Canon is sucking wind right now. They're in trouble from all sides and they know it.
Nikon rose from its coma years ago with the D300 and they haven't stopped. Panasonic and Olympus have revived themselves through micro Four-Thirds, and Sony is finding a way through its name and the fixed semi-translucent mirror technology.
Canon's 6D is not really a match for Nikon's D600, but it's good for the Canon fanatic who has been thinking all this time that they needed a 135 format frame (full frame, inaccurate as it is as there are many full frame formats) camera body. Nikon's advantage is DX mode, where you can use lenses specifically made for their smaller sensor camera bodies. There is a change in the resolution, but it's sufficient, especially compared to not being able to use any lenses. There seem to be other economizing tasks Canon has done to bring the 6D to its price point, and a lot of people will have to consider them thoroughly before buying.
Canon's EOS-M is a great attempt at a mirror-less camera body. They should ask Sony how non-Sony users like their lack of lenses. Of course, Canon has less to offer since they just started, but Sony has been at it almost as long as Panasonic and Olympus, with little to show in their lens selection.
Canon's new miniature dSLR (100D/Rebel SL1) may keep some die-hard fanatics from leaving for mirror-less, but there have been plenty already who say the future in light and small equipment and jumped to micro Four-Thirds bodies. Now that there is a good sensor in the Panasonic GH3 and Olympus E-M5, it makes it more difficult to claim a huge advantage for APS-C. As with Pentax's recently-discontinued K-01 mirror-less camera, the bigger sensor requires bigger lenses. If you have many lenses, the lightweight, small body might not be much of an advantage, if you can't find room for it in your bag. Thinking further, given that it's about the size of the Olympus E-4x0 series and the Nikon D40, I wonder if it suffers from a small and dark viewfinder. That put me off from keeping an E-4x0 series body with me when it could have been helpful.
Canon's 5DMkIII isn't even safe, due to Panasonic's GH3 and its video capabilities. Besides that, Panasonic seems to be producing lens after lens directly targeting Canon's most popular. The lenses aren't made of as much metal, so they probably aren't as durable, but when you're talking about being able to put them almost anywhere, light weight and a low price may put them in more places than you'd expect. Panasonic is no stranger to professional video and having quite a few of Zeiss' compact prime lens range (professionally-priced) will make it easier for a small production company to use more portable gear and produce exquisite results.
We have yet to see a Canon 70D but the Nikon D7100 is out and it's quite capable with many components of the D300 inside the compact body derived from the D7000.
Like Microsoft is with operating systems, Canon isn't going away, but they could be minimized in just a few years if they can't recover now. Unfortunately, they will probably have to lose money to keep their user base. If they lose their fanatics, they may be in huge trouble. When fanatics feel betrayed, they will pounce.
I wonder if we'll ever reach a point of a level-playing field, similar to that of the 1970s. We've certainly turned a corner on pixel density and the need for huge numbers of pixels has gone, except for the high end professional. It could be an interesting 5-10 years for Canon. All they can truly do now is advertise to distract from the 800 pound elephant in the room.
Update 2014.11.14: They threw the EOS M against the wall and it didn't still until they reduced the price from US$800 to US$300. They replaced it already but haven't sent it out of Japan.
For that matter, they only recently replaced the 7D model with a 7D Mk II. Anything under US$3000 doesn't seem to matter much to them anyway. They have to sell loads of accessories for those inexpensive models to make significant money on them.
They know that they need to fix things. They've been flailing with their dSLRs that sell under US$3000. Panasonic has been attacking the 5D Mk III quite well with the GH3 and the GH4. Even if the still photographic component isn't nearly as good, the video is quite amazing.
Showing posts with label MSC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSC. Show all posts
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Panasonic DMC-GH3 vs Olympus E-5
While I'm waiting for the next Olympus dSLR, I've punted and got the Panasonic GH3.
It's strangely similar to the E-5 but of course, totally different in use. I've had it since Thursday and I'm facing an uphill battle to learn how to use it best.
One of the pet peeves of most Olympus E-1 users is that the E-3 and E-5 are so uncomfortable in so many ways. Rather than the mode (PASM) dial, you hold the Mode button and use a generic dial. The same happens with auto focus. In fact, much of what Olympus learned and re-started themselves in the E-10, they dismissed for the E-3 and E-5. Supposedly, they were going after Nikon and Canon, but it just proved odd. The GH3 also has a load of buttons and a mode dial, etc. They use another button for Drive (single, burst, self-timer) mode, and that doesn't seem nearly as logical. Why not have a switch away from your nose on the back--for the (auto) focus?
