Warning, this is a rant about cameras; so if you have no interest in cameras, or rants, please waste no more of your valuable time.
After Photokina two years ago I penned a piece of no consequence entitled “I have seen the future, and it has no mirror”.
To the extent it offered any themes, they were that: Sony was innovating, Canon and Nikon were not, and that the long term future for consumer cameras was mirrorless.
Two years on and another Photokina, and the themes this year are that:Sony is innovating, Canon and Nikon are not, and the long term future for consumer cameras is mirrorless.
So, there you are, thanks for reading.
What, you want more? Well, you are probably not thinking that, but you are going to get it anyway. So, let’s start by going back to the past.
The first photograph was taken in 1826. It required an eight hour exposure onto a pewter plate coated with an asphalt compound suspended in oil of lavender; and the results were terrible (or magical, depending on when you viewed it):
For the next sixty years or so. advances in photography led from “wet” to “dry” processes, the invention of roll film, and an explosion of interest in cameras. In 1888 or thereabouts, William Dickson of Edison Labs took some of Kodak’s 70mm movie film stock and sliced it down the middle to create 35mm movie film, offcuts of which started to be used in still cameras.
“Too small”, said the purists “such a small film size will never catch on”, as they lugged their massive cameras around on horseback. But then Oskar Barnack invented the Leica and before too long 35mm became the standard for film photography. Some cameras (e.g. the original Olympus PEN) took half size images on 35mm film and were known as half frame, thus the 35mm format became known as full frame. Larger film formats survived for those who wanted the ultimate in quality, but why carry around a monster when you can get great results from something smaller?
So full frame became the standard, and cameras evolved such that the preferred model had a mirror and a prism and the light coming through the lens was reflected into the viewfinder. They were called Single Lens Reflex (SLR) cameras.
Then along came digital and, although early models had tiny sensors, technology developed such that full frame sized digital sensors could be produced, and companies such as Canon, Nikon and Pentax turned their SLR ranges into DSLRs. Full frame DSLRs were, and are, very expensive; so a smaller film size, known as APS-C was resurrected in digital and became the basis of lower end DSLRs. These smaller sensored cameras were great for the camera companies, because owners would then be locked in to buying chunky and costly lenses designed for full frame.
If you didn’t want or couldn’t afford a DSLR, the other choice was a point and shoot. They had tiny sensors and provided dubious image quality, but they were cheap and easy to use. A huge choice of suppliers in an aggressive marketplace led to limited profit margins. Then phones with cameras came along and the point and shoot market declined and continues to die. An unattractive segment for consumers and camera makers alike, point and shoot was doomed.
And so the DSLR remained supreme, with Canon and Nikon as the main players. And then in 1998 Panasonic and Olympus announced Micro Four Thirds (MFT); an interchangeable lens system in a camera with no mirror and prism (therefore “mirrorless”) using a sensor slightly smaller than APS-C.
“Too small”, said the DSLR purists “such a small sensor size will never catch on”, as they lugged their massive cameras and lenses around in wheeled trolleys and booked massage sessions for their back pain. But the MFT initiative spawned an explosion in mirrorless cameras, with Panasonic, Olympus, Sony and Fuji being the main players. Mirrorless cameras now have more than 50% of camera sales in Japan, and while the share of the market may be less in other countries, they are gaining ground everywhere.
“Oh dear”, said Canon and Nikon, “perhaps if we shut our eyes really tight, mirrorless will go away.” It didn’t.
“Oh dear”, said Canon and Nikon, “if we produce a good mirrorless camera, it will eat into the sales of our DSLRs, and we don’t want that.” So they didn’t.
Instead, Nikon came out with the 1 series. Too small a sensor, poor lens selection; very carefully positioned so it could never be perceived as a threat to a DSLR. It did however have a very neat focusing system for tracking moving subjects, a current deficiency of mirrorless; and in spite of being mainly crap it has sold quite well thanks to Nikon’s marketing machine.
As for Canon… Having had years to study the market and invoke their presumably not inconsiderable R&D resources, Canon came up with the EOS-M. Controls from a Fisher-Price toy, glacier speed auto-focus and an $800 insult as a price tag; the EOS-M has been carefully positioned so it could never be perceived as a threat to any other camera. The camera community mocked, and rightly so.
So another year rolls by and there is no sign that Canon and Nikon want to join the fastest growing segment of the camera industry; what are they up to? The answer seems to be that they are retreating behind the wall of full frame. Mirrorless cameras have APS-C or similar sized sensors. Under most circumstances and viewing sizes, a photo from a full frame sensor is indistinguishable from these smaller sizes. But for maximum quality, especially if you want to print large sizes or stare lovingly at you creations at 100% magnification on a computer screen; then the bigger the sensor the better. Assuming you are not prepared to pay for an even bigger sensor in a Hasselblad or Pentax 645D; then a full frame camera will be your choice.
