Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Mirrorless camera sales overtake DSLRs - shock, horror! ;-)

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

lemmy
lemmy  71774 forum posts United Kingdom
25 Mar 2012 - 10:01 PM

A bit like people who still buy and listen to vinyl recordings. I was talking to someone today, a young man, who prefers and buys vinyl albums. He says there is just something about the sound that he prefers and enjoys more than CD.

You can't argue with that

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
25 Mar 2012 - 10:01 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit
mikehit  46191 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
26 Mar 2012 - 12:04 AM

Vinyl has a distortion that sounds preferable to some people compared to the linear response of digital. The same goes for film.
But those same people will often also admit that if they record vinyl to CD the digital copy is just as good as the vinyl. I suspect the same would be true of film/digital (aka scanning a slide or negative) and you could distort the digital signal to mimic film.

Steppenwolf
26 Mar 2012 - 8:35 AM

The trouble with vinyl is that it's subject to scratching, static and background hiss - which are very annoying and spoil the sound. I used to record my music onto 4-track cassette. Now I use a Tascam digital recorder and the quality is so much better. The fidelity of these 24 bit/96 kHz linear PCMs is amazing - and they're now very cheap too. But there are always going to be people who like the old technology.

lemmy
lemmy  71774 forum posts United Kingdom
26 Mar 2012 - 10:58 AM


Quote: But there are always going to be people who like the old technology.

Sometimes there's a good reason. Rock guitarists invariably prefer valve amps because part of the rock sound is the distortion caused by overdriving the pre-amp/amp. An overdriven valve produces mainly even order harmonics which are pleasing to the ear whereas a transistor amp produces odd order harmonics which sound harsh. Also, valves tip into overload more gradually, giving the player extra control over the sound.

A great deal has been done and transistor amps are now much closer to a valve performance. I used to play my Strat through a small Marshall valve amp and it sounded wonderful (apart from my playing). Through a tranny amp, it still had the Strat sound but it simply sung less. For a bass player, not wanting distortion, a transistor amp is excellent.

cambirder
cambirder  107202 forum posts England
26 Mar 2012 - 11:25 AM

You can't push a a tranny amp to 11 Grin

thewilliam
26 Mar 2012 - 11:43 AM

When I was in the sixth form, our chemistry master invited us to taste some particularly pure water and it was horrible. The label on a mineral water bottle lists all the "impurities" that make it taste so nice!

Last Modified By thewilliam at 26 Mar 2012 - 11:43 AM
lemmy
lemmy  71774 forum posts United Kingdom
26 Mar 2012 - 12:55 PM


Quote: You can't push a a tranny amp to 11

Grin

Steppenwolf
26 Mar 2012 - 1:31 PM


Quote: An overdriven valve produces mainly even order harmonics which are pleasing to the ear whereas a transistor amp produces odd order harmonics which sound harsh.

I don't know much about amps - I do purely acoustic - but are you sure this is true? I always thought that the harmonics that the human ear likes were based on the harmonics that stringed instruments produce and these are quite surprising. The fundamental tone produces only 0.1% of the energy, the second harmonic produces 26%, the third 45.2%, the fourth 8.8%, the fifth 8.5%, the sixth 4.5% etc. In fact the actual quality of sound is mostly down to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 17th partials. The 3rd and 5th are fine to the human ear as they're part of the major chords in a key, but I guess if the transistor generates 7ths this would be bad because that's the note that needs to be resolved to the tonic. Distortion is always the enemy of harmony though - if I listen to an electric guitar through a fuzz box I have no idea what the chord is, it's just a noise.

franken
franken e2 Member 113061 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
26 Mar 2012 - 1:47 PM

Digital photography has come on leaps and bounds in the last ten years or so and will continue to do so.

Film was still the most popular 10 years ago.

Being a film user for almost 40 years I found the transition from a film SLR to a DSLR to be an easy one as a lot of the functions are the same, ie, press the shutter and the mirror flips up to expose a sensor to light. This process has been more or less the same for nearly 60 years.

When camera manufactures first had access to larger sensors the only option open to them at that time was to take the film SLR design and replace the sensor with a reusable one and obviously update the electronics.

I enjoy using a digital SLR and I can see when the time will come and sooner than we may think that they will no longer be the best selling high quality cameras.

