Sorry for my absence, my body fell ill as soon as I stopped working
Still worse places to be ill where your not waited on hand and foot by your retired parents
To be fair it is not quite that simple, 35mm sensor will always require bigger glass than say m43/cx1" and if you want an optical VF then that needs to be bigger with a bigger sensor as well. The main allure to these mirror-less CSCs is really the small lens possibilities. I picked up an Oly E-PM2 with kit lens and 40-150mm. The 40-150mm is absolutely tiny and weighs a mere 190g.
One thing we do see over time in technology is convergence right?
My PDA is now in my Phone, my Point n Click for taking out when on a stag night, is now my Phone, my game boy is now my Phone.
I think that we will see more and more in the ultra light end of the market, there is clear demand for it. How will this shape the market for cameras as a whole? I think it will drag it to smaller and lighter.
But I also think we will still see something in the higher end, in the same way a friend reminded me just quite how much effort had gone in to making the sound of the door closing on my car pleasing and reasuring; People like a shutter sound!
As much as it is nice to have a 35mm sensor in a tiny body, as soon as you want some reach then the lenses get very big very quickly. I now you like working in the 35-85mm range on 35mm, but most of the public like to have reach to capture their kids playing sports, that quirky squirrel when out in the park, etc. Even the 85mm f/1.8s are pretty damn big relative to the smaller primes that the small m43 systems offer.
If we, for a second remove all existing glass and sensor sizes, how does one go about choosing the size?
1.Quality (Sharpness, Noise)
2.Depth of Field
3...... Thats all I can think of.
Now the larger sensor, the less DoF available without going for a smaller appature. Fine. How many people actually feal limited by 1.8 in APC? Hell, half the time 2.8 is low enough for me. One from a few years back, after I'd just got my f2.8,
http://i.imgur.com/hmbvv.jpg guess the appature I took that at, on a APC, I don't think wider would have helped (a nicer background would have, but the light was tricky and anoying me that day.
So as right now most complaints about sensors are due to noise, rather than sharpness. Or rather that is what I seem to see. We could easily see an argument for smaller sensors to allow people the DoF they want, at lower ISO.
All I'm trying to say is bigger, doesn't automatically mean better.
A lot of the features which you can't get in smaller sensor cameras, have no reason to be, for example fps.
We are at a point in technology where even the smaller sized sensor offer image quality that is more than capable of professional results up to print sizes of A3 or more. Previously smaller sensors were fine by consumers but were not capable of hitting the same ballpark.
This. I wish my grandfather was around today, I would buy him an entry level dslr, because its simply amazing the quality now. I was hoping to scan some of his slides but sadly didn't have time. Despite using mostly good quality film, stored properly, the level of detail, the sharpness just can't compete with even the cheapest DSLR from today. An OM1 and Kodachrome slide film if you want a trip down memory lane.
I do agree that it is unlikely that APS-C will exist in actual DSLRs in the future but will be pushed down into ever capable mirror-less bodies such that you do get a good size advantage versus a FF DSLR. However this might take some time, currently all manufactures sell far more APS_C DSLRs than FF by a couple of orders of magnitude. Mirror-less is kind of growing but not as fast as the mirorless crowd will have you know.
I can't compose with mirror less. I dunno why, I just can't, I know this is my failing and probably a lack of trying, but I just needed to say that because I think it might harm my views on them. I also do pretty much exclusively travel photography. I'm used to been only able to see the histogram, then only just, most of the time. So maybe the contries I like to holiday in are to blame for it, but I think I'll always be favouring the SLR.
However I don't think we will see much of FF in mirrorless, unless, that is, they try to make a premium ultra high end mirrorless device. Because as mentioned above, why would someone choose that size? Maybe I think automatically mirrorless cameras are a compromise to size and weight, but I just can't see why someone would choose it, I haven't seen a single RX1 in the wild.
35mm sensor in compact bodies will definitely exist, Nikon would be in a strong position to release a highly capable small body, the AF and processing of the Nikon 1 cameras is very strong and well ahead of the pack.
By compact body, do you mean SLR still? or do you mean RX1 like? Because ultimately I thought everyone said the RX1 image quality just didn't justify its price tag, unless you *really* needed small didn't want interchangable etc.
All camera companies are desperate for growth and continued sales and the only way to achieve either is by making new product categories, cheaper 35mm cameras and 35mm compacts will help to some extent. And cheaper 35mm needs some context, it is probably impossible to make a profitable FF camera for anything less than $1500. The margin on the D600 is pretty tight on a $2000 body. And you really don't want to cut back features and performance more than that (and some like you would argue it has been ct back too much wrt Af layout) because otherwise you have a strange camera that has a sensor aimed at the serious prosumers and pros, but a body for an amateur. Amateurs don't want or need 35mm sensors, they prefer smaller more convenient setups.
I would love to know why the margin is tight on a D600? I'd have thought including R&D costs they were raking it in?
I often find that cameras are similar to buying a car. I drive a boring eco desiel. I live in London, I dodge the C-charge, road tax, hell even the insurance is cheap. When I want to speed, I fly planes, planes are fun, cars are boring. Holding whilst traffic clears can be a great excuse to bunny hop and pull a little bit of G, driving on the M25 honestly makes me want to kill people, its a good think I'm not allowed a gun, at least when I drive. Anyway, buying a car. I want AC, nice seats, I'm 6"4 so I probably want the sports option inside, but seriously I in no way want the bigger engine, its moronic for my lifestyle to get it. However all of the car manafacturers are geared up to sell you the nice trim only with the bigger engines. Try and buy a DS3 eco desiel, with the nice trim and all the toys, the sales person will make you so infurated you end up using a broker instead. Just because I don't want a big engine in my city car, doesn't make me a bad driver, I've driven in 4 continents and will do a track day n keep up with the best of them. However let me buy a desiel mr salesman, and don't think less of me for it.
Cameras I find are the same. I'm at my weight limit. As I type this I've got my 150-500mm sat on the desk because it can't fit in my rucksack (80L!). I want great quality, I've got lots of cash to blow on the hobby. Having a larger full frame kit, would not in any way make me any more pro, it wouldn't make me better.
This is why for me I love having good quality APC-S lenses. I'll happily spend £1k on one. Hell I'd spend £1k extra for it to be lighter so I can take it, because otherwise it spends its life in the wardrobe with silica gell for company whilst the others are out having fun.
I also don't think I'll need to go full frame in the next 10 years. In fact, if I do anything I think it will be smaller.
I suppose its dreaming, but imagine having something smaller than micro 4/3rds, that allowed you to take 500mm bird shots which would print happily at A2, which weighed only 1kg. Then you have your sony RX1 or similar, for when you want some bokeh, hopefully larger than 35mm.
That is what I hope I'll be changing for, that is why I enjoy the DA* primes.
That is also why I get mad as hell when told that you need a full frame to be "pro". Sorry, but some of the best pro's I've seen use cheaper, lower end dslr kit old lenses with adapter rings, and have skill and experiance by the bucket. That is why I'm not one. It's not something I can simply buy.
