test results SONY 70-400 with A700

[Javelin]

only because they eliminate a lot of mechanical parts. they would all be motivated to get that to work

Regarding EVIL, that's yet another waste of battery power, like LV, Movies on a DSLR etc. why do EVIL when an OVF works just fine?
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

Well yeah, only if they did away with the mirror there might be some point, but that means a different type of main sensor (as far as I know it would require more of a movie type sensor ie. rubbish compared too the sensor in a DSLR), but even if they had a breakthrough in sensor technology, that would mean a whole new camera and lenses from the ground up, although we could probably use our existing lenses with an adaptor....do we really NEED to go there?
Greg

[Javelin]

well they get rid of the mirrors the prism and glass in between the space taken up by all of the above and the servos and actuators to make them work. it might not seem expensive for the individual parts compared to the sensor and processor but maintaining all those things in the design are probably the biggest expense in making the whole camera.

Do we need to go there nope. but in the end there might not be a choice. right now this minute the best way to get pictures is with dslr's as we know them now. but you can be sure there working on other methods that if successful would make these parts obsolete. the problem is when theres too many accountants involved the changes re not always for the better quality wise if they Can make gains in convenience price or some other factor that increase sales. Don;t forget if IQ really was the whole equation we would all be shooting large format. somewhere between those, these and the P&S cameras is where the future is going to be.

Well yeah, only if they did away with the mirror there might be some point, but that means a different type of main sensor (as far as I know it would require more of a movie type sensor ie. rubbish compared too the sensor in a DSLR), but even if they had a breakthrough in sensor technology, that would mean a whole new camera and lenses from the ground up, although we could probably use our existing lenses with an adaptor....do we really NEED to go there?
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

Accountants should only be allowed too sign cheques and fudge the figures at board meetings, but seriously I think if they went down the EVIL path the only proper answer is to do a parallel production line camera that is seperate too the DSLR line, and then see how the mop flopps.....down the road, see which one wins in other words, and as you say sales speak for themselves, so if the new camera has the goods ie. can compete with a traditional DSLR on ALL fronts as despite having the handicap of the battery wasting live view, movie mode, electronic VF on top of the already existing AF, inbuilt flash, and SSS, then it may well replace the DSLR in time, but I doubt one will end up in my bag any time soon.
Greg

[KevinBarrett]

Not that we're on topic any more, but how about a further divergence? What does "EVIL" mean, in camera terms, that is...I couldn't decide whether the letters stood for something or if it was the thought of an un-favored format replacing our D-SLRs.

[jcoffin]

Exactamundo PT, look at computers for a classic example, Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium IV, and all the speed range improvements in each model, just think if Intel went directly from the 486 straight too the Pentium IV how many incremental sales would have been lost, and yeah the mind doeth boggle at the reaction if Canon were too suddenly bring out a DSLR with in body stabilization, I think they will wait till the expiry of the seven year limitation on patient infringment, so they can copy it for free rather than pay royalties too KM/Sony, in the meantime they will probably taper off gradually on the virtues of IS. Regarding EVIL, that's yet another waste of battery power, like LV, Movies on a DSLR etc. why do EVIL when an OVF works just fine?
Greg

Presumably you meant "patent infringement". If that's the case, the duration is more like seventeen years than seven. The exact duration (in the US) varies: it used to be 17 years from the time the patent was granted. They semi-recently changed that to 20 years from the time the patent was applied for (with a "grandfather clause" period at the changeover that uses whichever rule gives a later expiration date). Offhand I don't remember the rules in Japan, but I'm pretty sure they're quite similar -- there are international treaties on intellectual property that ensure that the rules are quite similar throughout most of the developed world.

With regard to going directly from the 486 to the Pentium IV (to use your example), I doubt it's possible in any reasonable time frame. Designing a processor takes an immense amount of computing. My brother used to work at Sun Microsystems, helping maintain a cluster of Sun machines used almost exclusively in designing new processors. Depending on exactly when you looked, they had around 1400 to 1500 SPARC processors running 24/7, almost all of that doing simulations of their next processor to ensure that the design would work correctly (and catching quite a few errors in the process). If you were running it on a 486, I doubt the simulations for a Pentium IV would be finished yet...

[Greg Beetham]

EVIL stands for Electonic Viewfinder Interchangable Lens...type camera, a big departure from traditional DSLR's as it would have no mirror...presumably/most likely, something like getting an R1 and bolting on the KM-AF mount, but ideally it should have it's own set of lenses, as the lenses will be able too sit a lot closer to the sensor, I don't automatically assume that is a good thing either unless as PT was saying in another thread/post they are able too build a curved sensor too account for divergence, perhaps, but that could mean great difficulties in the camera having SSS ability...in the end not much point in the whole thing really, all said and done, except for it being a more compact design, but how small is it going to be after you install a battery twice the size too make up for the increased power drain.....
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

Presumably you meant "patent infringement". If that's the case, the duration is more like seventeen years than seven. The exact duration (in the US) varies: it used to be 17 years from the time the patent was granted. They semi-recently changed that to 20 years from the time the patent was applied for (with a "grandfather clause" period at the changeover that uses whichever rule gives a later expiration date). Offhand I don't remember the rules in Japan, but I'm pretty sure they're quite similar -- there are international treaties on intellectual property that ensure that the rules are quite similar throughout most of the developed world.

