The size of the future

[traveler_101]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't think 4/3rds will go away, look at the OM-D big demand. Any way it's not the cameras it is the size of the lenses. Lots of guys want smaller cameras with a good range of SMALLER lenses. Something that won't break the bank or your back. And the same guys also have Iphones.. Different cameras for different reasons.

 

Just my 2 cents..

.Hey is film cameras dead yet? Depends on who you ask, Leica still makes the MP right.

 

+1

 

D-preview's approval (gold rating) for the new Olympus E-M5 is huge. Their comments on the sensor size, in particular, fly in the face of conventional wisdom and echo what has been said on M43 discussion boards for some time:

 

"The E-M5 can't completely overcome the light capture disadvantage brought by its smaller sensor, compared to APS-C, but it reduces it to the point that it's irrelevant for almost all practical purposes. At which point we think its size advantage, in terms of both body and lenses, will outweigh that difference for most uses."

 

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Review: Digital Photography Review

 

So Bergquist is not 100% wrong. The low end cameras will disappear in favor of the new camera phone, but the 43 sensor seems to have shown that it is good enough to stake out its own niche.

[250swb]

+1

 

D-preview's approval (gold rating) for the new Olympus E-M5 is huge. Their comments on the sensor size, in particular, fly in the face of conventional wisdom and echo what has been said on M43 discussion boards for some time:

 

"The E-M5 can't completely overcome the light capture disadvantage brought by its smaller sensor, compared to APS-C, but it reduces it to the point that it's irrelevant for almost all practical purposes. At which point we think its size advantage, in terms of both body and lenses, will outweigh that difference for most uses."

 

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Review: Digital Photography Review

 

I think Mr Sexton wrote his article long before the E-M5, but elbowed it into his musings just to bring the article up to date. Unfortunately he was still using opinions formed even longer ago than when he put pen to paper. The E-M5 example alone makes his article sound very silly and shallow, lacking in real research to back up his views.

 

The garbage Mr Sexton comes out with is ideally placed to appeal to the grumpy old man. It is the up to date condensation of what I suspect were opinions started when as a child he was scared by an AF SLR, more an insight into his mind than photography and its way forward.

 

Steve

[lars_bergquist]

Let me recapitulate and answer some arguments here.

 

First, don't downrate Richard Sexton. Remember, he has written an essay – a format that has been with us, highly regarded, since Michel de Montaigne in the 1500's – and not a text message. Not even a Leica User Forum posting. And I find that first part of his essay both valuable and logically connected to the rest. It does help to remove our gearhead blinkers, and help us see camera technology as part of a wider technological civilization, one which is nevertheless still driven by social forces. It's a healthy thing to remember that.

 

One factual error that Sexton makes is the claim that AF is faster and more accurate than manual focusing. More accurate it is not, very definitely. The dedicated-sensor AF system of a DSLR is indeed faster, at least in decent light, but contrast-based on-sensor AF is not, especially not in bad light. M-style focusing is not 'obsolete'. It does of course have a learning curve, which is admittedly damning in this 'please every lazy fool' age. And zone focusing is faster than any AF system.

 

I do not agree with him that there will be a brutal culling of sensor formats, leaving only APS-C and 35mm (and a few odd medium formats) in the end. In the past, film was a mass consumer commodity, and subject to the ensuing market logic. There was a progressive culling of roll film sizes after WW1. First went the sizes that were larger then 120/620. The Vest Pocket (VP) size hung on, in 4x6 1/2cm, 3x4cm and 4x4cm – remember those cute Baby Rolleis? – until the 1960's. True miniature sizes below 35mm proved short-lived. 120 was the last successful film size Kodak launched, and that was in the Edwardian Age!

 

But sensors are not over-the-desk items. Each camera can have its own size, in principle. The M8 had its own size. And the S2. Scale economies have more to do with the basic silicon architecture than with the ultimate size of the chip. For instance, I suspect – and secretly regret – that the new Leica EVIL camera will use a M8/APS-H-like sensor size.

