The beginning of the end for consumer DSLRs?

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:15:38 +0100, Bruce wrote:

There is no shortage of people who claim that DSLRs are on their way
out of fashion, and that mirrorless (or EVIL) cameras will take over.
They claim that the recent , very significant improvements in the
quality of electronic viewfinders makes them as good as, or better
than a traditional reflex viewfinder.

However, the DSLR protagonists argue that the EVIL cameras suffer
because their contrast-detect AF is too slow. To address this issue,
Sony brings out an "SLT" camera that has the complication of a fixed
pellicle mirror to enable the faster phase-detect AF of SLRs to be
used on the mirrorless versions (A33, A55) of their Alpha range of
DSLRs. It suffers from serious ghosting and overheating problems.

Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor
size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system
that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any
other AF system, including phase-detect.

The Lumix GH2 needs no pellicle mirror and therefore has no risk of
ghosting. Yet it is claimed to have even faster AF than the Sony A33
and A55, even though their AF systems are phase-detect.

If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop
similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that
Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
DSLRs will suddenly disappear.

They still have to get rid of that archaic, mechanically fragile, short
live-span, shutter-speed-crippling, moving-subject distorting, obnoxiously
noisy, and image-shaking focal-plane shutter. And a way to prevent sensor
grunge. By creating a sealed camera and lens combo that will cover all the
zoom range one might ever need. Or bundled with high-quality optical
system-matched focal-length adapters to increase that range temporarily if
need be.

[I still don't like that I have to play the manufacturer mix & match game
when finding the best wide-angle and tel-extenders from other companies for
the best performance. But it does end-up affording some unique surprises.
Like the fisheye adapter I found for under $100 that surpasses the image
quality of a $1500 Nikkor. Giving my superzoom cameras a seamless and
CA-free zoom range from 9mm to 36mm EFL, with low distortion CA-free
full-frame starting at 16mm EFL.]

Oh wait, they've already done all this. Many years ago. It started back
about 2001 or so. Each year since there's always a couple or few models
that always beat the image quality of DSLRs released the same years. Huh.
How about that. I wonder why none of you ever hear about it. Oh, that's
right. You (collective plural) can't find what you're not looking for, or
intentionally close your eyes to, in order to justify that money you've
thrown at the system you have foolishly locked yourself into financially.
Some of you would rather depend on financially-biased slanted reviews meant
to con people into the "now you need a better lens" con game, rather than
test these cameras for yourself to find out you're being lied to. Oh well.
Sometimes the desirable bliss of self-induced ignorance is much more
important than pursuing reality. And some just can't give up that tattered
old T-shirt and torn jeans from last century. Just put another patch job
over that old stitching (flopping-shutter dslr design), that'll make it
better.

1/10th of a century already gone, and they still scream and cry about the
previous century's camera design limitations, like they are worth holding
onto for some bizarre reason. It *is* time to throw out the baby out with
the bath-water when you find out it's the rotting and fetid baby that has
been poisoning the water all along.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:46:57 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:
: On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:15:38 +0100, Bruce wrote:
:
: There is no shortage of people who claim that DSLRs are on their way
: out of fashion, and that mirrorless (or EVIL) cameras will take over.
: They claim that the recent , very significant improvements in the
: quality of electronic viewfinders makes them as good as, or better
: than a traditional reflex viewfinder.
:
: However, the DSLR protagonists argue that the EVIL cameras suffer
: because their contrast-detect AF is too slow. To address this issue,
: Sony brings out an "SLT" camera that has the complication of a fixed
: pellicle mirror to enable the faster phase-detect AF of SLRs to be
: used on the mirrorless versions (A33, A55) of their Alpha range of
: DSLRs. It suffers from serious ghosting and overheating problems.
:
: Then along comes a camera that might just be the game-changer: the
: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2. It obviously stands out because of its 16 MP
: Four Thirds sensor, by far the most pixels ever seen in this sensor
: size, but lurking in its specification is a contrast-detect AF system
: that is claimed to be the fastest AF system to date. Faster than any
: other AF system, including phase-detect.
:
: The Lumix GH2 needs no pellicle mirror and therefore has no risk of
: ghosting. Yet it is claimed to have even faster AF than the Sony A33
: and A55, even though their AF systems are phase-detect.
:
: If these claims are true, and other manufacturers either develop
: similarly fast contrast-detect AF systems, or licence the one that
: Panasonic developed, one of the strongest selling points for consumer
: DSLRs will suddenly disappear.
:
: They still have to get rid of that archaic, mechanically fragile, short
: live-span, shutter-speed-crippling, moving-subject distorting, obnoxiously
: noisy, and image-shaking focal-plane shutter. And a way to prevent sensor
: grunge. By creating a sealed camera and lens combo that will cover all the
: zoom range one might ever need. Or bundled with high-quality optical
: system-matched focal-length adapters to increase that range temporarily if
: need be.
:
: [I still don't like that I have to play the manufacturer mix & match game
: when finding the best wide-angle and tel-extenders from other companies for
: the best performance. But it does end-up affording some unique surprises.
: Like the fisheye adapter I found for under $100 that surpasses the image
: quality of a $1500 Nikkor. Giving my superzoom cameras a seamless and
: CA-free zoom range from 9mm to 36mm EFL, with low distortion CA-free
: full-frame starting at 16mm EFL.]
:
: Oh wait, they've already done all this. Many years ago. It started back
: about 2001 or so. Each year since there's always a couple or few models
: that always beat the image quality of DSLRs released the same years. Huh.
: How about that. I wonder why none of you ever hear about it. Oh, that's
: right. You (collective plural) can't find what you're not looking for, or
: intentionally close your eyes to, in order to justify that money you've
: thrown at the system you have foolishly locked yourself into financially.
: Some of you would rather depend on financially-biased slanted reviews meant
: to con people into the "now you need a better lens" con game, rather than
: test these cameras for yourself to find out you're being lied to. Oh well.
: Sometimes the desirable bliss of self-induced ignorance is much more
: important than pursuing reality. And some just can't give up that tattered
: old T-shirt and torn jeans from last century. Just put another patch job
: over that old stitching (flopping-shutter dslr design), that'll make it
: better.
:
: 1/10th of a century already gone, and they still scream and cry about the
: previous century's camera design limitations, like they are worth holding
: onto for some bizarre reason. It *is* time to throw out the baby out with
: the bath-water when you find out it's the rotting and fetid baby that has
: been poisoning the water all along.