“Oh dear”, said Canon and Nikon, “these mirrorless cameras are really taking off and we don’t know what to do about it. Perhaps we need to tempt people back to full frame so they can brag about the fantastic image quality and buy more of our over-priced lenses”. So they did.
Photokina saw the launch of the Nikon D600 which was a cheaper, simplified version of the D800. A few days later Canon launched the 6D, a camera which seemed to have had a design ethos of “let’s see how much we can leave out of the 5D3”. At a similar price to the D600, it was completely overshadowed by the Nikon. The camera community mocked, and rightly so.
I feel the need to take a paragraph at this point and ask Canon just what the fuck they think they are doing? Their latest releases (EOS-M and 6D) have been a joke. The 1DX is an amazing machine; but at a price, and those of us who had the 1D sports models are now left with finding $7000 for a 1DX or settling for the three year old 7D (or keeping their 1D4 for as long as they need such a camera, which is what I intend to do). The 5D3 is a fine enough camera; but is tarting up a four year old design the best you can manage? 7D, where is the replacement? The rest of your range? Boring. Your sensor tech is falling behind. Get a grip.
Right, got that off my chest. So now the industry is heading inexorably towards mirrorless, with Canon and Nikon taking the high ground with their full format DSLR systems. What could possibly go wrong?
This:
First of all, as Sony marketing liked to say: “It’s a Sony”; so let’s talk about Sony.
Sony is an electronics company that dabbled in low-end cameras. Then they got serious about photography and the results have been impressive.
Their sensor technology is used by Nikon, Fuji, Olympus (the OMD), Pentax, Ricoh, (and the iPhone 5). Still not clear whether their sensor is also in the new Panasonic GH3; but looks likely. The only main player who does not use Sony sensors is Canon.
In the DSLR segment they have the SLT series which is actually not a pure DSLR, dispensing with the mirror in favour of a light splitting mechanism. I don’t know how good it is, but at least it shows some innovation. In the mirrorless segment they have the NEX series which produce great images but need a better range of lenses before they can compete with MFT. And at the smaller end of the market their new RX100 has been garnering rave reviews.
So perhaps it is not surprising that the RX1 has come from Sony; nobody else has the balls to roll out a camera like this. What’s special about it? On first inspection, not a lot. Sure it is small, but no smaller than my GX1.
Has a tasty Zeiss F2 35mm lens on the front, so that’s good. But you can’t change to another lens, so that’s not so good. But it is what is inside that makes this camera special, it’s got a full frame sensor.
We already know that full frame digital cameras don’t have to be large, Leica has been doing it for ever; but their prices are so extreme you rather assume there is some sort of magic involved. But here is a modern digital device and it is tiny.
The bad news about the RX1 is the price, $2,800. The worse news is that it doesn’t come with a viewfinder and that piece of glass in a box on the top will set you back a further $600. At that price I expect it will not sell well, and I don’t think Sony are expecting many sales either. But it is a clear sign of Sony’s design swagger. “You want a full frame mirrorless digital, we can make one”. Already Sony are hinting at a full frame system camera with interchangeable lenses and other mirrorless companies are muttering “Mmmm, full frame”; none of which can be music to the ear of Canon and Nikon. And of course, provided they are prepared to invest in appropriate lenses, there is nothing to stop any of these companies throwing away an arbitrary size created in 1888 and coming up with yet another format. Make it a bit bigger than full frame and call it “even fuller frame, for the ultimate IQ experience.”
Mirrorless has two things to fix before it can totally replace the DSLR. Focusing on static objects is already as quick, and more accurate than a DSLR, but tracking of moving subjects is useless. The Nikon 1 showed huge improvements in this area and technical solutions are in the pipeline. Secondly, the electronic viewfinder needs to improve. It already has the advantage over an optical viewfinder in that it can show you how your final shot will look and present overlays of data on the viewfinder; but the quality of the image needs to improve so that it matches the optical view. Give it 2-3 years and I think these shortcomings will be cracked.
Meantime I think that MFT still has the best balance of image quality, convenience, size and fun. Full frame mirrorless will be wonderful, but it will be more expensive and the lenses will be bigger. DSLR? Dead.
I rest my case: Sony is innovating, Canon and Nikon are not, and the long term future for consumer cameras is mirrorless.
See you again in two years.
Comments 🔗
2012-09-25| John Rochford saysThoughtful, well researched and informative, as usual
2012-09-25| Spanky saysGood piece. I don’t think the DSLR will die because too many “purest” or men with smaller than average penis size like walking around with this massive bodies and lenses hanging around their necks or off their shoulders. They scream look at me! Until professional photographers stop their obsession big is better and that mentality is no longer consumed by the wanna-be professional photographers the DSLR is safe.