In any case, it's nice to have a smaller body. It's not really much different in size when you compare it to the E-1. However, the 35-100mm I got with it is extra tiny, almost too small for my hand. I've almost put a finger on the front element, while looking for the focus ring. We all have to adjust when using new equipment. When I first opened the packages, I was pretty close to sending it back before I tried it. The 45-200mm isn't big either, but then, it has a f/4.0-5.6 maximum aperture range. The ZD 50-200mm is quite a bit smaller than the ZD 35-100mm, though.
The good thing is that it delivers great image quality. What does that mean? I was printing on Super A3/A3+/13x19 inch paper way back with the E-1 and I had no fear in displaying my work. I got no comments about fuzzy photos. However, 9 years after my E-1 purchase, we've gone from 5.1 effective Megapixels to 16.05. In 2004, I had no problem putting my photos up against the 6.3MP APS-C sensors of the other brands. At 16MP, the equivalent density yields 24MP for APS-C, I believe, and at the 12MP of the E-5, we were equivalent to the 18MP on APS-C sized sensors.
I wasn't happy with the moderate light image quality from the E-5. Studio lighting made the E-5 look impressive, moreso than most other bodies but for daily use, a day without sunshine was a day with so-so image quality, and my E-1 still looked good.
The GH3 erases all that. I've shot around 1000 photos with it so far, some of them while also using the E-5. The difference is amazing. The E-5 tops out its automatic range at ISO 1600. I had over 900 basketball photos today and several wrestling photos Saturday where the GH3 picked ISO 3200 vs. the E-5's ISO 1600. The difference was amazing. The E-5 photos were yellow-ish and warm-ish with moderate to a lot of noise, while the GH3 generated very clean photos with some noise in the shadow detail, which is not surprising but the seats are too blue (they're dark green), making the gym look like it's newer than it is.
Everything I've read about this newer sensor says that it's very much equivalent to what's going into the latest APS-C bodies, and that you'd have to go to 135 format-sized sensors to get easily distinguishable differences in image quality. I believe that. Now, I'm not exactly sure about how the GH3 assigns ISO sensitivity values. I've seen a few photos where it's stepped down to ISO 2000 or 2500 and the photos look a bit yellow. In fact, I'm not completely sure about the colour and that's something that Panasonic has been adjusting since their first jump into serious photography with the DMC-L1. Skin tones, however, are good. It's just that sometimes, the photos seem a bit surreal because of the colour. I've found the same thing with Nikon and Canon at ISO sensitivity values over 1600. Can a photo look better than real life? Perhaps, but that shouldn't be the product. My money says that the photo should look exactly like real life.
I'm adjusting to the electronic viewfinder and it's freezing while the body is writing files. (It comes with Auto Review set to ON, which mostly causes the problem. I also have faster, more capacious cards on order.) I still seem to be able to shoot, so I can take a hybrid approach and watch the game with the other eye while I'm photographing it. It worked well today. However, electronic viewfinders will have to improve a lot before they're mainstream devices. I can put up with it now because it's fairly new and mirror-less bodies are fairly new but in 3 or 4 years, new mirror-less bodies with an EVF better be good. Of course, the freezing may be minimized by a faster SD card. What I read in reviews was that a faster card didn't help the GH2, but I'm not sure it supported UHS-I cards fully anyway. Buying a class 10 SD card is so painful. A wide variety of performance fits into the category. I'm using a couple of Sony cards with read speeds of 94 MB/second but the write speeds don't seem to be important enough to be listed. I suspect they are 45 MB/second, while there are cards with 94 MB/sec on both. Getting them into the computer quickly isn't really important if I couldn't take them in the first place. (Faster SanDisk Extreme Pro cards should arrive Thursday with the Four-Thirds lens adapter.)
In any case, camera handling is mostly good, given the size. I'm not sure why there was such a backlash about the GH3 being larger than the GH1/GH2. I don't have huge hands but I find the GH3 a good size that could have been too small. I really want my Olympus ZD SHG (Super High Grade) lenses to have an equivalent on micro Four-Thirds. The GH3 would be almost perfect with such glass.
