MIRRORLESS INTERCHANGEABLE LENS CAMERAS
[MILC]
Fourth birthday report: One user's view of progress in the MILC world
Part One [of three]: Design, Size , Quality
Author AndrewS November 2012
In the beginning In 2004, Seiko Epson/Cosina announced the world's first rangefinder digital camera, the Epson R-D1, able to accept interchangeable Leica M and L mount lenses. It was discontinued in 2007 with no successor. In 2006, Leica introduced it's first M series camera with an electronic sensor, the M8, but this still had manual focus and lens operation. The Panasonic G1 was announced for Photokina in September 2008. This was the first all new, electronic MILC with EVF and autofocus. At the time of writing there have since then been 57 new MILC models from 10 manufacturers. In the same period there have been 63 new DSLR's from 6 manufacturers.
Author's perspective I am an enthusiast/expert amateur photographer with over 50 years experience. I used film SLR's then DSLR's for many years but became disenchanted with two aspects of the DSLR experience. One was the size and weight of camera bodies and lenses. The other was persistently erratic and unreliable autofocus with my chosen brand, Canon. So I bought a Panasonic G1 hoping it would solve both my problems, which it did. Unfortunately the G1 was burdened with ergonomic deficiencies. It was, in fact the camera which sparked my interest in camera ergonomics and eventually the creation of this blog.
I originally gathered the material for this essay to plan a way forward with my own camera kit. However I realised that others might be in a similar situation so may be able to glean something useful from my thoughts.
This essay is an opinion piece referenced to my personal requirements. These are, in brief,
* I make photographs of a wide variety of subjects including family, architecture, landscape, street, social documentary, sport/action, workplace documentary and others. So my requirements are for a compact, versatile photographic kit which can tackle just about any task.
* For many years I used single focal length lenses because there were no zooms available for the consumer photography market. Now we have access to a range of zooms with excellent quality so I use them for their convenience.
* I mostly shoot RAW, process images in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR)/Photoshop and I like to make prints. If a camera is not supported or is poorly supported by ACR then it holds no interest for me.
* I do not do video. That's just a personal idiosyncrasy, I am a still photo person.
* I do not use touch screen controls to operate the camera. I have plenty of experience using cameras having a touch screen capability but find this is not in harmony with my style of camera use, which mostly involves viewing through the EVF.
* I live in Sydney Australia where the weather is often fine and sunny so for outdoor photography I regard an eye level viewfinder as essential. The technology of electronic viewfinders [EVF] has improved so much in the last few years that I no longer have any interest in optical viewfinders. I will not buy a camera without a built in EVF. Some people prefer cameras lacking an EVF, some insist on an optical viewfinder. That's fine, nobody can be told what to like.
* I like to engage with my photographic equipment in a harmonious fashion, so for me, good ergonomics is very important. I will not buy a camera which I consider to have inferior ergonomics, and that, unfortunately includes most MILC's on the market today. Please refer to the many articles on this blog for detailed discussion about camera ergonomics.
Why was the MILC invented ? I am just a consumer with no personal knowlege of anybody in the camera manufacturing or marketing business. So this is just my guess, but there appear to be two main drivers of the MILC. First, they did it because they could. Specifically the image quality of EVF and Monitor screens developed to a level which made them viable alternatives to the optical viewfinder. Second, Canon and Nikon had a stranglehold on the DSLR market, so it made sense for Panasonic, Olympus and others to outflank CaNikon with a disruptive innovation. Please refer to my essay about disruptive innovation elsewhere on this blog.
 |
| Panasonic G5 a Micro Four Thirds System Camera, easy to hold and operate showing good ergonomics can be achieved with small ILC's |
Where does the MILC fit into the photographic world ? This has been a real challenge to designers and manufacturers because at exactly the same time as the MILC was introduced, phone cams started to make massive inroads into the snapshooter market for compact cameras. My personal experience is that the MILC has been competent enough to replace the DSLR and compactenough to replace the advanced compact in my camera kit. My view is that the (D)SLR type camera has reached the end of it's evolutionary course and will gradually be replaced by a range of MILC type cameras which provide greater opportunities for design innovation. I don't think fixed lens cameras [advanced compacts, superzooms etc] will disappear but they will evolve to provide better image quality and photographic control than a phone cam for discriminating photographers wanting to travel light.
What characteristics of MILC's could make them more appealing than DSLR's ?
* Full time live view in EVF and Monitor with seamless transition from one to the other. Current EVF's still have less highlight and shadow detail compared to the best OVF's but they are improving with each iteration. I would much rather use the big, bright, clear EVF on the Panasonic G5 sitting on my desk than the OVF of any entry level DSLR.
* Full and selectable complement of camera status and other data on and/or under the EVF and Monitor image.
* Fast, sensitive, accurate, reliable autofocus using single AF, single area settings with selected brands. My hands on experience of MILC's is limited to Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji and Samsung. Of these four Panasonic has most reliably delivered simultaneous speed and accuracy.
* Ability to place the active AF area almost anywhere in the frame, with full accuracy and reliability.
