New Nikon J1/V1 sensors = half the surface area of micro 4/3rds!

Me wrote in :


I wouldn't underestimate the impact, if the AF system works as well as
claimed. Entry level slrs - even some expensive ones like the Canon
5DII - and compact cameras aren't very good at focus tracking, and users
are often disappointed with the results taking photos of their kids,

More people are now predicting the death of mirrors and prisms. The only
people still maintaining the opposite are the same people who cried when
digital passed 5 megapixels and replaced the SLR.

Rich wrote:
Me wrote in :


I wouldn't underestimate the impact, if the AF system works as well
as claimed. Entry level slrs - even some expensive ones like the
Canon 5DII - and compact cameras aren't very good at focus tracking,
and users are often disappointed with the results taking photos of
their kids,

More people are now predicting the death of mirrors and prisms. The
only people still maintaining the opposite are the same people who
cried when digital passed 5 megapixels and replaced the SLR.

I think we have quite a long way to go before the prism reflex becomes
outdated technology. There are too many things it just does better than
anything else.

Ryan McGinnis wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011, Neil Harrington wrote:

Rich wrote:
Me wrote in
:

I wouldn't underestimate the impact, if the AF system works as well
as claimed. Entry level slrs - even some expensive ones like the
Canon 5DII - and compact cameras aren't very good at focus
tracking, and users are often disappointed with the results taking
photos of their kids,

More people are now predicting the death of mirrors and prisms. The
only people still maintaining the opposite are the same people who
cried when digital passed 5 megapixels and replaced the SLR.

I think we have quite a long way to go before the prism reflex
becomes outdated technology. There are too many things it just does
better than anything else.

I get the feeling that pelicle mirrors are going to be the future.
High-ISO performance has become so incredible that losing a third of a
stop of light is negligible.

Probably. But I've read that the Sony pellicle cameras tend to have a
problem with ghosting (vertically), and it seems likely that that problem
will only get worse with time, ageing of the pellicle and/or its gradually
collecting a very fine layer of dust. I don't see how that can ever be
completely eliminated.

Bruce wrote in

The USP (unique selling point) of Sony Alpha SLTs is fast phase detect
autofocus. But this has been implemented without any need for a
problematic pellicle mirror in Nikon's 1 cameras, which have the
fastest and most accurate AF system of any camera yet made. That
means that the pellicle mirror is completely unnecessary.


Think of it as the dying, mutative gasp of DSLRs.

Bruce wrote:
wrote:

wrote in

The USP (unique selling point) of Sony Alpha SLTs is fast phase detect
autofocus. But this has been implemented without any need for a
problematic pellicle mirror in Nikon's 1 cameras, which have the
fastest and most accurate AF system of any camera yet made. That
means that the pellicle mirror is completely unnecessary.


Think of it as the dying, mutative gasp of DSLRs.


The DSLR won't die until an truly excellent electronic viewfinder is
available.

Agreed.


The EVF on the Sony NEX-7 and Alpha A77 SLT is the best
yet, by some margin, but it still won't tempt many people away from a
good optical reflex viewfinder in a DSLR.

Of course Sony Alpha users will soon have no option other than an EVF
(combined with the fundamentally problematic pellicle mirror) because
Sony Alpha DSLRs will soon die out altogether. But that is a
marketing decision imposed by a manufacturer. It does not necessarily
reflect the preferences of Sony Alpha customers, most of whom would
have strongly preferred a 24 MP version of the well-liked A700 DSLR
rather than the flawed A77 SLT, which they view with justified
suspicion.

RichA wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:29 am, wrote:
wrote:
wrote in

The USP (unique selling point) of Sony Alpha SLTs is fast phase detect
autofocus. But this has been implemented without any need for a
problematic pellicle mirror in Nikon's 1 cameras, which have the
fastest and most accurate AF system of any camera yet made. That
means that the pellicle mirror is completely unnecessary.

Think of it as the dying, mutative gasp of DSLRs.

The DSLR won't die until an truly excellent electronic viewfinder is
available.

Aside from motion smear, the G1 EVF of four years ago was better than
optical viewfinders.
1. Easier by far to see at night or in any low light owing to
electronic gain.
2. MUCH easier to focus manually because 7-10x magnification could be
done in a second with one finger.
3. 100% match to true imaging area, something only higher-end DSLRs
had/have.

Motion smear was addressed in later Panasonic and Olympus EVFs.

The new Sony unit should be much better still.