If today's electronics had been around 60 years ago the need for instant return mirrors would not have arisen and there would be no discussions of what's best today.

I for one have no problem with changes.

It's not that long ago that certain members on this site were questioning the need to have a sensor higher than 8mb when the 10mb ones came out as they said the noise would be terrible. How wrong that was!

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139392 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
26 Mar 2012 - 2:00 PM

Not sure the analogies with CD/vinyl records and valve/transistor amps, interesting though they are, carry over that well to DSLR/Mirrorless CSC.

Given the same sensor and same lens, the only difference is in EVF/OVF. Are we really saying it makes a difference to technical quality of the photo? Or are we saying this difference will affect the aesthetic or some other quality? Can't immediately see why it would - but I'm happy to be enlightened. Smile

mikehit
mikehit  46191 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
26 Mar 2012 - 2:09 PM


Quote:
Given the same sensor and same lens, the only difference is in EVF/OVF. Are we really saying it makes a difference to technical quality of the photo? Or are we saying this difference will affect the aesthetic or some other quality? Can't immediately see why it would - but I'm happy to be enlightened. Smile

That is the question I posed a short while ago and it seems it ends up as being personal preference and how you prefer to relate to the scene.
http://www.ephotozine.com/forums/topic/what-do-people-have-against-evf-----95450


Quote: Not sure the analogies with CD/vinyl records and valve/transistor amps, interesting though they are, carry over that well to DSLR/Mirrorless CSC.

The relevance (for me) is that it is all about picking yor compromises. You can argue that digital in both spheres is more accurate (read: linear) but the non-linearity of analogue (if that is the right word for film) provides a gentle roll-off that reduces the sensory impact at the signal extremes. Distortion, yes. Agreeable, definitely. Preferable - if digital is not preferable you can create the 'analogue effect' you want but you can't recreate a linear signal from a distorted one very easily if the information is already lost.

Last Modified By mikehit at 26 Mar 2012 - 2:13 PM
lemmy
lemmy  71774 forum posts United Kingdom
26 Mar 2012 - 4:02 PM


Quote: The 3rd and 5th are fine to the human ear as they're part of the major chords in a key

It's just that those are the harmonics of the strings. When the signal in an amp is pushed it produces harmonics due to the clipping of the signal. These are not necessarily directly related to the harmonics the instrument produces and in this context, the artificial harmonics produced by a valve amp have more even order harmonics and sound soft and singing. Transistor amp clipping produces odd order harmonics, harsh tones of the fuzz variety you mention and not often used these days. Valve amp distortion has more 'overdrive' character.

I like to look at things the other way round to make a judgement on them. If the EVF and electronic sensor had been around for 50 years and now someone offered film and a fast acting mirror with optical finder, would we want it? Would we buy it in preference?

It seems to me that the EVF will take over within a few years not because it will be forced on us but because overall we will prefer it.

I well remember problems when photographing orchestras or the cast of a show in a venue where you could not install your own lighting . You'd peer into your laser etched fresnel screen and I'm damned if you could tell when you'd filled the frame edge to edge. I used to carry a pair of small torches with me so that actor or musicians on the extremities could hold and point them at me to give me a marker.

The idea of an EVF which would amplify the image for me would have been heaven - keep your optics!

Summerman
Summerman  3 United Kingdom
19 Apr 2012 - 12:44 PM

I have to say I love the thought of a small portable camera which can take pictures equivalent to a DSLR but Im struggling to understand if there is actually any real benefit of a Micro Four Thrids camera with expensive interchangeable lenses and yes no optical veiwfinder against a decent compact let alone a DSLR?

keith selmes
19 Apr 2012 - 12:59 PM

Much bigger sensor than a compact without the bulk and weight penalt of the dslr.
If you don't mind manual lenses, there is plenty of low cost good quality choice.
I still feel it's a compromise, but it's pretty useful.

franken
franken e2 Member 113061 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
19 Apr 2012 - 1:40 PM

My biggest complaint of small cameras including some mirrorless ones is the lack of a viewfinder! EVF is fine. I've tried several without a viewfinder in bright sunshine an it's a guess as to what you're actually taking!

This is nothing new; in the 1850's you placed a dark cloth over your head and the camera so as you could see what you're actually photographing! Wink

Ken

Last Modified By franken at 19 Apr 2012 - 1:43 PM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.