Bloomberg hints at DSLR coffin being nailed

"Neil Harrington" writes:

Bruce wrote:

Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine editors
seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.

Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some number of
dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote controls, etc. In
those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system cameras, and I think it is
reasonable to call them such.

I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
camera.

Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
old 8700, really.

Just calling the whole category ILCs at least makes sense.

Bruce writes:


The use of ILC is highly confusing because any SLR or rangefinder
camera with interchangeable lenses is also an ILC. Surely the whole
idea is to come up with a term that differentiates mirrorless cameras
from these?

I dunno, I think perhaps the point is to emphasize that they have a lot
more in common with DSLRs and Leica rangefinders than they do with P&Ss.

My whole time in photography we've used "SLR" to mean "serious
camera", basically, and just quietly accepted that an M4 was a serious
camera even though it wasn't an SLR. And that sheet-film cameras were
too, but most people didn't even know they existed.

"Serious camera" is no good, it's a value judgment, and people will game
it badly. But ILC isn't too bad an alternative. The difference in
"seriousness" (subjectively, as viewed by me) between an Olympus EPL-2
and a Nikon D3100 is smaller than that between the D3100 and a D3. Of
course, that does let the Pentax Q system sneak in, and it shouldn't :-) .

"Neil Harrington" writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
John A. writes:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:17:12 -0700, Irwell wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:30:35 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:

Heh: Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales"
-mirrorless aren't SLRS! ;-)

"What's in a name, that which we call a rose by any other
name will smell just as sweet"

Let's call them SBPMs - Snappy-Boxy Picture Makers.

Best version I've heard is "EVIL": Electronic Viewfinder
Interchangeable Lens.

Somehow I doubt it'll catch on;

It won't, for obvious reasons, except among people who don't like them.

I do have to point out that I like them, own one, and love that
designation.

But I accepted long ago that I'm weird :-) .

but it's my favorite and I'm going to
keep pushing it whenever I can. Miracles are possible! After all,
"SCSI" is pronounced "scuzzy" :-).

Yes, but "scuzzy" is not such a commonly understood word as "evil."

Yeah, probably.

A problem with "EVIL" is that everyone who uses it in connection with ILCs
seems to be doing so with a smirk. Good luck with your dedication to the
project, but it will never catch on. :-)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:42:00 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

"Neil Harrington" writes:

Bruce wrote:

Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine editors
seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.

Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some number of
dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote controls, etc. In
those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system cameras, and I think it is
reasonable to call them such.

I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
camera.

Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
old 8700, really.

Just calling the whole category ILCs at least makes sense.

You have stumbled on the truth, ILC is a good choice,
and extend that to include ILRC for the reflex version.
SLR dates from the old film days when there were Double Lens Reflex
and Single Lens Reflex.

On 2011-09-12 13:39:07 -0700, Irwell said:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:42:00 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

"Neil Harrington" writes:

Bruce wrote:

Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine editors
seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.

Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some number of
dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote controls, etc. In
those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system cameras, and I think it is
reasonable to call them such.

I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
camera.

Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
old 8700, really.

Just calling the whole category ILCs at least makes sense.

You have stumbled on the truth, ILC is a good choice,
and extend that to include ILRC for the reflex version.

What reflex versions?
There is no bending or redirection of the light path to an OVF.
I certainly shouldn't have point out that in the case of both SLR & TLR
the light traveling through the lens, to the VF to the eye, is "bent"
or "reflexed". With the "ILC", including those with an EVF there is no
"bending" of the light path. So no inclusion of an "R" is necessary.

SLR dates from the old film days when there were Double Lens Reflex
and Single Lens Reflex.

Yup! See above.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Bruce
writes
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
old 8700, really.


I accept your point about CSC. However, it is very difficult to find
a precise term that adequately describes mirrorless cameras.

The use of ILC is highly confusing because any SLR or rangefinder
camera with interchangeable lenses is also an ILC. Surely the whole
idea is to come up with a term that differentiates mirrorless cameras
from these?

Wouldn't the obvious one then be "MILC" - mirrorless interchangeable
lens camera?
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:47:39 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

On 2011-09-12 13:39:07 -0700, Irwell said:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:42:00 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

"Neil Harrington" writes:

Bruce wrote:

Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine editors
seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.

Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some number of
dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote controls, etc. In
those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system cameras, and I think it is
reasonable to call them such.

I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
camera.

Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
old 8700, really.

Just calling the whole category ILCs at least makes sense.

You have stumbled on the truth, ILC is a good choice,
and extend that to include ILRC for the reflex version.

What reflex versions?
That which is now called DSLR?

