Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Non Rangefinder Cameras > CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras -

CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras - This new category of digital Compact System Cameras with interchangeable lenses was mislabeled for a time as "Mirrorless Cameras" by those forgetting about "Mirrorless" Rangefinder cameras.  Such confusion is easily understandable, since interchangeable rangefinder cameras were only recently introduced in 1932.  hmm.    CSC or Compact System Camera is probably the best category description to date, although I am fond of the old RFF desigation of  CEVIL  indicating Compact Electronic Viewfidner Interchangeable Lens.   This forum is here at RFF because via adapters these cameras offer an inexpensive way to use rangefinder lenses on digital cameras -- in addition of just about every 35mm SLR lens you can think of.  All  offer the photo enthusiast an incredible array of adopted lenses which was not possible before these new digital formats.   This group continues to grow in popularity and new camera models! 

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Wall Street Journal article on the booming market for mirrorless digital cameras
Old 04-16-2012   #1
steelydam
Registered User
 
steelydam's Avatar
 
steelydam is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 242
Wall Street Journal article on the booming market for mirrorless digital cameras

Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony mentioned prominently. Sounds like these companies are selling a lot of them. Good for them, good for us. Link below:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._sections_tech
__________________
Film rules!
35 mm rangefinders and SLRs, 645 medium format, sometimes digital.

My Flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/21659860@N07/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2012   #2
ray*j*gun
Registered User
 
ray*j*gun's Avatar
 
ray*j*gun is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 1,778
Micro 4/3 sensors are quit small aren't they?
__________________
Raymond
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2012   #3
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray*j*gun View Post
Micro 4/3 sensors are quit small aren't they?
The same thing was said about APS-C sensors not long ago.

Relative sizes of sensors.
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2012   #4
chris00nj
Young Luddite
 
chris00nj's Avatar
 
chris00nj is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 1,022
Some interesting statistics in that article. 75% of SLR users are male, but 70% of mirrorless users are female.
__________________
My Camera Family


Flickr

Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2012   #5
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,086
It's funny because males will complain about the size and weight of SLRs, but women actually do something about it!
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2012   #6
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,361
"The new cameras especially are a hit among Japanese women. Budding female photo enthusiasts in the country are known as Camera Girls, and manufacturers are targeting them with nontraditional camera colors such as "fiery pink" and "sensual brown." The companies also offer accessories such as camera straps and cases meant to appeal to women."

Haha. I thought Leicas were the only fashion accessory cameras.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2012   #7
Paul Luscher
Registered User
 
Paul Luscher is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray*j*gun View Post
Micro 4/3 sensors are quit small aren't they?

I've been shooting for four years with the Olympus E-3, which has a 4/3 sensor. I've been quite happy with the results. Given the advances in technology, I can't buy into the idea that "size does matter" re sensors, and that they have to be big to be any good.

I'm looking forward to the EM-5. The advantages of a rangefinder (small size, quiet operation, quick shooting), with the features of a DSLR. KInda like the old OMs....
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2012   #8
cmedin
Registered User
 
cmedin is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Age: 40
Posts: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray*j*gun View Post
Micro 4/3 sensors are quit small aren't they?
Well, they are to APS-C what APS-C is to full frame.

Personally, the only issue I can find with shooting 4/3 is that if you are into very thin depth of field your options are limited. But other than that, I find no negatives about my E-M5 + 20/1.7 combo. Absolutely razor sharp optics and lovely rendering, and the dynamic range of the E-M5 puts my FF 1DsII to shame.

Also, check this out:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/0...-iso/#comments
__________________
http://storpotaten.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2012   #9
stewmander
Registered User
 
stewmander is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 77
I too am becoming less concerned with sensor size, now that the pixel wars seem to have slowed, it seems sensor size isnt such an important factor once your above the super tine P&S sensors. I am looking at the Oly EP sieres of cameras now...

Depth of field is the main issue with the non full frame sensors, but there are always ways around that
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2012   #10
easyrider
Photo addict
 
easyrider is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 395
I have not been paying much attention to these "mirrorless" cameras but last weekend I attended a photo show here in Toronto and was able to play with a Nikon V1. Very impressive.

Nikon had a guest speaker, Vancouver photographer Nick Didlick, who uses these for sports and also showed a video shot with the camera. Very impressive and I will certainly consider it in the future. I shoot with a D300 and Canon s90 that I carry with me but the small size and excellent quality of the V1 blew me away.
I also own two screw mount Leicas (IIIb and IIIc) and a Rollei Automat 3.5 as wel as a Rollei 35 but these are mainly to play with although my grandson is being taught to develop film at his school so they may get more frequent use.

Here is Nick Didlick's web page:
http://nickdidlick.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2012   #11
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 6,546
(D)SLR is old tech, mirrorless (digital) will soon become the old SLR style of the future; IMHO........................ As you all know; women are always right.
  Reply With Quote

And as Women are prone to say....
Old 05-31-2012   #12
kuzano
Registered User
 
kuzano is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,749
And as Women are prone to say....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thardy View Post
It's funny because males will complain about the size and weight of SLRs, but women actually do something about it!
It's not the size that counts, it's how well you wield it!!!

And to answer the other uninformed poster, the 4/3, and same size micro 4/3 sensor is not a small sensor in the sense of size related to Point/Shoot. It is only marginally smaller than the APS-C sensors in the current crop DX cameras of Canon and Nikon.

Here is a chart comparing sizes. The 4/3 and same size micro 4/3 sensor is about four up the chart from the APS-C used by Canon. To make matters a little more vague... APS-C is not a standard. There are small size differences between one MFRs APS-C and anothers.

http://www.jeffreysward.com/editorials/sensorsz.htm
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2012   #13
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,876
What counts in terms of signal quality is the sensor surface area because surface area determines the maximum photon count possible.

With total areas of 864 mm squared for 24x36, 370 for APS-C and 225 for m4/3 sensors, the differences are not small.

Of course sensor pitch, and several other factors significantly impact the overall performance of a sensor as a system. So the surface area only affects the upper limit of performance.

It is clear m4/3 sensors perform well and they getting better. Physics does not support the claim that the very best small sensor performance is similar to the performance of the very best larger sensors.

Today, it is certainly true cameras with smaller sensor areas perform at a high level. The m4/3 system's commercial success represents irrefutable evidence large numbers of photographers find the m4/3 smaller sensor area does not compromise their goals. This means people can enjoy the advantages of a compact camera without significant penalty. But it does not mean a larger sensor area with a similar overall efficiency is no longer important. There will always be situations where more signal makes a significant difference in image quality.

Does anyone buy the highest performing m4/3 camera because it's sensor outperforms the highest performing APS-C equipped camera? Convenience is only reason I carry an APS-C mirrorless camera with me everyday instead of a DSLR with 24x36 mm sensor.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

Self-Induced Transparency Photography, FLICKR, Professional Portfolio.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 18:46.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.