Scrap your lenses! They won't work on new breed of cameras!!!

[Chillimonster]

I am looking forward to futher developments in 'EVIL' (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) camera technology meaning smaller high quality cameras.

After all its all about the image - not the equipment, and if all this technology means i'll get the picture i want then its all good.

 

[HoppyUK]

No, what you actually did was leap on a PR puff piece, laud it as the second coming and laugh at anyone a little more cautious.

You then go further to say, with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, that the whole thing will be sensational.

Odd indeed.

It's not a PR puff piece and I'm not laughing at anyone. You're the one doing the mocking here, and calling me 'odd' - not that being odd has stopped me before

It's an interview with the top man in a major photo manufacturer talking about an actual new product that will be on the market in a few months. It does many things in a radical new way, and I think much better way.

There is also strong evidence that other manufacturers will follow suit, as they are already doing similar things in many areas already if you look for them. I do find that quite exciting, certainly more so than anything else announced at PMA this month.

Why do you say "NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER" in caps? It's all in the link. And I think that better quality images, from smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses will indeed be pretty sensational.

 

[puddleduck]

Why do you say "NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER" in caps? It's all in the link. And I think that better quality images, from smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses will indeed be pretty sensational.

You are an marketing man's dream.

Hook. Line. Sinker.

I bet you believe Persil washes whiter, and if you use Lynx you'll be fighting the birds off with the pointy end of ****** stick

 

[HoppyUK]

You left out a crucial bit for some of us'

'At the moment you're targeting the high end amateur. Is that as far as you'll go or would you ever consider going to the really high end - the professional end - of the market, with Micro Four Thirds?

We don't want to go to the real 'professional' area. We would, however, like to expand our lineup with more consumer-type products, but we've really just started, and are still in the initial phase of introducing Micro Four Thirds. So maybe in the future? I don't know when, but there is certainly potential. Micro Four Thirds has the potential for entry level models and step-up models.'

That's huge.

He's talking about Panasonic and 4/3rds, so they won't be targeting many pros with this particular application.

But Nikon and Canon will, as indeed they already do. Nikon D3 has CA and vignetting correction. Everybody has D-Lite or some other form of dynamic range enhancement. Canon has extensive aberration correction for every single one of its lenses in its post processing software. I'm repeating myself

 

[Radiohead]

It's not a PR puff piece and I'm not laughing at anyone. You're the one doing the mocking here, and calling me 'odd' - not that being odd has stopped me before

It's an interview with the top man in a major photo manufacturer talking about an actual new product that will be on the market in a few months. It does many things in a radical new way, and I think much better way.

There is also strong evidence that other manufacturers will follow suit, as they are already doing similar things in many areas already if you look for them. I do find that quite exciting, certainly more so than anything else announced at PMA this month.

Why do you say "NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER" in caps? It's all in the link. And I think that better quality images, from smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses will indeed be pretty sensational.

It's a PR piece for lenses and a system that don't yet exist, and are aimed at the consumer market.

The market tells me that they know the limitation won't interest a good deal of people. There is NO EVIDENCE. They don't yet exist and we have seen no images.

That's not being cautious, that's waiting to see before proclaiming it as the must-have.

 

[HoppyUK]

You are an marketing man's dream.

Hook. Line. Sinker.

I bet you believe Persil washes whiter, and if you use Lynx you'll be fighting the birds off with the pointy end of ****** stick

It does. My mum told me. Are you calling my mum a liar?

How's the D700? You didn't fall for that marketing stuff about full frame did you?

 

[Ant]

I can see more cheap, and less quality lenses being created.

They'll cut back on the coddington series of lenses the camera side of the focusing lens which try to remove focal and chromatic aberration from destructive light waves, and try to correct digitally, which IMO will never provide a good, honest reproduction of the frame that is being captured.

Then again, it could be a good thing.

 

[HoppyUK]

It's a PR piece for lenses and a system that don't yet exist, and are aimed at the consumer market.

The market tells me that they know the limitation won't interest a good deal of people. There is NO EVIDENCE. They don't yet exist and we have seen no images.

