Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Quote: Indeed, watch out for future moans on here, from new DSLR owners, about "my OVF doesn't show me the effects of the special effects settings" Lol!
Well you said it, however not a moan rather a choice that people like me want, I don't want an OVF view finder or any digital view finder as I don't like them, that is my choice.
I also find that my oly e-p3 mirror less camera is not as fantastic as it was perceived to be an i also find navigation of settings a nightmare in comparison to canon cameras where they are a breeze to adjust what ever setting i want in a fraction of a second, something that is paramount in wedding photography.
Some thing else I don't like about the pen is the noise issue it has in low light, even though you can smooth it out a bit in PS with IQ deterioration, something I don't suffer from with my canon 5d mark ii.
I have found that since I brought the oly pen e-p3 i am reluctant to buy any lenses for it as the quality and usability are not to my taste, so much so I am selling mine with circular polorizer and an OVF.
This camera and ovf and polorizer are only 4 months old with little use I want £650.00 for it all
Any one interested message me.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: Some thing else I don't like about the pen is the noise issue it has in low light, even though you can smooth it out a bit in PS with IQ deterioration, something I don't suffer from with my canon 5d mark ii.
You've put your finger on the only thing I have found wanting about the Pen since I chucked out my Canon 5D2. But I am pretty sold on the M4/3 concept and am looking forward to (maybe) getting an OM-D in place of the Pen which will hopefully overconme this issue. And the built in EVF on the OM-D will be a nice bonus too.
Can't see myself going back to a DSLR somehow, although I haven't ruled it out completely,
Quote: Some thing else I don't like about the pen is the noise issue it has in low light, even though you can smooth it out a bit in PS with IQ deterioration, something I don't suffer from with my canon 5d mark ii
Its still not a problem is it, unless you set out to use really high IS0`s that are not really needed.
Quote: unless you set out to use really high IS0`s that are not really needed
It's not a problem unless you have been used to using a Canon 5D2 ! Even at ISO 200 there is a distinct difference in the RAWs.
After a life time as a pro using Nikon, leica, Haseleblad, Mamiya, then Pentax K5 with 200mm f2.8 and many other fabulous lenses, I sold the lot and bought Panasonic GH2 for main use and G3 as a carry around.
With my GH2, I have 7-14mm, 12mm f2, 25mm f4, 46mm f1.8 and 100-300mm. With my G3 I use 20mm f1.7 and 14-140 zoom. The EVF on the GH2 is better, in my opinion, than the viewfinder on the APS DSLRs, bigger and, in the case of the GH2, clearer. And in low light, it is much easier to see.
My GH2 outfit fits in my backpack and is no strain on my back either when walking or cycling. My Pentax outfit weighed 2.5 times as much. I loved my Pentax stuff but both in use and feel, the CSC looks like the future to me.
I last felt that way when, as a pro news photographer Nikon 35mm started taking over from 6x6 Rollei.
I know how you feel, David. It was almost with a sense of relief I got my M4/3 kit and waved goodbye to the DSLR.
I have had a very similar experience. I recently sold my Canon 1D and several 'L' lenses. They had not been used much for some time as more than likely I would reach for my LX5 unless I needed a long lens. The weight of all the Canon kit was becoming too much to bear. Now, like Lemmy, I have a GH2 with three lenses and a flashgun which all fits into my small Lowepro backpack and weighs less than the 1D and a 180 macro lens.
Well, they may overtake them - but that won't necessarily be the end of the world. If EVFs can be developed to the point where they match or even outperform optical viewfinders (and it seems they are getting close these days if the new ones from Sony and Olympus are anything to go by), it poses the question, 'Why bother with a DSLR?'. The Olympus OM-D has stirred up a lot of interest in these forums recently and people are making comparisons with Canon and Nikon. I haven't seen anyone mention the OM-D's natural rival, however: the Sony A77. They both look like SLRs, they both handle, essentially, like SLRs and they are both serious system cameras - yet neither has an optical viewfinder. More than that, the prices are almost identical. I suggest we are seeing the emergence of a new category of camera here. Olympus Pens, Panasonic Gs and Sony Nexs are likely to feature in a pro's gadget bag only as a back-up should everything else fail, or as a carry-around for when not working. The Olympus and the Sony, however, both have serious applications. I doubt whether either would persuade the hardened Nikon / Canon user to switch unless the weight was getting too much (in which case they would go for the Olympus). There are new serious amateurs and pros appearing all the time, though, with no such affiliations.
