Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Just Published - Mirrorless wars  (Read 9627 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #40 on: August 08, 2018, 06:00:41 pm »

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
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

fdisilvestro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1836
    • Frank Disilvestro
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #41 on: August 08, 2018, 08:04:40 pm »

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.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #42 on: August 09, 2018, 04:38:27 am »

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.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2449
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #43 on: August 09, 2018, 05:37:59 am »


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
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 06:12:44 am by KLaban »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #44 on: August 09, 2018, 07:44:20 am »

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

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2449
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #45 on: August 09, 2018, 12:26:06 pm »


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).
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 12:37:18 pm by KLaban »
Logged

FrankStark

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 75
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #46 on: August 11, 2018, 04:48:52 pm »

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.
Logged
"We shoot the things that move us in ways that will move others."  David duChemin

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #47 on: August 12, 2018, 10:51:13 am »

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.

davidgp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 758
    • davidgp fotografia
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #48 on: August 15, 2018, 02:30:15 pm »

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

JeffS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #49 on: August 15, 2018, 05:53:59 pm »

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
Logged

D Fuller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
    • AirStream Pictures
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2018, 08:37:47 am »

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.
Logged
business website: www.airstream.pictures
blog: thirtynineframes.com/blog

davidgp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 758
    • davidgp fotografia
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #51 on: August 16, 2018, 08:47:39 am »

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...

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #52 on: August 16, 2018, 10:29:15 pm »


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.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

D Fuller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
    • AirStream Pictures
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #53 on: August 16, 2018, 11:02:59 pm »

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.
Logged
business website: www.airstream.pictures
blog: thirtynineframes.com/blog

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #54 on: August 17, 2018, 09:08:53 am »

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
 

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #55 on: August 17, 2018, 09:52:20 am »

#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!
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #56 on: August 17, 2018, 10:32:45 am »

#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.

« Last Edit: August 17, 2018, 08:35:09 pm by BJL »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #57 on: August 17, 2018, 12:55:41 pm »

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.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2104
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #58 on: August 17, 2018, 04:06:57 pm »

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.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Just Published - Mirrorless wars
« Reply #59 on: August 17, 2018, 06:42:25 pm »

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
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up