 

I do however think he's right about the smaller sizes. My dealer told me that in 2011 the sales of compact cameras dropped by 40%. Anecdotal evidence, but I think it is significant. Most people don't want prints to hang on the wall (my walls are already fully covered). Most people don't want to do Art but simply an occasional adequate record shot. And a smartphone will give them that, without an extra item to carry. It is quite natural that this culling process begins with the smallest sizes. So the fact that some 4/3 cameras still sell well does not say much. The usual gear reviews in the usual sites say even less – these people give good marks to what they are used to.

 

But above all, Leica's future hangs on the new camera. They will surf or sink with it.

 

The grumpy old man from the Brass Age

[jaapv]

Exactly that is my interpretation of design follows function.

That is not the common interpretation of " form follows function" (the correct term as used by the originator, Louis Sullivan) There is the component that the function is immediately deducable from the form. With current multifunctional gear that is quite impossible. Take the iPhone. How could one tell that something the form of a slab of chocolate is for making telephone calls? And even then, where is the camera function expressed? Or the fact that it is a calculator? An e-mail communicator? Etc.Today we are seeing User Interface design, the function is so well integrated into the form that you can use the device intuitively without thinking about it. At least if you are not a dim fogey like me. That calls for an integration of physical and electronic design which can be presented in a patently non- form follows function minimalistic package, like the iPhone. UI design is the successor of FFF.

Probably that is one of the reasons we like the M8/9. The electronics are non-integrated in the mechanicals and one can see which mechanical function goes where. The antithesis of UI design. Which can be understood by said old fogey

[rosuna]

 

One factual error that Sexton makes is the claim that AF is faster and more accurate than manual focusing. More accurate it is not, very definitely. The dedicated-sensor AF system of a DSLR is indeed faster, at least in decent light, but contrast-based on-sensor AF is not, especially not in bad light. M-style focusing is not 'obsolete'. It does of course have a learning curve, which is admittedly damning in this 'please every lazy fool' age. And zone focusing is faster than any AF system.

 

I do not agree with him that there will be a brutal culling of sensor formats, leaving only APS-C and 35mm (and a few odd medium formats) in the end. In the past, film was a mass consumer commodity, and subject to the ensuing market logic. There was a progressive culling of roll film sizes after WW1. First went the sizes that were larger then 120/620. The Vest Pocket (VP) size hung on, in 4x6 1/2cm, 3x4cm and 4x4cm – remember those cute Baby Rolleis? – until the 1960's. True miniature sizes below 35mm proved short-lived. 120 was the last successful film size Kodak launched, and that was in the Edwardian Age!

 

But sensors are not over-the-desk items. Each camera can have its own size, in principle. The M8 had its own size. And the S2. Scale economies have more to do with the basic silicon architecture than with the ultimate size of the chip. For instance, I suspect – and secretly regret – that the new Leica EVIL camera will use a M8/APS-H-like sensor size.

 

 

I fully agree with those ideas Lars.

 

In my opinion the Leica EVIL design principles has to be set thinking in the future and the synergies with other products in Leica's portfolio. Any new "me too" system, like the R system was, is a terrible mistake.

[jaques]

Louis Sullivan said, 'form follows ever function' but the term was not coined by him but date to the 18th century I think. I can't remember who. Sullivan's most famous disciple Frank Lloyd Wright put it this way, qualifying Sullivan's principle:

 

"Form follows function - that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union."

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is quite natural that this culling process begins with the smallest sizes. So the fact that some 4/3 cameras still sell well does not say much.

 

 

Strange logic Lars, especially as the most heard comment is that people are getting fed up of carting around huge camera systems. And consider the dinosaurs, they died, not the small and perfectly adapted mammals.

 

As regards your comment that zone focus is faster than AF, well yes I agree, if you don't mind things being more or less in focus. It is a specialised comment that wouldn't impress a wildlife photographer with a telephoto lens, a sports photographer, or anybody who shoots a portrait or does a macro shot. So for most photograpers fast AF does win most of the time against zone focus.