Should these cameras be outstanding successes, and it is still too early to be certain, it may well prompt Nikon and Canon to develop their own equivalents. I believe that they are doing so already. If that happens, the market for DSLRs will shrink, but I doubt whether it will disappear altogether. The market will adjust. After all, vinyl was once the undisputed king in the world of electronic music reproduction and it has not been wiped out by CDs and downloads. You can still build a vinyl system from scratch (including brand new records), but it will cost you a bomb. You get a premium product for your money of course. I suspect that something similar will occur with cameras. The analogy is flawed because Nikon, Canon etc. no longer make film cameras, but that might have something to do with the fact that silver is running out fast. DSLRs may eventually become the preserve of pros and those amateurs willing to part with pro-style money while the rest of use the new toys.
I have wondered for some time if the age of the SLR is drawing to a close. I love the feel, shape and size of an SLR and I expect that they will still be first choice for the older generation of enthusiasts and professionals for some time to come, but I suspect that the very thing that people like about them most - the optical viewfinder - will be their undoing. Can that old tech mirror that flips up and down accommodate the new technologies that most people seem to crave these days.
Perhaps Sony with their latest range of SLR style cameras are starting to show the way that things will go.
Quote: If EVFs can be developed to the point where they match or even outperform optical viewfinders
In my opinion, the viewfinder on my Panasonic GH2 is already better than the one on my Pentax K5. It is bigger and because of the ultra-fast refresh rate of the purpose designed sensor shows virtually no'shearing'. Manual focusing with it is no more difficult than with an optical finder. I can choose how much and what information I wish to see in the finder. In dark conditions it will amplify the light and brighten the finder image. If I wish I can preview the effects of shutter speed in the finder, handy for slow shutter speed work,
The finder on a full frame camera is a bit bigger and of course the longer focal length lenses for a given angle of view makes them a cinch to focus manually and the jury would still be out on whether EVDF will surpass that. It seems likely that in time it would.
What is remarkable is that the he DSLR is where it is at its pinnacle of development after around half a century. The first MFT only came to market three and a half years ago and look where it is already. I accept that for some people the optical finder will always be best and that ultimately these things are a matter of taste, of course.
Perhaps Sony with their latest range of SLR style cameras are starting to show the way that things will go.
I actually doubt that the SLTs will be more than a brief blip along the path of digital camera development - they'll have their 15 minutes and then be consigned to history. They're a kind of half-way house between a true DSLR and a mirrorless camera. Their main obvious advantage over mirrorless is that they can use the standard DSLR lenses which is great for those of us who have "legacy" lenses, but they also have the disadvantage of losing 25% of the light - just so that phase detection AF can be used. My guess is that in-sensor AF will be developed to such an extent that a separate AF sensor will no longer be necessary. At this point Sony will abandon their (not very loyal) DSLR/SLT users and concentrate on NEX. True mirrorless has got to be the future. The SLR has had a good run but time is running out.
SLR technology has served photographers well for about 50-60 years now but, like rangefinders before them, will almost certainly become a specialist interest.
Quote: SLR technology has served photographers well for about 50-60 years now but, like rangefinders before them, will almost certainly become a specialist interest.
Apart from reasons of nostalgia, I don't know why they will even become a special interest.
The advantages of a mirrorless design are so overwhelming that, as soon as Nikon and Canon bring out full-frame mirrorless cameras capable of producing the image quality and viewfinder usability of their latest SLRs, then the transition will really gather pace at the top end of the market.
Just having bought a Nikon D800, I would not be in the least surprised if my next major "upgrade" was to a mirrorless camera if Nikon give me one capable of doing what I want and using all my existing lenses and accessories. I certainly don't feel conceptually wed to a clanky, heavy, space-consuming mirror and pentaprism.
Quote: using all my existing lenses and accessories
The present day MFTs allow you to do that, though without auto focus.
I don't think that a mirrorless larger than M43 sensor camera would make much sense. As we see with the Sony Nex, the laws of physics dictate that a lens to cover a larger sensor will itself be larger which nullifies the point of mirrorless cameras to me. it's not that there's anything wrong with having a mirror, it's just that it means you must have a larger gap between lens and shutter which limits the possibilities of miniaturization.
For the many photographers who don't mind the weight and size of an SLR, the MFT cameras offer little advantage. I'd say to them, though, you just wait until you're my age, mate
Quote: Apart from reasons of nostalgia, I don't know why they will even become a special interest.
I don't disagree. But there will be those who say nothing can ever replace the OVF.
Another example is why do people still use film? They will say there is a certain 'je ne sais quoi' about film over digital, but it certainly isn't anything to do with image quality or camera usability - given that you are limited to about ISO 400, which for a DSLR/CSC would be unacceptable these days.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st July 2014 - 31st July 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View July's Photo Month Calendar