I still need to try some movie-making.
Update 2013.04.05: I used both today for a baseball game. The Panasonic 35-100mm was attached to the GH3 and the 50-200mm was attached to the E-5. Since I was using both, auto focus was enabled on both. Auto focus on the GH3 was better than on the E-5 but not necessarily faster. The E-5 had a problem where it would go out of focus after auto focus locked. Out of 1081 photos, it happened on, maybe, 12 photos. The GH3 showed its very electronic side by having a bigger delay from power saving mode, and the display seemed to be blacked out a few times, causing me just to point at where I thought the action was happening. Could it have been my sunglasses at an angle? I'm not sure. I have not worked with enough LED/LCD displays to know. The great thing is that they both worked and for my first baseball game shoot, I might have got some good photos.
Update 2013.10.15: I've used the GH3 for track and cross country and it's absolutely horrible for photographing runners. It's not completely surprising, but it's very annoying.
Part of the problem is that a runner will come almost straight at me and the auto focus can't handle that because Contrast Detection Auto Focus is almost worthless for quickly moving subjects. To compound the problem, manual focusing does not work very well with either the magnified view getting in the way of seeing everyone or the normal view not having enough pixels to focus accurately.
Update 2013.12.09: I'm looking back at this and at a later date, I managed to use the GH3 for cross country at a specific location where I was having trouble with the E-1 and E-5 because of the dark area where runners emerge from the woods. The GH3 was better here, but I really had to modify my technique for focus. Manual focus wasn't really an option, but continuous auto focus doesn't really work. Similar to getting racing cars in focus, I settled on a fixed point, and used burst mode to shoot a few extra shots at the location next to the woods. At the finish line, it wasn't too much of a problem to get a quick half-press on the shutter release and with the bright light, focus was instantaneous.
The GH3 and I have come a long way together. I still don't like the menus and the Quick Menu isn't as helpful to me as the Olympus Super Control Panel, but the Custom settings are--turn the dial and you have a different setup. The Panasonic 35-100mm has been okay mostly, but has a terrible problem with lens flare and since I use the lens hood every time I use the lens, it could be even worse. I need to send the lens to Panasonic for repair. (They weren't any help. They said that the lens flare was normal.) The GH3 has been a trustworthy tool, though. If the image quality was better and the EVF as good as the Olympus E-M1 or an optical viewfinder, I'd be really pleased. Messing with video has been interesting.
Update 2014.03.12: The Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 has changed my thoughts about the GH3 image quality with native lenses. It is quite good, something I never really saw with the 35-100mm f/2.8 and never with the 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6. Up until this point, most of my casual GH3 shots were taken with the MMF-3 adapter and Olympus lenses or the Four-Thirds Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 lens.
Having shot three basketball games on January 31st and February 1st, I was really disappointed with the GH3 and the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens. None of the photos from Friday's game looked quite right. The next evening, I switched to the E-5 and 35-100mm f/2.0 and they looked much better. It's likely I lost more of the E-5 photos due to lighting, but those that remained had good color. The 35-100mm f/2.8 from Panasonic just isn't very good and I sent it for repair because of the lens flare and they returned it to me, telling me that it was typical. The GH3 is a remarkable camera body. It's just too bad that Panasonic doesn't do as well with lenses.
Prior to the basketball game, I took some photos with the E-5 and 14-35mm f/2.0 and they were stunning. That's not bad for a camera body that had specifications that would have been great in 2007.
It's strangely similar to the E-5 but of course, totally different in use. I've had it since Thursday and I'm facing an uphill battle to learn how to use it best.
One of the pet peeves of most Olympus E-1 users is that the E-3 and E-5 are so uncomfortable in so many ways. Rather than the mode (PASM) dial, you hold the Mode button and use a generic dial. The same happens with auto focus. In fact, much of what Olympus learned and re-started themselves in the E-10, they dismissed for the E-3 and E-5. Supposedly, they were going after Nikon and Canon, but it just proved odd. The GH3 also has a load of buttons and a mode dial, etc. They use another button for Drive (single, burst, self-timer) mode, and that doesn't seem nearly as logical. Why not have a switch away from your nose on the back--for the (auto) focus?