* Size and weight. I will discuss this further below.
The concept of Good Enough image quality For many years I chased image quality with increasingly large, unwieldy film cameras. It started with an SLR, then a better one, then better lenses, then a Leica M6, then various medium format kits and eventually 4x5 inch large format. One day after an overnight hike with the 4x5 kit, tent, etc.....etc....which stretched my physical capabilities to the limit and gave me chronic back pain which remains my constant unwelcome companion, I had an epiphany about "Good Enough" image quality. If a camera kit provides good enough image quality for my purposes then I don't need and cannot make use of any more.
Good Enough image quality in the digital era Pinned to the display board next to my desk as I type this essay are some large prints. The largest I can squeeze out of my Epson 4880 printer, in fact. They look pretty darn good to me and I am very critical of print quality. I would have no hesitation in upsizing them to poster prints. The source of these images is a Micro Four Thirds sensor measuring just 13 x 17.3 mm in size. Only a few years ago the proposition that such high quality prints could originate from so small a sensor device would have been in the realm of science fiction.
MILC design When designers of the MILC threw out the flipping mirror, focussing screen, pentaprism and a lot of other stuff essential to a DSLR, they opened the door to the possibility of a revolution in camera shapes, styles, configurations and sizes. The MILC can literally be any shape at all without the constraints of the SLR design. Some MILC designers have started to make use of this freedom to create new camera shapes [Sony NEX], others have reprised a shape [Panasonic and Olympus faux DSLR] or controls [Fuji look-a-Leica] from the past, even if that shape or user interface is not required and may actually inhibit full functional and ergonomic expression of the MILC concept.
MILC sensor sizes MILC's come in a variety of sensor sizes, as below:
* 24x36 mm, Diagonal 43 mm. Crop factor 1.0. Leica M9 and derivatives
* APS-C (Sony) 15.8x23.6 mm, Diagonal 28 mm. Crop factor 1.5. Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Samsung.
* APS-C (Canon) 14.9x22.3 mm, Diagonal 27 mm. Crop factor 1.6. Canon.
* Micro Four Thirds 13x17.3 mm, Diagonal 21.6 mm. Crop factor 2.0. Olympus, Panasonic.
* Nikon CX 8.8 x 13.2 mm, Diagonal 15.86 mm. Crop factor 2.7. Nikon 1 series.
* Nikon CX 8.8 x 13.2 mm, Diagonal 15.86 mm. Crop factor 2.7. Nikon 1 series.
* "1/2.3 inch" 4.55x6.17 mm, Diagonal 7.12 mm. Crop factor 6.0. Pentax Q.
The question of size in MILC
Body Size MILC's were initially and are still being promoted for their small size, compared to DSLR's. Compact dimensions are indeed a potential characteristic of the MILC but smallness can be taken to ergonomically counterproductive extremes. Hands stubbornly remain the same size no matter what camera they are holding. There is therefore a size range below which further reduction just produces a device which is difficult to hold and operate. Still, there is much interest on user forums about the question of camera size. There is even a website, camerasize.com which is devoted to the subject. The best part of this website is the Camera Body Plus Lens section which shows that lenses are the greatest contributors to the bulk of a multi lens kit.
The width of a camera body is determined at the rear by the width of the monitor and the space allocated by the designer to the control panel and thumbrest. At the front, width is influenced by the diameter of the lens mount and the distance of the optical axis from the left (as viewed by the user) side of the camera. The designer's decision about the size and type (parallel or projecting) of the handle, if any, also affects camera width.
Camera height is determined by the height of the monitor and EVF eyepiece, plus flash unit if included.
Camera depth is determined mainly by the handle, if fitted, flangeback distance, monitor type and rear projection of the EVF eyepiece.
Note that nowhere in this list does sensor size appear as a determinant of body size, except as it relates to the lens mount.
Lens Size While body size is determined by a range of factors, lens size is closely related to sensor size. Lens design is highly dependent on the laws of physics and optics which means in essence that bigger sensors need bigger lenses and it will ever be thus. So if some wonderful new optical invention permits lenses to be made smaller then all shall benefit and the larger sensor > larger lenses relationship will remain.
Sensor Size So now the question is "What is the smallest sensor size which will give me Good Enough image quality from cameras in production right now ? "
And the answer for me is: Micro Four Thirds. I refer specifically to the Olympus OMD-EM-5 which I have tested and which I rate the first M43 camera the image quality of which is good enough for all my requirements. I expect that most, possibly all (maybe not the entry level models without EVF) subsequent M43 releases from Olympus and Panasonic will have at least this level of image quality.
What is the best MILC system choice ? Straightforward question, simple answer: For my requirements, Micro Four Thirds.
Why ? Because the sensor is large enough to give me the image quality I want but small enough to allow the designers to make a really high quality lens system which is much more compact than anything from the APS-C group. This choice is also a bet on the future . I expect that we will see further gains in image quality from electronic sensors such that sizes larger than M43 will only be required by professionals who now use "medium format" gear.
