean that 65% of the pixels would have electron counts between 7911 and 8089.
In binary, it would be:
0001111011100111
0001111110011001
You would see that the last 8 digits change, although the input is exactly the same!
This is a representation of a pretty dark patch on my P45+, with 16 bits claim:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/TMP/Bits/P45+.PNG)
And the same on the Sony A7rII:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/TMP/Bits/A7r2.PNG)
Keep in mind that both plots represent a single tone. So that would really be a spike in a single channels. If no photon statistics would be around!
Best regards
Erik
That is a very good article Erik - thanks. The part at the end called "In fact it's even less" is what I was referring to. Also, the article describes how many bits to "fully encode my image". However, fully encoding and encoding what the human eye can differentiate are two different things. All I'm saying is that the amount of bits required to encode do not have to correlate to the DR EV amount. I'm guessing we are saying the same thing in different ways.
-
Ahhh. Of course. How silly of me. Now it's all obvious. I thought it was a bit more complicated.
-
...
This is a representation of a pretty dark patch on my P45+, with 16 bits claim:
...
Best regards
Erik
In short then the 'pretty dark patch' would stay a 'pretty dark patch', regardless of 16 bits or not?
-
A very interesting assessment of the mirror-less market.
Your earlier review of the Sony A7r got me really excited about the the virtuosity of the camera. However, I shoot with a venerable Canon 40D and have quite a bit of an investment in Canon (L series) and Sigma lenses and that probably puts me into the pro-consumer equipment owner. Consequently the cost of changing to an equivalent Sony system would be quite prohibitive.
Unlike computer software, which has some backward compatibility to older versions, when camera vendors release new technology only new entrants to the market or professional photographers can justify the change.
-
A very interesting assessment of the mirror-less market.
Your earlier review of the Sony A7r got me really excited about the the virtuosity of the camera. However, I shoot with a venerable Canon 40D and have quite a bit of an investment in Canon (L series) and Sigma lenses and that probably puts me into the pro-consumer equipment owner. Consequently the cost of changing to an equivalent Sony system would be quite prohibitive.
Unlike computer software, which has some backward compatibility to older versions, when camera vendors release new technology only new entrants to the market or professional photographers can justify the change.
And certainly not all pro photographers, either!
Way back in film days it was understood that the pro market was but the tip of the iceberg; there were always the amateurs who aspired to better cameras as there were pros whose work/tax relationship made new stuff a painless investment, usually in the sense of doubling up bodies just in case and there would sometimes be that case, even in those times of relatively low tech.
There was also a sense that the top cameras were part of the maker's advertising effort, the shiny fairy atop the tree.
That said, I do not recall any great diversity of lenses (as in quality) within a maker's range. You bought whatever focal length, and it was as good as it got; okay, an f2 or an f2.8, but what did it matter, most of the time; f6.3 was about as open as most work was shot at. When Nikon began putting out its E range, which was a cheaper option of the normal offering. I think that was a mistake, sowing both confusion and a sense that standards were being let go... that said, I never heard of people having to go through a range of copies to arrive at a so-called keeper.
The conclusions one is driven to draw are not at all flattering for the companies we know today.
Rob
-
For me, the mirrorless competition (I am not keen on the word "war") will make a difference, as I am about to jump from one brand to whatever other brand that will totally capture my needs.
The megapixel competition is still going on simultaneously with the mirrorless competition. There is talk about more affordable 100MP cameras from Hasselblad and Fuji. It will be interesting to see if Sigma, Tamron, et. al. will offer lenses that that will perform well on 100MP cameras. Or if some of their lenses already do resolve at that level.
Kevin didn't mention the differences between what e.g. Fuji is offering now and the Rangefinder model that has been rumored.
Kevin neither mentioned minor players like Sigma (they apparently will announce a new camera this year; I don't believe that future development/improvement of Foveon technology has reached its end) and perhaps Ricoh/Pentax (are they still in this medium format race?).
I think it's important to be inclusive as much as possible and include the minor players.
This will be an interesting year indeed, and I wonder how much will be revealed before and at Photokina.
-
For me, the mirrorless competition (I am not keen on the word "war") will make a difference, as I am about to jump from one brand to whatever other brand that will totally capture my needs.
The megapixel competition is still going on simultaneously with the mirrorless competition. There is talk about more affordable 100MP cameras from Hasselblad and Fuji. It will be interesting to see if Sigma, Tamron, et. al. will offer lenses that that will perform well on 100MP cameras. Or if some of their lenses already do resolve at that level.
Kevin didn't mention the differences between what e.g. Fuji is offering now and the Rangefinder model that has been rumored.
Kevin neither mentioned minor players like Sigma (they apparently will announce a new camera this year; I don't believe that future development/improvement of Foveon technology has reached its end) and perhaps Ricoh/Pentax (are they still in this medium format race?).
I think it's important to be inclusive as much as possible and include the minor players.
This will be an interesting year indeed, and I wonder how much will be revealed before and at Photokina.
Don't lose sight of the fact, though, that LuLa doesn't pretend to be a "gear review" site; what it does in that direction is show and discuss stuff that the owners themselves enjoy. Which seems fair enough to me.
Maybe it gets a bit overly sentimental with some brands, but why not if they are the objects of the desires?
(Just yesterday, for the first time, I read the fine print on the T.O.P site: I hadn't realised that a blog was supposed to be run on different psychological lines to a forum: I had fondly imagined that threads were there for the discussing. How boring to realise I was mistaken, that all you're supposed to do is follow the thin yellow/fawn line! I've spent much of my life trying to avoid following officially drawn lines. If I was meant to follow them, then I'd be a tram or, at best, a train.