In any case, it's nice to have a smaller body. It's not really much different in size when you compare it to the E-1. However, the 35-100mm I got with it is extra tiny, almost too small for my hand. I've almost put a finger on the front element, while looking for the focus ring. We all have to adjust when using new equipment. When I first opened the packages, I was pretty close to sending it back before I tried it. The 45-200mm isn't big either, but then, it has a f/4.0-5.6 maximum aperture range. The ZD 50-200mm is quite a bit smaller than the ZD 35-100mm, though.
 |
| GH3 with 12-40mm f/2.8 and E-5 with 14-35mm f/2.0 |
 |
| GH3 and 35-100mm f/2.8 vs. E-5 and 35-100 f/2.0 |
I wasn't happy with the moderate light image quality from the E-5. Studio lighting made the E-5 look impressive, moreso than most other bodies but for daily use, a day without sunshine was a day with so-so image quality, and my E-1 still looked good.
The GH3 erases all that. I've shot around 1000 photos with it so far, some of them while also using the E-5. The difference is amazing. The E-5 tops out its automatic range at ISO 1600. I had over 900 basketball photos today and several wrestling photos Saturday where the GH3 picked ISO 3200 vs. the E-5's ISO 1600. The difference was amazing. The E-5 photos were yellow-ish and warm-ish with moderate to a lot of noise, while the GH3 generated very clean photos with some noise in the shadow detail, which is not surprising but the seats are too blue (they're dark green), making the gym look like it's newer than it is.
 |
| GH3 at ISO 3200 |
 |
| E-5 at ISO 1600 |
I'm adjusting to the electronic viewfinder and it's freezing while the body is writing files. (It comes with Auto Review set to ON, which mostly causes the problem. I also have faster, more capacious cards on order.) I still seem to be able to shoot, so I can take a hybrid approach and watch the game with the other eye while I'm photographing it. It worked well today. However, electronic viewfinders will have to improve a lot before they're mainstream devices. I can put up with it now because it's fairly new and mirror-less bodies are fairly new but in 3 or 4 years, new mirror-less bodies with an EVF better be good. Of course, the freezing may be minimized by a faster SD card. What I read in reviews was that a faster card didn't help the GH2, but I'm not sure it supported UHS-I cards fully anyway. Buying a class 10 SD card is so painful. A wide variety of performance fits into the category. I'm using a couple of Sony cards with read speeds of 94 MB/second but the write speeds don't seem to be important enough to be listed. I suspect they are 45 MB/second, while there are cards with 94 MB/sec on both. Getting them into the computer quickly isn't really important if I couldn't take them in the first place. (Faster SanDisk Extreme Pro cards should arrive Thursday with the Four-Thirds lens adapter.)
In any case, camera handling is mostly good, given the size. I'm not sure why there was such a backlash about the GH3 being larger than the GH1/GH2. I don't have huge hands but I find the GH3 a good size that could have been too small. I really want my Olympus ZD SHG (Super High Grade) lenses to have an equivalent on micro Four-Thirds. The GH3 would be almost perfect with such glass.
I still need to try some movie-making.
Update 2013.04.05: I used both today for a baseball game. The Panasonic 35-100mm was attached to the GH3 and the 50-200mm was attached to the E-5. Since I was using both, auto focus was enabled on both. Auto focus on the GH3 was better than on the E-5 but not necessarily faster. The E-5 had a problem where it would go out of focus after auto focus locked. Out of 1081 photos, it happened on, maybe, 12 photos. The GH3 showed its very electronic side by having a bigger delay from power saving mode, and the display seemed to be blacked out a few times, causing me just to point at where I thought the action was happening. Could it have been my sunglasses at an angle? I'm not sure. I have not worked with enough LED/LCD displays to know. The great thing is that they both worked and for my first baseball game shoot, I might have got some good photos.
Update 2013.10.15: I've used the GH3 for track and cross country and it's absolutely horrible for photographing runners. It's not completely surprising, but it's very annoying.
Part of the problem is that a runner will come almost straight at me and the auto focus can't handle that because Contrast Detection Auto Focus is almost worthless for quickly moving subjects. To compound the problem, manual focusing does not work very well with either the magnified view getting in the way of seeing everyone or the normal view not having enough pixels to focus accurately.