Isn't this really an Interchangeable lens system with
a reflex mirror, or pentaprism?
Actually the digital part could be dropped in the description so the
ILC/ILRC would suffice to distinguish between them and we can get rid of
the silly mirrorless tag.
The first film reflex cameras had fixed lens.
Mine was a Houghton Butcher Ensign 120 film version dating
from the 1920/30s.
There is no bending or redirection of the light path to an OVF.
I certainly shouldn't have point out that in the case of both SLR & TLR
the light traveling through the lens, to the VF to the eye, is "bent"
or "reflexed". With the "ILC", including those with an EVF there is no
"bending" of the light path. So no inclusion of an "R" is necessary.

Exactly, the ILRC would be for Interchangeable Lens Reflex Cameras
and ILC for those with EVFs or just LCDs.
Like we used to have a few years back 35mm cameras, and 35 mm SLRs

On 2011-09-12 16:20:47 -0700, Irwell said:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:47:39 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

On 2011-09-12 13:39:07 -0700, Irwell said:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:42:00 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

"Neil Harrington" writes:

Bruce wrote:

Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine editors
seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.

Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some number of
dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote controls, etc. In
those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system cameras, and I think it is
reasonable to call them such.

I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
camera.

Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
old 8700, really.

Just calling the whole category ILCs at least makes sense.

You have stumbled on the truth, ILC is a good choice,
and extend that to include ILRC for the reflex version.

What reflex versions?
That which is now called DSLR?

Why bother? The term DSLR is entrenched. Certainly the addition of the
"D" made the differentiation between film & digital SLR's simple, but
those are systems which differ only in recording medium. They are a
completely different class to this new generation of cameras.


Isn't this really an Interchangeable lens system with
a reflex mirror, or pentaprism?

In the case of SLR or DSLR, yes.

Actually the digital part could be dropped in the description so the
ILC/ILRC would suffice to distinguish between them and we can get rid of
the silly mirrorless tag.

Again, why?
SLR type cameras, digital or otherwise are a distinct class and deserve
to retain that name, if only from tradition. The "mirrorless" tag is
there because we, or the manufacturers are struggling to define their
new efforts and find a niche. However we have had "mirrorless"
interchange for some time, even in the film world.
Who tries to tag an M9 "mirrorless"?


The first film reflex cameras had fixed lens.
Mine was a Houghton Butcher Ensign 120 film version dating
from the 1920/30s.

Interesting.

There is no bending or redirection of the light path to an OVF.
I certainly shouldn't have point out that in the case of both SLR & TLR
the light traveling through the lens, to the VF to the eye, is "bent"
or "reflexed". With the "ILC", including those with an EVF there is no
"bending" of the light path. So no inclusion of an "R" is necessary.

Exactly, the ILRC would be for Interchangeable Lens Reflex Cameras
and ILC for those with EVFs or just LCDs.
Like we used to have a few years back 35mm cameras, and 35 mm SLRs

That will just muddy the water. The new generation of "non-reflex"
interchangeable lens cameras ( now there is a thought, how about NILC?)
should be a distinct separate class regardless and should earn their
own tag without dragging SLR's or DSLR's into the fray with them.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Irwell writes:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:42:00 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

"Neil Harrington" writes:

Bruce wrote:

Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine editors
seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.

Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some number of
dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote controls, etc. In
those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system cameras, and I think it is
reasonable to call them such.

I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
camera.

Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
old 8700, really.

Just calling the whole category ILCs at least makes sense.

You have stumbled on the truth, ILC is a good choice,
and extend that to include ILRC for the reflex version.
SLR dates from the old film days when there were Double Lens Reflex
and Single Lens Reflex.

And interchangeable lens TLR ("twin" rather than "double" was the common
term). And nobody called view cameras "SLD" (for "Single Lens Direct"),
but it fits.

For many purposes, specifying reflex vs. non-reflex isn't important, but
that can just be omitted if you don't care.

(Bought my first SLR in 1969.)

Savageduck writes:

On 2011-09-12 13:39:07 -0700, Irwell said:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:42:00 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

"Neil Harrington" writes:

Bruce wrote:

Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine editors
seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.

Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some number of
dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote controls, etc. In
those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system cameras, and I think it is
reasonable to call them such.

I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
camera.

Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon ILC
appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system camera" as my
old 8700, really.

Just calling the whole category ILCs at least makes sense.

You have stumbled on the truth, ILC is a good choice,
and extend that to include ILRC for the reflex version.

What reflex versions?
There is no bending or redirection of the light path to an OVF.
I certainly shouldn't have point out that in the case of both SLR &
TLR the light traveling through the lens, to the VF to the eye, is
"bent" or "reflexed". With the "ILC", including those with an EVF
there is no "bending" of the light path. So no inclusion of an "R" is
necessary.

I think his point is that ILC includes (today) DSLR and NEX and Micro
Four Thirds and Pentax Q and other things -- they're all Interchangeable
Lens Cameras.

Some of them, the DSLRs, do still have Reflex viewfinders.