At least Leicaphilia is actively open to fresh thought, even if, as with T.O.P., it is slow in moving forward because of the need to vet input and the unavoidable delays due to that process.
That's one thing at least where LuLa scores hands down: it allows for instant interaction. In this age, who'd expect less?)
-
As for the 14 bit vs. 16-bit, my understanding is that outside of massively more DR coming (wouldn't that be awesome compared to more MP), more bits here is mostly marketing than useful but I'm open to a better understanding of all this.
The Nikon D850 at ISO64 has a measured engineering DR (DxOMark) of 13,55EV which can STILL but hardly be encoded in 14-bit RAW files. Should this sensor have just half extra stop of DR and more than 14 bits would become necessary. What does this means? 16-bit linear encodings are just knocking at the door and we'll see them as soon as an enhanced DR sensor appears on the market, not for marketing reasons (as Canon did with the 40D and its fake 14 bits), but as an engineering requirement.
This is the Pentax K5 with Sony Exmor sensor, the first sensor ever really needing 14 bits:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/rawbits/k5_1.jpg)
What if this sensor would just have a 12-bit encoding? posterization (the simulation was done by decimating from 14-bit to 12-bit a RAW file prior to debayering):
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/rawbits/k5_2.jpg)
That is what would happen in the deep shadows of any sensor with insufficient encoding bits.
Regards
-
Regarding the mirrorless FF war, I wonder what could today be the penetration of Sony in the FF market. In other thread Bernard estimated an almost negligble 1%. With sustained sales from Sony since the introduction of the A7 five years ago I think that figure is strongly pesimistic.
I don't have the needed data, but with some assumptions:
- 50% of FF users bought a new FF body from 2014-2018 and those who did only bought one
- Users are only Canikon or Sony never mixed
- Total market is stable
- Yearly body sales remain constant
...
I cannot reach in any way such a bad figure as 1%. In the following estimation I get 12% of Sony users in the FF market.
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/mirrorlessconjectures.png)
Here is the Excel to play with, green cells can be adjusted. What are your thoughts and how could this influence in the final winner of the war?. Kevin seems to see Sony as very well positioned for being the first in having an almost complete mirrorless FF system, but I am skeptical about this seeing current FF market share.
http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/mirrorless.xlsx
Regards
-
16-bit linear encodings are just knocking at the door and we'll see them as soon as an enhanced DR sensor appears on the market, not for marketing reasons (as Canon did with the 40D and its fake 14 bits), but as an engineering requirement.
Thanks! Is it 'difficult' or just more expensive to implement this?
-
Hi,
It is not difficult, just slows down things, probably. I would guess that most CMOS sensors use ramp type converters, adding a bit means doubling conversion time. I would think...
But, yes, DR is just below 14 bits now. So, they can make the pixels smaller, which would reduce DR a bit or they can keep the pixel size and have slower conversion.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks! Is it 'difficult' or just more expensive to implement this?
-
I just published a short Rant/article about the looming Mirrorless Wars. It's going to get interesting. Check it out HERE (https://luminous-landscape.com/mirrorless-wars/)
great video, thanks for your thoughts
-
The Nikon D850 at ISO64 has a measured engineering DR (DxOMark) of 13,55EV which can STILL but hardly be encoded in 14-bit RAW files. Should this sensor have just half extra stop of DR and more than 14 bits would become necessary. What does this means? 16-bit linear encodings are just knocking at the door and we'll see them as soon as an enhanced DR sensor appears on the market, not for marketing reasons (as Canon did with the 40D and its fake 14 bits), but as an engineering requirement.
This is the Pentax K5 with Sony Exmor sensor, the first sensor ever really needing 14 bits:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/rawbits/k5_1.jpg)
What if this sensor would just have a 12-bit encoding? posterization (the simulation was done by decimating from 14-bit to 12-bit a RAW file prior to debayering):
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/rawbits/k5_2.jpg)
That is what would happen in the deep shadows of any sensor with insufficient encoding bits.
Regards
It would be interesting to see what happens if you take the 12 bit file and add 2 random bits to artificially convert it to a 14 bit file and compare it to the original.
-
Don't lose sight of the fact, though, that LuLa doesn't pretend to be a "gear review" site; what it does in that direction is show and discuss stuff that the owners themselves enjoy. Which seems fair enough to me.
Maybe it gets a bit overly sentimental with some brands, but why not if they are the objects of the desires?
Perhaps fair indeed, but not always desirable from us, the readers', point of view (and we are paying for LULA now, after all, which I still think was a bad, but perhaps necessary, idea); we may want to expect more than (now mostly Sony) fan boys' comments.
Objectivity is a strength, not a weakness. Stuff only the owners enjoy and salivate over has the great potential to isolate the readers and to become tiring or boring. I think overall, we expect more. Take e.g. the case of Sigma cameras; some people rave about the Foveon technology; others do not. And on both sides of liking and disliking, truly often not for the right reasons. This is why we need objectivity and not emotionalism.
I am also saying this, as many people have returned to the simplicity of film. There's a reason for that. Too many blogs are filled with endless pixel-peeping and geeky technological and complex discussions. Are we supposed to be engineers too? Have that kind of knowledge? It's totally overwhelming what's happening in so many blogs (e.g. dpreview).
I am tempted myself to resurrect shooting with film.
Some digital cameras encourage this more simpler way of landscape and artistic shooting; no need for 10-20 frames per second, etc. Is a "slow camera" a bad camera? Not if it has stellar IQ.
