Last days of the DSLR?

PB_PM

Nope .. as I mentioned earlier my D70 flash synced to 1/8000 .. the 1/500 was an artificial limitation set by nikon firmware. shutters below 1/200 was mechanical .. above that it was electronic.

Wrong, it's native flash sync speed was 1/500s. It could, like modern bodies achieve faster flash sync speeds with auto FP, but that is not the native flash sync speed. 8-|

henrik1963

Nikon has done a lot in the FX line - not a lot of holes for most work. Where Nikon has big holes is in the DX line - missing D400 - missing wide angle lenses and so on. My guess is that it is in the DX line we will see the first "new tech" cameras - be it mirror less or electronic shutter or .........

One indication that this might be the case is that Canon is not doing a lot better in DX. They both know what is around the corner tech wise. I think both Canon and Nikon is letting all the small players make all the beginner mistakes - then they both come out with something that will clean the table.

We will see less mechanical parts and more electronic parts in cameras - beginning now. What is the first mechanical part to go? I don't know. But they will slowly start to go away.

WestEndBoy

I think that they are not doing anything in DX because there is no future in DX.

Regarding beginner mistakes, they are letting Sony make those mistakes with mirrorless full frame.

kyoshinikon

Regarding beginner mistakes, they are letting Sony make those mistakes with mirrorless full frame.

Just like Olympus made the mistake of live view, minolta the mistake of professional autofocus, or contax made the mistake of a fullframe digital body... I've been saying it for years Canikon no longer innovates but instead uses smaller companies for much of their R&D and only improves on what is out there

PB_PM

Olympus has also changed lens mounts 2 times in the last ten years. Not exactly a company you can trust for long term lens support. Considering that Sony now owns a majority share in Olympus, how long do you think it will be before the company changes things around again?

kyoshinikon

While Pentax is not the innovator of the 5 DSLR manafaturers it could be a world class player if it wanted to. Their top "Dx" model has been better than canikons offering twice in a row. Olympus had potential in the pro market but they took 2 huge turns that proved they dont even want it. It is all about producing a stellar product and marketing it. Canon went from being an olympus and minolta to being the industry standard not only because of their product but their marketing. They targeted the next gen photographers a strategy they use to this day.

PB_PM

Pentax could do well, as you say. The biggest problem Pentax has is auto focus. Reviewers are saying that even the K-3 has slower, less accurate, auto focus than the D300s and Canon 7D.

heartyfisher

Nope .. as I mentioned earlier my D70 flash synced to 1/8000 .. the 1/500 was an artificial limitation set by nikon firmware. shutters below 1/200 was mechanical .. above that it was electronic.

Wrong, it's native flash sync speed was 1/500s. It could, like modern bodies achieve faster flash sync speeds with auto FP, but that is not the native flash sync speed. 8-|

What the !! .. the forum ate my post twice ..!! sigh too lazy to type it all in again.. see the link :-( sorry..

http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00ArJ6

Ok let me add this bit that got lost twice! .. the D70 not only can flash sync at 1/8000 .. at 1/8000 it actually grabs the full sensor image at 1/8000 and not a stitched slice of the image as the opening shutter and closing shutter travels the width of the sensor. ie the time it took to take the 1/8000 second shot is about 1/200 seconds on all conventional cameras. (which is the same with the FP sync flash ) not so with the D70. Nikon missed a marketing opportunity with the D70.

spraynpray

hearty, I'm struggling to see what you mean. The time for the pulse of light from a flash-gun makes even 1/8000th of a second look like a long time so AFAIK the only way to use flash at more than the fastest shutter speed that the sensor is uncovered completely is to have a longer pulse hence high speed sync.

Are you saying that the D70 had some magic in it and can you explain what that magic is? Intrigued here. :-B

heartyfisher

No magic .. its the difference between the slower CMOS that all modern cameras have and the CCD that the D70 and a few of the old DSLR had.

The CCD sensor is fast enough to implement an electronic shutter. ie it can turn on the whole sensor and turn it off again in an instant.( the D1 had 1/16000 shutter speed. ) so when the sensor is "on" the whole surface area of the sensor is on. whether the light came from the sun(continous light) or from a flash(a pulse of say 1/20000 sec) it does not matter the whole sensor is on and captures all the photons it can while its on..

on the other hand a CMOS sensor is much slower. It takes a bit more time to turn on and turn off.. not only that, it takes time to spread a the "on" across the surface of the sensor(remember the dreaded rubbery video)
So it turns on behind the shutter.. the shutter fires.. and takes about 1/200 second to travel the height of the sensor. the sensor is safely behind the shutter again and the sensor drains the photonic energy it captured while the mechanical shutter was open. even though the shutter setting says 1/8000 of a second what happens is that the opening shutter blade starts and uncovers about a mm or 2 of the sensor and then the closing shutter fires and follows the opening shutter as it traverses the sensor surface. A slit of light scans across the surface of the sensor. the scan takes about 1/200 second cos thats how fast the shutter can travel.