Update 2013.12.09: I'm looking back at this and at a later date, I managed to use the GH3 for cross country at a specific location where I was having trouble with the E-1 and E-5 because of the dark area where runners emerge from the woods. The GH3 was better here, but I really had to modify my technique for focus. Manual focus wasn't really an option, but continuous auto focus doesn't really work. Similar to getting racing cars in focus, I settled on a fixed point, and used burst mode to shoot a few extra shots at the location next to the woods. At the finish line, it wasn't too much of a problem to get a quick half-press on the shutter release and with the bright light, focus was instantaneous.
The GH3 and I have come a long way together. I still don't like the menus and the Quick Menu isn't as helpful to me as the Olympus Super Control Panel, but the Custom settings are--turn the dial and you have a different setup. The Panasonic 35-100mm has been okay mostly, but has a terrible problem with lens flare and since I use the lens hood every time I use the lens, it could be even worse. I need to send the lens to Panasonic for repair. (They weren't any help. They said that the lens flare was normal.) The GH3 has been a trustworthy tool, though. If the image quality was better and the EVF as good as the Olympus E-M1 or an optical viewfinder, I'd be really pleased. Messing with video has been interesting.
Update 2014.03.12: The Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 has changed my thoughts about the GH3 image quality with native lenses. It is quite good, something I never really saw with the 35-100mm f/2.8 and never with the 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6. Up until this point, most of my casual GH3 shots were taken with the MMF-3 adapter and Olympus lenses or the Four-Thirds Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 lens.
Having shot three basketball games on January 31st and February 1st, I was really disappointed with the GH3 and the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens. None of the photos from Friday's game looked quite right. The next evening, I switched to the E-5 and 35-100mm f/2.0 and they looked much better. It's likely I lost more of the E-5 photos due to lighting, but those that remained had good color. The 35-100mm f/2.8 from Panasonic just isn't very good and I sent it for repair because of the lens flare and they returned it to me, telling me that it was typical. The GH3 is a remarkable camera body. It's just too bad that Panasonic doesn't do as well with lenses.
Prior to the basketball game, I took some photos with the E-5 and 14-35mm f/2.0 and they were stunning. That's not bad for a camera body that had specifications that would have been great in 2007.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
All of the mirror-less entries have arrived for now
Now that Canon has introduced their mirror-less camera system, we have entries from each major brand:
Canon are the newest with their EOS-M.
Pentax have their K-01 and Q-system bodies; one huge, one tiny.
Nikon have a small format with the distinction of phase detection auto focus.
Samsung have had multiple models but not much success.
Sony have had multiple models and some success but lack good lenses, or many lenses of any quality.
Panasonic and Olympus originated the idea and have a diverse selection with some excellent fixed focal length lenses, but they're struggling with size and weight to bring excellent zoom lenses to the market.
Comparing them casually
To me, Canon's entry is only adequate. They're coming to market with a mediocre set of specifications and features. The image quality is quite nice, but they waited so long that you're paying a premium price for performance that's already been done.
Pentax have the most bizarre ideas for mirror-less cameras. The K-01 is about the same size as their dSLRs and mounts the same lenses, but it also has all the disadvantages of mirror-less cameras with slow operation, and of course, the most unusual designer design. The Q-system isn't really winning any friends. It's small but it's not cute. They could have designed it to match the old Auto 110 SLR (they had a point-and-shoot like that) and it would give people a fond memory on which to purchase the system. Instead, they gave it a blocky design that looks uncomfortable to hold and use. Supposedly, it doesn't work all that well, either.
Nikon have done well in selling their 1-system. I suspect it's mostly their dSLR customers buying into the system but it's small and pocketable and cute. They're on their second generation, and it's not as bad as it might seem from the specification.
What happened with Samsung? They couldn't get along with Pentax? They had worked together as Samsung got into the dSLR field but they just couldn't find common ground? It seems as though they copied Sony style and specifications (and name, NX vs. NEX?), but came up with something almost no one really wanted. I've been told that their dSLRs were better than the Pentax branded dSLRs from which they were originated, so why couldn't they work with Pentax so both companies would avoid embarrassment?
Sony keeps coming up with clever bodies to match their electronics focus. Unfortunately, they made most of the bodies so compact that you need proprietary accessories. Besides that, the lenses required by the image circle or the APS-C sized sensor have to be rather big and appear huge on the smallest bodies. Image quality is generally good, but the compromises are high for what they're asking of the user, especially since they have few good lenses and no spectacular lenses.