Also, in this day and age, suddenly cameras are judged on their video capabilities. I personally never shoot video and would rather have a high end camera without video, and save some money. It would be nice if higher end cameras were offered as just stills cameras only for a reduced, yet affordable, price (I'm talking well below $10k).
"Objects of desire": The Fuji GFX 50S (or R to come?) fits in that category for me. It's not a Sony. Lol.
Right now, I'm waiting for more announcements before I add another system to my existing arsenal. You get my drift: I'm not a crowd follower. When everyone turns right, I want to see what's happening on the left side. :-)
I believe I'm certainly not alone in this.
-
Perhaps fair indeed, but not always desirable from us, the readers', point of view (and we are paying for LULA now, after all, which I still think was a bad, but perhaps necessary, idea); we may want to expect more than (now mostly Sony) fan boys' comments.
Objectivity is a strength, not a weakness. Stuff only the owners enjoy and salivate over has the great potential to isolate the readers and to become tiring or boring. I think overall, we expect more. Take e.g. the case of Sigma cameras; some people rave about the Foveon technology; others do not. And on both sides of liking and disliking, truly often not for the right reasons. This is why we need objectivity and not emotionalism.
I am also saying this, as many people have returned to the simplicity of film. There's a reason for that. Too many blogs are filled with endless pixel-peeping and geeky technological and complex discussions. Are we supposed to be engineers too? Have that kind of knowledge? It's totally overwhelming what's happening in so many blogs (e.g. dpreview).
I am tempted myself to resurrect shooting with film.
Some digital cameras encourage this more simpler way of landscape and artistic shooting; no need for 10-20 frames per second, etc. Is a "slow camera" a bad camera? Not if it has stellar IQ.
Also, in this day and age, suddenly cameras are judged on their video capabilities. I personally never shoot video and would rather have a high end camera without video, and save some money. It would be nice if higher end cameras were offered as just stills cameras only for a reduced, yet affordable, price (I'm talking well below $10k).
"Objects of desire": The Fuji GFX 50S (or R to come?) fits in that category for me. It's not a Sony. Lol.
Right now, I'm waiting for more announcements before I add another system to my existing arsenal. You get my drift: I'm not a crowd follower. When everyone turns right, I want to see what's happening on the left side. :-)
I believe I'm certainly not alone in this.
There's no doubt about that!
However, as you obviously know, no site can give you everything, because sites are made up of people who, for better of for worse, are driven by personality and, thus, emotions that include likes and dislikes. No site can be all things to all men (or women) and let's face it, LuLa has a pretty broad demographic of users that doesn't appear to be in any particular hurry to go somewhere else. Where to, becomes the first question for anyone thinking of jumping ship.
Film. Film is not simplicity. I spent a career working solely with film. The only thing that appears to be simple with film, in retrospect, is that you didn't get to pixel-peep and read learned discussions on the Internet that, perhaps fortunately (?) wasn't around for most of us. All you needed to do was learn some basic exposure and development routines - and stick to them like a zealot - and all was usually well. Simple on the face of it, and no more difficult than is using a camera today if you choose to set it to as near manual as you can (my way) and pretend you are using your old film bodies. But, in both cases, film and digital, simplicity is surface: below that, all sorts of very complex stuff is going down, with all kinds of possibilities of failure just biding their time to make you feel an idiot.
Like you, I never shoot video. Neither do I shoot sequences at eye-defeating speed or at all, come to think of it. And yes, I think it would be good if there was choice between a pared-down, high quality camera and one complete with the church steeple. A slight problem could be in deciding what's vital and what's not well enough to suit the ideals of a reasonable set of buyers.
Part of your argument is that you don't need whatever goodies than IQ for landscape and deliberate shooting; I don't do landscape at all, and I'm also a pretty slow worker now - different needs/opportunities - but neither do I have interest in shooting the skies at night, and so I guess a lot of the features that kind of photographer needs mean zero for me. What I'm trying to suggest is that there isn't really such a thing as the average photographer. How can a camera maker decide on a way to spread the goodies across bodies without sabotaging his own sales?
If I were to be granted my digital wishes, they would be:
1. a digital 135 format camera that permitted me to use my old Metz should-pack flash at around the 1/1000th second speed;
2. a digital 500 Series Hasselblad that used a full-frame sensor.
Both would have to be within my limited price-ceiling, like yours, and well below 10k anythings!
Would I use them much? Probably no more than I use what I already have, is the unfortunate truth.
Rob
-
Adri . . . I have explained in a video all about why Sony gets attention. Soon, that will change. We have a good piece coming up with Olympus. Which by the way I own and we covered a lot on this site. I have a video and article almost ready to go about using the Fuji X-H1. I own every Fuji camera and a ton of lens as well as Panasonic GH cameras. And, throw in some Phase One technical camera gear. Soon, we'll be covering both Nikons and Canons venture into mirrorless. I hope they come out with innovations that re fun. It will be fun to see if they innovate at the rate that Sony does. And, I think you'll find a lot of talk about Sony on many other sites too as Sony is the only company really pushing cameras out to talk about. That could change soon.
As far as film goes, been there and done that. I was one of the early digital pioneers and have never looked back. Yes, I miss film and the success that I had as a photographer. Both Michael and I tried to get back to film. That lasted a few weeks. Many old-timers here may remember his venture into a Rollei twin lens set up. That lasted about three weeks. I am talking to someone about doing a collaborative piece together shooting with film and printing in a darkroom. We may do that later this year.
The real fun with more mirrorless options will be here soon. Let's see what develops.