I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in
countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never
seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or
firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in
order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you,
on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter
should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not?

Bob

On 01/10/2010 03:57, Robert Coe wrote:

I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in
countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never
seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or
firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in
order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you,
on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter
should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not?

http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowl...-shutters.html

--
Bertrand

On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 13:24:03 -0400, Mark F wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:37:50 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 01/10/2010 03:57, Robert Coe wrote:

I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in
countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never
seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or
firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in
order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you,
on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter
should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not?

http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowl...-shutters.html
But why not an electronic shutter?

A Kerr cell as around in 30 or more years ago was too big and didn't
block the light 100%, but you'd think that they could be made smaller,
possibly piled two deep, and combined with electronic dumping of
charge just before the exposure so that things would be quieter and
less prone to damage than a mechanical shutter, in addition to being
able to give short exposure times. (Combine with a slow moving
mechanical shutter to keep light out between exposure.)


Is too much power or too higher voltage required.

A highly efficient high-speed leaf-shutter is in every lens of every
compact and superzoom camera made today. With shutter speeds up to
1/40,000th second including perfect flash-sync at those shutter speeds when
using flash durations even as short as 1/224,000ths of a second.

Considering the cost of the whole compact or superzoom camera PLUS lens,
the leaf-shutter module must be a miniscule portion of fabrication and
materials costs. I'd bet on no more than US$5-10 per camera. It would be a
trivial matter to put one in every lens for every interchangeable lens
camera. It could be done without even changing the prices of lenses if they
wanted to, considering the markup on dSLR lenses is in the region of
500-2500% of manufacturing costs. (Yes, it's a wonderful financial con-game
that everyone is more than happy to play.)

This, or course, still does not address all the other crippling DSLR design
issues of dirty sensors, losing shots due to having to change lenses,
intermittent easily worn body-to-lens electrical contacts, bulk, weight,
and the obnoxiously loudly slapping easily damaged or dirtied/fogged mirror
that induces a 90-150ms shutter-lag, optical viewfinders useless in
low-light and useless for precision manual focusing, no information
overlays in the viewfinder, no shutter-speed preview, etc., etc., etc.,
etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,
etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., ...

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Ofnuts says...
On 01/10/2010 03:57, Robert Coe wrote:

I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in
countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never
seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or
firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in
order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you,
on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter
should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not?

http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowl...-shutters.html

That is the same explanation given years ago here why DSLRs could not
offer live view: additional circuitry needed to read out the pixels,
which would reduce the light sensitive area and worsen the high ISO
performance.

The real reason is that manufacturers like cameras to be more
complex, expensive and easy to break down. Especially P&S
cameras, where you'd better buy a new one every year or two.

Like that answer better?

-Wolfgang

On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 21:35:04 +0200, Puppygang Weaselburp the role-playing
pretend-photographer wrote:

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Ofnuts says...
On 01/10/2010 03:57, Robert Coe wrote:

I don't subscribe to all, or even most, of Supy's bombast (in this or in
countless previous posts). But he does raise an important question I've never
seen answered: Why do we still need the FP shutter? Can't you, via software or
firmware, look only at what the sensor sees for a specified period of time in
order to obtain the RAW data for an image? Even a pellicle mirror costs you,
on average, half the light you'd use to form an image; an electronic shutter
should cost you nothing. What am I missing? Is Supy correct? If not, why not?

http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowl...-shutters.html

That is the same explanation given years ago here why DSLRs could not
offer live view: additional circuitry needed to read out the pixels,
which would reduce the light sensitive area and worsen the high ISO
performance.

