Are we headed to a mirrorless future?

[Lonnie Utah]

Thinking about this and wondering. The SLT is a great idea, but the little bit of light loss from the mirror isn't the greatest.

So the Nikon 1's on the sensor AF go me thinking. Will there be a point, say 10 years from now, where auto-focus and electronic viewfinder technology will advance to the point that we will no longer "need" the mirrors or prisms in our cameras (and the expense that goes with them)? When I say that, will we get to the point where the view from an evf will be as good or better than an optical viewfinder? Will we get to a point were on sensor or CDAF will be just as fast if not faster than the AF modules we use now? If we do, I think that point it will not be economical to build "DSLR's" the way we do now and manufactures will start making their full sized cameras mirrorless. All it takes in one manufacture to make the switch and the others will be forced to follow in order to hold step with features and price.

What do you think?

[aramkostanyan]

I agree with you,
I wrote the same idea previously in this article
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... 9&start=15

[lonewolf16x9]

Sony are! Well I think so anyway, and so am I, all the rest well who knows!
The trouble comes when Sony get as good AF on Chip as current DSLR/SLT's then there's no need for the Mirror box and no need for the A mount and all our lovely A mount Lenses anymore either! Basically you'll buy a Nex and a grip with two batteries and a built in Gps in it making your Nex into a long battery life speed shooting DSLR/SLT/CSC type thing, and they may and I mean may still make a version of the LA2 to fit your "Legacy" glass. Were nearly there now but it's just progress I guess.
I'm not getting into the OVF/EVF thing but it works for me, EVF that is, not perfect and I don't think anyone is saying it is but it offers a lot, and a lot of people are trying their best to imply it's doggie-doo! oops there I went and said it! It's not doggie-doo just different...
I seem to remember that the OVF for the a900 cost £178, what an OVF though! Don't ask me to qoute where but I read it somewhere, thats a big chunk of the Camera price for a single item, Sony are doing what they said they would and Standing the old Photography thing on it's head a bit and taking it to that "Other Place"?
(Dragons Den) You just have to ask yourself, Are you in or out?
The others may or may not follow, who knows, it'll make or break Sony Photographically Speaking I think, it's quite bold on their part, so they have to make it work, if they keep gaining traction like they have been they could indeed force others to make simlar Camera's or buy up Ailing Brands to get a foot in (Olmpikon/Canoly?)

[Lonnie Utah]

Thanks for the quick reply guys.

I've thought quite a bit about what the AF module might look like. One idea I've had is a pdaf sensor located behind a semi-transparent sensor (which doesn't exist right now). Cool concept, eh?

[aramkostanyan]

Interesting, but would it be able to focus in that case?

[lonewolf16x9]

Don't let Sony know what your thinking! They can hear you you know, it's only a matter of time before they Body snatch us in the night to Graft Camera's into our very minds to make us Alphatrons/Nexatrons/Sonytrons Or is that Trinitrons???
Resistance is Futile!

[Atgets_Apprentice]

Don't let Sony know what your thinking! They can hear you you know, it's only a matter of time before they Body snatch us in the night to Graft Camera's into our very minds to make us Alphatrons/Nexatrons/Sonytrons Or is that Trinitrons???
Resistance is Futile!

And then they'll install doggie-doo firmware in us too.....

[artington]

Will there be a point, say 10 years from now, where auto-focus and electronic viewfinder technology will advance to the point that we will no longer "need" the mirrors or prisms in our cameras (and the expense that goes with them)? When I say that, will we get to the point where the view from an evf will be as good or better than an optical viewfinder? Will we get to a point were on sensor or CDAF will be just as fast if not faster than the AF modules we use now?
What do you think?

Inevitable I would say because manufacturing cost considerations will prevail. And technology will permit it a lot faster than anyone thinks - forget 10 years and think 2! This doesn't imply the end of alpha or EF or whatever lenses though because full frame will still impose physical limitations on these, at least at the telephoto end. Below 135 FF equivalent, however, there is potential for sea-change if users can be weaned off AF. Already legacy MF lenses from Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Olympus,Pentax, Minolta MC/MD, etc can be used with adapters on NEX cameras. And theyre not just small but fast too.The same thing is happening with Canon and Nikon FF bodies with miniature MF SLR lenses from Zeiss and Voigtlander ready adapted and chipped. Exciting times indeed, particularly when the likes of Annie Liebowitz is extolling the use of the iPhone 4s as a compact camera.

[Heidfirst]

And technology will permit it a lot faster than anyone thinks - forget 10 years and think 2!

+1

Nikon have on sensor AF working pretty well on the 1 series albeit it's a small sensor but imo further improvements in performance & process will see us able to do away with the translucent mirror in the not too distant future.

[Greg Beetham]

The iPhone 4s does take a jolly decent photo actually, it would be easily adequate for most people as a compact camera I'd imagine.http://www.apple.com/iphone/built-in-apps/camera.html
Greg
Ps. dang I didn't find a dark corner at a 100% at midnight to analize.

[[SiC]]

The iPhone 4s does take a jolly decent photo actually

Sony sensor

[agorabasta]

The human eye has no mirrors. There are aperture control, sensitivity control, some pretty low image/video resolution and some other less significant things.

Then comes the brain processing. That's exactly what delivers you the 'image'. Btw, not all 'brain images' may be, even in principle, translated into a captured/printed/displayed image. To put it simple, the brain does not have to have a single fixed value for an element of an 'image', it may have quite a few very unfixed versions and consider them all as one instance of perception.

So please expect the most progress to come from processing rather than from simple capture or AF or whatsoever other finite-automaton kinds of system behaviour. That would mean future cameras with commodity-cheap sensors and other hardware innards and then a huge 'brain', be those 'brains' inside or outside the camera bodies.

[aramkostanyan]

That sounds interesting Agorabasta,
but the main difference between our eyes and camera is that we see video and it is a still image.
Layering as our brain does would work very good for video, but for photo it probably needs some differences for moving subjects.
What do you think about it?

[agorabasta]

Aram, there's nothing to prevent a camera capturing a 'video' sequence and creating a still image of a stack of those frames. Those frames may be different in individual exposure too.

In fact, even now you may have high-res stills built out of stacked HD video frames using some software, iirc there was something called 'PhotoAcute' that could do as much.

[bfitzgerald]

I can't predict the future but I'll say "no" and I'll back that up with I'd rather shoot film 100% and scan it then go to a full time EVF system. If Ricoh announced K mount was going to be mirror less only I'd instantly sell everything without a single thought. For the same reason I abandoned Sony though the film element makes me keep some of my A mount stuff.