-
Hi Kevin,
I tried film a few times and came back with a bleeded nose each time.
Kodak was like a T-ford, it served it's purpose well. But we don't see a lot of them doing any useful work...
Best regards
Erik
Adri . . . I have explained in a video all about why Sony gets attention. Soon, that will change. We have a good piece coming up with Olympus. Which by the way I own and we covered a lot on this site. I have a video and article almost ready to go about using the Fuji X-H1. I own every Fuji camera and a ton of lens as well as Panasonic GH cameras. And, throw in some Phase One technical camera gear. Soon, we'll be covering both Nikons and Canons venture into mirrorless. I hope they come out with innovations that re fun. It will be fun to see if they innovate at the rate that Sony does. And, I think you'll find a lot of talk about Sony on many other sites too as Sony is the only company really pushing cameras out to talk about. That could change soon.
As far as film goes, been there and done that. I was one of the early digital pioneers and have never looked back. Yes, I miss film and the success that I had as a photographer. Both Michael and I tried to get back to film. That lasted a few weeks. Many old-timers here may remember his venture into a Rollei twin lens set up. That lasted about three weeks. I am talking to someone about doing a collaborative piece together shooting with film and printing in a darkroom. We may do that later this year.
The real fun with more mirrorless options will be here soon. Let's see what develops.
-
Hi Kevin,
I tried film a few times and came back with a bleeded nose each time.
Kodak was like a T-ford, it served it's purpose well. But we don't see a lot of them doing any useful work...
Best regards
Erik
Erik, because something may not suit the great unwashed - or even some of the über classes, just to retain a democratic persepective - does not imply that it is useless. Far from it.
With the usual caveat of "money no object", I would enjoy going back to my old 'blad 500 system and producing transparencies and black/white negatives again. I no longer print for several reasons already developed here too often; that said, those cameras, for me, would still be valuable today if only for the sheer pleasure of using them. They represent a pinnacle of format - and tactile - perfection. Nothing else that I owned ever gave me that degree of satisfaction and sense of photographic control.
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
I have a Hasselblad 555/ELD with 6-7 lenses, a P45+ and two 120 film mags. I even have a projector for 67 slide film. I also happen to have a dedicated film scanner for 120 film.
But, buying film is expensive and development is even more expensive. Also, each time I tried to use film I hated the results. I could send my Velvia for drum scanning of course. That said, I was not so impressed with drum scans that I have made.
Using the P45+ is absolutely free. I seldom do that, though.
So, I have all the means, what I lack is the motivation, doing what I see is a lot more work for inferior results.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, because something may not suit the great unwashed - or even some of the über classes, just to retain a democratic persepective - does not imply that it is useless. Far from it.
With the usual caveat of "money no object", I would enjoy going back to my old 'blad 500 system and producing transparencies and black/white negatives again. I no longer print for several reasons already developed here too often; that said, those cameras, for me, would still be valuable today if only for the sheer pleasure of using them. They represent a pinnacle of format - and tactile - perfection. Nothing else that I owned ever gave me that degree of satisfaction and sense of photographic control.
Rob
-
If you compare scanned film to the latest digital you will very likely be disappointed.
Film and processing is expensive, there has not been R & D in many years, many emulsions are no longer available, but some films have a particular, different look than digital.
How come there are so many different digital photography products that use the selling point "Film like"? It is not about colour accuracy or resolution, even less about shadow recovery.
Any recent sports car with all wheel drive and all the electronic marvels will beat a 70's era sports car, but I know a few people that prefer the ride in the older cars.
Take film for what it is, you might like it or not, but don't lose time comparing it to digital. Personally I use digital 99% of the time, but I still love the rendering of Caucasian skin on Portra.
-
If you compare scanned film to the latest digital you will very likely be disappointed.
Film and processing is expensive, there has not been R & D in many years, many emulsions are no longer available, but some films have a particular, different look than digital.
How come there are so many different digital photography products that use the selling point "Film like"? It is not about colour accuracy or resolution, even less about shadow recovery.
Any recent sports car with all wheel drive and all the electronic marvels will beat a 70's era sports car, but I know a few people that prefer the ride in the older cars.
Take film for what it is, you might like it or not, but don't lose time comparing it to digital. Personally I use digital 99% of the time, but I still love the rendering of Caucasian skin on Portra.
Exactly! That's the whole point.
It, film, gives what it gives, and for those of us who grew up with it, it ticks a lot of boxes. Not everyone likes it - compared with their digital outpt - and that's fine too.
I also look upon it this way: were I still using film, I would not have made most of the images that I have made since buying into digital. Why not? Because I think most of them to be totally inconsequential, of exactly the same negligible value as the millions of others that I see here and everywhere else, their raison d'être nothing more than the surprise that the shooter actually got an image vaguely along the lines of what he'd hoped.
So the measure of it is this: would I be willing to pay money for the film that I would otherwise be consuming in this mindless manner? No.
In other words, digital, not only as selfie, has become the pond for every Narcissus amongst us to spend his days in deluded self-admiration. Digital is the cheapest whore in town.
And that, of course, illustrates Terence Donovan's dictum about amateur photography and purpose.
-
Exactly! That's the whole point.
It, film, gives what it gives, and for those of us who grew up with it, it ticks a lot of boxes. Not everyone likes it - compared with their digital outpt - and that's fine too.
I also look upon it this way: were I still using film, I would not have made most of the images that I have made since buying into digital. Why not? Because I think most of them to be totally inconsequential, of exactly the same negligible value as the millions of others that I see here and everywhere else, their raison d'être nothing more than the surprise that the shooter actually got an image vaguely along the lines of what he'd hoped.
