DISQUS

Frank Grochocki · 1 month ago

Andrew,
I hear what you are saying, but you have to keep this advancement in context. There is not physical way to cram the amount of glass required to correct the same optical aberrations in a form factor as small as a point and shoot camera. This is the major advantage of an SLR that wasn't emphasized in your blog - the ability to receive interchangeable lenses with a lens performance to match the camera body's electronic performance. These may be subtleties to some people, but these are the laws of physics that drive the size of well-corrected optics.

erlichson · 1 month ago

The current size of the GF-1 is small enough that if it produced DSLR level images and had the autofocus perf and low light perf it would already be a threat to DSLR cameras. It does not really need to get smaller.

By point and shoot camera, I meant cameras that have electronic viewfinders, no pentaprism and no mirror. It is true that the GF-1 is not really a P&S because of its heavy manual controls, but I believe cameras will arise with the perf of the digital SLR without the controls and that much like the P&S cameras were cannibalize DSLR sales in the mid 90s, it will happen again.

Also, The GF-1 already corrects for some lens aberrations in software, I believe.

tslow · 4 weeks ago

Yes, the GF1 corrects for lens aberration. So does the LX3, which is why its RAW file is half-unreadable unless you have Panasonic's special formula.

SLR's are about the glass. Period. It's about getting enough light to the image capture system. The laws of optics are what they are and all the software and CPUW's are not going to change that.

Seen the new Leica M9 samples lately? I hate Leica (the equivalent of fox hunting in the camera world) but they keep the formual simple: like great beer.

erlichson · 3 weeks ago

I don't agree. The micro 4/3rds movement is about using sensors that are nearly as big as those used in DSLRs. And there is nothing fundamental about the size of the sensor used in th DSLRs. Image processing and sensors can improve such that smaller sensors produce images of acceptable quality.

my point is that the gap between the high end an low end cameras is shrinking in digital, just as it did with film, and as that gap closes, the low-end, mass market cameras are going to capture an increasing share of the pie. The introduction of digital reset the gap between high and low end, making it once again large. but as technology improves that gap is once again closing.

tslow · 3 weeks ago

m43 sensors are almost 40% smaller than APS-C, and 60% less than FF!

There is something fundmental about sensor size: the ratio between the # and size of photosites. Bigger photosites capture more light more accurately and efficiently. Low-light m43 is not very good; in fact, worse than my compact ISO 400 35mm film! I've tried it, seen the samples, and found it wanting severely, even with good glass.

Worse, the more one expands the image (big screen TV, new 27 inch iMac) the worse the pixellation.

The gap between high-end and low-end is not shrinking because of smaller cameras. It's shrinking because FF cameras are getting smaller and much less expensive, whereas decent P&S cameras are becoming relatively more expensive (ZS3, 200EXR), with m43 looking pretty hefty in comparison. The new Pentax K-x is only marginally larger than the EP-1, but blows it away with image quality and lenses.

The gap will close, but towards higher quality images, not lower. You cannot get there with smaller sensors relaying to ever larger displays. The optical math does not work. That's why big screen TV's needed HD content. Same principle. And you can always scale down from high-quality, but not up from lower.

erlichson · 3 weeks ago

the gap is absolutely shrinking and price reflects it. in 1999 a DSLR was at least $4000 and took images that were significantly better than a point and shoot, which was around $900. Now you have P&S cameras at $200 and DSLRs at $700. The gap has shrunk to $500 and the difference in quality is not as signficant as it once was. Time will tell, but I predict that as technology improves, the mass market cameras will encroach on the high end, just as they did in film.

tslow · 3 weeks ago

Right, but an excellent DSLR is only 2x a P&S and still takes far better photos!

Also, P&S have reached both a megapixel and definitely an optical dead-end. We'll see some sensor advancements, and a lot of software interpretation, we still cannot change the laws of physics and ask computers to get more light onto photocells than there are photons entering the frame. To post on larger displays, you need every single photon. Larger displays will drive larger sensor sales, with APS-C being the sweet spot because it can handle adequate low light lenses (necessary for video, as the Panny GH-1 demos).

You're about to see the $350 DSLR (Oly E-330) competing against the $200 P&S. No contest about quality there. After that, it boils down to form factor and portability. A very large number of people want to take quality photos and buy dedicated equipment to do just that.

What is endangered is the superzooms, which are too bulky to justify their non-DSLR features. DSLR with HD video kills that category.

erlichson · 1 month ago

The current size of the GF-1 is small enough that if it produced DSLR level images and had the autofocus perf and low light perf it would already be a threat to DSLR cameras. It does not really need to get smaller.

By point and shoot camera, I meant cameras that have electronic viewfinders, no pentaprism and no mirror. It is true that the GF-1 is not really a P&S because of its heavy manual controls, but I believe cameras will arise with the perf of the digital SLR without the controls and that much like the P&S cameras were cannibalize DSLR sales in the mid 90s, it will happen again.

Also, The GF-1 already corrects for some lens aberrations in software, I believe.

pwllem · 4 weeks ago

Not that many photographers will admit it but the SLR is also a status symbol. Can you see a fashion photographer or a music event photographer showing up with a point and shoot and saying "ok let's get this ball rolling!"? Imagine the shock on the face of a bride when her photographer shows up with a p&s.

I'll admit that it's less of the violin and more of the violinst. I don't shoot with the highest end DSLR. But really, put two equal violinists together and give one a lower level instrument. (Or even a lower one with awesome strings) the better violin will always sound better.

I hope that in 10 years I won't look back on this post and say "What was I thinking? Andrew was on to something!" I don't think I'll have much to worry about though.

erlichson · 3 weeks ago

I don’t think SLRs go away. I don’t think crazy expensive equipment goes away. But I do think that P&S cameras are improving faster than SLRs right now, and most consumers will find them acceptable in a few years. There is a segment of enthusiasts who like manual control and will pay for even the smallest difference in quality. Those keep buying the high end stuff. But there is also a segment of consumers who have been buying SLRs for image quality and autofocus and they will go back to P&S.

I agree that if photography is your business, you will carry 'pro tools.' But how many DSLRs are sold to true working pros?

Darryl · 3 weeks ago

The Canon S90 is the P&S I want.