Why did Sony introduce the NEX for P&S upgraders - not ...

[Vidgamer]

If it's a fad, Canikon are spending a great deal of energy on it. Not very smart, if so, and virtually all of the companies do it.

Home movies have been around long enough that I think it is beyond a fad.

I'm not saying that everyone does it or likes it, just that I don't see it as going away just as it didn't just appear-- except to dslr users.

Personally, I like taking the occasional video snapshot, and it's not intended to be a big production. Although in the past, I preferred using a dedicated videocamera that was better designed for the task (than the p&s).

[Wes Gibbon]

I tend to agree that video is something that manufacturers include because
a) they want to keep up with the opposition and avoid negative reviews in the mags
b) it's a selling point that encourages people to replace their cameras (whether or not they will actually use it!). They want your money.

However, I can think of some uses for video e.g.:
a) it could transform 'audio visual' (which would appeal to a lot of camera club members, though it's not personally to my taste). On the other hand, if AV workers start including moving images, maybe they will finally realise that AV is really video without the benefit of movement (or am I being unfair?)
b) the next time you take a waterfall, instead of freezing the water (generally regarded as naff) or blurring it with a slow shutter speed (the 'shaving cream' effect), record a second or two of video and make an 'endless loop' of it. Impossible to print, of course, but could look great in a digital frame

[Winedarksea]

Sony DSLRs had a fatal flaw: no video.

Have you any actual statistics on this? Anything at all where new camera buyers were interviewed and said that they choose on the basis of video in a DSLR? I've seen none, but I have seen survey results done by Sony where video was way down the list of wanted features if not a negative to buying DSLRs.

This business of requiring video is simply folklore. Said often enough that folks think it's true with no proof.

Walt

Walt, I am maybe less likely to use video on my dslr than you, and I am equally concerned about having the opportunity to buy a dslr without compromise to my ability to get the best possible stlil image--but why do you suppose that the dslr market leader, for many years now--Canon--is making video quality its main selling proposition in ad after ad--for its UPPER-END cameras? For example, in the June PopPhoto, Canon has a two-page spread inside the front cover--the most effective/expensie location in 'most any magazine--advertising the Canon 7D with a dominating headline: "DEFINING A NEW STANDARD BEYOND THE STILL."

Could it be that Canon knows something you don't know? like, what it takes these days to sell a high-end dslr?

Dulaney

[stevecim]

Sony DSLRs had a fatal flaw: no video.

Have you any actual statistics on this? Anything at all where new camera buyers were interviewed and said that they choose on the basis of video in a DSLR? I've seen none, but I have seen survey results done by Sony where video was way down the list of wanted features if not a negative to buying DSLRs.

This business of requiring video is simply folklore. Said often enough that folks think it's true with no proof.

Walt

Walt, I am maybe less likely to use video on my dslr than you, and I am equally concerned about having the opportunity to buy a dslr without compromise to my ability to get the best possible stlil image--but why do you suppose that the dslr market leader, for many years now--Canon--is making video quality its main selling proposition in ad after ad--for its UPPER-END cameras? For example, in the June PopPhoto, Canon has a two-page spread inside the front cover--the most effective/expensie location in 'most any magazine--advertising the Canon 7D with a dominating headline: "DEFINING A NEW STANDARD BEYOND THE STILL."

Could it be that Canon knows something you don't know? like, what it takes these days to sell a high-end dslr?

Dulaney

Dulaney is right, if there are 2 cameras on a self, same MP, produce same quality image, and only one has video, the one with video will sell 10 to 1, not having video would not hurt Sony IF they had the best high ISO support, the most features, i.e MLU, DOF preview, custom buttons, highest level of flexibility, best priced lenses. But Sony seem more keen in trying to convert their falling PnS sales rather than build up DSLR sales. There is no reason to make "simple" DSLR, Sony are playing catch up to CanNik they should be adding more features and then using a simple menu option, advanced/simple then everyone would be happy.

[WaltKnapp]

I think folks should face up to where video is taking us with Sony.

I think the new pelix cameras are what you should look at. This camera is a result of the push by sony to put video into DSLRs their way. It contains quite a few compromises to standard DSLRs, not the least of which is the end of OVF and substituting LV and current technology EVF. The completion of their degrading of the OVF in their LV method by removing it.

I think that camera is the design Sony will be using real soon now for all their "DSLRs", with no other choice. It will be the future of the a700 and a900 lines too. Everyone happy with what video gave you?