That's not being cautious, that's waiting to see before proclaiming it as the must-have.

Okay, but the market tells me different. And it seems to be telling most manufacturers different. Look beyond 4/3rds and I think it is time to stop being cautious and welcome progress

 

[Chillimonster]

I can see more cheap, and less quality lenses being created.

Panasonic (and four thirds in general) produce very few 'duff' lenses in my opinion (especially compared to some of the dross on the Canon / Nikon systems) In fact i can only think of one or two.

Granted there are far fewer lenses available for the system, but they are nearly all top notch - even the kit lenses, so they must be doing something right.

Perhaps it's because the system has been designed from the ground up with digital in mind rather than trying to 'fudge' a lens design intended for film into the digital age and causing all maner of problems :shrug:


I say bring it on and lets see what it can do

 

[puddleduck]

How's the D700? You didn't fall for that marketing stuff about full frame did you?

Actually, its more accurate to say I didn't fall for all the DX stuff

 

[Radiohead]

Okay, but the market tells me different. And it seems to be telling most manufacturers different. Look beyond 4/3rds and I think it is time to stop being cautious and welcome progress

Show me the evidence and I'll look at it. Until then it's PR and nothing more.

I don't make my living throwing the baby out with the bathwater - I buy the best I can when I've seen what it can do. It's not like I'm using old kit.

 

[MJ Stebbings]

Sorry, got bored reading through the thread

My 2p, its all a bunch of round and danglies!

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Yep, sounds like a load of old **** and rattle.

 

[sammyd56]

I think the title tells you all you need to know about this thread


... there's an average of one exclamation mark for every three words

 

[coldpenguin]

I think it is just going to push a gulf between the pro and amateur lenses.

I am an amateur. I purchased an EOS 400D because at the time, it was a very good (as far as I could tell from the reviews), SLR camera, which breached the gap between point and shoot, and the professional bodies, such as the 1D.

This camera supports the EF-S mount. A mount specifically designed for Canon's crop cameras to bring the end of the lens closer to the sensor, making it easier for the crop sensors to get a decent picture. The lenses I suspect are easier to manufacture, you don't have to worry about having a full, non-distorted image over a wide space, as you know you are closer to a smaller sensor. (whereas panasonics argument will be you don't need to worry about having a full, non-distorted image over a wide space, 'cause we will stretch it back into shape).
Sounds in a way a similar argument/design decision as is being suggested here. i.e. a specific lens mount for easier to manufacture lenses (although the marketing department would have you think that this is done for the consumer's benefit).

However, three years down the line, I am wondering whether to buy a couple more lenses, or upgrade the body. Currently I have what I think is a good spread of focal lengths (18-55, 28-135, 70-300) which do what I require, but perhaps I could get a faster lens (f/3.5 is about as good as it gets).
Why do I bring this up? It has become apparent to me, that investing in the EF-S range could be a dead-end for me. If I consider the 5D, then the EF-S is useless. However, is it worth me getting a better or L lens for a 400D, just so later I can upgrade without hassle (and pay a premium for having a crisp image shone onto the back of the camera)?

I think the same is going to come of these amateur end lenses from panasonic, it is only going to cause confusion when the decision comes to upgrade. If you have a good body, then why waste it on a lens which is known to require changes to the image it produces.

If you have just bought a good SLR, but want something better, then are you going to need to replace all of these lenses? Probably, because in going to full frame from the cropped sensors these lenses will probably support, is going to mean that the images are fish-eyes.

(and finally, in a toungue in cheek fashion). Are we going to have to talk about mega-pixels to sensor characteristics now as functions of an ovoid, to combat the stretching that these lenses will require? Just think of all those pixels in the corners that are always going to be dark

 

[HoppyUK]

Show me the evidence and I'll look at it. Until then it's PR and nothing more.

I don't make my living throwing the baby out with the bathwater - I buy the best I can when I've seen what it can do. It's not like I'm using old kit.

And I'm not telling you to do anything different.

I'm just drawing folks' attention to new developements that I think are exciting. They affect us all, and they are relevant even to D3 and D700 users as these cameras already use elements of the same technology. And I think this is a good thing.

