 |
| Braldu River Northern Pakisan This photo was made a few years ago with a Mamiya 7 manual focus, manual everything medium format rollfilm camera. A reminder that photographers managed just fine for many years without autofocus or auto anything. |
This is a follow on from the previous post, DSLR-vs-MILC-vs-FZLC.
Some people, I was one of them, imagined that the MILC as a camera type would overtake the DSLR in popularity soon after it first appeared in 2008. We were wrong.
I guess the global financial crisis of 2008/9 didn’t help. Maybe the GFC prompted lots of camera buyers to take a cautious approach to their purchase decisions.
But I suspect the main reason is just that Canon and Nikon have not fully embraced the MILC concept.
These two manufacturers make most cameras. If they did shift to MILCs as their dominant offering then MILCs would sell more than DSLRs.
So why have Canon and Nikon not embraced the MILC category more fully ?
I don’t know of course, being nowhere near the corridors of power in the camera world, so I have to guess and I think there might be two reasons.
1. The first is about sales. I think that while Canon and Nikon are doing well with DSLRs that is what they will continue to make. I think that if DSLR sales fall even further than they have done then maybe CanoNikon will ramp up their MILC designs to a more prosumer level and increase output. Maybe: but see below.
2. The second is about lenses and focussing technology.
In the previous post I talked about the focussing problems experienced when a lens designed for PDAF is mounted on a camera which relies on CDAF.
Canon and Nikon each have a huge inventory of lenses designed for PDAF.
Obviously they want their existing DSLR lens inventory to work properly via an adapter on their MILC bodies. This would allow existing lens owners to transition to MILC without having to change their kit of expensive DSLR lenses.
So they need MILCs with PDAF. In fact they do have MILCs which have both PDAF and CDAF on the imaging sensor.
But apparently DSLR style PDAF using dedicated sensors in the base of the mirror box is more sensitive, more accurate (if the hardware is in correct alignment) and faster than the on sensor style PDAF of mirrorless cameras.
The technical reasons for this are over my head. I read about it on photo.stackexchange.com, Wikipedia and cambridgeincolour.com. I don’t understand the technical exposition but I do get the message: on sensor PDAF is not as good as DSLR type PDAF.
Canon appears to be trying to manage this in two ways simultaneously.
Some EOS DSLRs utilise Canon’s ‘Dual pixel CMOS AF’ which allows every effective pixel to participate in PDAF as well as image capture.
But apparently dual pixel AF, while suitable for video, is still not very good for predictive continuous AF on moving subjects with still photos, which might explain why the EOS M3 MILC does not have this technology, utilising instead ‘Hybrid CMOS AF III’.
I suspect this issue is actually a very big deal and possibly the main rate limiting factor affecting CanoNikon’s progress on MILC development.
In a recent interview with staff from Digital Photography Review, Mr Masaya Maeda, a senior Canon imaging executive is quoted as saying “ ..every day I’m saying, speed up, make it faster…” .
FZLC
Both companies are also in the FZLC market and I am guessing they will upgrade their design and production in this sector if sales figures tell them that is where buyers want to go.
Trailblazing
CanoNikon are allowing Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and others do the trail blazing and market making with new camera types, planning, I suppose, to move in when they are ready.
The danger is of course, that previously faithful CanoNikon buyers will drift away to other brands in the meantime and fail to return to the fold.
Maybe Apple will do a run around all of them and collapse the established camera industry completely.
The buyers will decide.
We live in interesting times.
Đăng nhận xét