Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 22   Go Down

Author Topic: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?  (Read 21660 times)

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 987
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2018, 04:45:46 pm »

It seems awfully early in the first half to be picking a winner.
Yes, what is the rush? Wait a couple of years until Canon comes out with a better body, and Canon and Nikon come out with some native lenses.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12539
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2018, 08:19:21 pm »

The rush for these 2 companies should be fairly obvious.

They were very late to the party to start and the great innovator Sony has no intention to slow down.

Cheers,
Bernard

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 987
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2018, 09:08:24 pm »

The rush for these 2 companies should be fairly obvious.
Their rush isn''t our rush. And given the recent announcements, they don't appear to be in that big of a rush either.

Kirk_C

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2018, 12:15:03 am »

The rush for these 2 companies should be fairly obvious.

They were very late to the party to start and the great innovator Sony has no intention to slow down.

I don't think anyone is in a rush and I also don't think anyone has any intention of slowing down. Each corporation will have a time frame for development based on their resources and how they view the importance of this segment of the market in their overall business.



Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2256
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2018, 06:32:21 am »

I use Nikon and just have tried some days the Z7;
It is a very capable camera with d850 quality images...IBIS and very capable video
But Nikons problem is they have not enough (good) lenses for the Z.
the 35mm Z is very good but not for landscape- the 24-70 however is a small very nice universal lens that never disappoints.
I am not interested in the upcoming Z-lenses apart from the .95 lens. I want stellar lenses if they are not zoom.
I very much hope third party lenses ( Zeiss, Sigma- or possibly Canon!) will be available soon. That would make the Z-platform more interesting.
Also i am afraid too much attention will go to the Z-platform, delaying or even canceling the design of more good lenses for the F-bajonet that are already most needed.
Canon has better TS lenses except for the 19mmpPCE- i doubt if nikon wil come up soon with PCE's and for me they are needed.
Nikon F has no stellar wide angle lenses...beyond 28mm...
Nikon F has no stellar 35 and  50mm lens.
I now need to buy a Z-body first to buy a decent 50mm Nikkor lens...
« Last Edit: November 14, 2018, 06:37:01 am by kers »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12539
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2018, 04:56:53 pm »

I consider the 19mm T/S to be the best wide lens ever designed for 35mm.

I would agree that Nikon has no great ultra wide, altgough the 14-24mm f2.8 remains very good 10 years after its introduction.

And yes, F mount lenses will be fewer moving forward.

I have high expectations that the compact 14-30 S will be the best performing ultra-wide zoom on the market at typical landscape apertures.

Cheers,
Bernard

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1538
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2018, 11:38:31 am »

Quote
Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?

 :)  Fujifilm

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

sbay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 174
    • http://stephenbayphotography.com/
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2018, 02:09:10 pm »

I have high expectations that the compact 14-30 S will be the best performing ultra-wide zoom on the market at typical landscape apertures.

I'm actually really excited about that lens, even though I'm on sony. I shoot something like 80-90% of my shots with a 16-35 f/4. I could use more on the short end, and on my copy lens 32mm+ is not that great anyway.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2018, 12:32:12 am by sbay »
Logged

Jonathan Cross

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 227
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2018, 02:57:02 pm »

Agree with Rand.  Fuji X-T2 and 3 with 35mm f2 are giving me great results for a national project.  56 f1.2 is fantastic.  The bodies, 18-55 and 55-200 are all I need for travel.

Best wishes,

Jonathan


Logged
Jonathan in UK

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12539
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2018, 10:21:09 pm »

I would agree, Fuji looks better than Canon these days for many photographers.

Cheers,
Bernard

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5436
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #30 on: November 19, 2018, 08:31:35 am »

I would agree, Fuji looks better than Canon these days for many photographers.

Cheers,
Bernard

I remember a mention a few years back about a Canon exec stating that the company they "feared" most was Fujifilm. Not sure about it these days.

Anyway, according to this report:

https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/8563164917/wildfire-photographer-stuart-palley-on-the-new-abnormal

Looks like the Z7 has trouble focusing at night and/or low light. So not all are roses in the land of the big yellow.

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1445
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2018, 11:26:12 pm »

I remember a mention a few years back about a Canon exec stating that the company they "feared" most was Fujifilm. Not sure about it these days.

Anyway, according to this report:

https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/8563164917/wildfire-photographer-stuart-palley-on-the-new-abnormal

Looks like the Z7 has trouble focusing at night and/or low light. So not all are roses in the land of the big yellow.