So if you take a photo at 1/8000 second of a vertical stick travelling from left to right at high speed you will get an image of a stretched and slanted stick. (refer: rubbery wobbly video) take the same picture at 1/8000 sec with a D70 and you will get a straight vertical stick as it should be..

Take the same photo with a flash as the light source and you will get a thin horizontal line at the bottom of the image. with the D70 you will get an image on the the whole surface of the sensor even with a flash. thus we have the amazing a 1/8000 flash sync of the D70!

heartyfisher

Nope .. as I mentioned earlier my D70 flash synced to 1/8000 .. the 1/500 was an artificial limitation set by nikon firmware. shutters below 1/200 was mechanical .. above that it was electronic.

Wrong, it's native flash sync speed was 1/500s. It could, like modern bodies achieve faster flash sync speeds with auto FP, but that is not the native flash sync speed. 8-|

Nope.. (sigh i wrote a nice comment but it got eaten by teh forum ) .. well this link will have to do ..
http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00ArJ6

heartyfisher

lol my ghost posts are surfacing !! :-)

spraynpray

No magic .. its the difference between the slower CMOS that all modern cameras have and the CCD that the D70 and a few of the old DSLR had.

The CCD sensor is fast enough to implement an electronic shutter. ie it can turn on the whole sensor and turn it off again in an instant.( the D1 had 1/16000 shutter speed. ) so when the sensor is "on" the whole surface area of the sensor is on. whether the light came from the sun (continuous light) or from a flash(a pulse of say 1/20000 sec) it does not matter the whole sensor is on and captures all the photons it can while its on..

Thanks for explaining that. I missed the whole D70 era with Nikon and so I had no idea about the difference in speed of the actual sensors.

heartyfisher

Nope .. as I mentioned earlier my D70 flash synced to 1/8000 .. the 1/500 was an artificial limitation set by nikon firmware. shutters below 1/200 was mechanical .. above that it was electronic.

Wrong, it's native flash sync speed was 1/500s. It could, like modern bodies achieve faster flash sync speeds with auto FP, but that is not the native flash sync speed. 8-|

Nope.. (sigh i wrote a nice comment but it got eaten by teh forum ) .. well this link will have to do ..
http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00ArJ6

lol! one of my ghost postings surfaced !

Let me celebrate with one of my 1/8000 flash sync photos from long ago.. !

heartyfisher

lol another one !! Haha .. what's with the forum !

PB_PM

Must be the crack you're smoking...

Nuke

So how do you read this blog;
http://photorumors.com/2013/12/09/the-future-of-the-canon-eos-m-mirrorless-system/
and this comment in particular;
"Canon is also considering the possibility to make a more semi pro if not pro mirrorless cameras"

In the past, as Canon moved, Nikon moved or vise versa. Thoughts?

TaoTeJared

@Heartyfisher - you need to "clear your cache"

I'm not sure if the sync speed was due to the CCD vs CMOS specifically. The V1/2 and many other CMOS have electronic shutters that are in the stratosphere. Maybe it was just one of those "time period" limitations. But your specs on the D70 and some older bodies are correct. I do know the shutters changed (newer/updated design) and became much more robust - I'm guessing that had a lot to do with it as well. I do recall something did change in a big way that forced that change. Many were disjointed by it too.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

The CCD is better than the CMOS for a lot of reasons. It reads faster. The CMOS, as earlier noted, reads, from top, left to right, then top to bottom.

The CMOS is cheaper to build and much easier on batteries. I doubt we'll go back to CCD, but our pictures would likely benefit if we did.

As for lighter cameras similar to the Sony A7, for who has been on assignment for weeks, even months without the benefit of any relief of home - I can say for me that lighter and smaller is better in any universe that you have to carry on your back for miles and miles in precarious conditions - I would and have sacrificed bells and whistles for some space in my pack.

_I'm guessing_ that today's guys and gals are using a lot of Canon gear for news. It's what I see at places I travel to. It works for news bits. Panasonic GH series cameras work well, too. It would be on my list, too. They are some of the very best quick and dirty video cameras around.

Those who pooh-pooh video, don't serve a buyer of product. That's fine, but some of us have to pay bills the tools we buy, and these products are mutli-purpose and need to produce great stills and video and provide audio options, too.

If Nikon wants to keep in the news market, it should look at Sony's camera closely. What they offer for the future of news, street photography, and all similar types of photography is really something and make sure the video is competitive.

My best,

Mike

Ade

Hi all,
The CCD is better than the CMOS for a lot of reasons. It reads faster. The CMOS, as earlier noted, reads, from top, left to right, then top to bottom.

Hi Mike. CCD is actually much slower to read than CMOS. That's because a CCD readout is inherently a serial operation, whereas a CMOS data readout can be made highly parallel. The CMOS imaging pipeline is much (much!) faster than the CCD equivalent.