So the measure of it is this: would I be willing to pay money for the film that I would otherwise be consuming in this mindless manner? No.
In other words, digital, not only as selfie, has become the pond for every Narcissus amongst us to spend his days in deluded self-admiration. Digital is the cheapest whore in town.
And that, of course, illustrates Terence Donovan's dictum about amateur photography and purpose.
Rob, I'm sure there are truths in what you say but I feel there are also truths there about your state of mind.
Be well, my friend.
Keith
-
Rob, I'm sure there are truths in what you say but I feel there are also truths there about your state of mind.
Be well, my friend.
Keith
Keith, the two are inextricably linked! Were they not, I'd just be writing in order to run up the electricity bill; many people do that, telling it not like it is but how it is "supposed" to be or, perhaps, how they would like it to be which may be a little different...
Thing is, I have yet to find a better outlet for what has to be dealt with in the quotidian battle for inner survival. Some fortunates can find it in the bottle (I love those kinds of songs!) but as you know, going there for me would be assisted self-destruction: the old pump would follow the argument of the French air-traffic controllers as reliably expressed, each and every summer. I wouldn't want that! Well, not just yet, anyway.
:-)
Rob
-
Keith, the two are inextricably linked! Were they not, I'd just be writing in order to run up the electricity bill; many people do that, telling it not like it is but how it is "supposed" to be or, perhaps, how they would like it to be which may be a little different...
Thing is, I have yet to find a better outlet for what has to be dealt with in the quotidian battle for inner survival. Some fortunates can find it in the bottle (I love those kinds of songs!) but as you know, going there for me would be assisted self-destruction: the old pump would follow the argument of the French air-traffic controllers as reliably expressed, each and every summer. I wouldn't want that! Well, not just yet, anyway.
:-)
Rob
Yup, I know.
But what I try to remember is that I'm not only posting to pals (a handful or two of Users) but also to the world and his wife (hundreds of Guests).
-
Kevin, this is an old subject. I don't think that you give justice to the Panasonic side of the m4/3rds system. And since it is a system that crosses over not only Olympus and Panasonic to other lens makers like Sigma and Laowa, it also seems a bit misleading to focus on the Olympus "system" without including the other parts of the system in a future piece. Personally, I prefer both Panasonic lenses and bodies for stills shooting. The Panasonic G1 was the first mirrorless camera, and their Lumix contemporary cameras and bodies are still the leaders from my humble perspective. Nor is Panasonic just about video as you seem to suggest. That is not to say that Olympus does not have good products as part of the m4/3rds system, but it is unfair to give them pride of place in the m4/3rds discussion.
All the best,
F.
-
Yup, I know.
But what I try to remember is that I'm not only posting to pals (a handful or two of Users) but also to the world and his wife (hundreds of Guests).
Very true, but I don't bank online and neither do I communicate with banks online.
Thus, impressions gathered by the wonderful outer world have little effect on my life at all, a fairly pleasant kind of mental and physical space to inhabit! Having never desired a presence in any of the FB, Twitter or similar worlds, I remain a cypher, truly independent of the thumbs up button.
Am I nuts? I don't think so, but doesn't everybody think the same of himself?
Anyway, reverting to the topic of photography: I come from having posted a fresh thread over in But is it Art? which may, in part, be construed as contradicting some of what I have written in this particular thread here. Do I have a difficulty with that perception or position? Not really; I have long understood that every argument or position has its opposite manifestation not only within another person, but inside the originator of the first thought, too. For it to be otherwise would force a complete blindness to alternative possibilities.
-
Thanks! Is it 'difficult' or just more expensive to implement this?
I think it is more expensive in CPU power... all the internal processing the camera does takes more effort... and maybe time... this also translate in battery time... also the need to add a more powerful CPU in the camera I suspects it translates in money...
I think Phase ONE backs... the latests one are 16 bits... but I’m talking from memory here...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
I read:'
Canon is still quiet, and I believe they are working on something big. Wisely, they haven’t said anything yet. But Canon will have to use what I call the nuclear option to enter this market successfully. They will need to top everyone else in features, lenses, and performance."
The problem with Canon is- for years- that the sensors are not as good as Sony's.
It would be a big surpriose if they can compete with sony's BSI sensors especially since they are designed with mirrorless camera in mind.
If Canon needs to do so much, why are they already #1 in the mirrorless market in Japan?
https://petapixel.com/2018/08/01/canon-is-already-1-in-mirrorless-cameras-in-japan/
I was shocked to learn this, particularly after viewing Kevin’s video, which makes it seem Canon is dormant in the mirrorless wars. It just goes to show how little the market giants might have to perform to stay on top, especially once they make a more serious effort.
Jeff
-
I think it is more expensive in CPU power... all the internal processing the camera does takes more effort... and maybe time... this also translate in battery time... also the need to add a more powerful CPU in the camera I suspects it translates in money...
...
It also translates in heat.
More bit depth means more data to move means means more power is requires means more heat is produced. And that increases the difficulty of making a small camera. Bigger heat sinks are easier. It also increases the difficulty of making low-noise camera, as heat is a noise-producing factor.
-
It also translates in heat.
More bit depth means more data to move means means more power is requires means more heat is produced. And that increases the difficulty of making a small camera. Bigger heat sinks are easier. It also increases the difficulty of making low-noise camera, as heat is a noise-producing factor.
Yes, that it is also a constraint...
-
Hi,
Not really, processing pipeline is 16-bits, anyway. The major impact is readout time. Two more bits means four times longer readout. That mean four times longer viewfinder blackout and one fourth the frame rate.