Furthermore, it is inevitable that cameras and lenses will continue to evolve in a way that makes the inter-electronics of lens and camera a central function. And becasuse of this, if you take things foward to a logical conclusion, you cannot realise the full benefits of such a fundamental change without both new cameras and also new lenses.

I'm not suggesting anybody rushes out to buy a new Panasonic. I certainly won't be. But I'm looking foward to seeing how the major manufacturers take this forward. It won't make my 40D and EF-S lenses perform any worse, but it will probably make my next camera better.

 

[StewartR]

Your current lenses will not work on the next generation of cameras, which are just around the corner

I don't see how this would render my current lenses useless?

I'm only guessing here, but it probably won't.

OK, I think this exchange sums up this thread.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

 

[fletch5]

you sound relatively calm there stewart, arent you worried, all the kit you got now will be useless soon and wont be worth quarter what you paid

 

[HoppyUK]

^^^ Got you guys going though

 

[Techno-Geek]

lol, ok, neither am i in truth, but it not an equipment fault, it more user error

Nah, it's not me.......is it? :razz: I blame the camera strap for being to heavy.....yeah that should do it

you sound relatively calm there stewart, arent you worried, all the kit you got now will be useless soon and wont be worth quarter what you paid

Don't say that, that would be messed

 

[Blue Eagle]

because unfortunatally - SONY for example has a sensor chip that is in nearly everything

OIf the OEM manufacturers for the sensors decide something, the rest of the field plays catch up

Or....canon/nikon tell the OEM's or whoever to get bent. They have the final say lol.

 

[swanseamale47]

The OP said "Scrap your lenses! They won't work on new breed of cameras!!! " well they probably won't if you use Panasonic anyway, other makers might be a bit more cautious. Judging by the response here Panasonic shares won't be worth much soon (assuming they are worth anything now) it certainly doesn't look like TP members are going to be camping outside Dixons in bulk waiting for the new cameras. Wayne

 

[HoppyUK]

The OP said "Scrap your lenses! They won't work on new breed of cameras!!! " well they probably won't if you use Panasonic anyway, other makers might be a bit more cautious. Judging by the response here Panasonic shares won't be worth much soon (assuming they are worth anything now) it certainly doesn't look like TP members are going to be camping outside Dixons in bulk waiting for the new cameras. Wayne

It's ironic that you should mention Dixons. They were once the world's biggest photo retailer (yes, they were). Now closed.

What happened there then? Technological change, in the shape of the internet, swept them out of the High Street. If you don't keep up to speed with the forces of progress and change, whether you like it or not, even the biggest brands fail.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

If you don't keep up to speed with the forces of progress and change, whether you like it or not, even the biggest brands fail.

The ever accelerating progress of technology is not in doubt, nor is anyone discounting it generally speaking. It seems that some have a rather strong opinion that the topic has no relevance and belongs in the hype and marketing propaganda pool.

IMO the biggest threat or the manufacturer most likely to annihilate/reshape the DSLR structure that we now and use today will be a company called Red, but this is not going to happen in a matter of months, corporations bleed as much revenue as possible from the 'current' tech as they possibly can.
Tomorrow's tech is available today but we don't get a sniff until, well, tomorrow. Corporations have employed this tactic for donkeys.

However if Red's camera's continue to have a similar appearance to Darth Vader's thermos then maybe....not

 

[OutLore]

It's ironic that you should mention Dixons. They were once the world's biggest photo retailer (yes, they were). Now closed.

What happened there then? Technological change, in the shape of the internet, swept them out of the High Street. If you don't keep up to speed with the forces of progress and change, whether you like it or not, even the biggest brands fail.

"The forces of progress and change" - do you mean like disc cameras and APS film?

Just because one manufacturer decides to float a pie in the sky idea about something does not make it the new standard, and even if it does - not all other manufacturers will follow suit.

 

[swanseamale47]

It's ironic that you should mention Dixons. They were once the world's biggest photo retailer (yes, they were). Now closed.

What happened there then? Technological change, in the shape of the internet, swept them out of the High Street. If you don't keep up to speed with the forces of progress and change, whether you like it or not, even the biggest brands fail.