I'm not sure he knew how to use the autofocus. But I'm not sure he doesn't -- I'd like to try it myself, and perhaps will. He says something like (this is close but perhaps not an exact quote) he was using 'the regular center point' autofocus. If that means what I think (spot focus) that's a rather odd choice for a fast-moving flickering fire where it goes from pitch black to over-the-top bright in fractions of a second and an inch or so can separate black from bright...and you  are moving yourself. If he means center-weighted (which is not what I think he means) then there's a problem. I personally (and I shot a lot of news coverage with Nikon film cameras) would have set it on "auto" under those conditions where you want to shoot a lot but may have to run at any moment.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11249
    • Echophoto
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2018, 04:13:21 am »

Hi Dave,

I would say there have been a couple of tidal changes:

  • 1960-s, the move from rangefinder to SLR
  • Mid 1980-s, the shift to AF
  • Around 2005, the shift to digital
  • Around 2018, the shift to mirrorless

What we see now is that the R in the SLR is no longer needed, as fast readout CMOS sensors and EVF are good enough to replace the optical viewfinder mostly. It is like the rangefinder/SLR conversion. Early SLR designs had disadvantages but the design evolved to be dominant. And that will happen with DSLR/ILCE.

Both Nikon and Canon do a bayonet change. That is a big step for any company.

So, I am with Bernard on this.

I would also add that I am not concerned about cell phones. I would think there is a significant market for advanced system cameras, but I think that market is more like the SLR market was in 1995 (or so). So I think that the photographic industry will shrink, and some players will be gone.

Best regards
Erik

Bernard, your post reads like pure PR. "…most important move in the past 20 years…" Seriously?! How 'bout: "Oh shit, we're on the verge of having our arses handed to us in a hat! Do something! Now!"

I'm just kicking back & watching to see how many (if any) of the current players manage to survive the smartdevice:)

-Dave-
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 978
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2018, 10:33:38 am »

There is certainly a significant market for advanced system cameras, but it's probably mostly the >$1000 side of the present market. Keeping a low-end market going will involve figuring out how to play nice with phones... Is that having a SIM card in the camera itself for direct uploads (which probably means Android, along with all the risks of Android on a connected device)? Is it some "always connected when the camera's on" app like Nikon's Snapbridge (except that it actually works)? It's more than most camera apps...

 A great $500 camera will also involve an improved kit lens - the budget for a lens in a $500 camera bundle means that the lens resolves far less well than the sensor. Can they do something with molded (maybe some kind of plastic) aspheric elements that is cheap to produce, yet resolves better than most current kit lenses (it can still be an 18-55 f3.5-5.6, just not a lousy one)? The only decent "kit" lenses show up on much more expensive bodies - the cheapest of the lot is Fuji's 18-55 f2.8-4, which starts in $1000 bundles - Nikon's 24-70 f4 Z lens and Canon's full-frame 24-105 (in EF and EF-R guise) also fall in the "not really a kit lens, although often discounted with a body" category.

In the healthier $1000 and up market, we have four relatively conventional players trying to cover many parts of the market (Nikon, Canon, Sony and Fuji), plus two players offering unusual combinations of features (Olympus and Panasonic), plus a marginal player catering to people with collections of old lenses (Pentax). Even excluding Pentax, Sigma's occasional experiments with cameras and the ultra-high end only companies (Hasselblad is the most relevant, followed by Leica, Zeiss  and Phase One), is there room for six mainstream players? Sigma and Zeiss are, of course far more relevant as lensmakers (neither is going anywhere) than they are for their cameras.

The most likely losses other than the niche players are Olympus or Panasonic, which is a shame, because they offer more differentiated products than the others. Panasonic has really prodded the state of the whole market on video, and Olympus has offered small, rugged bodies and a true sports camera far cheaper than anyone else. At this point, losing Panasonic might not matter that much, since everybody else except Canon is also pushing the video envelope, and Sony makes video-first bodies. If Olympus went away, real high-speed performance would retreat back up the line to Canon and Nikon's traditional high-speed DSLRs.