I'm more inclined to believe in Panasonic and Olympus since I'm a Four-Thirds user, having two high end Olympus dSLR bodies. They have a number of fixed focal length (prime) lenses that are quite great. I keep reading that they're even better than those on 135 format camera bodies. It wouldn't surprise me since Olympus has a history of great lenses. The zoom lenses are the problem. Both companies have chosen small and light over excellent image quality. Panasonic often corrects lens problems in the camera's firmware and Olympus has begun to do this also. This still doesn't excuse poor designs but for hobbyists, does it matter? I see a lot who want a US$5000 lens for US$100 but I suppose that's always the case. What's sadly humorous is that I cannot nitpick the others like this--they don't have the products to nitpick. The micro Four-Thirds image quality has improved so much that many reviews of the Olympus E-M5 suggest that you need to move to 135 format (full frame, as they mistakenly call it) to see an appreciable difference.
In 10 years, will there even be a dSLR market?
Canon are the newest with their EOS-M.
Pentax have their K-01 and Q-system bodies; one huge, one tiny.
Nikon have a small format with the distinction of phase detection auto focus.
Samsung have had multiple models but not much success.
Sony have had multiple models and some success but lack good lenses, or many lenses of any quality.
Panasonic and Olympus originated the idea and have a diverse selection with some excellent fixed focal length lenses, but they're struggling with size and weight to bring excellent zoom lenses to the market.
Comparing them casually
To me, Canon's entry is only adequate. They're coming to market with a mediocre set of specifications and features. The image quality is quite nice, but they waited so long that you're paying a premium price for performance that's already been done.
Pentax have the most bizarre ideas for mirror-less cameras. The K-01 is about the same size as their dSLRs and mounts the same lenses, but it also has all the disadvantages of mirror-less cameras with slow operation, and of course, the most unusual designer design. The Q-system isn't really winning any friends. It's small but it's not cute. They could have designed it to match the old Auto 110 SLR (they had a point-and-shoot like that) and it would give people a fond memory on which to purchase the system. Instead, they gave it a blocky design that looks uncomfortable to hold and use. Supposedly, it doesn't work all that well, either.
Nikon have done well in selling their 1-system. I suspect it's mostly their dSLR customers buying into the system but it's small and pocketable and cute. They're on their second generation, and it's not as bad as it might seem from the specification.
What happened with Samsung? They couldn't get along with Pentax? They had worked together as Samsung got into the dSLR field but they just couldn't find common ground? It seems as though they copied Sony style and specifications (and name, NX vs. NEX?), but came up with something almost no one really wanted. I've been told that their dSLRs were better than the Pentax branded dSLRs from which they were originated, so why couldn't they work with Pentax so both companies would avoid embarrassment?
Sony keeps coming up with clever bodies to match their electronics focus. Unfortunately, they made most of the bodies so compact that you need proprietary accessories. Besides that, the lenses required by the image circle or the APS-C sized sensor have to be rather big and appear huge on the smallest bodies. Image quality is generally good, but the compromises are high for what they're asking of the user, especially since they have few good lenses and no spectacular lenses.
I'm more inclined to believe in Panasonic and Olympus since I'm a Four-Thirds user, having two high end Olympus dSLR bodies. They have a number of fixed focal length (prime) lenses that are quite great. I keep reading that they're even better than those on 135 format camera bodies. It wouldn't surprise me since Olympus has a history of great lenses. The zoom lenses are the problem. Both companies have chosen small and light over excellent image quality. Panasonic often corrects lens problems in the camera's firmware and Olympus has begun to do this also. This still doesn't excuse poor designs but for hobbyists, does it matter? I see a lot who want a US$5000 lens for US$100 but I suppose that's always the case. What's sadly humorous is that I cannot nitpick the others like this--they don't have the products to nitpick. The micro Four-Thirds image quality has improved so much that many reviews of the Olympus E-M5 suggest that you need to move to 135 format (full frame, as they mistakenly call it) to see an appreciable difference.
In 10 years, will there even be a dSLR market?
Friday, May 11, 2012
ILC, EVIL, CSC, and MSC and DSLM--mirror-less acronyms
Seriously, these name games are ridiculous.
In any case, I think it's going to be a while before the category has a definitive name or goal.