What like Panasonic maybe? lol. Dixons are in trouble partly because of a global recession, and partly because they are not competitive enough in a modern market, not helped by often indifferent and unhelpfull staff in some branches.
There is no subsitute for high quality lens, using cheap uncorrected lens, and "fixing" it digitally isn't going to cut the mustard with the serious photographers (as you can see from this thread) Somehow I can't see people dumping their D3's to replace it with what is essentially a compact camera.
Just because it's new and "now" doesn't mean it's going to catch on, JPEG 2000 was supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread, what happened to that? Most companies are concentrating on bigger better sensors to improve IQ, perhaps Panasonic would be better off following the market leaders.
You believe what you want, I know what I believe. Wayne

 

[strobemonkey]

The ever accelerating progress of technology is not in doubt, nor is anyone discounting it generally speaking. It seems that some have a rather strong opinion that the topic has no relevance and belongs in the hype and marketing propaganda pool.

IMO the biggest threat or the manufacturer most likely to annihilate/reshape the DSLR structure that we now and use today will be a company called Red, but this is not going to happen in a matter of months, corporations bleed as much revenue as possible from the 'current' tech as they possibly can.
Tomorrow's tech is available today but we don't get a sniff until, well, tomorrow. Corporations have employed this tactic for donkeys.

However if Red's camera's continue to have a similar appearance to Darth Vader's thermos then maybe....not

wtf is this:

Will you bring this one with you when touring ?

 

[Tyke Tiler]

wtf is this:

Will you bring this one with you when touring ?

Darth vader's opera glasses!

It's some kind of 3D imaging thing, either that or it wipes out populations in one blast, makes the fruits of panasonic look like carriage clocks and lace doilies though doesn't it.

 

[HoppyUK]

"The forces of progress and change" - do you mean like disc cameras and APS film?

Just because one manufacturer decides to float a pie in the sky idea about something does not make it the new standard, and even if it does - not all other manufacturers will follow suit.

Yes, Disc and APS are good examples. They were neither progress nor change. In fact, APS was Kodak's pre-emptive strike to fend off the inevitability of digital, but it was just old film technology repackaged. That's really all Kodak knows how to do, and it has killed itself as a result. I am sad about that.

 

[OutLore]

Yes, Disc and APS are good examples. They were neither progress nor change. In fact, APS was Kodak's pre-emptive strike to fend off the inevitability of digital, but it was just old film technology repackaged. That's really all Kodak knows how to do, and it has killed itself as a result. I am sad about that.

Good examples of what? The opposite argument you are making?

I smell something..... yup. Trolls***.

 

[HoppyUK]

What like Panasonic maybe? lol. Dixons are in trouble partly because of a global recession, and partly because they are not competitive enough in a modern market, not helped by often indifferent and unhelpfull staff in some branches.
There is no subsitute for high quality lens, using cheap uncorrected lens, and "fixing" it digitally isn't going to cut the mustard with the serious photographers (as you can see from this thread) Somehow I can't see people dumping their D3's to replace it with what is essentially a compact camera.
Just because it's new and "now" doesn't mean it's going to catch on, JPEG 2000 was supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread, what happened to that? Most companies are concentrating on bigger better sensors to improve IQ, perhaps Panasonic would be better off following the market leaders.
You believe what you want, I know what I believe. Wayne

With respect Wayne, you are missing the point. I am talking about the logical extension of digital technology, and a ground-up redesign of the camera and lenses using all available technology. The result is quite different, and better, than taking what is essentially a film camera design but with a digital sensor instead.

That whole concept, remarkable for its longevity, is due an overhaul now that we don't need a reflex mirror and an optical viewing system. We won't need a mechanical shutter for much longer, either. Take those requirements away and suddenly the camera that emerges is nothing like what we're used to. And when you incorporate everything that is now becoming possible with digital image processing, the results from such a camera will be equally different, and better. I'm talking about ten years from now, but the point is, the process has already started.

One application might be cheaper, better cameras, but another might be an equally expensive but significantly better camera and lenses that would indeed appeal to serious photographers.

