6 ms·

It's a really really interesting idea - I'm looking forward to see how it turns out. If it really is as good as claimed (and actually makes it to market), I'll

It's a really really interesting idea - I'm looking forward to see how it turns out. If it really is as good as claimed (and actually makes it to market), I'll almost certainly buy one. However, I'll be buying one in addition to my existing DSLR equipment, not as a replacement. The tech as presented in this article isn't really competing with DSLRs so much, as with m4/3 systems and things like the sony A7R series. The real reason for paying the size, weight and cost penalty of a DSLR these days is focus performance, near-zero lag and extreme flexibility - none of which this is going to be able to duplicate. For example, with my DSLR, 500mm lens and large tripod I can capture the exact moment a bird dives into a river to spear a fish, perfectly frozen in time. That's simply not possible with this system, and extremely difficult with m4/3 and other small-sized equivalents. So no, it's not going to outperform DSLRs. It might be a useful addition to your camera equipment, though.

iwintermute 10y ago
why it would be "extremely difficult with m4/3 and other small-sized equivalents" ?
- lb1lf 10y ago
  Short answer - focus performance tends to leave a bit to be desired as cameras go smaller. (Though this can -for some subjects - be compensated for by focusing on the place the action is going to be in advance.) Also, long - as in really long - lenses are hard to come by in MFT. Most useful for wildlife.
  - iwintermute 10y ago
    There's also APS-C sensors, and even mirrorless full-frame
  - slantyyz 10y ago
    The often mocked Nikon 1 series is generally considered to have the best all-around PDAF of mirrorless cameras. It can track about the same as a DSLR (definitely faster than a 5D1, possibly faster than a 5D2). It has a weaker native lens selection than M43 but it has a 70-300mm lens that translates to 190-810mm (factoring 2.7 crop factor) that birders love. It can also use adapted F mount lenses with decently fast AF (center point only). On the other hand, the N1 series has so many other weaknesses (like being massively overpriced for what you're getting) that it's not a great system for most people.
- jfindley 10y ago
  Two key reasons: 1) m4/3 and similar cameras use EVFs (electronic viewfinders) instead of optical ones - these have inherent and percievable lag. It's getting better, but still present (and due to the way they work, it's unlikely to be eliminated in the near future). This means that what you see through the viewfinder is a bit behind what's really happening, making precise timing hard. 2) Focussing on fast-moving targets - espcially if the background is "busy" (i.e. has lots of contrast) is very hard for the camera (and user!) to get right. Most non-DSLR cameras use contrast-based autofocus, which is more accurate for still scenes, but slower and worse at dealing with demanding situations like the one I illustrated. DSLRs use phase detection sensors, which are much better at highly demanding situations like these (although slightly less accurate with still subjects). Neither of these means that it's impossible - but it does mean that in situations like the one I described your success rate - shots that are in focus, and where the timing is correct - tends to be significantly lower than with a highend DSLR. When you're trying to capture a rare event (again like the one I described) that you only have one attempt at per day/week/whatever, a significantly reduced success rate is a really big problem.
  - 3chelon 10y ago
    The EVF lag is the primary reason I've stuck with DSLR over micro-4/3 until now. Every one I've tried, no matter how fast it's purported to be, has just enough lag to make me feel slightly queasy. Another reason is that the EVF is a screen with all its inherent issues. A screen is its own light source, compared to a DSLR finder which is the sunlight bouncing off the scene via the mirror directly into your eye. Your eye via a mirror can see a much larger dynamic range than the EVF screen, and you can make a call on exposure based on that. That said, if the EVF was truly representative of what the sensor was picking up, it may actually be useful, but the EVF is almost certainly showing a quantized version of what the sensor is seeing, and when you get the image in Lightroom or whatever it'll be different to what you saw on the EVF.
  - iwintermute 10y ago
    RE 2) mirror-less cameras now use hybrid focus - both contrast and phase detection, also they have much more focus points to work with. Plus shooting speed should also be quicker in mirror-less (not sure if super high-end DSLR is still close) - sony a6000 gives you 11 fps of continuous shooting rate

iwintermute 10y ago

why it would be "extremely difficult with m4/3 and other small-sized equivalents" ?

lb1lf 10y ago
Short answer - focus performance tends to leave a bit to be desired as cameras go smaller. (Though this can -for some subjects - be compensated for by focusing on the place the action is going to be in advance.) Also, long - as in really long - lenses are hard to come by in MFT. Most useful for wildlife.
- iwintermute 10y ago
  There's also APS-C sensors, and even mirrorless full-frame
- slantyyz 10y ago
  The often mocked Nikon 1 series is generally considered to have the best all-around PDAF of mirrorless cameras. It can track about the same as a DSLR (definitely faster than a 5D1, possibly faster than a 5D2). It has a weaker native lens selection than M43 but it has a 70-300mm lens that translates to 190-810mm (factoring 2.7 crop factor) that birders love. It can also use adapted F mount lenses with decently fast AF (center point only). On the other hand, the N1 series has so many other weaknesses (like being massively overpriced for what you're getting) that it's not a great system for most people.
jfindley 10y ago
Two key reasons: 1) m4/3 and similar cameras use EVFs (electronic viewfinders) instead of optical ones - these have inherent and percievable lag. It's getting better, but still present (and due to the way they work, it's unlikely to be eliminated in the near future). This means that what you see through the viewfinder is a bit behind what's really happening, making precise timing hard. 2) Focussing on fast-moving targets - espcially if the background is "busy" (i.e. has lots of contrast) is very hard for the camera (and user!) to get right. Most non-DSLR cameras use contrast-based autofocus, which is more accurate for still scenes, but slower and worse at dealing with demanding situations like the one I illustrated. DSLRs use phase detection sensors, which are much better at highly demanding situations like these (although slightly less accurate with still subjects). Neither of these means that it's impossible - but it does mean that in situations like the one I described your success rate - shots that are in focus, and where the timing is correct - tends to be significantly lower than with a highend DSLR. When you're trying to capture a rare event (again like the one I described) that you only have one attempt at per day/week/whatever, a significantly reduced success rate is a really big problem.
- 3chelon 10y ago
  The EVF lag is the primary reason I've stuck with DSLR over micro-4/3 until now. Every one I've tried, no matter how fast it's purported to be, has just enough lag to make me feel slightly queasy. Another reason is that the EVF is a screen with all its inherent issues. A screen is its own light source, compared to a DSLR finder which is the sunlight bouncing off the scene via the mirror directly into your eye. Your eye via a mirror can see a much larger dynamic range than the EVF screen, and you can make a call on exposure based on that. That said, if the EVF was truly representative of what the sensor was picking up, it may actually be useful, but the EVF is almost certainly showing a quantized version of what the sensor is seeing, and when you get the image in Lightroom or whatever it'll be different to what you saw on the EVF.
- iwintermute 10y ago
  RE 2) mirror-less cameras now use hybrid focus - both contrast and phase detection, also they have much more focus points to work with. Plus shooting speed should also be quicker in mirror-less (not sure if super high-end DSLR is still close) - sony a6000 gives you 11 fps of continuous shooting rate