I'm still interested in how Olympus' E-M5 stacks up against Panasonic's DMC-GH2. I think it's apparent that Olympus has been doing quite well with still images, as Panasonic has been doing with moving images. The GH2 is in need of a few upgrades and a weatherproof body, and they're supposedly on the way, but haven't moved to manufacturing yet. By the time the GH3 is out, the E-M5 will probably be feeling old.
Of course, Panasonic's G3 and GX1 have been out a while, as have Olympus E-P3, E-PL3, and E-PM1. So, only the models numbered 5 are truly fresh, although the GX1 hasn't be around all that long.
I feel a bit sorry for Samsung and Sony. They keep throwing money at the situation, but they're not really making a lot of positive progress. Nikon are probably selling their 1 series pretty well, despite its shortcomings, simply because you can fit it into a purse easily. Why have a compact camera, if it's not really compact? Nikon put their money into the 4x6 print crowd. It's a bit too much to say but Pentax's tiny Q-system can barely manage a 4x6. It's not that small or that bad, but it is at a disadvantage and their K-01 is the odd man out being the size of a dSLR but allowing their large collection of lenses. You might as well carry their K-r compact dSLR.
Seeing as how Canon punted with their PowerShot G-series and Nikon brought out the D3200 with 24MP, you have to wonder if these mirror-less system cameras will continue to invade the top 10 lists around the world.
Update 2014.01.09: They've all made progress but the terms are used without much thought. Mirror-less cameras have come a long way and even Canon is on their second generation body finally. micro Four-Thirds (Panasonic, Olympus and now JK Imaging/Kodak) and FujiFilm seem to have the lead.
- ILC -- Interchangeable Lens Camera, which describes everything from SLRs to Rangefinders to mirror-less cameras.
- MILC -- Obviously, an extension to ILC with Mirror-less out front.
- EVIL -- Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens is more precise but technically includes Sony's SLT line of translucent mirrored cameras, as well as mirror-less cameras.
- CSC -- Compact System Camera could mean just about anything, including point-and-shoot cameras with a large number of accessories and snap-on lenses.
- MSC -- Mirror-less System Camera to me, defines the category the best, but leaves the interchangeable lenses to the imagination. Obviously, it could include point-and-shoot cameras, but I believe it is closer to a narrow definition. Alternatively, MILSC and MSILC are getting a bit long, and I get to feeling like singing "M-O-U-S-E" after saying or spelling it.
- DSLM -- Digital Single Lens Mirrorless. Added by Panasonic with the arrrival of the GH3. It's very clear what it is, but then, they used it with the rangefinder style GX7, so it might not make as much sense.
In any case, I think it's going to be a while before the category has a definitive name or goal.
I'm still interested in how Olympus' E-M5 stacks up against Panasonic's DMC-GH2. I think it's apparent that Olympus has been doing quite well with still images, as Panasonic has been doing with moving images. The GH2 is in need of a few upgrades and a weatherproof body, and they're supposedly on the way, but haven't moved to manufacturing yet. By the time the GH3 is out, the E-M5 will probably be feeling old.
Of course, Panasonic's G3 and GX1 have been out a while, as have Olympus E-P3, E-PL3, and E-PM1. So, only the models numbered 5 are truly fresh, although the GX1 hasn't be around all that long.
I feel a bit sorry for Samsung and Sony. They keep throwing money at the situation, but they're not really making a lot of positive progress. Nikon are probably selling their 1 series pretty well, despite its shortcomings, simply because you can fit it into a purse easily. Why have a compact camera, if it's not really compact? Nikon put their money into the 4x6 print crowd. It's a bit too much to say but Pentax's tiny Q-system can barely manage a 4x6. It's not that small or that bad, but it is at a disadvantage and their K-01 is the odd man out being the size of a dSLR but allowing their large collection of lenses. You might as well carry their K-r compact dSLR.
Seeing as how Canon punted with their PowerShot G-series and Nikon brought out the D3200 with 24MP, you have to wonder if these mirror-less system cameras will continue to invade the top 10 lists around the world.
Update 2014.01.09: They've all made progress but the terms are used without much thought. Mirror-less cameras have come a long way and even Canon is on their second generation body finally. micro Four-Thirds (Panasonic, Olympus and now JK Imaging/Kodak) and FujiFilm seem to have the lead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)