The fact is, people who think optical viewfinders are better are
saying this solely because;
-They are used to them.
-They believe they are esthetically more pleasing which really has
nothing to do with functionality.

What is the actual resolution in 3-color pixels for any of these EVFs?
Not 'dots'. Something like 320 x 480? Even a big 3-inch rear LCD (which
is awkward for any sort of normal shooting) has rather low resolution.

Sure you can zoom and get very precise focus but that's slow, tedious
and awkward as all heck, especially if you want to check two corners
while hand held framing the composition. Plus new DSLRs have live view
on the rear LCD.

On 9/27/2011 5:11 PM, Paul Furman wrote:
RichA wrote:
snip


Aside from motion smear, the G1 EVF of four years ago was better than
optical viewfinders.
1. Easier by far to see at night or in any low light owing to
electronic gain.
2. MUCH easier to focus manually because 7-10x magnification could be
done in a second with one finger.
3. 100% match to true imaging area, something only higher-end DSLRs
had/have.

Motion smear was addressed in later Panasonic and Olympus EVFs.

The new Sony unit should be much better still.

The fact is, people who think optical viewfinders are better are
saying this solely because;
-They are used to them.
-They believe they are esthetically more pleasing which really has
nothing to do with functionality.

What is the actual resolution in 3-color pixels for any of these EVFs?
Not 'dots'. Something like 320 x 480? Even a big 3-inch rear LCD (which
is awkward for any sort of normal shooting) has rather low resolution.

Sure you can zoom and get very precise focus but that's slow, tedious
and awkward as all heck, especially if you want to check two corners
while hand held framing the composition. Plus new DSLRs have live view
on the rear LCD.


Plus an EVF has more lag than an optical finder.

--
Peter

Paul Furman wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:29 am, wrote:
wrote:
wrote in

The USP (unique selling point) of Sony Alpha SLTs is fast phase
detect autofocus. But this has been implemented without any need
for a problematic pellicle mirror in Nikon's 1 cameras, which
have the fastest and most accurate AF system of any camera yet
made. That means that the pellicle mirror is completely
unnecessary.

Think of it as the dying, mutative gasp of DSLRs.

The DSLR won't die until an truly excellent electronic viewfinder is
available.

Aside from motion smear, the G1 EVF of four years ago was better than
optical viewfinders.
1. Easier by far to see at night or in any low light owing to
electronic gain.
2. MUCH easier to focus manually because 7-10x magnification could
be done in a second with one finger.
3. 100% match to true imaging area, something only higher-end DSLRs
had/have.

Motion smear was addressed in later Panasonic and Olympus EVFs.

The new Sony unit should be much better still.

The fact is, people who think optical viewfinders are better are
saying this solely because;
-They are used to them.
-They believe they are esthetically more pleasing which really has
nothing to do with functionality.

What is the actual resolution in 3-color pixels for any of these EVFs?
Not 'dots'. Something like 320 x 480?

The Panasonic G1/G2 EVF claims 1,440,000 dots, so = 480,000 RGB pixels, or
about 566 x 849. It's really nice and sharp, gains up well in low light and
offers 5x or 10x magnification for manual focusing. There is some image
tearing with movement, as you'd expect. It's too slight to bother me at all,
but then I don't do action stuff with this camera.

Even a big 3-inch rear LCD
(which is awkward for any sort of normal shooting) has rather low
resolution.

Some are a lot better than what they used to be, though. The 3" screen on
the Panasonic ZS6 and ZS7 has 460,000 dots, which I believe is just twice
the usual resolution of an older 3" LCD monitor.

Agreed, a rear panel is never going to be as satisfactory as a viewfinder.
On pocket cameras though they are very accurate, whereas small-camera
optical viewfinders are hopelessly inaccurate.


Sure you can zoom and get very precise focus but that's slow, tedious
and awkward as all heck, especially if you want to check two corners
while hand held framing the composition. Plus new DSLRs have live view
on the rear LCD.

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
[]
Some are a lot better than what they used to be, though. The 3" screen
on the Panasonic ZS6 and ZS7 has 460,000 dots, which I believe is just
twice the usual resolution of an older 3" LCD monitor.

But It's 0.15 MP. That's half VGA resolution.

640 x 480 x 3 = 921600 dots

David

In article , Bruce
wrote:

2. MUCH easier to focus manually because 7-10x magnification could be
done in a second with one finger.

Nothing is easier to focus manually, and accurately, than a good DSLR
with a split image rangefinder screen.

live view with 1:1 magnification is very definitely easier and *far*
more accurate.