Foreshadowing the inevitable?

[Gavjenks]

There's no particular reason why mirrorless cameras would have better IQ.

4/3 is a smaller sensor, but you could have a similar camera with a crop or full frame, if/when those become cheap enough to manufacture to warrant putting them into cheaper types of bodies.

The autofocus won't be as good, and they might not shoot as quickly, and blah blah, but the actual IQ minus conveniences could be just as good, and still slim enough to fit in your pocket. Theoretically, in the future.

 

[snowbear]

I say the P&S is his, and he carries the big gear for someone else, like a caddy.

 

[Steve5D]

More than likely, someone asked him to take a picture for them and handed him their camera...

 

[Derrel]

Foreshadowing the inevitable:In 1973 The American National Metric Council (ANMC) was established .They decreed that the United States shall fully adopt and use the metric system by 1975. "It's inevitable". These clowns held annual conferences every year from 1975 through 1987.

We have been told that the US would be metric by 1976. By 1980. BY 1985. By 1992. By 1998. BY 2000. BY 2005. By 2010.

"It's inevitable".

Micro 4/3. It's inevitable.

 

[The_Traveler]

I was initially concerned about the IQ of a M4.3 so I satisfied myself that it was adequate for me.
I bought the best lenses available for the body.
These are two 100% crops of pictures taken yesterday waling around DC in pretty bad shooting conditions, high sun, no shade to speak of with 35-100 2.8 Panasonic (70-200 equivalent) at 2.8 and 100 and 75 mm 1.8 Olympus taken at 2.8.
Opened in LR 5 with no additional work besides cropping and taken to PS to add text

Sharpness and color rendition good enough for street work for me and I think as good or better than most shots I see here, platform irrespective.

 

[The_Traveler]

Here are the uncropped shots

 

[The_Traveler]

In case the venue is intriguing.

This is in front of Supreme Court, hoping for some decisions on gay marriage to be issued (they weren't)

slight pull in of highlights to get some clouds in the sky

producer working away

'talent' arriving

'talent' waiting in shade and still photographers waiting.

 

[runnah]

The future is apparently teal.

 

[The_Traveler]

And the opportunity to buy used dSLR equipment

 

[runnah]

And the opportunity to buy used dSLR equipment

From the ashes we will rebuild!

 

[amolitor]

Why is the producer cuter than the talent? WHY? WHY? THIS WORLD HAS GONE MAD!

 

[The_Traveler]

I think that the reality of TV work is that the career path for producers has higher and longer potential.
My neighbor started locally as Walter Cronkite's producer, then Dan Rather and ended up as VP CBS.

 

[runnah]

I think that the reality of TV work is that the career path for producers has higher and longer potential.
My neighbor started locally as Walter Cronkite's producer, then Dan Rather and ended up as VP CBS.

Talent is disposable. Our local stations fire anyone who has any sort of tenure in favor of kids right out of school. The quality suffers but with the CODB these days it's the only way the stations can survive.

 

[KenC]

Wonderful shot in your initial post.

Re 4/3, I have to believe there are others like me who are willing to carry around SLR equipment on many occasions and want the best possible IQ, but who go straight to the "bridge" cameras (I have a Canon G11) those times when they want to minimize weight. Pixel peeping aside, it is usually very difficult, if not impossible, to tell the difference between images taken with my SLR and the G11 at any reasonable magnification (i.e, full-screen or in medium-size prints). The reason I use the SLR is that I have a better choice of focal lengths and under some circumstances (e.g., low light, extensive cropping) one does get noticeably better IQ with an SLR. I'm not familiar with 4/3, but I imagine there are circumstances where an SLR would do better, and there will always be some who will use an SLR at least sometimes.

 

[amolitor]

There are a lot of elements of the DSLR that are pretty much driven by marketing. Big, for instance. The "pro" models are just ridiculous.

Mirrorless cameras remove a lot of components, which makes a lot of stuff better. Cheaper to make. Easier to make well. The fact that you're not trying to focus and meter and look at stuff with ONE optical path, but actually taking the picture with ANOTHER optical path removes a host of issues. To be sure, these issues are largely sorted out because they've been beavering away at it for 100 years, but still.

I assume there will always be DSLRs and 4x5s and so on, though. The market wants them, whether they make sense or not, and there will always be a slice of the world where they actually make sense, as well.