I, like cgarrard have been putting together some recent things that have come directly or indirectly from Sony. I think there's going to be another shoe to drop beyond what you see so far, another significant compromise that can be put at the feet of how video works. And that's all I'm going to say too.

Walt

[Greg Beetham]

There is only one solution Walt, we can all refuse to buy the damn things.
Greg

[pakodominguez]

I think the new pelix cameras are what you should look at. This camera is a result of the push by sony to put video into DSLRs their way.

Which pelix camera? the /rumored/ one?
:-/
you are judging the whole Sony strategy (or lack of strategy) from a rumor? even if true, you don't know how it was implemented...

It contains quite a few compromises to standard DSLRs, not the least of which is the end of OVF and substituting LV and current technology EVF. The completion of their degrading of the OVF in their LV method by removing it.

I don't understand anything: can you please explain me where is the relation between pelix and EVF? Are you telling us that the A900 successor will be a EVF camera?

I think you are going a little too far...

The "compromise" i fear is that Sony (and the others) will think that the quality for stills is good enough and that it doesn't need improvement, and that they will only invest in the video side of this new generation of cameras.

Regards

[WaltKnapp]

There is only one solution Walt, we can all refuse to buy the damn things.
Greg

That quickly results in having no camera when what you have breaks and there are no parts for it. Sony runs on a 7 years after last manufacture cycle on parts. (6 years left for my a700s) The days when one camera would practically last a lifetime are gone I fear. If I could trust my a700s to last 20-30 years without repair then I'd not even be bothering with what Sony is doing. I just bought the last lens on my system list today, my current system is essentially complete if it never broke or wore out.

BTW, folks that think the pellicule and EVF are not tied together should read Sony's patent, it gives the necessary details. And remember the focus is on getting phase detect AF to work with video. While the camera is shooting continuous video.

Walt

[Greg Beetham]

Well yeah I guess so, but my KM5D only has about 4K shots up, my A100 about 3.5K and my A700 less than 1K, so I don't blast off thousands of shots, I try to shoot a frame I intend to keep. In so doing I think/hope they should last quite a while, but will they last as good as my X700's? I have my doubts. I bet I could go into the wardrobe and get the X700 bag out and put a battery and film in them and confidently shoot good exposures...I wonder if I'll be able to keep shooting with these DSLR's for 30 years?
We might hope for two possible outcomes on the ILC-DSLR front.
One is consumer resistance to DSLR's with video in favour of ones without, but for that one to happen the manufacturers have to keep making an A700 spec'd camera (sans video), alongside a compromised one 'with' video....alas that might not happen (they seem quite happy to leave the A700 class in the model lineup vacant), they probably will only offer the video/still feature compromised models....
OR two, the fad wears off after a while when people realize that shooting action video (for example) with a longish lens at shallow DOF you need very fast and accurate AF...something that might never happen with DSLR video...it might not even happen with a NEX either with it's slow contrast detect AF.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

The problem with all these arguments is that they presume fewer benefits spin off for still shooters, than actually do, when video is implemented. A sensor capable of stable live view is generally going to be video-enabled, and vice-versa. The benefits of vey high quality live view are clear enough, and future DSLRs will have that.

In theory, the pellicle mirror design (which we discussed here ages before the present fuss!) allows to very useful functions - silent or near-silent (Leica sound level) shooting, and very fast motordrive. Video itself at a true 1080p standard (progressive) offers 30 frames a second of 1920 x 1080 (2 megapixel) 'motordrive' and the buffer needed to handle this would be able to handle 15fps 4 megapixel, 7-8fps 8 megapixel.

We already known that the BIONZ can handle 7fps 14 megapixel RAW (though not for the duration of a film clip) and I think the prediction made by my Australian contact who was working with Sony on prototype cameras, of a DSLR shooting 15 fps, is not impossible now.

Depending on pellicle mirror implementation, the sensor could be as well sealed against dust as the Sigma SD models - or better. But that does not mean sealed against oil and swarf from shutter wear. In order to guarantee dust-free results for ever, the mechanical shutter needs to be eliminated. This is a challenge, but Sony would LOVE to remove such a costly and unreliable mechanism and replace it with a virtual, electronic shutter. The camera could then be entirely silent.

