+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Sorry Sony, mirror-less ILC cameras are not dominating SLR anytime soon (/showthread.php?tid=179925)
Pages:
1
2
Sorry Sony, mirror-less ILC cameras are not dominating SLR anytime soon - pRICE cUBE - 06-09-2015
SLR = Single lens reflex, common core technology is mirror that flips up when film/sensor is exposed resulting in viewing blackout at moment of exposure.
ILC = Interchangeable Lens Camera, typically uses electronic viewfinder without mirror blackout. Lenses can be changed but camera relies on contrast AF detection, often not as fast or effective as SLR AF phase detection units.
A few days ago, Sony proudly pronounced that mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras were seeing a huge surge and will be the future. In general, ILC cameras have had no solid growth, SLR camera still dominate, have better AF systems, and many more lenses. Sony is only enjoying this ILC sales space since Canon and Nikon have botched their ILC offering in order to protect their SLR lines. SOny's SLR lines sold terribly so ILC made sense. What is Sony doing with ILC dominance? Jacking up lens prices since they have no real competition in that space. Sony also still overcharges for A Mount SLR lenses.
Personally, I find electronic viewfinders improved but i don;t believe they will ever surpass the quality of a reflection off a mirror. The vast lens selection of Nikon F and Canon EOS, including 3rd party lens keeps me using SLR cameras. It may be "old tech" viewing but the most effective.
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/06/08/spike-in-dslr-camera-shipments-in-april.aspx/
Re: Sorry Sony, mirror-less ILC cameras are not dominating SLR anytime soon - Uncle Wig - 06-09-2015
The recent ad campaign by Olympus probably hasn't helped; the one which tried to sell mirrorless cameras by insulting SLR owners, portraying them as freaks with monstrous arms from lugging their "heavy" cameras.
I wish people would quit fighting over mirrorless vs. SLR! Constant, pointless wars on the DPR forums (I know - why do I even bother looking at that site any more?). There's room for all kinds of cameras. Me, I still love my SLR and really don't feel burdened by it.
Re: Sorry Sony, mirror-less ILC cameras are not dominating SLR anytime soon - pRICE cUBE - 06-09-2015
Uncle Wig wrote:
The recent ad campaign by Olympus probably hasn't helped; the one which tried to sell mirrorless cameras by insulting SLR owners, portraying them as freaks with monstrous arms from lugging their "heavy" cameras.
I wish people would quit fighting over mirrorless vs. SLR! Constant, pointless wars on the DPR forums (I know - why do I even bother looking at that site any more?). There's room for all kinds of cameras. Me, I still love my SLR and really don't feel burdened by it.
I haven't seen these ads but I would love bigger arms.
While I like some aspects of ILC, I just don't see it being practical for me. I think it would be a great platform for some users. For me, I don't see ILC replacing SLR for sports/action photography. I am not anti-ILC, I just don't like Sony's sales hyperbole.
As for arguing on DPreview, I stopped reading those forums due to the noise.
Re: Sorry Sony, mirror-less ILC cameras are not dominating SLR anytime soon - freeradical - 06-09-2015
If I could only have one camera, it would be a fixed lens camera with a fast 35-40mm or equivalent lens.
It would also be simple, with all the important controls on the body of the camera so I don't have to go menu diving for anything while shooting.
Re: Sorry Sony, mirror-less ILC cameras are not dominating SLR anytime soon - mrbigstuff - 06-09-2015
dumb comparison about weight of SLR vs mirror-less, IMO, since the weight of the rig is mostly in the lens.
I have a very light Lumix, but I add some Nikkor glass to it and it weighs a ton.
Re: Sorry Sony, mirror-less ILC cameras are not dominating SLR anytime soon - freeradical - 06-09-2015
mrbigstuff wrote:
dumb comparison about weight of SLR vs mirror-less, IMO, since the weight of the rig is mostly in the lens.
I have a very light Lumix, but I add some Nikkor glass to it and it weighs a ton.
Yes and no.
I have an Nikon 85mm f/2 Ais lens. It weighs around 300 grams. The f/1.4 version is around 600 grams. A really fast lens can have very significant weight penalties.
On the other hand there are some pretty beastly SLR's, both film and digital out there. Compare the weight of an F100 versus an F5. A D4 is a brick...
Re: Sorry Sony, mirror-less ILC cameras are not dominating SLR anytime soon - vision63 - 06-09-2015
freeradical wrote:
If I could only have one camera, it would be a fixed lens camera with a fast 35-40mm or equivalent lens.
It would also be simple, with all the important controls on the body of the camera so I don't have to go menu diving for anything while shooting.
Save your dough and buy the Fuji X100T. I used my buddy's for a week. It's $1300 though.
Re: Sorry Sony, mirror-less ILC cameras are not dominating SLR anytime soon - Uncle Wig - 06-09-2015
If I shot all the time with my "Bigma" 50-500 I'd have big arms. It's no carry-around lens for sure, but manageable for a day at the fly-in.
Carrying around my K-5 and 18-135mm is a piece of cake.
Re: Sorry Sony, mirror-less ILC cameras are not dominating SLR anytime soon - Uncle Wig - 06-09-2015
vision63 wrote:
[quote=freeradical]
If I could only have one camera, it would be a fixed lens camera with a fast 35-40mm or equivalent lens.
It would also be simple, with all the important controls on the body of the camera so I don't have to go menu diving for anything while shooting.
Save your dough and buy the Fuji X100T. I used my buddy's for a week. It's $1300 though.
That would be my mirrorless camera in a heartbeat, if I were inclined to spend that kind of money on another camera.
Re: Sorry Sony, mirror-less ILC cameras are not dominating SLR anytime soon - Uncle Wig - 06-09-2015
Oh wait! I already have a mirrorless camera! Despite the limitations of the small sensor, I love this little camera. So much fun to use, and the image quality is really pretty good. Did I say it's fun to use?
I also have an MX-1 which I like, but not as much. It has excellent image and build quality, and it can be fun to use, but it seems a little half-baked compared to the Q. It really needs a firmware update but that isn't gonna happen.