The real reason is that manufacturers like cameras to be more
complex, expensive and easy to break down. Especially P&S
cameras, where you'd better buy a new one every year or two.

Like that answer better?

-Puppygang

No. The truth would be better. Not some role-playing pretend-photographer
DSLR-TROLL's fabrication.

http://www.stopmotionanimation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=10&topic_id=2549&m esg_id=2549

Down in the thread you find out that someone can't get their MECHANICALLY
COMPLEX, EXPENSIVE, and EASY TO BREAK-DOWN DSLR camera repaired while still
under warranty after only 31,834 shots.

One of my superzoom cameras has now taken over 400,000 photos without need
of one bit of repair, in some of the most extreme environmental conditions
from mountain-top to 'gator infested swamp and everything in between. NO
DSLR in the world would hold up to the conditions I've put that superzoom
camera through. It's precisely why I switched from D/SLR CRAP and found
designs that are FAR better and FAR MORE reliable.

On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 23:31:32 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN!
wrote:

One of my superzoom cameras has now taken over 400,000 photos without need
of one bit of repair,

Amazing! You would think the odds would be that at least one of those
would have been an in-focus shot of an interesting subject, yet the
best you can come up with is something that could be - as you claim -
a never-discovered-before rare moth or it could be a photo one of Sam
Donaldson's old toupees that has been dropped in the slush of a New
York City gutter in February.


in some of the most extreme environmental conditions
from mountain-top to 'gator infested swamp and everything in between.

But probably 399,245 of those shots were taken in the playground down
the street from your house where you tried to get panty shots of
little girls on the swings. The rest were taken in your neighborhood
miniature golf course on the Gator Swamp hole, the Mt Rushmore hole,
and the dreaded Dutch Village hole where the slow shutter response
never did catch your ball making it by the windmill blades.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 01:44:21 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 23:31:32 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN!
wrote:

One of my superzoom cameras has now taken over 400,000 photos without need
of one bit of repair,

Amazing! You would think the odds would be that at least one of those
would have been an in-focus shot of an interesting subject, yet the
best you can come up with is something that could be - as you claim -
a never-discovered-before rare moth or it could be a photo one of Sam
Donaldson's old toupees that has been dropped in the slush of a New
York City gutter in February.


in some of the most extreme environmental conditions
from mountain-top to 'gator infested swamp and everything in between.

But probably 399,245 of those shots were taken in the playground down
the street from your house where you tried to get panty shots of
little girls on the swings. The rest were taken in your neighborhood
miniature golf course on the Gator Swamp hole, the Mt Rushmore hole,
and the dreaded Dutch Village hole where the slow shutter response
never did catch your ball making it by the windmill blades.

Awww... what's the matter you balding and ignorant senile fool. Still upset
that I outted you for lying about diving in a tourists fish tank and only
being 5 ft. underwater with your Bozo the Clown hairdo? Or was it because
each time you post this **** you are proving to the world what a lying,
slanderous, and libelous psychotic gaping-**** of a troll that you really
are. Because by now they have probably all already searched for these
fictitious posts that you keep whining on about and finding NONE. Finding
out, resolutely, that you are one hugely ****ed up **** of an idiot TROLL.
Haven't you noticed that you're the ONLY ONE still claiming this ****? The
rest have already decided to back off from continuing their slanderous and
libelous farce. Even they don't want to look as glaringly stupid and
ignorant as you.

On 03/10/2010 06:31, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
One of my superzoom cameras has now taken over 400,000 photos without need

Hmmm. So over the last ten years (because it's hard to have a real
digital camera older that that):

10*365*24=87600=110 pictures a day, with that camera alone (and LOL
knows how many with the others).

If all these are of rare animals, they must not be so rare after all.

--
Bertrand

On 10/3/10 12:44 AM, in article ,
"tony cooper" wrote:

On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 23:31:32 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN!
wrote:

One of my superzoom cameras has now taken over 400,000 photos without need
of one bit of repair,

Amazing! You would think the odds would be that at least one of those
would have been an in-focus shot of an interesting subject, yet the
best you can come up with is something that could be - as you claim -
a never-discovered-before rare moth or it could be a photo one of Sam
Donaldson's old toupees that has been dropped in the slush of a New
York City gutter in February.


in some of the most extreme environmental conditions
from mountain-top to 'gator infested swamp and everything in between.

But probably 399,245 of those shots were taken in the playground down
the street from your house where you tried to get panty shots of
little girls on the swings. The rest were taken in your neighborhood
miniature golf course on the Gator Swamp hole, the Mt Rushmore hole,
and the dreaded Dutch Village hole where the slow shutter response
never did catch your ball making it by the windmill blades.


Bueno! Excellent! BFG!