Oh sorry, I thought that Futureshop was the BB equivalent in Canada, and that the BestBuy parent company simply acquired Futureshop and retained the name. I edited my post to remove the reference.
The point about the P&S market being dominated by smartphones is certainly a good one. Even my year old phone has a decent 5 megapixel camera, although the ergonomics as a cameras certainly aren't as good as a dedicated. Now with 8mp cameraphones coming out, it won't be long before the market for point and shoots are replaced by these phones.
There is no question about the market for a Full frame EVIL or even m43/Nex/X100, but I don't see how a 2.5x sensor will fit in. For my various reasons (some of which I listed above), I still feel that the EVIL cameras are in a market between the low level DSLRs and even past the pro-DSLR market, when pros decide they don't want such a heavy system.
I never realized that even an APS-C sensor was much larger than the Pentax Q (or P+S). I mean, I saw the wikipedia article on image sensor sizes, but to have them side by side, and have an actual sensor to look at, is completely different.
LightShow wrote:
But there is no denying that there is a market for a FF mirrorless sized between a P&S and a DSLR.
actual camera companies seem to be under the impression that there is some denying this. not sure if this is price thing - they think the market for small cameras is only really there for cheap cameras since consumers equate bigger with better (i thought this was mostly an american thing), or a development cost thing - the cost to design a whole new camera and lens line is to high for the perceived market at this point.
It'll be interesting to see where the market determines the sweet spot is. Undoubtedly, we'll have users of each system claiming that their sensor is as good as the next one bigger.
Forgot one:
Leica: 1:1
And Leica can't make enough lenses, and barely enough bodies at 'obscene' price levels. Doesn't this give Nikon/Canon a hint? Each has a rangefinder heritage, so they can claim some lineage to the form.
And Fuji at 1.5 (or 1.6) :1 is in high demand (with a quirky UI).
I had to break down last month and grab an M9. I've given up with 'waiting' for a decent small-profile high resolution camera. I was just lucky enough to have a shelf of lenses (including a 50/1) so I'm on my way relatively 'cheap'.
The M9 certainly can't replace my 5DII, but 70% of the time it works out fine, and much easier to carry and the "classic" ui is more intuitive than the Canon.
The Pantax Q and this Nikon will sell like crazy in Japan, China....
mostly with females and teens.
sebboh,
Bigger isn't always better, but better is always better...
What I'm trying to say is there is no substitute for quality, an example,
my mom buys a $5 watch, it lasts a year, then it dies,then she buys another,
I asked her, why not buy a better watch? because it was only $5.
where as I bought a $25 Timex 25+ years ago and it finally died last year, who came out ahead?
Same with camera equipment, if it feels like a cheap POS then I will avoid it.(Period, end of sentence)
I didn't buy the 1DIII because it was big and therefor better quality, I bought it because it has better quality,
If the G12 had the same quality(with interchangeable lenses, and a bigger sensor) I'd get one in a heartbeat.
Leica: 1:1
And Leica can't make enough lenses, and barely enough bodies at 'obscene' price levels. Doesn't this give Nikon/Canon a hint? Each has a rangefinder heritage, so they can claim some lineage to the form.
And Fuji at 1.5 (or 1.6) :1 is in high demand (with a quirky UI).
I had to break down last month and grab an M9. I've given up with 'waiting' for a decent small-profile high resolution camera. I was just lucky enough to have a shelf of lenses (including a 50/1) so I'm on my way relatively 'cheap'.
The M9 certainly can't replace my 5DII, but 70% of the time it works out fine, and much easier to carry and the "classic" ui is more intuitive than the Canon.
You're right, I did leave Leica out, but, even though Leica can barely make enough M9s to keep up, we're talking an entirely different sales scale compared to the big Japanese companies. Leica is certainly a boutique camera. The X100 (and X1,) of course, aren't ILCs.
LightShow wrote:
sebboh,
Bigger isn't always better, but better is always better...
What I'm trying to say is there is no substitute for quality, an example,
my mom buys a $5 watch, it lasts a year, then it dies,then she buys another,
I asked her, why not buy a better watch? because it was only $5.
where as I bought a $25 Timex 25+ years ago and it finally died last year, who came out ahead?
Same with camera equipment, if it feels like a cheap POS then I will avoid it.(Period, end of sentence)
I didn't buy the 1DIII because it was big and therefor better quality, I bought it because it has better quality,
If the G12 had the same quality(with interchangeable lenses, and a bigger sensor) I'd get one in a heartbeat.
that's all well and good but i'm not sure i understand the relevance of that to why nobody (other than leica) seems interested in building a FF mirrorless camera. for the record though, in my mind, bigger is always worse. you actually would have to pay me to carry a current pro level camera. there is no technical reason why pro cameras have to be big though.