As heartyfisher mentioned, the main CCD advantage for photography / videography is the global electronic shutter. However, only certain types of CCDs have this type of shutter (other types of CCD require a mechanical shutter just like CMOS). Also, the electronic shutter comes at a high price: poor high-ISO performance and low megapixels.

Hence virtually every high fps, high megapixel, and high ISO camera today uses CMOS instead of CCD. Certain technologies, such as contrast detect AF, also require the high-speed readout of CMOS sensors.

Lastly, it's actually possible to implement a global electronic shutter on a CMOS sensor. They already exist for special applications.

Correlli

Very interesting discussion going on here. I just sold my D700 and went for an Olympus E-M1 because the size is much closer to my old FM2/FM3a than any current camera is. I don't think that the size of current cameras is really due to the mirror box but rather due to all the electronics and batteries that need to fit into the housing. The first SLR cameras were small (like the FM2 and similar cameras from other companies). Only when all the electronics were introduced the size of the bodies increased.

In the past, as Canon moved, Nikon moved or vise versa. Thoughts?

My reason for changing from Nikon to Olympus was exactly this: I doubted that Nikon will do a semi-pro mirrorless cameras anytime soon. The Nikon 1 series has got models that would most likely be good enough for what I do, but the lens lineup of mFT is simply much larger and - in my opinion - better.

Now if Canon moves that way I am sure Nikon has to follow if they do not want to loose marked share and options for future models.

The future starts now. Let's see what it brings for us.

TaoTeJared

I got to play with the Sony A7 and the Oly Em-1 and both are very, very nice. Like MikeGunter said, if you are looking to lighten your load and have the IQ, the Sony really fits the bill and if your don't need the maga resolution the EM-1 with it's lens line-up is fantastic. Every lens for the Sony is about $800 as well which is a bit steep but the Zeiss designs are better to see than cheap-o ones. Olympus/Panasonic high end glass isn't cheap either. As I have priced stuff out, really these systems are maybe 20% cheaper to own than a D800 with a "full" set-up. They will weigh 30-50% less though!

Unfortunately it is early for Sony and they don't have many lenses but I have a feeling you will see many move towards them. I do think Sony and Oly (and Fuji not far behind) have proven they really have their finger on the Photographer market and listen to customers desires. I would love to see Fuji come out with a new X-pro 1 that vastly improves the AF. Personally I really like that body size but the Sony may push that off to the side. Odd to think of it in this way but in holding the Sony, it is ergonomic with the "bump" in the right places.

Nikon and Canon keep plugging away at the all-in-one, cover every situation, markets, which is great, but they are missing out on some opportunities I think. And that really is the drawback of mirrorless, it fits a more condensed array of situations especially when it comes to lighting and sports (fast moving) shooting. Honestly I can foresee the DSLRS and the all-in-one, cover every situation becoming even more of a "niche" market than it is now.

Beso

Here's another take on the potential future of cameras/firmware/software ...

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@ Ade - I'm misinterpreting information and explaining even worse. I thought the CCD 'captured' or 'read' at once, where the CMOS read from top to bottom, left to right. I sort of get 'serial' and 'parallel' in terms of speed - and that's my bad, I 'think' that's part of the battery savings.

There was a limit of how much it could capture, and the cost to produce them was a factor, too.

At TTJ and all.

FWIW, 35mm cameras rose to popularity after WWII with Leica in the occupation of Japan using Japanese lenses on the Leica bodies. Then the reporters discovered SPs and Canons and other cameras.

My point is that smaller cameras were just easier to carry then, too.

I carried 6 bodies and lenses as a correspondent over 40 years ago, but even just 20 years ago, in my last publishing job before I retired to teaching, when my photography demands weren't great, I carried a few cameras and lenses and, I was still regularly out a couple of months at a time in third-world conditions. A Sony A7 with a couple of zooms would have (assuming digital would have been an option ;-) ) served me quite nicely.

What lenses that finally fall into the lineup are anyone's guess, and that is a huge concern - I hope that Sony steps up.

There are many, many working photographers/writers for small publications in government and schools and business that far outnumber newsstands' photographers wage earners that need small, interchangeable lens cameras for assignments. Micro 4/3ds are a good option for most (IMHO), as are the potential A7, perhaps the other mirrorless offerings, like the GX7, etc.

My best to all,

Mike

donaldejose

I would like to see small DX sensor based EVF cameras developed by Nikon. Take the Sony A7 design. Shrink it as much as possible for use with a DX sensor allowing the sensor to lens mount flange distance to shrink. Use the 24mp DX sensor from the D7100. Take the good 18-55 kit lens. Make an improved redesigned version as small as possible and reduce the sensor to rear of lens distance. Now you have a small, general purpose camera which will suit many people's needs and desires. Retain the ability to use all Nikkor lenses by producing a small spacer (like a tele-extender) to return to the normal sensor to flange distance. Produce a few new lenses such as pancake lenses equivalent to FX 28mm and 40mm lenses for those who want to be able to pocket this camera.