With regard to going directly from the 486 to the Pentium IV (to use your example), I doubt it's possible in any reasonable time frame. Designing a processor takes an immense amount of computing. My brother used to work at Sun Microsystems, helping maintain a cluster of Sun machines used almost exclusively in designing new processors. Depending on exactly when you looked, they had around 1400 to 1500 SPARC processors running 24/7, almost all of that doing simulations of their next processor to ensure that the design would work correctly (and catching quite a few errors in the process). If you were running it on a 486, I doubt the simulations for a Pentium IV would be finished yet

Thanks for setting the record straight on the 7 year patent (patient..good grief what a typo), I thought there were a couple of cases/squabbles I saw where a 7 year limitation was transgressed, but if it's as long as 20 years that would maybe put a new complexion on Canon and/or Nikon building a camera with SSS...timeframe.
I thought I was the lone voice here saying that the complexity of building a processor is several orders of magnitude greater than building a sensor, thus the real heart of a DSLR isn't the sensor (a necessary evil) but the processor and firmware is, and yes you're right going directly from the 486 too a Pentium IV wouldn't be realistic in reality, but I can think of a couple of old DOS games that might have been good with a bit of a performance boost.
Greg

[KevinBarrett]

EVIL stands for Electonic Viewfinder Interchangable Lens...type camera, a big departure from traditional DSLR's as it would have no mirror...presumably/most likely, something like getting an R1 and bolting on the KM-AF mount, but ideally it should have it's own set of lenses, as the lenses will be able too sit a lot closer to the sensor, I don't automatically assume that is a good thing either unless as PT was saying in another thread/post they are able too build a curved sensor too account for divergence, perhaps, but that could mean great difficulties in the camera having SSS ability...in the end not much point in the whole thing really, all said and done, except for it being a more compact design, but how small is it going to be after you install a battery twice the size too make up for the increased power drain.....
Greg

Thanks Greg, I just didn't know what the letters meant.

The concept, though, is very familiar, and a source of much brain-storming. Presumably one could do this in D-SLR format quite easily and even come up with a universal system (easily, that is, aside from obtaining all the necessary permissions to reproduce mounts from different companies). It would have an updatable sensor back with image processor, controls, battery, EVF, and media, plus an interchangeable mirror-box-sized spacer containing the specific interface necessary for a given mount (AF motor, aperture control, etc).

Mount spacers could be $1000 to $1500 apiece, and sensor backs could be as reasonable in cost and specification as any body in a company's D-SLR range, from $1000 to $8000 (naturally you'd be able to command a premium for the unique advantages of your product). Such a system would provide universal compatibility and infinite updatability, and be seriously cost effective for any professional or advanced amateur.

[bakubo]

Well yeah, only if they did away with the mirror there might be some point, but that means a different type of main sensor (as far as I know it would require more of a movie type sensor ie. rubbish compared too the sensor in a DSLR)

Most people probably wouldn't call the sensors in the following DSLRs rubbish: Canon 1DsmkIII, 1DmkIII, 5DmkII, 50D; Nikon D3x, D3, D700, D300, D90 and they all have live view.

[Greg Beetham]

The idea of a modular DSLR has much merit for sure, I'd like too have wireless connectivity between the screen/grip and the body that's attached too a branch in a tree looking at a bird's nest for example, but there is also the argument that the component parts of such a beast are so interdependant on one-another that it might not be feasible, for example if you had that sensor upgrade then the cpu/gpu would most likely need too have a performance boost as well, then the transfer bus bandwidth might not be adequate...and so on, pretty soon you are replacing almost the entire camera anyway so it might not be cost effective.
here is an example, take Leica with their new expensive S2 pro system with it's over sized sensor, it's not modular with interchangable sensors, (as far as I can tell from reading the splurb), if any camera co. was going to produce one, especially since it's aimed specifically at professional users.....it would have been them, I think.
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

Well yeah, only if they did away with the mirror there might be some point, but that means a different type of main sensor (as far as I know it would require more of a movie type sensor ie. rubbish compared too the sensor in a DSLR)

Most people probably wouldn't call the sensors in the following DSLRs rubbish: Canon 1DsmkIII, 1DmkIII, 5DmkII, 50D; Nikon D3x, Nikon D3, D700, D300, D90 and they all have live view.

Most people, including me, wouldn't call them rubbish either...and none of them is an EVIL camera.
Greg

[bakubo]

Most people, including me, wouldn't call them rubbish either...and none of them is an EVIL camera.

No, they aren't, but that isn't what you wrote. This is what you wrote:

"Well yeah, only if they did away with the mirror there might be some point, but that means a different type of main sensor (as far as I know it would require more of a movie type sensor ie. rubbish compared too the sensor in a DSLR)"

The sensors in the long list of DSLRs could be used in an EVIL.

[bakubo]

Most people, including me, wouldn't call them rubbish either...and none of them is an EVIL camera.

I thought about it for a moment and then realized that the long list of DSLRs I had in my earlier post are already EVIL cameras. Once that mirror is locked up for live view mode it is as if it no longer exists. At that point the camera is EVIL. It isn't the form factor we might expect a full-time EVIL camera to have and it has that unused mirror and OVF in it, but it is an EVIL camera.

[Greg Beetham]

Not from what I've seen or heard of so far, I could be wrong though, I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
Apparently there are problems with heat if a main DSLR sensor is used continuously ALL the time, increased capacitance and more noise etc. (last I heard), so I doubt if any of those sensors could be converted into an EVIL type SLR.
There's probably two ways of approaching the problem, the current way, that is use the income generated by DSLR sales too R&D a hybrid type EVIL gradually by stealth, ala A350, 5D MkII etc. (the A350 has half of the Sony DSLR sales in Japan), and eventually phase out the traditional DSLR when R&D finds a way forward with the sensor problems, combined with declining sales of the aforementioned DSLR's. Continuing on that tack means we will not have a traditional DSLR at some point....who want's that?
And the other way is, in my opinion the best way, set up a seperate production facility and do R&D on an EVIL until it can truly stand on it's own two feet out there in consumer land, (maybe) and then release it.
Greg