The Samsung prototype camera that is propped up on its side in this pic would probably do very well, whether it be an aps-c sensor or larger...especially if there was an evf option.
oooh, that does look nice....especially if a large sensor is involved... I admit to drooling over an M9 and not being even close to affording one so if someone else brings an FF mirrorless to market with good files, a nice evf and a mount adaptable to M then I might just drop the 5D (which I love, but don't always like to carry )
morpheus2891 wrote:
oooh, that does look nice....especially if a large sensor is involved... I admit to drooling over an M9 and not being even close to affording one so if someone else brings an FF mirrorless to market with good files, a nice evf and a mount adaptable to M then I might just drop the 5D (which I love, but don't always like to carry )
agreed that does look pretty sweet. shame the NX format doesn't allow adapting m-mount lenses the way µ4/3 and NEX do.
sebboh wrote:
that's all well and good but i'm not sure i understand the relevance of that to why nobody (other than leica) seems interested in building a FF mirrorless camera. for the record though, in my mind, bigger is always worse. you actually would have to pay me to carry a current pro level camera. there is no technical reason why pro cameras have to be big though.
I have no idea why either, maybe it has to do with the ratio of FF sensors to crop sensors in dslr's,
and since crop lenses don't work with FF sensors, there is resistance to move in that direction.
So crop cams are popular because that's where the whole sensor transition thing started,
not because it was better but because it was cheaper, and the cost difference is still there for the most part,
companies seem to be stuck in the FF = niche thing, & M9 = niche so that has not helped change anything.
Till one of the manufactures releases a sub $1.5k FF cam, they will always be a niche.
In the image the body on the far left looks like an nx100 but with a silver section at the bottom, which is not on the production version so it could be the nx100 prototype, and the cube is a MF prototype that they now claim to have only developed it because they could, ya right. http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/new-samsung-interview-at-megapixel-1000mm-lens-new-pentax-adapter-and-new-sensor/ “We have the technology to develop a medium format cameras but we are not going to do that because this is not our market.“..:”What you see in the image was developed for internal purposes in order to look into future technologies.”
That leaves the thing on the right nx20?
And the RF looking body in the middle, which I hope is the nx200.
The knobs look to be(from the bottom up) the mode dial, then the exposure comp. dial, then I'm guessing shutter speed, leaving aperture via the iFunction on the lens.
Yeah, it's a shame that Samsung didn't design the NX mount with a shorter registration distance.
So from the data below it's the mound diameter & or the data contacts that make the Mmount glass not fit the NX system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount & http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html
Samsung NX: 25.5mm flange distance and ~41mm mount throat.
Sony NEX: 18 mm flange distance and ~46.1 mm mount throat.
micro4/3: 19.25 mm flange distance and ~38 mm mount throat.
Leica M: 27.8mm(27.95mm) flange distance and ~44mm mount throat.
LightShow wrote:
I have no idea why either, maybe it has to do with the ratio of FF sensors to crop sensors in dslr's,
and since crop lenses don't work with FF sensors, there is resistance to move in that direction.
So crop cams are popular because that's where the whole sensor transition thing started,
not because it was better but because it was cheaper, and the cost difference is still there for the most part,
companies seem to be stuck in the FF = niche thing, & M9 = niche so that has not helped change anything.
Till one of the manufactures releases a sub $1.5k FF cam, they will always be a niche. ...Show more →
indeed, there haven't been any signs that the comparative cost of a FF sensor to an aps-c sensor will decrease. in fact, the much higher level of research devoted to aps-c makes it likely that the ratio will actually increase. the only hope is that the cost of both will drop enough get a cheap FF camera. sad though it is because i would like to use the full image circle of my old lenses, i think FF will remain niche for some time. most people (even pros) just don't actually need FF and the need will continue to drop as aps-c continues to improve. i suspect FF digital will become what medium format was for film.
Leica: 1:1
And Leica can't make enough lenses, and barely enough bodies at 'obscene' price levels. Doesn't this give Nikon/Canon a hint? Each has a rangefinder heritage, so they can claim some lineage to the form.
And Fuji at 1.5 (or 1.6) :1 is in high demand (with a quirky UI).
I had to break down last month and grab an M9. I've given up with 'waiting' for a decent small-profile high resolution camera. I was just lucky enough to have a shelf of lenses (including a 50/1) so I'm on my way relatively 'cheap'.