Why wouldn't it? Nikon D3 already hints at what might be possible, in a small way, with its on-board JPEG processing, but without a substantial system redesign it can't go much further. If the major manufacturers fail to recognise this, they will soon find themselves in the Leica and Hasselblad niche. But of course they won't do this - they are as forward thinking as anybody, and just as interested in selling us new kit. Personally, I can't wait

 

[HoppyUK]

Good examples of what? The opposite argument you are making?

I smell something..... yup. Trolls***.

If you present unsustainable examples, and I respond to your post, how can that be trolling?

 

[HoppyUK]

The ever accelerating progress of technology is not in doubt, nor is anyone discounting it generally speaking. It seems that some have a rather strong opinion that the topic has no relevance and belongs in the hype and marketing propaganda pool.

IMO the biggest threat or the manufacturer most likely to annihilate/reshape the DSLR structure that we now and use today will be a company called Red, but this is not going to happen in a matter of months, corporations bleed as much revenue as possible from the 'current' tech as they possibly can.
Tomorrow's tech is available today but we don't get a sniff until, well, tomorrow. Corporations have employed this tactic for donkeys.

However if Red's camera's continue to have a similar appearance to Darth Vader's thermos then maybe....not

I know your joking, but there's nothing new about 3D, or 3D movies is there? There has never been much difficulty in capturing 3D, but one heck of a problem in viewing it. Nimslo was the last (failed) attempt.

More seriously, your assertion that we will never get a sniff of tomorrow's technology until the existing tech has been bled to death, well, that doesn't hold true if you are Panasonic or maybe Sony. They have very little vested interest in screwing the last drop out of existing technology, just the reverse in fact. And obviously, they are already doing it.

 

[OutLore]

If you present unsustainable examples, and I respond to your post, how can that be trolling?

I presented two examples: APS and Disc format cameras. Both were "change" - different from what had gone before.

Both were supposed to be progress: their manufacturers saw them as the future - or else they would not have decided to run with them. Even though they were horribly mistaken, at the time, they thought these things were the future and good ideas. No business WANTS to back a three legged horse, unless all the other horses running only have 2 legs.

I've whacked you with the Troll stick because it's obvious what response you're going to get to your original post, and even now you're stating that I have presented sustainable examples, which in one post you say are good examples, and then say they are not. It's classic Trollism.

 

[OutLore]

Oh - and if you are not a troll, and you honestly believe this marketing hype, then I have a sound business proposition for you. I have been left $214,348,342 by my uncle in Ghana. Unfortunately because I am from Ghana the law here prevents me from getting to the money. I will share the money with you 50/50, but all I need is $10,000 from you for my legal fees. Please deposit the money into my account as soon as possible. Here are the details......

There's one born every minute - suckers and trolls

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I know your joking, but there's nothing new about 3D, or 3D movies is there? There has never been much difficulty in capturing 3D, but one heck of a problem in viewing it. Nimslo was the last (failed) attempt.

I'm sorry I have absolutely no understanding of what your trying to get at with the above. :shrug:

More seriously, your assertion that we will never get a sniff of tomorrow's technology until the existing tech has been bled to death, well, that doesn't hold true if you are Panasonic or maybe Sony. They have very little vested interest in screwing the last drop out of existing technology, just the reverse in fact. And obviously, they are already doing it.

Geez louise, really?, you must be the only person that I've come across, ever, that actually believes that.

Why would Panasonic or Sony's primary interests be any different to their competitors?

Of course they squeeze every last penny out of 'current' technology before releasing a 'new' one, it's how they repeat the cycle.

Consider the speed that technology progresses, then consider the life span of a device or product line. Which one evolves faster?

Consider Playstations for just a minute, logically now and don't rush.

Do Sony release a new console every few months? the tech for consoles outdates the current lines in roughly this format, would Sony drop their current line just because they discovered a better, more efficient or improved design?

Can you imagine the losses if they prematurely released new lines? When current lines are still generating profit?

Maximizing profits are a corporations priority.
Some would say, the only priority with cyclical consumption. Corps couldn't care less about consumers getting tomorrows tech today.