 

Steve

[jaapv]

Yes - but as a wildlife photographer I am not impressed by the the AF speed argument. Critical focus on for instance the eye is essential, so the speed at which focus is missed is not relevant. That means standard AF systems won't work on for instance a bird, so you need to assign a follow-focus point. Which is both slower and less accurate than manual focus.

[lct]

As far as DoF is concerned, smaller sensors don't imply smaller lenses at all. One needs a 25/0.95 lens on 4/3 to get the same results as a 35/1.4 on APS-C. The smaller and cheaper lens is the latter by far.

 

CV 25/0.95

- Size: 58 x 70 mm

- Weight: 410 g

- Price: $ 1,200

 

CV 35/1.4

- Size: 29 x 55 mm

- Weight: 200 g

- Price: $ 630

[leicanut2]

+1

 

D-preview's approval (gold rating) for the new Olympus E-M5 is huge. Their comments on the sensor size, in particular, fly in the face of conventional wisdom and echo what has been said on M43 discussion boards for some time:

 

"The E-M5 can't completely overcome the light capture disadvantage brought by its smaller sensor, compared to APS-C, but it reduces it to the point that it's irrelevant for almost all practical purposes. At which point we think its size advantage, in terms of both body and lenses, will outweigh that difference for most uses."

 

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Review: Digital Photography Review

 

So Bergquist is not 100% wrong. The low end cameras will disappear in favor of the new camera phone, but the 43 sensor seems to have shown that it is good enough to stake out its own niche.

 

YES +2

[leicanut2]

As far as DoF is concerned, smaller sensors don't imply smaller lenses at all. One needs a 25/0.95 lens on 4/3 to get the same results as a 35/1.4 on APS-C. The smaller and cheaper lens is the latter by far.

 

CV 25/0.95

- Size: 58 x 70 mm

- Weight: 410 g

- Price: $ 1,200

 

CV 35/1.4

- Size: 29 x 55 mm

- Weight: 200 g

- Price: $ 630

 

Very true these are bigger and a bit heavy ( I own cv 25/0.95 and cv 17.5/ 0.95 ) but there more specialty lenses. Can't wait to try them on a OM-D

I also own the 100-300mm theres a good example size 2.89 x 4.96 inches 1.14 lb

Travel lenses like oly 12mm or panny 20mm and 14mm small small. Small GX1 body perfect interchangeable travel kit. If you like small and light.

Don't get me wrong I loved my leicas threw the years but I want to be able to eat and pay my bills now.

[lars_bergquist]

I remember when Pentax made an interchangeable-lens SLR camera for 110 film. It created quite a stir, but it proved to be a novelty and it had no successors. And Leica had a production-ready high quality 110 camera, but fortunately they squelched it in the last moment.

 

Fads always come and go. The digital revolution has removed many old barriers, and the result has been some wild experimentation. It's all part of the evolution game, and has its organic counterparts. During the time 3.5–2 million years ago the hominids saw some explosive branching out, for reasons that we only dimly understand. Probably one main factor was the glacial age drying out and spontaneous deforestation of East Africa. But the fact is that it has only been during the last 20.000 years, a mere instant of geological history, that we have been the only human species on Earth.

 

The fact is that while formerly, technology was a limiting factor, and most things that could be done were worthwhile, today technology enables us to do lots of things of which only a few are worthwhile. Remember the digital wristwatch? Today even my mobile phone has an analog time display with virtual hands, if I should prefer that. So we are passing through a time of exuberant experimentation, but time will show what's viable and what is not.

 

Photography will remain with us and with it, tools for those that want or have to use it seriously.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[lct]

...Small GX1 body perfect interchangeable travel kit. If you like small and light...

I do like small and light as well but i like optical blur too. 4/3 cams need one more f-stop than APS-C's from this standpoint. This pretty well ruins the size and weight argument IMHO, unless photogs don't care about DoF of course.

[250swb]

Yes - but as a wildlife photographer I am not impressed by the the AF speed argument. Critical focus on for instance the eye is essential, so the speed at which focus is missed is not relevant. That means standard AF systems won't work on for instance a bird, so you need to assign a follow-focus point. Which is both slower and less accurate than manual focus.