The M9 certainly can't replace my 5DII, but 70% of the time it works out fine, and much easier to carry and the "classic" ui is more intuitive than the Canon.
The entire Japanese camera industry came to life around an obsession with leicas, which no one in Japan could afford.
If you think an M9 is expensive now, imagine wanting one in postwar Japan.
Leica had a powerfull strategy when confronted by the new LTM cameras and Lenses: act as if they do not exist.
So now, when Leica has a complete winner and proof of concept with the M9, Canon and Nikon do what? Act as if the camera does not exist!
The M9 performance speaks for itself, in spite of all the flaws.
The the plum of the first affordable EVIL FF in mini-RF style is just sitting there. Nikon has now proved they are blind--Canon has said as much about their plans.
The problem I believe is twofold. One is technical, the other is pride.
Angle of incidence - ccd architecture is better suited to close-to-symmetrical wide angles which allowfor the compact size of the lens. Every one of the big manufacturers have extolled the virtues of (and tooled their sensor manufacturing/r&d around) cmos! That would mean serious. Backtracking and loss of face, something a Japanese company will not do.
sebboh wrote:
i think you guys are operating under the mistaken impression that this camera is somehow aimed at you or that you represent a large chunk of the buying public. this camera is aimed at people for whom µ4/3, NEX, and NX are too big.
I understand where you're coming from but I kinda think there's no one there. That demographic is so small it can almost be counted on a person's toes and fingers. My guess would be that it's aimed at the mindless sheep who don't know and don't care what a sensor is. They buy on the brand:budget ratio almost exclusively. These types of clickers (should we take the leap and call them photographers?) probably represent 70 or 80% of the camera buying public. I guess that's who this camera is aimed at. Size? No it has a detachable lens system so it won't be significantly smaller than something like the GF3 - which is already too small to actually use, and of course it will be a giant compared to the last few rounds of P&S offerings - some of which are barely larger than my thumb, sport super-zoom ratios, are waterproof, shock-proof, and actually take damn nice pictures - as much as I hate to admit it.
So IMO Nikon's mirrorless design will be winning some of the Sheeple's Choice awards soon after it's released but almost no one in-the-know will buy it cuz it smaller than m4/3 or because m4/3 is too big.
But hey, what do I know, I called myself crazy the day I awoke to find everyone roaming the streets with portable telephones pressed against their heads, which caused me to question the very fabric of my reality. 10 years later I still can not believe it's real.
thrice wrote:
The problem I believe is twofold. One is technical, the other is pride.
Angle of incidence - ccd architecture is better suited to close-to-symmetrical wide angles which allowfor the compact size of the lens. Every one of the big manufacturers have extolled the virtues of (and tooled their sensor manufacturing/r&d around) cmos! That would mean serious. Backtracking and loss of face, something a Japanese company will not do.
Sony was still making CCD DSLRs a year ago, so their complete use of CMOS is relatively recent. Either way, I don't believe there to be an incident angle light ray advantage to CCD. See this: Link
@Bif: Do you think that "clickers" () could be bothered to change lenses (and carry around a set of different ones, etc.)? Maybe they would just assume that it's better than compacts and never change the kit lens (which I'm sure happens with a LOT of users of entry level DSLRs)...
Bifurcator wrote:
I understand where you're coming from but I kinda think there's no one there. That demographic is so small it can almost be counted on a person's toes and fingers. My guess would be that it's aimed at the mindless sheep who don't know and don't care what a sensor is. They buy on the brand:budget ratio almost exclusively. These types of clickers (should we take the leap and call them photographers?) probably represent 70 or 80% of the camera buying public. I guess that's who this camera is aimed at. Size? No it has a detachable lens system so it won't be significantly smaller than something like the GF3 - which is already too small to actually use, and of course it will be a giant compared to the last few rounds of P&S offerings - some of which are barely larger than my thumb, sport super-zoom ratios, are waterproof, shock-proof, and actually take damn nice pictures - as much as I hate to admit it.
So IMO Nikon's mirrorless design will be winning some of the Sheeple's Choice awards soon after it's released but almost no one in-the-know will buy it cuz it smaller than m4/3 or because m4/3 is too big.
But hey, what do I know, I called myself crazy the day I awoke to find everyone roaming the streets with portable telephones pressed against their heads, which caused me to question the very fabric of my reality. 10 years later I still can not believe it's real.
indeed, if you don't understand the appeal of small cell phones or cell phones at all, i certainly wouldn't take your advice on what will sell well in the consumer electronics industry. the sheep demographic is the most prized demographic. nobody wants to sell things to people who depend on the product being good - that would require making a good product, which is hard.
)