While current designs for the pellicle body use an EVF, there is no technical barrier to designing a phase detect AF module which uses the focusing screen of an optical prism system. Split image and microprism focus screens are already a kind of phase detection system; they put the image out of phase when out of focus. Leica once had excellent focusing screens which were microprism across the entire surface, not a mere centre spot. Using pixel array sensors either side of the eyepiece, correct focus on such a screen could be detected using multiple points. In theory it could be just as fast and accurate as a secondary system located in the darkchamber well, as at present.

We simply don't know all the possible future developments, or benefits, or trade-offs.

David

[Greg Beetham]

I wish them luck, an oblique semi opaque glass flat in front of the sensor is going to refract and distort the image, that will have to be corrected, one would think, with the resultant light loss taken into account...
AF snafu's, with the fast and accurate AF question, perhaps a combination of passive PDAF and CDAF might work with the EVF and split prism, with the pre calibrated PDAF acting as an advisor for the CDAF so it knows which direction to move the lens to achieve focus, rather than the current CDAF system of moving the lens a little in 'a' direction to see if that improves the focus or makes it worse...and so on..and on.
OVF's, when a rear LV screen or an EVF can emulate an OVF in all facets of user interface, such as being able to select a focus point and then that focus point confirms focus with light and sound like present OVF's can, and the user can view in stopped down mode to check DOF and focus on the front edge of a subject etc. as clear and sharp with no time delay as an OVF can, then I will admit that there might be some point however vague, in fixing something that isn't broken.
With shutters, I still wonder why they don't use/adapt the auto darkening welding helmet visor idea, it's electronic in nature and reacts as fast as the speed of light, as soon as a welder strikes an arc the visor darkens from clear glass too black glass instantly before the welding arc can damage his eyes, the modern ones use a little solar panel adjacent to the visor to power the thing, the old ones used to have a button battery cell. One would think that it would be worthwhile investigating as a camera shutter, maybe added into the protective glass layer on the sensor itself....a shutter with zero moving parts and the fastest shutter speed close to the speed of light.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

Greg, a pellicle mirror is not a semi-silvered mirror. It is a thin film (pellicle). That's why the Canon was called Pellix (which some ignorant dPreview forumfolk are using as a generic term - it's like calling every camera with a pentaprism a Pentax).

The plastic film is extremely thin and stretched across a frame. It has such a minimal effect in terms of diffraction or refraction that it is considered to be absent from opticl calculations. A vacuum deposited layer on on surface of the pellicle acts as a semi-silvered mirror.

If they use a glass semi-silvered mirror, some optical effects might result. You may note that in the patent diagram which has been posted around, the mirror is not at 45 degrees, more like 30 degrees, and the light rays therefore pass through it with slightly less potential optical disruption.

Ref light valve shutters - they do exist, photographic printers and projectors use them. They tend to clash with the structure of pixel-based sensors unless built into the sensor itself.

David

[WaltKnapp]

The plastic film is extremely thin and stretched across a frame. It has such a minimal effect in terms of diffraction or refraction that it is considered to be absent from opticl calculations. A vacuum deposited layer on on surface of the pellicle acts as a semi-silvered mirror.

If they use a glass semi-silvered mirror, some optical effects might result. You may note that in the patent diagram which has been posted around, the mirror is not at 45 degrees, more like 30 degrees, and the light rays therefore pass through it with slightly less potential optical disruption.

Did you notice in the patent of the description of a low light sensor actuating a mirror flip up system to allow more light through? I can't see a thin film pellicle being used like that so am thinking this will be a semi silvered glass mirror. Also since there will be a mirror flip, no dust protection from a sealed mirror, and no silence at least under low light conditions. It does appear it will still have a mechanical shutter too.

My only questionable thing for it being a true pellicle is that those have a history of practical problems of being very delicate and hard to clean. Though I never owned one I have been there and personally observed those problems.

While it's fine to extol the virtues of LV, this camera design is way away from having a OVF to go with it. And I don't see Sony being committed enough to OVF to go for changing it to put an OVF in. They are going to be sticking to the video centric part and still photography will have to play second fiddle to that. At least unless the world starts rejecting hybrid DSLRs as large sensor camcorders arrive.

At this point I consider it highly unlikely that Sony will put out any still photography only DSLRs at any level, though I'd certainly be happy to see some. And this new design is clearly their video solution so where they are going for hybrid DSLR.

Walt

[Javelin]

they are at the low end. like the A290 and A390 are non vide cameras according to the rumours