 

[fyonn]

I guess I'll give my unqualified view...

to me it seems that it's not as such a terrible idea, not in the market that panasonic usually plays in anyway, but it's also at risk of leading to making crappy lenses and making up for it in digital, as others have said.

What I think is more likely is that future DSLR's will have options to correct some of the optical distortions in the camera body (or nikon captureNX/canon equiv). I suspect that new lenses won't be required, but that new lenses might well just have a little bit more exif-type data to report into the camera body about the optical characteristics and if a body can/wants to use it, it can. other bodies or users won't want to.

I'm thinking here something along the lines of a lens reporting in that it suffers from a little pincushion distortion to a factor of 0.4 and the body can act upon, or ignore that data as it sees fit. Might be useful to report it into the exif though, so something like PS could take advantage

To cover older lenses, I suspect the bodies would simply have an onboard database of known lenses and their characteristics so that full compatibility is maintained. none of this leads me to believe that anyone will be scrapping their lenses... though if anyone wants to scrap some fast nikon glass this way, please don't let me stop you!

To me this sounds like somewhat of an extention of existing processing both onboard (vignette control, CA control) and offboard (stuff like DxO and photoshop's pincushion and barrel correctors).

All this said, I still think that the big makers will concentrate on making very good glass and any of the above will simply be a way to refine excellent glass, and I don't think they're gonna make anything incompatible. I certainly don't think they'll make a lens that requires the processing to look good, that would be a very bad move I think.

However, looking at something like the panasonic G1 and GH1, what puts me off it more than anything else is the lack of proper optical viewfinder. I've used a few different EVF's before and really not liked them. I've not tried the G1's but I don't have high hopes.

not to say that good, ultra high res, high speed, bright and good-in-the-dark EVF's can't be made, but I haven't seen one yet.

What I'd love to see is someone make a proper rangefinder out of such a system. manual focus, seperate 1:1 viewfinder and maybe some new technology to bring the rangefinder slightly more uptodate. I'd be happy to keep the MF lenses though, as long as we get RF focusing.

dave

 

[HoppyUK]

I presented two examples: APS and Disc format cameras. Both were "change" - different from what had gone before.

Both were supposed to be progress: their manufacturers saw them as the future - or else they would not have decided to run with them. Even though they were horribly mistaken, at the time, they thought these things were the future and good ideas. No business WANTS to back a three legged horse, unless all the other horses running only have 2 legs.

I've whacked you with the Troll stick because it's obvious what response you're going to get to your original post, and even now you're stating that I have presented sustainable examples, which in one post you say are good examples, and then say they are not. It's classic Trollism.

C'mon OutLore, you know what I was saying. They were good examples in support of what I am saying, because in both the case of Disc and APS, they were neither progress nor change!

Of course they were thought to be a way forward at the time, and now we know why they were not. They did not change anything fundamental and they were both nothing more than new film formats. They were both old technology wrapped up in new clothes, both by Kodak, in an attempt to resell us the same thing in a different box.

It didn't work. But what is being suggested by Panasonic in the OP, and also by other manufacturers, is something different, in a different box. That's the difference

 

[HoppyUK]

I'm sorry I have absolutely no understanding of what your trying to get at with the above. :shrug:

Google "Nimslo".

Geez louise, really?, you must be the only person that I've come across, ever, that actually believes that.

Why would Panasonic or Sony's primary interests be any different to their competitors?

Of course they squeeze every last penny out of 'current' technology before releasing a 'new' one, it's how they repeat the cycle.

Consider the speed that technology progresses, then consider the life span of a device or product line. Which one evolves faster?

Consider Playstations for just a minute, logically now and don't rush.

Do Sony release a new console every few months? the tech for consoles outdates the current lines in roughly this format, would Sony drop their current line just because they discovered a better, more efficient or improved design?

Can you imagine the losses if they prematurely released new lines? When current lines are still generating profit?

Maximizing profits are a corporations priority.
Some would say, the only priority with cyclical consumption. Corps couldn't care less about consumers getting tomorrows tech today.