 

Yes but you wouldn't zone focus with a long telephoto would you. Or would you?

 

Steve

[250swb]

I do like small and light as well but i like optical blur too. 4/3 cams need one more f-stop than APS-C's from this standpoint. This pretty well ruins the size and weight argument IMHO, unless photogs don't care about DoF of course.

 

In CS6 I understand there is a defocusing utility that will create any DOF effect you want.

 

Steve

[thighslapper]

Well.... I've read everything so far and there are so many flaws in all the arguments that I feel distinctly befuddled.....

 

I have always had some concerns with the photographic market as to how much the market leads the consumer and how much the consumer leads the market......

 

The big players are very canny at getting us to believe the next generation of technology is something we cannot live without.....

 

The Camera market is not homogenous and I can't subscribe to the 'were all off down the 4/3 road'. What I can agree with is the fact that the mobile phone has blown a big hole in the compact camera market for the casual snapper.....

 

For the true Photographer that goes out looking for things to record there is a finite limit to the smallness of the gear below which it becomes a functional pain in the ar*e to use. It's fine if everything is on Auto, but when you come to tinkering with settings I find even the X100 a bit small and fiddly. That's nothing to do with sensor size, which to be frank is entirely irrelevant these days in terms of camera design from a functionality viewpoint.

[lars_bergquist]

[ ... ]

For the true Photographer that goes out looking for things to record there is a finite limit to the smallness of the gear below which it becomes a functional pain in the ar*e to use. It's fine if everything is on Auto, but when you come to tinkering with settings I find even the X100 a bit small and fiddly.

 

It's about as small and fiddly as a Leica IIIf. That's OK with me. For you, it depends on your hands.

 

That's nothing to do with sensor size, which to be frank is entirely irrelevant these days in terms of camera design from a functionality viewpoint.

 

Well, a larger sensor means lenses that must cover a larger image circle, meaning larger lenses.

 

Look at the S2. The body is no larger than any pro-grade DSLR from Canon or Nikon. But even the 70mm 'standard lens' looks and feels humonguous, and it's the combination that counts. At least until Leica bring out some compact lenses, but then they will be slower.

 

The old man from the Age of the IIIa

[Ellie]

About the high scores of Olympus E-M5 dpreview writes: "Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category."

 

I myself found the image quality I was looking for in the M9, not in any of the smaller format cameras.

[magosak]

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Review: Digital Photography Review

 

Pick M9 to compare. Olympus OM-D E-M5 looks pretty good to me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

I do like small and light as well but i like optical blur too. 4/3 cams need one more f-stop than APS-C's from this standpoint. This pretty well ruins the size and weight argument IMHO, unless photogs don't care about DoF of course.

 

But the opposite argument can be made too. The lenses can be smaller if you prefer greater depth of field and that is what many users simply want - overall sharp photos. Photography has steadily gone from larger to smaller cameras. (Pro size DSLRs being about the last widely used holdout.)

 

As for the function aspect (I'll leave out form and design)... what is the function of today's camera? Not to typically make 4x6 prints or to project slides anymore. Some are used to make larger prints but most are probably used to make internet postings. Plus video clips are also popular.

 

The big issue I see is that camera manufacturers will have to stop looking at the camera as an isolated object and see it as an integrated communication device as that is how it will more commonly be used in the future. (It is already there to some degree... Leica users and some others aside.)

 

This is why cell phone cameras (and Instagram) are so popular and their features are becoming more of a factor when someone chooses a phone. For instance I chose an HTC Amaze primarily because it has hard buttons on the device that activate the still and video modes even when the phone is off. And those buttons work as shutter release and start stop video buttons too. The camera has 8 megapixels, sweep panorama and other modes. I find it extremely handy, even once for professional work... I found some software that let's me adjust convergence and used it for building scouting shots that I sent to my client. This was easier for this application than using my "camera."

 

So while higher end cameras will always have some features that separate them from cell phones those differences will steadily narrow and camera makers will need to integrate some of these features if they want people to use their "camera" instead of their phone. You almost always have your cell phone with you but you may need a reason to bring your camera.