DSLRUsers.com

I finally received my Panasonic G1 today and started playing with it. It's destined for an IR conversion: so far I'm sticking with my SLRs for most "normal" photography. However, I'm left with a question: what do we call this type of camera?

It's a Micro Four Thirds, and as such is not an SLR design (there's no mirror behind the lens). But the lens is interchangable.
Unlike the MFT Oly E-P1, the viewfinder is recessed behind an eyepiece, so to an extent it "feels" like an SLR.
To me it's not a point-n-shoot or a "compact digital". With a large sensor ("crop factor" of 2x) it needs to be regarded as a different class.

Canon (and presumably other manufacturers) has made noises about investigating similar products. Interchangable lenses, APS-C-ish sized sensor, purely electronic (using the main sensor) AF/exposure/viewfinder. Those products would presumably not be Micro Four Thirds, just similar... What should we call them?

Has anyone here got a suggestion?

A "camera"?

Interchangable-lens-non-slr-camera? (or, ILNSLR for the initialists amongst us).

A good point! I was thinking in similar terms and this type of cameras are a notch up the prosumer cameras such as the Olympus SP570 or the PowerShot G10.

DaveB wrote:It's a Micro Four Thirds, and as such is not an SLR design (there's no mirror behind the lens).

And it's that feature that distinguishes this class from the larger Four Thirds, with which it shares the sensor and, IIRC, lens mount.

Unlike the MFT Oly E-P1, the viewfinder is recessed behind an eyepiece, so to an extent it "feels" like an SLR.

Like the old CP5700/8700 ... which had dual electronic viewfinders.

[/quote]To me it's not a point-n-shoot or a "compact digital". With a large sensor ("crop factor" of 2x) it needs to be regarded as a different class.[/quote]

What's wrong with Micro Four Thirds? While it derived from the sensor size, so too did the now defunct APS designation.

Canon (and presumably other manufacturers) has made noises about investigating similar products. Interchangable lenses, APS-C-ish sized sensor, purely electronic (using the main sensor) AF/exposure/viewfinder. Those products would presumably not be Micro Four Thirds, just similar... What should we call them?

Would they be considered to be in the same class? The four thirds cameras have been largely left behind in the two horse DSLR race, and I now see MFT and being the saviour of that format, following the efforts of Olympus with the Pen.

As an aside, a week or so ago Poon showed me some images from a pre-owned G1 he recently acquired, and they were most impressive.

gstark wrote:

DaveB wrote:It's a Micro Four Thirds, and as such is not an SLR design (there's no mirror behind the lens).

And it's that feature that distinguishes this class from the larger Four Thirds, with which it shares the sensor and, IIRC, lens mount.

Yup. Four Thirds is an SLR design, and when we talk about cameras we don't really make a big distinction between them and other SLR cameras.

Unlike the MFT Oly E-P1, the viewfinder is recessed behind an eyepiece, so to an extent it "feels" like an SLR.

Like the old CP5700/8700 ... which had dual electronic viewfinders.

Sort of. I had a Pro1 for a few years (again as an IR camera) and it was similar to the 5700/8700 in that way. But with the interchangable lens (and the huge [in comparison] sensor I suppose) the G1 feels like a different beast.

At the moment Micro Four Thirds seems sensible as a designation for this new class...but what happens when Nikon and Canon join in with micro EF-S and Micro DX??

Why not just call it a camera!

How about "a rose"?

ATJ wrote:How about "a rose"?

Bill Shakespeare, a very early proponent of the four thirds format,
and a strong believer in the potential for non DSLRs to make a
major contribution to serious photography, wrote in an early
edition of Ye Photographie:-

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Micro four thirds would, were it not Micro 4/3 call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which it owes
Without that title. Micro, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

Foursooth or Fourthirds, thy must decide,
And hold thy format to thine breast
For whichever one shall be thine choice
The brand of Nikon will be best.

And there I was thinking that the fez was for keeping the bonze warm

Well, you don't look through the lens - maybe it's a strangefinder.

Murray Foote wrote:Well, you don't look through the lens - maybe it's a strangefinder.

I have to say I like it...it has a ring to it

EVIL

Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens

The new Oly is something else as it has no viewfinder...

Michael

DSL(-R)

gstark wrote:DSL(-R)

Nice try, although "DSL" already has a different meaning for most of us.

Incidentally, this leads me back to another peeve of mine: people talking about DSLRs when in fact they just mean SLRs. Face it: FSLRs are the exception these days.

DaveB wrote:Incidentally, this leads me back to another peeve of mine: people talking about DSLRs when in fact they just mean SLRs. Face it: FSLRs are the exception these days.

I disagree. A DSLR is just being more precise than SLR. Initials are initials and while SLR stands for single lens reflex, a DSLR is just a digital version of them. For sure (to borrow that F1 term), there are more digital SLRs around than the original film based ones but go back 10 years and the distinction between film and digital was very relevant.