As long as DR is below 14EV there is little advantage going beyond 14 bits as the 14 bits are enough to fully represent the dynamic range of the sensor.
But, modern pixels are close to 14EV, so another bit may be needed soon. On the other hand, if you make the pixels smaller, the per pixel DR is reduced with the number of pixels partly compensating for lost DR. Doubling MP costs an halv EV of DR.
At this stage there may be a single sensor that may have more than 15 bits, and that is Sony's 100MP 54x41 mm sensor sitting in the Phase One IQ3100MP and the Hasselblad H6D100c. Next generation of that sensor is 14-bit according to Sony.
As of now, 16-bits is simply bad engineering and false marketing. The technology does not really exist and there is no need for it.
Best regards
Erik
It also translates in heat.
More bit depth means more data to move means means more power is requires means more heat is produced. And that increases the difficulty of making a small camera. Bigger heat sinks are easier. It also increases the difficulty of making low-noise camera, as heat is a noise-producing factor.
-
Hi,
Not really, processing pipeline is 16-bits, anyway. The major impact is readout time. Two more bits means four times longer readout. That mean four times longer viewfinder blackout and one fourth the frame rate.
As long as DR is below 14EV there is little advantage going beyond 14 bits as the 14 bits are enough to fully represent the dynamic range of the sensor.
But, modern pixels are close to 14EV, so another bit may be needed soon. On the other hand, if you make the pixels smaller, the per pixel DR is reduced with the number of pixels partly compensating for lost DR. Doubling MP costs an halv EV of DR.
At this stage there may be a single sensor that may have more than 15 bits, and that is Sony's 100MP 54x41 mm sensor sitting in the Phase One IQ3100MP and the Hasselblad H6D100c. Next generation of that sensor is 14-bit according to Sony.
As of now, 16-bits is simply bad engineering and false marketing. The technology does not really exist and there is no need for it.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I'm not really sure what you're responding to here. I agree that 16-bit recording is surpurfluous as yet. But the queston I was responding to was "Is it difficult... or just expensive?"
So, cost aside, if you are ging to record 16 bits (apart from the question of whether you need to) more-expensive tech can move the bits faster, but not withoug creating proportionately more heat, and in a small camera, heat is a very important limiting factor because it's hard to get rid of it and it affects both usability and image quality.
Red took a novel approach to this problem with their Dragon sensor by making its optimal operating temperature much higher than the norm. That helped them keep operating temps where they need to be, but the tradeoff is a very long startup time (20 minutes) before the camera reaches its proper operating temperature and optimal noise levels.
-
If Canon needs to do so much, why are they already #1 in the mirrorless market in Japan?
https://petapixel.com/2018/08/01/canon-is-already-1-in-mirrorless-cameras-in-japan/
I was shocked to learn this, particularly after viewing Kevin’s video, which makes it seem Canon is dormant in the mirrorless wars. It just goes to show how little the market giants might have to perform to stay on top, especially once they make a more serious effort.
#1 in terms of number of cheap bodies sold during a given month doesn’t mean much.
Especially when you think that most of these come with only a kit lens and will never be replaced since smartphones will eat this segment alive in the coming years.
Similarly, it was reported last month that Nikon is #1 in compacf digital cameras. The main reason? The kid friendly waterproof W300 selling at 100 US$. Meaningless as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
#1 in terms of number of cheap bodies sold during a given month doesn’t mean much.
[...]
Meaningless as well.
What has "meaning"? Canon and Nikon sell a lot of mirrorless cameras, which is something you'd never have guessed from the Lula Sony Spin Machine. Are they the most technologically advanced? No. Do they make a lot of money? Maybe. Do they give Canon and Nikon engineers the experience they need to build a top mirrorless camera? Probably - we will soon find out!
-
#1 in terms of number of cheap bodies sold during a given month doesn’t mean much.
It is six months, not one, but your point stands; there is plenty of evidence of market share volatility on that time scale, depending on factors like who has the most recent successful product release. BCN data for the same Japanese market for full years has Olympus in first place the last two years (and MFT in aggregate even more clearly ahead), with Canon trending up to a statistical tie with Sony for second place.
Similarly, it was reported last month that Nikon is #1 in compact digital cameras. The main reason? The kid friendly waterproof W300 selling at 100 US$. Meaningless as well.
Agreed; a good illustration of my point above.
Especially when you think that most of these ... will never be replaced since smartphones will eat this segment alive in the coming years.
This is the second time in two days that I have read this claim that smart phones will destroy the smaller ILC formats, up to APS-C, leaving only "FF" and above. (And some of the people who predict this also predict that FF will "eat the larger MF format segment alive", so that altogether, all ILCs will be in the 36x24mm film era legacy format!)
This makes no sense to me:
- the gap in performance and flexibility between phone-cameras and the smallest ILC format is far greater than the gap from smaller to larger ILC formats: the sensor size ratio and low light capabilities are larger by a far greater ratio, there are interchangeable lenses, zoom lenses, vastly greater telephoto reach options ....
- the gap in price is the other way around: with the price increment from phone to mainstream ILC formats (MFT, APS-C) far less than the price jump from there to 36x24mm format.
Someone (not you) made what I call the "extremist argument": the claim that most people will seek to optimize one attribute (convenience, cost, performance) so that products at one or other extreme will dominate, while products that make trade-offs between opposing virtues ("compromises", which is a dirty word in many internet discussion) will fail. This is about the opposite of how products ranges usually work out in the real world.