I can't see any of the four mainstream players going anywhere. Nikon may be in the weakest market position, but might have the strongest full-frame lineup - their weakness is in zero-innovation low-end APS-C DSLRs. If the market collapses back to the film SLR market, that's essentially "everything at or above the D610 plus a model or two below", and that's precisely where Nikon's strong. Canon has the weakest sensors (everybody else is buying from Sony), but huge legacy, including millions of very high-end lenses already in circulation. Fuji is the most differentiated of the bunch, and has terrific lenses. Sony has the only full line in FF mirrorless, and is essentially FF-only, which leaves them losing less than anyone else if the low end goes away...

                   -Dan

Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 987
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #34 on: November 21, 2018, 12:01:43 pm »

Sony has the only full line in FF mirrorless, and is essentially FF-only, which leaves them losing less than anyone else if the low end goes away...
I think the industry is correct to be focusing on the high end. The days of people being interested in buying a low-end DSLR are over.

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3690
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #35 on: November 21, 2018, 04:27:55 pm »

We'll see how it goes. Personally I bet the situation even 5 years from now will be a lot different than it is today.

-Dave-
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11249
    • Echophoto
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #36 on: November 21, 2018, 04:48:46 pm »

Hi,

What I may think matters a lot is that there is an upgrade path. Photographers buy into a system they can grow with. So, they may start with APS-C and go for full frame or larger, as we have seen with the Fuji GFX.

In a way, I may serve as an example.

  • I have started with APS-C, back in 2005 with 6 MP.
  • 2008, I got full frame at 24 MP, but no live view.
  • 2010, I got 16 MP APS-C, with usable live view off sensor.
  • 2011, I got 24 MP full frame, with live view. Bingo!
  • 2013, I got 39 MP, CCD on 49x37 mm (P45+). The worst expenditure of my life...
  • 2015, i got 42 MP, CMOS on full frame, with well working live view. All expectations met. A camera that delivers what I need.[\li]
    • 2017-2018, affordable MFD gets around. Great usability improvements on Sony cameras, Nikon and Canon enter full frame mirrorless. Great stuff, but I am happy with what I have.

    To sum up, I have a Sony A7rII that pretty perfectly fulfills all my needs. Are there any better cameras? Yes, the Sony A7rIII beats my A7rII in all areas that don't affect me. But, now I have what I need.

    I regard money as a finite asset. So, now I have a camera that makes the job perfectly well. So my priorities have changed:

    • I got myself some tilt and shift options.
    • I also got me an RV/camper that takes me to great locations.
    • I plan to spend on travel instead of gear.

    What happened was that the gear I have got good enough, and once I got there it was time to switch from spending on gear to spending on other things.

    Best regards
    Erik

    There is certainly a significant market for advanced system cameras, but it's probably mostly the >$1000 side of the present market. Keeping a low-end market going will involve figuring out how to play nice with phones... Is that having a SIM card in the camera itself for direct uploads (which probably means Android, along with all the risks of Android on a connected device)? Is it some "always connected when the camera's on" app like Nikon's Snapbridge (except that it actually works)? It's more than most camera apps...

     A great $500 camera will also involve an improved kit lens - the budget for a lens in a $500 camera bundle means that the lens resolves far less well than the sensor. Can they do something with molded (maybe some kind of plastic) aspheric elements that is cheap to produce, yet resolves better than most current kit lenses (it can still be an 18-55 f3.5-5.6, just not a lousy one)? The only decent "kit" lenses show up on much more expensive bodies - the cheapest of the lot is Fuji's 18-55 f2.8-4, which starts in $1000 bundles - Nikon's 24-70 f4 Z lens and Canon's full-frame 24-105 (in EF and EF-R guise) also fall in the "not really a kit lens, although often discounted with a body" category.

    In the healthier $1000 and up market, we have four relatively conventional players trying to cover many parts of the market (Nikon, Canon, Sony and Fuji), plus two players offering unusual combinations of features (Olympus and Panasonic), plus a marginal player catering to people with collections of old lenses (Pentax). Even excluding Pentax, Sigma's occasional experiments with cameras and the ultra-high end only companies (Hasselblad is the most relevant, followed by Leica, Zeiss  and Phase One), is there room for six mainstream players? Sigma and Zeiss are, of course far more relevant as lensmakers (neither is going anywhere) than they are for their cameras.

    The most likely losses other than the niche players are Olympus or Panasonic, which is a shame, because they offer more differentiated products than the others. Panasonic has really prodded the state of the whole market on video, and Olympus has offered small, rugged bodies and a true sports camera far cheaper than anyone else. At this point, losing Panasonic might not matter that much, since everybody else except Canon is also pushing the video envelope, and Sony makes video-first bodies. If Olympus went away, real high-speed performance would retreat back up the line to Canon and Nikon's traditional high-speed DSLRs.