You don't have to call me Louise, surely

Yes, let's consider Playstation. If Sony had a monopoly market position with a vested interest in the status quo, you'd be right. But it doesn't. We have X-Box and Nintendo, and they have a vested interest in pushing their own new technologies, and getting them to market as quickly as possible. Evidently this is happening.

Panasonic is in that same position, and so is Sony to a lesser extent. Neither corporations are to be taken lightly.

All I have done is draw people's attention to new technology presently being put to market by Panasonic, and suggested ways it might make for better cameras and lenses. I've gone further and suggested that over the next five to ten years, this technology will have a big impact on the equipment available from all manufacturers that folks on this forum might be using.

There is nothing more to the debate than that. I couched it in somewhat provocative terms to make the point, and it seems to have worked. It's mostly hypothetical for now; we'll have to wait and see, but I'm looking foward to it.

 

[HoppyUK]

I guess I'll give my unqualified view...

to me it seems that it's not as such a terrible idea, not in the market that panasonic usually plays in anyway, but it's also at risk of leading to making crappy lenses and making up for it in digital, as others have said.

What I think is more likely is that future DSLR's will have options to correct some of the optical distortions in the camera body (or nikon captureNX/canon equiv). I suspect that new lenses won't be required, but that new lenses might well just have a little bit more exif-type data to report into the camera body about the optical characteristics and if a body can/wants to use it, it can. other bodies or users won't want to.

I'm thinking here something along the lines of a lens reporting in that it suffers from a little pincushion distortion to a factor of 0.4 and the body can act upon, or ignore that data as it sees fit. Might be useful to report it into the exif though, so something like PS could take advantage

To cover older lenses, I suspect the bodies would simply have an onboard database of known lenses and their characteristics so that full compatibility is maintained. none of this leads me to believe that anyone will be scrapping their lenses... though if anyone wants to scrap some fast nikon glass this way, please don't let me stop you!

To me this sounds like somewhat of an extention of existing processing both onboard (vignette control, CA control) and offboard (stuff like DxO and photoshop's pincushion and barrel correctors).

All this said, I still think that the big makers will concentrate on making very good glass and any of the above will simply be a way to refine excellent glass, and I don't think they're gonna make anything incompatible. I certainly don't think they'll make a lens that requires the processing to look good, that would be a very bad move I think.

However, looking at something like the panasonic G1 and GH1, what puts me off it more than anything else is the lack of proper optical viewfinder. I've used a few different EVF's before and really not liked them. I've not tried the G1's but I don't have high hopes.

not to say that good, ultra high res, high speed, bright and good-in-the-dark EVF's can't be made, but I haven't seen one yet.

What I'd love to see is someone make a proper rangefinder out of such a system. manual focus, seperate 1:1 viewfinder and maybe some new technology to bring the rangefinder slightly more uptodate. I'd be happy to keep the MF lenses though, as long as we get RF focusing.

dave

Thanks for that Dave That is rather more the kind of reasoned debate I was hoping to have, but I think most things have been covered now one way or another.

What I will say is that I don't think some people appreciate how hard it is to design some kinds of DSLR lenses, and how correcting things optically restricts what can be done.

For example, the mirror box is a big problem, which forces a retrofocus design for all lenses below about 45mm focal length. That will be history.

And producing wide zooms that do not distort and vignette is difficult, and the 'moustashe' style of distortion that is so common is not easy to correct with simple blanket programs like +3% barrel or whatever. But if a lens designer doesn't have to worry about distortion because a sophisticated series of algorithms has got it completely sorted over a range of focal lengths, then the angles become wider.

Fast apertures are also a problem. Edge sharpness is very hard indeed to maintain, especially when vignetting has to be avoided. But vignetting is easily fixed digitally, and clever algorithms that address CA and sharpening progressively across the frame will allow the designer to either do things much more simply and cheaper, or to offer an even wider range of apertures and focal lengths with no penalty on image quality.

I also hear people say that electronic viewfinders are not very good, and that digital image processing leaves undesirable artifacts etc etc. Those are all comments on existing technology and obviously if they cannot be overcome to a very high standard then this thing won't take off. But Panasonic is launching it, so we have to believe that they are convinced it can be done. They are putting squi££ions behind it.