-
Hi,
With modern sensors, the cost is slowing down everything by a factor of four, one frame per second instead of four frames a second. How hard is that to get?
The pipeline is 16 bit wide. Processors are normally 8, 16 or 32 bit wide. No one builds a processor 12 or 14 bit wide today. That said, it may be possible that some part of the ASICs may be optimized for 14 bits, but, digital technology is normally multiples of 8.
Modern CMOS sensors use column wise conversion and the converters are probably ramp type converters. A reference voltage is ramped up until voltage matches the voltage from the pixel. The value is simple the number of clocks until match is reached.
If you want to measure with 16 bit precision, you need to have 1/4 of the step size on the ramp, increasing conversion time by a factor of form. So, you get a slow conversion.
On older systems, most CCDs and some CMOS, the voltage from the pixel would go trough a preamp to of sensor ADC. Those would be flash type ADCs, so you could get a 16 bit device from Burr & Brown, and that would deliver 16 bit data. But, the input data to the converter would still be limited by pixel noise. So, you have 72 dB of data, corresponding to 12 bits and feed it into a 16 bit converter. So you get 16 bit of data with low four bits representing noise.
Would you do that in engineering school, it would be regarded a serious error. If you have input data with say two decimals, you should never present the result with more than two decimals.
So, the material cost of going 16 bits is zero, but with modern sensors it would lead to significant performance loss and the old sensors don't have accurate data anyway.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I'm not really sure what you're responding to here. I agree that 16-bit recording is surpurfluous as yet. But the queston I was responding to was "Is it difficult... or just expensive?"
So, cost aside, if you are ging to record 16 bits (apart from the question of whether you need to) more-expensive tech can move the bits faster, but not withoug creating proportionately more heat, and in a small camera, heat is a very important limiting factor because it's hard to get rid of it and it affects both usability and image quality.
Red took a novel approach to this problem with their Dragon sensor by making its optimal operating temperature much higher than the norm. That helped them keep operating temps where they need to be, but the tradeoff is a very long startup time (20 minutes) before the camera reaches its proper operating temperature and optimal noise levels.
-
I just saw the video by Kevin. We will meet in the war zone and photograph :)
If my workshops is any measure I can only say that I see few Sony cameras and as many Fuji and Olympus, but all are dwarfed by the number of Canons and Nikons until this day. I had expected 4-5 years ago that this would happen much faster.
So far I have not purchased a mirrorless system and I have looked into many EVF's and thought, OK, one day I will have one, but so far I don't like what I see even though it is what I get.
As stated by many including Kevin and including the recent video from Tony and Chelsey Northrup (see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYYaQz83etY ) the traditional camera makers like Canon and Nikon would need to cannibalise their existing lineup and market mirrorless as better than what they have. They also would need to invest in both product technologies, so not that attractive. Btw. the same problem car manufacturers have now with the transition to electric. It will be interesting to see how many will survive these transitions. It is not a given they all will. I'm pretty sure they will not all make it.
-
What has "meaning"? Canon and Nikon sell a lot of mirrorless cameras, which is something you'd never have guessed from the Lula Sony Spin Machine. Are they the most technologically advanced? No. Do they make a lot of money? Maybe. Do they give Canon and Nikon engineers the experience they need to build a top mirrorless camera? Probably - we will soon find out!
Indeed.
I meant “meaningless” in the sense that it doesn’t seem to carry much actual meaning as a KPI indicating how healthy and future ready the company is.
Marketing dpts have understood that these indicators can be used to generate fear in buyers and drive them towards the more “healthy” company. I know at least 2 first hand cases where sales people in major retailers in Europe used the supposedely poor results of Nikon as a reason to trigger Canon sales. According to them Nikon was nearly bankrupt and it would have been risky to “invest” in the Nikon system.
I find these sales techniques despisable, but odds are that they contribute to the matket share increase of Canon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just saw the video by Kevin. We will meet in the war zone and photograph :)
If my workshops is any measure I can only say that I see few Sony cameras and as many Fuji and Olympus, but all are dwarfed by the number of Canons and Nikons until this day. I had expected 4-5 years ago that this would happen much faster.
So far I have not purchased a mirrorless system and I have looked into many EVF's and thought, OK, one day I will have one, but so far I don't like what I see even though it is what I get.
As stated by many including Kevin and including the recent video from Tony and Chelsey Northrup (see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYYaQz83etY ) the traditional camera makers like Canon and Nikon would need to cannibalise their existing lineup and market mirrorless as better than what they have. They also would need to invest in both product technologies, so not that attractive. Btw. the same problem car manufacturers have now with the transition to electric. It will be interesting to see how many will survive these transitions. It is not a given they all will. I'm pretty sure they will not all make it.
Your observations do not surprise me one bit!
When it comes to change in photography there is always inertial resistance...
Yes, there have always been early adopters (this forum is probably over-represented in this respect) but the mainstream has always been relatively slow to adapt
Also, it depends on what is changing and how big that change is.
I own Both Canon and Sony equipment.
There is absolutely no doubt that late-model Sony cameras easily outperform their Canon counterparts. However, there is also no doubt that Canon cameras produce stellar images.
Also, the reason that I was able to buy and use Sony cameras was that it was not a case of going cold turkey on my Canon equipment. Every Canon lens, with some limitations at times, can be used on the Sony bodies. Where the Canon bodies hold an edge I use them; when the Sony bodies have the edge they get a run. I still use both systems interchangeably according to the needs of the image...
But, the point is that even if the Sony bodies are demonstrably better in many situations to their Canon counterparts, the Canon bodies are also demonstrably good enough.