You did forget to mention the Leica M which is also a full frame sensor in a small form factor with the ability to change lenses. Of course there is the Leica price tag associated with owning such a luxury camera and lenses. Sony is really trying to compete with them by suggesting that for a mere $2800 you can have a camera of similar caliber without the additional expense of buying lenses. They won’t win the status symbol race with Leica but I bet they steal some of people on the fence. $2800 for a working camera versus $7000 for a body only.
Final thing is that going with your trend of smaller and mirrorless is better. Fuji is considering a full frame sensor on the X line of cameras. If I wasn’t invested in m4/3 I would go with the Fuji products. They are starting to get it together now after a rough start and the new firmware has fixed a lot of the issues with the focus system and speed.
2012-09-25| Spike saysThanks John, took much longer to put together than I thought it would.
2012-09-25| Spike saysWhen 35mm was introduced, the pros said it was too small and would never catch on. When digital came along, the pros said it would never replace film. DSLRs are much more precarious, their only improvement over mirrorless is improved follow focusing and a pretty view through the viewfinder, and the downsides are many. They are doomed.
I did give Leica a mention : “Leica has been doing it for ever; but their prices are so extreme you rather assume there is some sort of magic involved.” People will continue buying them because they are Leica and because they make wonderful lenses; but the first company to offer an alternative at a reasonable price (around $2000 for a body?) is going to clean up. The issue will be offering a decent set of lenses, which neither Sony or Fuji have really addressed yet for their current systems. Personally, I would love to see Olympus do it. They know how to make a camera; and their lenses are great. Interesting times ahead!
2012-09-25| genuinej saysFor some, maybe, but we were warned.
2012-09-25| Spanky saysSorry I missed the Leica mention.
In regards to Sony, I looked at their lenses with the thought of switching to the A99. It’s a grim selection. You either pay top dollar for extremely fast lenses or you pay bottom dollar for extremely crap lenses. There is no middle ground.
2012-09-25| Robin Parmar saysNice article!
I have a different perspective since I don’t think Sony has done much innovating. Consider their NEX line: quite expensive, lack of lenses. And, worst of all, the lenses are huge for the format, negating the reason to go small in the first place.
Instead (as you mention) Olympus and Panasonic are the innovators by going mirrorless first and devising a very clever camera architecture (complete with optional EVF). And for having the commitment to produce a full line of excellent compact lenses for this system. There is no competition.
In the world of fixed-lens cameras, Fuji did the innovating with their rangefinder form factor EVF/OVF hybrid. Sony’s contribution is the full-frame sensor, which is not, in itself, anything new. Of course the fact it is so small is nice, but the price for what you get is a joke.
If the second camera in the OMD line has a FF sensor, Olympus will have every base covered. This could be done at half the price of the RX1 while still pricing it significantly above the EM-5.
2012-09-25| Spike saysI specifically put a warning at the start of these pieces so that people like yourself don’t have to waste your time reading it; but you still can’t resist a snide comment…..
2012-09-25| genuinej saysSnide? That’s a bit harsh ennit? They’re always worth reading as a shaft of your wit may be hidden deep therein.
2012-09-26| Grant saysSplendid rant old chap, quite up with your best bar the slight lack of vitriol which is understandable given how well informed you are on the subject, and I’m not surprised it took a while to put together given the amount of ground you covered. Very interesting indeed, and I’ve now gone all indecisive again about buying a camera, dammit! That French chappie Niepce was an interesting cove. First he escaped their revolution where they were busy cutting the heads off anyone who was slightly bright, (in the manner of revolutions down through the ages) then he built an early internal combustion engine fueled with explosive powder because petrol hadn’t been invented yet, then he took the first photograph of something real, the seminal landscape as you reproduced. What a bloke! Decades ahead of his time. Do you intend doing any lavender oil and bitumen experiments when the fun of coffeenol wears off, if it hasn’t already? Fascinating process to try and get right, arguably safer than mushrooms and nearly as much fun. Finding pewter could be a challenge…
2012-09-26| Spanky saysI’m sure there is an antique serving set somewhere that Spike could “borrow” for the pewter.
2012-09-26| Grant saysI’ll dust off an old pewter hip-flask I’ve got, just the very thing! It leaks, but it would take a good print…
2012-09-26| Grant saysYeah c’mon Spike, lighten up a bit, it wasn’t very snide, not the full four litre Humber Super Snide or anyfing…
2012-09-26| Spike saysI wish to apologise for the use of the word “snide”. It was uncalled for and a clear breach of ethics. Someone else made me do it.