    I can't see any of the four mainstream players going anywhere. Nikon may be in the weakest market position, but might have the strongest full-frame lineup - their weakness is in zero-innovation low-end APS-C DSLRs. If the market collapses back to the film SLR market, that's essentially "everything at or above the D610 plus a model or two below", and that's precisely where Nikon's strong. Canon has the weakest sensors (everybody else is buying from Sony), but huge legacy, including millions of very high-end lenses already in circulation. Fuji is the most differentiated of the bunch, and has terrific lenses. Sony has the only full line in FF mirrorless, and is essentially FF-only, which leaves them losing less than anyone else if the low end goes away...

                       -Dan
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2256
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #37 on: November 21, 2018, 07:19:55 pm »

...
What happened was that the gear I have got good enough, and once I got there it was time to switch from spending on gear to spending on other things.

Best regards
Erik

At the moment i also think I have enough camera stuff to do what i want.
I really like however a good made lens; My camera has 46MP ( nikon d850) and does alsmost every job I throw at it.
If i need more resolution or more angle i start stitching. But doing that i need a good lens.
My only reason to go MF would be the better lenses; if i could use it on my Nikon i would buy the 23mm Fuji lens for MF.
I am lucky Zeiss and Sigma has come up with some really good lenses for FF that Nikon does not make.
one my list that i would like (if i have/want to spend the money) are the Nikkor 19mm PCE , the 135mm Sigma 1.8 and the Zeiss 25mm 1,4.
but.. the good thing of the Z body for me is the IBIS- that would make my choice for the 135mm Sigma easier... ( and i would drop the 70-200 zoom)
so ... i keep on buying things... ;)
« Last Edit: November 21, 2018, 07:25:03 pm by kers »
Logged

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 978
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #38 on: November 22, 2018, 12:09:56 am »

There certainly is a point where "more camera" doesn't buy you "better image". Part of it is resolution, while dynamic range, noise, color quality, etc. also figure in. If it were just resolution, you wouldn't be able to tell any camera sold today apart on any screen readily available today (you certainly could on a print). The highest resolution monitor readily available (the 5K screen in many iMacs and occasionally found separately) is under 16mp, and, once you account for menu bars and other interface, probably displays (roughly) a 12 mp iPhone image - you can't buy an interchangeable lens camera below 16 MP, and haven't been able to for years.

Since factors other than resolution matter, it's relatively easy to spot that iPhone image on screen, even without a super-resolution screen. iPhone hallmarks include very poor dynamic range (or noise associated with computationally enhanced dynamic range), high noise, auto-editing and very specific lens choices (modest wide-angle and sometimes a portrait lens). Exposure is purely automatic, and may or may not match what a photographer would have chosen for artistic effect, although it's often close to technically correct.  I can generally pick out a phone image of most subjects even at web size, if the subject is at all challenging or the "alternate" real camera image has any degree of creative choice involved (and I'm sure most photographers can).

Once you get clear of a phone camera, more and more cameras become tough to tell apart on a screen as you get more recent (without magnifying beyond what the screen can show) - a print is always going to be easier to tell than on screen, and a high resolution screen will be easier than a web image. I'm picking cameras I have known well over the years here  - holding the Z7 constant because it's the camera with the highest IQ I've got more than a few shots on (I've handled a Phase, but never shot one seriously in the field). If you prefer Sony, please feel free to substitute an A7rIII where I say Z7 (or if you prefer DSLRs, throw in a D850) - they'd all be VERY,VERY hard to tell apart on screen, and so would a GFX or an X1D...

1.)Nikon D70 vs Nikon Z7? Easy - the resolution is a giveaway on a high-res screen, and the D70's color is nowhere close to what a modern camera can do (and is weird enough that it's hard to edit to look like a modern camera). The dynamic range is a huge difference, and many shots will show it - but you probably don't even need it. At web size, the color would still give the D70 away.

2.) Olympus E-M5 (original) vs. Nikon Z7? Both outresolve your screen, and the Olympus color is really nice,  both are editable to look similar. Dynamic range is a giveaway in many shots, but if the scene fits within the Olympus' DR, it's hard to tell. There will be some noise in the Olympus image even at base ISO, and you can see it on screen if you look hard at a 4K or better display (no, it's not noticeable at web size unless the ISO is really high).