Readers with different photographic requirements will very likely come to a different conclusion about their preferred system.
The outlook for DSLR's My view is that the DSLR as a camera type has no future at all for two reasons.
The first is that the DSLR has reached the end of it's evolutionary journey. There is no technological development which will allow the DSLR to match the MILC on seamless transition of live view from monitor to EVF. Note that Sony SLT cams can do this but I think the SLT variant of the DSLR genre is also an evolutionary dead end. It uses the standard DSLR flangeback distance. Neither the standard DSLR nor SLT types adjust focus directly on the image capturing sensor when eye level viewing. And neither can be as compact as the MILC type. On the other hand I expect that ongoing technological developments will allow MILC's to match or exceed the performance of DSLR's in every respect.
The second is production cost. Consider this. A DSLR needs all the stuff in a MILC except the EVF module, PLUS: flipping mirror, sub mirror, phase detect AF module under the mirror, focussing screen, pentaprism or mirror, light meter module near the pentaprism and optical viewfinder. All the optical and focussing elements in this imaging chain have to be mechanically aligned with great precision or they will give incorrectly framed or focussed images. In effect a modern DSLR is two cameras in one, an SLR in OVF mode and a MILC in live view mode. I believe that either now or in the near future EVF modules will be cheaper to fabricate and easier, therefore cheaper, to assemble than the optical/mechanical components of an SLR.
Prospects for MILC's with 27-28 mm sensors Sony NEX, Pentax K-01, Canon EOS M, Fuji X-Pro/X-E1 and Samsung NX use this sensor size. In his April 2012 review of the Olympus EM5 for Digital Photography Review, Richard Butler wrote "........spending twice the money and moving up to the bulk of full frame is the only way of gaining a significant step up [in image quality] from the EM5". Think about it. By moving up from M43 to APS-C you get at best a slight improvement in image quality, or in some cases none, but a very noticeable increase in lens size and therefore kit size, weight and cost. So, do MILC's with 27-28 mm sensors have a future ? Some people will say, yes of course they do. But I am not so sure about that.
However, there could well be a place in the market for a modular MILC with a large sensor, square so the body never has to be flipped over, about 45 mm in diameter, for professional photographers requiring the highest possible level of image quality. This could be the modern equivalent of the original 56 x 56 mm Hasselblad film camera of the 1950's.
What improvements do MILC's need to make ?
* Further improvement to the appearance and refresh rate of EVF's for a more natural viewing experience.
* Eliminating shutter shock as a cause of image degradation. Please see my articles about this subject elsewhere on this blog. The ultimate solution would appear to be the much anticipated but as yet unrealised "global shutter", which refers to a process by which all the data from an imaging sensor is read off simultaneously, so that a mechanical shutter is not required. Until the advent of the global shutter there are some options available for M43 users. The Panasonic G5 and GH3 have an electronic shutter option and the Olympus EM5 has the "AntiShock" feature.
* Follow focus capability. Selected MILC's have extremely fast, sensitive, accurate contrast detect autofocus, which is more effective in single shot mode than the majority of DSLR's which use the inherently less accurate phase detect AF when eye level viewing. But effective follow focus on a moving subject has been beyond the capability of MILC AF systems until recently. This has begun to change. Nikon's V series cams have a composite on chip AF system which can follow focus at very high frame rates in good light. The Olympus EM5 and Panasonic G5 can follow a subject moving at fairly constant speed in good light with decent accuracy, using just the on chip CDAF system with fast refresh rate. MILC makers need to get up to speed on this aspect of AF technology to compete effectively with mid and upper level DSLR's.
* Preset manual focus by scale. Once upon a time, before the electronic technology blizzard struck the camera world, an SLR lens had scales for aperture, focus distance and depth of field engraved on the barrel. If you wanted to preset the focus distance to, say, 3 meters you simply rotated the focus ring, checked what aperture was required for the desired depth of field and set the aperture to suit. Easy. But now that is impossible with most [not all, some can do it] lenses for MILC's. It might be possible to achieve the same thing electronically. I believe most camera bodies probably know the current focussed distance of the attached lens and should therefore be able to display this on an analogue scale on the monitor and EVF.
* Ergonomics I have been surprised and disappointed by the generally poor ergonomic design of MILC's to date, even from corporations which have been making cameras for many decades. Hence the existence of this blog. In my view, all the MILC makers have much work to do in improving the ergonomic function of their products. I discuss this issue further in Parts 2 and 3 of this fourth birthday review and in many camera reviews and articles on this blog.
My choice of camera kit I am currently using Panasonic Micro Four thirds cameras and zoom lenses as they are the best available fit with my requirements. Bodies; G5, GH2, Lenses: 7-14mm, 12-35mm, 14-45mm, 100-300mm and 45-150mm. I plan to upgrade to a GH3 body and add the 35-100mm f2.8 lens when these become available in Australia.
Summary The photographic industry is currently being buffeted by challenges the like of which have never been seen before. These are being driven by new technology, new consumer expectations and a new world order of commercial dominance. The MILC has an integral role in the industry's response to these challenges.