Sure, but when I see an article explaining something like how auto-focus, exposure metering, or even E-TTL works and it is titled something like "How your DSLR works" I find it sad that those people using FSLRs might think that the article wasn't relevant to them.
That's just one of many examples...

But eTTL (or iTTL) is in fact quite different from TTL on an FSLR and it is the FSLR/DSLR different that makes it so. In my mind, that's the perfect situation to distinguish between FSLR and DSLR.

ATJ wrote:But eTTL (or iTTL) is in fact quite different from TTL on an FSLR and it is the FSLR/DSLR different that makes it so. In my mind, that's the perfect situation to distinguish between FSLR and DSLR.

Does that mean the F6 is a DSLR?

Reschsmooth wrote:

ATJ wrote:But eTTL (or iTTL) is in fact quite different from TTL on an FSLR and it is the FSLR/DSLR different that makes it so. In my mind, that's the perfect situation to distinguish between FSLR and DSLR.

Does that mean the F6 is a DSLR?

Oh, I did not realise that Nikon had crippled TTL in a film camera. What a stupid decision by Nikon, in my opinion. After using both TTL on my FLSRs and iTTL on my DLRS I found TTL far superior.

I used to be able to run with two flashes, one TTL and one manual. The TTL was either in the hotshoe or connected via the SC-17 cable. The manual flash was connected to a slave trigger. While I had to manually determine the required output of the manual flash (usually less than what the TTL flash would put out), it all worked beautifully. a) the TTL flash would fire the manual flash at the exact right time. b) the light from the manual flash was measured by the TTL sensor in the camera and considered for the exposure. With iTTL, a) the preflash sets off the manual flash dumping its charge (unless it is set quite low). b) if there is sufficient charge left in the manual flash to fire again with the main TTL flash, the light from the manual flash is not considered in the exposure so you tend to get a bit of over exposure.

ATJ wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:

ATJ wrote:But eTTL (or iTTL) is in fact quite different from TTL on an FSLR and it is the FSLR/DSLR different that makes it so. In my mind, that's the perfect situation to distinguish between FSLR and DSLR.

Does that mean the F6 is a DSLR?

Oh, I did not realise that Nikon had crippled TTL in a film camera. What a stupid decision by Nikon, in my opinion. After using both TTL on my FLSRs and iTTL on my DLRS I found TTL far superior.

While TTL, iTTL, and eTTL are all brilliant technological concepts, I still prefer the simple A mode flash, whereby the flash head determines the correct amount of light needed for any given exposure. Just dial in the aperture that you want, and away you go.

Either that, or full manual with power reduction to, again, set the desired aperture.

Simple, and it works. What more does one need?

Oh dear, it seems that we're

A mode flash doesn't work for macro.

Manual worked great for macro but you had to go through quite a bit of film to determine the correct combinations under different conditions. One of the really neat things about my 60mm macro lens was that as you moved in closer, the bellow extension of the lens made the effective aperture smaller decreasing the amount of light getting to the film. However, as you were moving closer, the flash was now closer increasing the amount of light. These two factors negated each other quite well and if the flash was kept in the same place relative to the camera you could just use the same aperture. Change something else and it was back to test shots to determine the correct exposure again.

TTL just worked and worked well. You did have to make allowances for certain subjects, though. Very dark subjects you had to use negative compensation so they wouldn't end up as neutral grey. With very light subjects you needed positive compensation so they didn't end up as neutral grey.

ATJ wrote:But eTTL (or iTTL) is in fact quite different from TTL on an FSLR and it is the FSLR/DSLR different that makes it so. In my mind, that's the perfect situation to distinguish between FSLR and DSLR.

Well, on the Canon side of things E-TTL is NOT different between FSLRs and DSLRs! Unless you go back to the early 80s before the EOS cameras and before E-TTL existed at all...
Well, OK so there can be slight differences, just as there have been tweaks in the implementation in various DSLRs over time. But the basic system is the same.

Anyway, as Gary's pointed out: back to the original question. Is there a useful name for the new style of cameras that have interchangable lenses but are not SLRs? Some of them only have external LCD viewfinders, whereas some have electronic viewfinders set up for putting up to your eye.

ATJ wrote:A mode flash doesn't work for macro.

A mode on the camera?

Or A mode on the flash?

I think that A mode on the flash should work, depending upon a few other factors that are within the user's control ...

Manual worked great for macro but you had to go through quite a bit of film to determine the correct combinations under different conditions.

But today, three or four test images, and chimping the histogram, should be enough to get you on the right track.

One of the really neat things about my 60mm macro lens was that as you moved in closer, the bellow extension of the lens made the effective aperture smaller decreasing the amount of light getting to the film. However, as you were moving closer, the flash was now closer increasing the amount of light.

That's only true of you're using a camera mounted flash unit. I accept that many do, but that's not always the optimum setting.

Given that your light settings should be based upon the light source to subject distance, if you can maintain that distance as a constant (and I accept that this may not always be the case) then this no longer becomes a major factor.

TTL just worked and worked well. You did have to make allowances for certain subjects, though. Very dark subjects you had to use negative compensation so they wouldn't end up as neutral grey. With very light subjects you needed positive compensation so they didn't end up as neutral grey.

That's why I prefer to use incident light readings, where I can.

DaveB wrote:Is there a useful name for the new style of cameras that have interchangable lenses but are not SLRs?

I am sure I will have not thought of something, but apart from calling it a digital camera or the actual name (G1, E-P1, etc), what is the purpose of classifying the group? If I tell someone I shoot with a DSLR, I believe that is largely meaningless to them unless I tell them the manufacturer or, more specifically, model. If I say I shoot with a Nikon DSLR, that may have some relevance if you were going to lend me an SB800, for example. But if I told you that I was using a D40 (or whatever model), then you would know precisely that non-AFS Nikon lenses would only have manual focus capabilities (I believe).

So, apart from the purpose of catagorising cameras, why do we need to come up with a new group or name?

Apparently it's an innate human characteristic: wanting to categorise and sort things.
Why call this site DSLRUsers.com?

If I'm teaching a class and I have to say something like "this applies to the Olympus E-P1, the Lumix G1, GH1, and GF1" that's tedious enough: there will be even more cameras of this ilk (including from non-m4/3 manufacturers). Maybe I'm just making work for myself (in coming up with a name) because I'm lazy...

DaveB wrote:Apparently it's an innate human characteristic: wanting to categorise and sort things. [/qupte]

How do you classify those people who like to categorise things?

Why call this site DSLRUsers.com?

That thought had crossed my mind with respect to a m-4/3 person who wanted to join.

gstark wrote:

ATJ wrote:A mode flash doesn't work for macro.

A mode on the camera?

Or A mode on the flash?

I think that A mode on the flash should work, depending upon a few other factors that are within the user's control ...

A mode flash = A mode on the flash. This is what you were referring to so I thought it would be obvious to you what YOU meant. I guess I was wrong.

It doesn't work for a number of reasons. a) in a lot of cases you can't even get the flash sensor in the right place to read the scene being shot. b) if you can, the angle is often quite different from what the camera sees and so the scene is quite different. c) the scene recorded by the flash sensor tends to be a lot wider than what the lens/camera capture which leads to incorrect averaging of the scene.

gstark wrote:

Manual worked great for macro but you had to go through quite a bit of film to determine the correct combinations under different conditions.

But today, three or four test images, and chimping the histogram, should be enough to get you on the right track.

Yes. That's now. But not then.

gstark wrote:

One of the really neat things about my 60mm macro lens was that as you moved in closer, the bellow extension of the lens made the effective aperture smaller decreasing the amount of light getting to the film. However, as you were moving closer, the flash was now closer increasing the amount of light.

That's only true of you're using a camera mounted flash unit. I accept that many do, but that's not always the optimum setting.

Which was why I made the comment: "if the flash was kept in the same place relative to the camera you could just use the same aperture."

gstark wrote:Given that your light settings should be based upon the light source to subject distance, if you can maintain that distance as a constant (and I accept that this may not always be the case) then this no longer becomes a major factor.

But with macro photography (and I'm talking FLSRs again), you also have to take into account the effect of bellows extension. My DSLRs do this automatically but the FE2 definitely didn't and I'm pretty sure the F-801s didn't. I can tell from the DSLRs that the effective aperture is some 2.5 stops smaller than the indicated aperture when using the AI ring.

gstark wrote:

TTL just worked and worked well. You did have to make allowances for certain subjects, though. Very dark subjects you had to use negative compensation so they wouldn't end up as neutral grey. With very light subjects you needed positive compensation so they didn't end up as neutral grey.

That's why I prefer to use incident light readings, where I can.

Which aren't always possible with macro shots, especially when you are shooting flying insects.

DaveB wrote:Apparently it's an innate human characteristic: wanting to categorise and sort things.
Why call this site DSLRUsers.com?

It was called D70Users when I first joined.

Reschsmooth wrote:

DaveB wrote:Apparently it's an innate human characteristic: wanting to categorise and sort things.

How do you classify those people who like to categorise things?

Taxonomists.

The recent Reviving the Lost Art of Naming the World article at the NY Times is vaguely related to this. Apparently we're all (at least most of us) very interested in naming/sorting things as children.
Maybe some people don't grow out of it?


No, I don't read all of the NY Times. But the NYT Science Times podcast is in my feed, and an interview with the author of that article was in last week's episode.

ATJ wrote:

gstark wrote:

ATJ wrote:A mode flash doesn't work for macro.

A mode on the camera?

Or A mode on the flash?

I think that A mode on the flash should work, depending upon a few other factors that are within the user's control ...

A mode flash = A mode on the flash. This is what you were referring to so I thought it would be obvious to you what YOU meant. I guess I was wrong.

Well, yes, you're wrong, but not for the reason you may think.

I merely wanted to clarify that we were both on the same page, that's all.

It doesn't work for a number of reasons.

Which I acknowledged and accepted in my earlier post.

Greg B

You are priceless!
(and no.......that's not the same as worthless)