I probably would never have changed apart from the fact that I wanted to print big and so resolution and fine detail became particularly important.
If Sony (and other mirrorless vendors) are able to maintain their technological edge over Canon, Nikon, and other latecomers to the mirrorless party, then, over time, more and more photographers will switch and newcomers will increasingly choose Sony (or one of the other mirrorless systems) as their first investment.
None of the currently implemented new technology is truly revolutionary. When it comes to the end-image obtainable the changes are currently evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The delta is not so large that it positively demands immediate change...
I expect the market to continue to shift, incrementally, as the benefits of shooting with mirrorless bodies become more apparent. Yes, the Sony A9 is a definite marker as to the potentialities of mirrorless but most of those relate primarily to how one shoots, and only secondarily to the quality of the end-image.
One thing is apparent to me: the market situation pertaining to mirrorless bodies definitely demands a response from the latecomers to this market. Canon and Nikon are both showing signs of stirring! I for one cannot wait to see what they come up with!
Interesting times ahead...
-
I have lived my last forty years of my career in the world of bleeding edge technology. I started with the first generation microprocessors and ended it very recently. I lived, on three distinct occasions (twice at Hewlett Packard and once at Blackberry) the annihilation of a technology leader that relinquishes its leadership. I have also shot Canon since 1985 until three months ago. I walked away from Canon having fully realized that they relinquished their technology leadership after 5D mark II. So the camera market was ripe for a discontinuous change with a new entrant to seize the leadership mantle; SONY has done this. One of the many lessons I learnt through my professional work is that in Technology once the leader relinquishes or becomes lazy to tending to its leadership it can NEVER regain it. There is not a single example that has negated this phenomenon; and please do not bring up APPLE's 'reincarnation' since what Jobs did was to use the name Apple and created a totally different company in a new emerging market. The original Apple is still resting in peace.
So my conclusions: it is almost irrelevant what CANON does now they are done with. As for NIKON with all the technology dependence they have on SONY and other suppliers of core technologies, they were never the leader since cameras went digital. Whit that observation we now have three positions left that will rule the roost for the next decade or so; SONY in full-frame, FUJI and SONY in APS-C and one of Panasonic or Olympus in micro four third product segment. I predict the overall winner will be SONY since they hold the wand over a collection of key technologies that no one else has.
Just in case anyone cares what I replaced CANON with? It is FUJI, because I really like their X-mount optics and they are investing at a good rate and gaining market share big time. They will be around until I am too old to hold a camera in hand.
-
Hi,
With modern sensors, the cost is slowing down everything by a factor of four, one frame per second instead of four frames a second. How hard is that to get?
The pipeline is 16 bit wide. Processors are normally 8, 16 or 32 bit wide. No one builds a processor 12 or 14 bit wide today. That said, it may be possible that some part of the ASICs may be optimized for 14 bits, but, digital technology is normally multiples of 8.
Modern CMOS sensors use column wise conversion and the converters are probably ramp type converters. A reference voltage is ramped up until voltage matches the voltage from the pixel. The value is simple the number of clocks until match is reached.
If you want to measure with 16 bit precision, you need to have 1/4 of the step size on the ramp, increasing conversion time by a factor of form. So, you get a slow conversion.
On older systems, most CCDs and some CMOS, the voltage from the pixel would go trough a preamp to of sensor ADC. Those would be flash type ADCs, so you could get a 16 bit device from Burr & Brown, and that would deliver 16 bit data. But, the input data to the converter would still be limited by pixel noise. So, you have 72 dB of data, corresponding to 12 bits and feed it into a 16 bit converter. So you get 16 bit of data with low four bits representing noise.
Would you do that in engineering school, it would be regarded a serious error. If you have input data with say two decimals, you should never present the result with more than two decimals.
So, the material cost of going 16 bits is zero, but with modern sensors it would lead to significant performance loss and the old sensors don't have accurate data anyway.
Best regards
Erik
This all makes sense. Engineering is task of finding a balance of competing variables. It makes sense that there is no cost if performance loss is acceptable. What is the effect if performance has to stay the same?
-
Hi,
If we had ramp type converters and tried to increase bit depth while maintaining performance, there would be two possible routes:
Increase clock frequency on the ramp four times. But, that would yield a fourth of the sampling time and generate more heat.
As the data is still something like 13 bits accurate, it would not affect image quality in a positive manner.
The other way to that would be to add more ADC, like having sixteen ADCs for each column. That would benefit performance, but still not improve data.
Just to give a few examples from the Sony world.
Sony A7rII uncompressed data is actually 16 bit, but with the two most significant bits fixed at zero. So, it is 14 bit data in a 16 bit format.
But, the data is more like 13 bits, according to guys who know a lot more than me.
All that applies to single shoot only. In serial modes the camera reverts to 12 bit mode, utilizing 11 bits.
So, when FPS is needed the camera is essentially 11 bits only.
The A9 has a stacked sensor with several ADCs working in parallell for each column.
The Fuji GFX may not do those tricks, but it's electronic shutter is limited to something like 1/3 second sweep time.
In short, common sense is that if you have data that is accurate to 14 bits you would sample it at 14 bits. Sampling with more bits never makes any sense.
Best regards
Erik
This all makes sense. Engineering is task of finding a balance of competing variables. It makes sense that there is no cost if performance loss is acceptable. What is the effect if performance has to stay the same?
-
In short, common sense is that if you have data that is accurate to 14 bits you would sample it at 14 bits. Sampling with more bits never makes any sense.
It doesn't make any sense technically... but it has been making a huge marketing sense for the MF vendors throughout the years. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard