Is the future of Digital Photography EVIL?

[gumboot]

I am not sure if this is the appropriate thread, or whether "Technology" would be better, but as this relates to the art of photography, I thought it might be the best place to get responses.

I'm in the process of considering a new digital camera to complement by two 35mm SLRs, and have been looking at various models.

Traditionally, digital cameras can be divided into four basic categories:

"Point and Shoot" or "Compact"
Your standard little consumer camera with a fixed lens and an LCD to display pictures. Mostly basic automatic controls.

"Prosumer" or "Bridge"
These are larger cameras with the same basic set up as a compact, but with larger, higher quality fixed lenses and sometimes larger sensors. Most importantly, these cameras introduce many manual controls that allow more serious photographers some level of control.

"D-SLR"
The Digital Single Reflex Camera is essentially a standard SLR, with the film housing and shutter replaced by an electronic sensor. They have removable lenses, often compatible with 35mm SLR lenses, and while they usually have LCD displays they also have an optical viewfinder which reflects light entering the camera via a mirror through a pentaprisim. Higher end D-SLRs have full-frame sensors the same size as 35mm film and are very high quality.

"Medium Format"
Much like Medium Format film cameras, Medium Format digital cameras have a sensor size larger than full frame, and are used for very large photographs (often 45 MegaPixels plus). They are incredibly expensive and are used almost exclusively by professional photographers for large format imaging.

The category I would ordinarily be looking at is an entry-level D-SLR, but there's a new category emerging, which is being referred to as EVIL - that is "Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens".

Essentially it's the obvious completion of the move from optical to digital, of which the D-SLR is something of a hybrid. The complex and bulky mirror and prism mechanism of an SLR is replaced with an electronic viewfinder which feeds directly off the sensor.

In all other ways, an EVIL is exactly like a D-SLR, with interchangeable lenses, full manual controls, and high quality imaging. The big difference is size, because absent the bulky mirror and prism set up, the body can be made much thinner and smaller, with the lens mounted much closer to the sensor (this is particularly beneficial for wide-angle lenses).

Currently there's only three EVIL cameras. The first is the Lumix G1 range from Panasonic, which is generally sold as a D-SLR and is the first EVIL camera.

The other two are the Samsung NX range, and the Olympus Digital Pen, which uses the same Micro 3/4 system as the G1.

These cameras look like they might be a superior option for me, however I was wondering if any photographers have experience with them and can offer their findings? I have played around with a G1 briefly and liked it well enough, and have a lot of experience with SLRs, but I've never used a D-SLR so I can't compare.

Thoughts? What do people think of the EVIL concept, versus the D-SLR? There's some clear pros and cons of each format, but without extensive field use it's often hard to judge which ones matter most.

 

[Beanbag]

It will depend on what you want to do with the camera, and how comfortable you are with letting the camera make some of the decisions for you.

DSLR's have the advantage that you see the potential image on the ground-glass viewfinder screen at whatever resolution your eyes are capable of working at. For determining focus, this is the best method. An electronic viewfinder may show you an image that appears to be in focus, but the reduced resolution of the viewfinder isn't capable of showing the sharp edge of focus. What looks in focus may be just slightly softer than you think, and it doesn't show up until you bring the image into your computer and look at it in higher resolution.

Autofocus takes care of some of the issue, plus if your camera has a small sensor size, the larger depth-of-field for the smaller sensor swallows up the problem. It makes it tough to get a shallow bokeh effect, though. Small-sensor cameras don't work well for "artsy" photography for that reason. Even at low F numbers, they have a DOF you can drive a truck through.

Then there is the matter of "feel." How well does the camera fit in your hands? Frankly, I want a camera with some heft and size to it. The SLR form factor, while originally designed to accomodate the strip-film format, drops into the human hands pretty naturally. I can hand-hold exposures of up to 1/8 second with my 5DM2 ( and before that, with my Pentax MX's) without noticeable blur, while I've never been able to do that with the lighter compact digital cameras. Then again, I have a brick hanging off the neck strap. It's not the kind of camera I'd take with me everywhere.

Interchangeable lenses are a definite plus, though the modern zoom lenses come close to prime lens performance. Their drawback is they don't go as low, aperture-wise, as primes. If your shooting conditions need F.1.4 or F.1.2, then prime (fixed focal length) lenses are your only option. Non-interchangeable lenses offer a certain simplicity in that there's less gear you have to carry, and you never end up with the situation of having the wrong lens mounted on the camera.

Again, it comes down to what you're shooting and your style of shooting. Cameras are like golf clubs, in that it helps to have several in your bag tailored to specific needs.

Beanbag

 

[gumboot]

DSLR's have the advantage that you see the potential image on the ground-glass viewfinder screen at whatever resolution your eyes are capable of working at. For determining focus, this is the best method.

This is a great point, actually. I hadn't considered this, but when you think about it, it's rather obvious. You have me thinking now...

 

[Beanbag]

--MOST-- digital viewfinder cameras have a "magnify" function that blows up the center portion of the image for focusing. It helps somewhat, but it's pretty much only useful in situations where you have time to compose your shots. It doesn't work for fast shooting. It takes a few seconds to switch back and forth between regular and magnified modes, usually with you having to take your eye off the viewfinder to find the correct button.

Camera designers these days put a lot of emphasis on autofocus, to the point where manual focus capability has become harder to use. You can't get "one-touch" zoom lenses any more, where one ring controlled both focus and zoom (turn ring to focus, slide ring forward and back for zoom). If you want to go manual focus and zoom these days, you have to shift your hand from the focus ring to the zoom, or buy an adapter to let you fit an older one-touch lens to your body.

Beanbag

 

[CriticalSock]

Do you use a Beanbag tripod Beanbag??

 

[gumboot]

--MOST-- digital viewfinder cameras have a "magnify" function that blows up the center portion of the image for focusing.

Hrm, I will have to get my hands on a G1 again and have a look at how they address the focusing issue. I know their viewfinder is vastly higher resolution than your usual digital viewfinder but still... it's not as high as the resolution of the human eye!

Camera designers these days put a lot of emphasis on autofocus, to the point where manual focus capability has become harder to use. You can't get "one-touch" zoom lenses any more, where one ring controlled both focus and zoom (turn ring to focus, slide ring forward and back for zoom). If you want to go manual focus and zoom these days, you have to shift your hand from the focus ring to the zoom, or buy an adapter to let you fit an older one-touch lens to your body.

I don't find this particularly an issue because I've actually never come across a one-touch lens. All of the cameras I have used - including the old fully manual one I used when studying photography at high school - had the usual thin zoom ring and large focus ring. I can picture what you mean though - a director's viewfinder such as used in the film industry uses a pull-out zoom mechanism.

What I do find a little weird with my autofocus SLR is that the zoom ring is most of the lens and the focus ring is a tiny little ring at the front.

And personally I am not a big fan of autofocus. It's fine for quick grabs when the subject is in centre frame, but I find for anything a bit more complicated it's often just not focusing on the right thing.

(The other thing I don't like about my autofocus lens is it has no distances on it - with my other lens on my manual-only SLR I often as not select focus by just estimating the distance from subject to camera - a handy skill picked up from the film industry where all focus is set by measurement not by eye).

 

[sphenisc]

If it cuts down shutter release vibration and shutter noise then I'm for it.

 

[Beanbag]

Do you use a Beanbag tripod Beanbag??

Nope. Manfrotto 503 head on 351MVB2 legs.

Beanbag

 

[Beanbag]

What I do find a little weird with my autofocus SLR is that the zoom ring is most of the lens and the focus ring is a tiny little ring at the front.

And personally I am not a big fan of autofocus. It's fine for quick grabs when the subject is in centre frame, but I find for anything a bit more complicated it's often just not focusing on the right thing.

(The other thing I don't like about my autofocus lens is it has no distances on it - with my other lens on my manual-only SLR I often as not select focus by just estimating the distance from subject to camera - a handy skill picked up from the film industry where all focus is set by measurement not by eye).

Again, they're pushing autofocus as the know-all, be-all feature. Imagine what it's like with the 5DM2, which has something like 20 autofocus sensors arranged in a spiral pattern. You depress the shutter halfway, then check which indicator boxes in the viewfinder light up to tell you where the camera is focusing.

One-touch zooms were great for gun-and-run photography and for fast-moving live venues. With very little practice, you could track, zoom, and focus without having to shift rings. It became instinctive.

You can still get distance marks in autofocus, depending on the brand. What I DON'T care for is the sluggish manual focus feel with autofocus lenses because of the clutch mechanism they put in the motor drive to let the focus ring be turned manually. The same clutch also means no hard focus stops at either end. You can keep turning the ring, but there's no tactile feedback you've reached either the near or far limit.

Fortunately, I have the Nikon F to EOS adapter, so I can mount all my vintage Nikkor lenses and get that old familiar feeling once more.

Beanbag

 

[gumboot]

You can still get distance marks in autofocus, depending on the brand.

Yeah I know, but mine doesn't have it sadly.

What I DON'T care for is the sluggish manual focus feel with autofocus lenses because of the clutch mechanism they put in the motor drive to let the focus ring be turned manually. The same clutch also means no hard focus stops at either end. You can keep turning the ring, but there's no tactile feedback you've reached either the near or far limit.

I have found my lens to be very quick to focus, it has a hard stop at each end, and the focus ring extends and retracts as a manual focus ring would, so no issues in that regard.

It's an AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1:4.5-5.6 D

 

[gumboot]

Interestingly, I have been looking at the specs for the Panasonic G1 (which is the one with the electronic viewfinder I have been referring to) and it apparently seems to make an attempt to address the problem with low resolution in an EVF. The viewfinder uses a unique projection system and has a 1.4 million pixel resolution - compared with the 460,000 pixel resolution of the 3" LCD display on the back.

This is still a long way from displaying an accurate representation of the image - the maximum resolution is 12MP so almost ten times the size - but it's quite a step up from your standard EVF.

(For comparison, the electronic viewfinder of our digital cinema cameras we use on set are only 500,000 pixels)

 

[Beanbag]

Thought I would resurrect this thread. Interesting news: 24 has adopted the Canon 5DMk2 as a production platform. Right now, they're using it for driving plates, but the word is they're planning on moving almost entirely to Canon DSLR's for production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIWGKowjuIo&feature=player_embedded

Suddenly the ugly duckling of the motion picture world has started to swan out.

ETA: And the firmware upgrade just released does 24 frames per second. The "real" film frame rate. I'm giddy. Time to do the firmware upgrade.

Happydance!!!

Beanbag

 

[gumboot]

Thought I would resurrect this thread. Interesting news: 24 has adopted the Canon 5DMk2 as a production platform. Right now, they're using it for driving plates, but the word is they're planning on moving almost entirely to Canon DSLR's for production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIWGKowjuIo&feature=player_embedded

Suddenly the ugly duckling of the motion picture world has started to swan out.

ETA: And the firmware upgrade just released does 24 frames per second. The "real" film frame rate. I'm giddy. Time to do the firmware upgrade.

Happydance!!!

Beanbag

I can't see it ever getting widespread use as a serious motion picture camera. It's just not practical. Can you imagine trying to mount all this gear on a DSLR?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't see them mounting 6 copies of all this gear on a moving sedan ...

Did you look at the piece on Youtube ?

 

[Beanbag]

I can't see it ever getting widespread use as a serious motion picture camera. It's just not practical. Can you imagine trying to mount all this gear on a DSLR?

I've seen rigs that come close (DOF adapter, mattebox, french flag, follow focus, audio conversion box, and field monitor). The good news is that the 5D doesn't need a DOF adapter BTW, you don't mount the gear to the DSLR; you mount the DSLR on the equipment rail, along with the other gear.

Moore's Law is catching up with cinematography. The technical advantages of digital cinematography will eventually overcome the cultural reservations in the motion picture field ( and let's face it, the movie business is as traditional, protectionist, and as hide-bound an industry as there EVER was). It comes down to MONEY: digital will do it as well (or better) for less cost.

You still need an army of technicians to shoot -- THAT part of the equation won't change. You need their skills and experience to produce a good movie. The recording medium and post-production technology is where things will be different.

Lucas invited a 5DMk2 filmmaker to his ranch to show his latest work and discuss the technology. The series 24 says it will be going almost exclusively with the 5DMk2. These are companies that can afford just about any technology needed to get the job done. They're not buying it because they're cheap, but because it works, and works well.

Beanbag

 

[gumboot]

I don't see them mounting 6 copies of all this gear on a moving sedan ...

Did you look at the piece on Youtube ?

Yes I did. They were shooting plate shots for a driving scene. You don't shoot drama with six cameras mounted on a car...

Having said that I have seen three 35mm film cameras mounted on a car before, and I wouldn't be overly surprised if I saw six. Not to mention rigs I've seen with some very large lights mounted. You'd be surprised what people have done.