3.) Fuji X-T2 vs. Nikon Z7? This is very darned hard without a good-sized print (or pixel-peeping at 1:1). In a high DR scene, the Nikon will stand out, but the Fuji's colors are at least as good (and it's trivial to edit them to match). If you don't have enough DR in the scene to get the Fuji to blow a highlight or block a shadow, you'll never see the Nikon's extra 2 stops (at base ISO for both - note that they don't have the same base ISO). The other possible spot on a very high resolution screen if you really stare at it (think iMac 5K from a foot away) is that the Fuji has traces of noise even at its base ISO of 200. The Nikon doesn't at its base ISO of 64. At web size, they are extremely difficult to tell apart unless the Nikon's DR saved a highlight - you'd never spot the noise from the Fuji.
 
These cameras represent a pretty fair selection of digital ILC history - the D70 had a 6 MP CCD sensor that is a good representation of early-generation digital, the Olympus represents a whole generation of ~16 MP cameras from about 5 years ago, and the Fuji is a very good, modern camera with image quality very similar to what dominates the market today, with better lenses than many. The Z7 (along with the D850, A7rII and III and GFX line) is the state of the art as of early winter 2018, at least if you aren't willing to spend $20,000+ on a Phase One system. I'd love to have a 12 MP CMOS camera in here - it's the missing generation - but I never owned one...

We are also approaching a hard limit in useful resolution (technically, we aren't there yet, other than the Phase One IQ4 150). Estimates of the resolution of the human eye with perfect vision range from 130 MP (the central 45 degree section we concentrate on) to 576 MP (including our peripheral vision). To take full advantage of that 130 MP central resolution would involve looking at a 24x36" print from about 4' away, concentrating intently. From 6' away, you couldn't possibly tell the resolution of a ~50 MP camera from the Phase at that print size.  From 8' away, you couldn't tell a 24 MP camera from the Phase on a 24x36" print. With a larger print, you can stand farther back to have it fill the same angle of view (or you can look at a smaller print more closely). Once you get above 130 MP, you can't get the whole print into your central vision from any viewing distance that would use the resolution (no matter the size of the print). This is pure line resolution - color vision is less acute than that, and anybody with less than 20/20 vision has less acuity than that.

We are probably between two and five years from a reasonably priced camera that outresolves our eyes even in perfect conditions - Fuji is introducing one that comes close this spring for $10,000 with the GFX 100S. A 24x36mm sensor using the pixel pitch of the popular 20 MP 1" sensor (Sony RX100 & co.) would be close to 150 MP - more than enough to reach the resolution limit. Using current technology, it would not be an acceptable high-end sensor in other ways - it would have similar dynamic range and color characteristics to a 1" sensor.

One place where we have already passed the resolution limit of the human eye is that some modern 4x5" films are past that line - there is no reason any more to shoot 8x10" for the resolution, whether for contact printing or billboard enlargement.  8x10" still has different depth of field  and adjusting movements  can be easier, plus it's useful for  contact-only processes like platinum or palladium printing - an original 8x10" negative spares the step of making an enlarged internegative for an 8x10" print.

Of course, that's just resolution - the human eye can see a range of colors no camera can yet capture, no monitor can display, and no printer can print (there actually are color spaces that can store it). Our eyes also have 20 stops or so of dynamic range and, again, no mechanical form of reproduction is close (a few digital cinema cameras claim 16 stops, but nobody can project or display more than 10 or 11, so those 16 stops have to be brought down, by gamma curves and other editing, into the projector's range).
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 12:22:30 am by Dan Wells »
Logged

JaapD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 202
Re: Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2018, 01:22:00 am »

Hi Erik,
Regarding the ‘tidal changes’ allow me to add one more line here.

•   1960-s, the move from rangefinder to SLR
•   Mid 1980-s, the shift to AF
•   Around 2005, the shift to digital
•   Around 2018, the shift to mirrorless
•   Around 202x, the shift to Bayerless.

I hope this will be sooner than later because I don’t really like (the required interpolation with) Bayer/X-Trans sensors. By no means I’m going to say that Bayer sensors are bad or something but from a background in 3CCD development for Broadcast cameras I do know the differences in image quality. We’re not there yet but my expectations are high with respect to organic sensors without a color filter array.

To keep things into perspective, I’m working with a Bayer/X-Trans camera myself and life isn’t that bad at all  ;)

Regards,
Jaap.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 22   Go Up