POLL: is the digital camera future modular?
Over at SonyAlphaRumors you can read the latest rumor about a modular NEX camcorder which should be announced within the next few weeks. The key feature about that rumor is the new Sony NXCAM works like a medium format Hasselbald modular system! Viewfinder, grip and other parts can be attached and detached. I don’t think the camera will become a strong AG-AF100 competitor because of two reasons:
1) The price is to high. The body only costs $7.000 and once you add grip, EVF, LCD and the other missing parts total price will claimb over the $10.000 mark.
2) The most important part isn’t modular…the sensor!
Ricoh built a nice GRX system but it’s not fully modular (and the single sensor+lens unit concept doesn’t convince me). Now, imagine if your m43 camera could use different sensors, different LCD screens. Imagine if you would be able to remove the grip and the EVF to transform your pro-camera in a more portable GF or Pen. So what is your opinion on that? Maybe that could be the killer feature of the future Olympus PEN pro cameras?
Loading ...LInks:
Ricoh GXR system at Amazon, Adorama, B&H, J&R, eBay
Hasselbald medium format cameras at eBay (Click here)
Share
Recent comments
Comment from ScreensPro - HD Animated Screensavers: Anyone saying $7k is too expensive has c...
Comment from Cristian Sorega: I do believe digital cameras need to bec...
Comment from Alfons: I think modular would be actually cheape...
Comment from DonTom: I think the real issue with a modular di...
Frank
2 years ago |I think it will be much more expensive, not a bit more. Therefore not interesting as the basics will have to be very good to be worth expanding upon that they will be too expensive for the basic user.
Thyl
2 years ago |How could such camera look like? E.g.:
On left side: attachment moint for viewfinders, including optical, optical zooming, hybrid, EVF, and external monitors.
On top side: attachment for operating elements, e.g. A simpler one like on the present Ep-2, and a professional one having dedicated dials for time, aperture, White balance
On right side: electrical connections for data transfer and camera control
On bottom side: attachment mount for external battery pack
On front side: lenses, addditional sync for flash
On back side: plug-in for sensor module
IB
2 years ago |I really se no point with a modular system.
It adds unnecesarily complexity, a sensor module would be close in cost to the camera anyway. It would be another part of the camera to break and the size of the camera will increase. At the same time the camera body will also get outdated with old screens and processing power. On top of that the camera body will take wear over time, and you will end up buying a new one anyway.
Its a silly, silly dream.
Keep it simple, just buy a new camera body…
Pete
2 years ago |I would really like to see a dead simple body with interchangeable sensors. Without all the bells and whistles this body might still be in an affordable price range. Especially since all the R&D will go into new sensors instead of bodies that are “7% lighter”. Then every few years if you want to update your camera you can get a new sensor, FW and lenses…
Aaron Fown
2 years ago |How about a camera with a android or ipod touch for brains, interchangeable lenses, and a break off EVF that is as good as a built in? Sort of like a GF1 with internet connectivity and apps that can control the camera? Think of the possibilities!
ZDP-189
2 years ago |Yes, it should be modular. The display needs to be linked to the processor and incorporate a grip that could house the battery, but everything else can be modular. We could make the sensor modular for a start; I’d like to be able to support multiple sensor sizes, from 1/2.3″ to APS-C or maybe even larger. I’d like to be able to support multiple flange-focal distances and bayonets – let’s start by adding M-mount and a curtain shutter. I also want the ability to add lenses directly coupled to sensors for the ultimate in precise register and dust sealing, plus full AF. Make the lenses top quality and include some fast to normal primes. Give it not just full preflash TTL and but auto flash modes so it will work better with legacy lenses and even non-system cameras. I think we should give it some great hot shoe accessories, like viewfinders, built in pop-up flash, leather case options. We need frequent and meaningful firmware updates too. Also, while we’re at it, give it a intuitive and detailed control system, with everything at your fingertips. None of your Sony-style dial-a-menu, no touch screen, no flimsy flip screen. Make the camera almost indestructible – use all magnesium alloy not a tin can like the Lumix. And for the love of all that’s holy, don’t keep issuing semiannual meaningless model updates that achieve nothing but outdate the camera and devalue the second hand price.
Ooooh wait, I’ve found it. It’s the GXR!
Dummy00001
2 years ago |Future is a camera of size about LX5, having infinite MPs, DRs, ISOs featuring pancake constant aperture lens f/0.01 1mm-10000000mm.
Seriously though, even switching lenses is evil. Necessary one – we have nothing better – but still evil.
I personally would prefer to have a one-piece non-modular camera.
> Viewfinder, grip and other parts can be attached and detached.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. AG-AF100 is also kind of m43, but not really. Highly specialized or highly customizable for special occasions type of gear is something totally different to what most understand under m43: compact highly portable photo gear. NOT semi-pro video gear.
GreyOwl
2 years ago |More complicated to build = more expensive to buy; therefore less demand, which then becomes uneconomic to make, which would no doubt mean a short product life.
What chance a Pro weather sealed version…………
spam
2 years ago |Also, bigger and heavier, probably less weather resistant and exactly what most consumers don’t want in a system were the main strength is compactness.
MikeS
2 years ago |The µ4/3 group has enough trouble getting their act together for their cameras as it is. The consumer market isn’t ready for the confusion that a modular system would introduce (people have enough trouble with specs and lenses as it is), and the system doesn’t have the right lenses to seriously target the professional market.
Archer Sully
2 years ago |Modularity is already the rule in the MF field. I doubt that it will trickle down to smaller cameras. Indeed, the Pentax 645D and the Leica S2 indicate that the trend is in the opposite direction.
Steve H
2 years ago |RED is already headed down this road.
Jacques
2 years ago |Modular is not necessarily more expensive. The real cost is not the purchase price, but should take into account useful life and resale value. The first modular camera may cost a little more to purchase, but a lot of modules will last much longer and the investment will be amortized over a much longer time. Plus, some modules will benefit from being used in multiple product lines, which means higher production volumes.
If you want to see how to design modular video cameras right, check Red Camera (http://www.red.com/), they are the inspiration for the NX-CAM and the AF-100.
microfourthirdsnerd
2 years ago |Interchangeable lens cameras are already modular enough for me
MP Burke
2 years ago |A good example of a modular camera is the Alpa system, where it is possible to use the same camera and lens with either digital or film. With smaller formats, I don’s see the point. You could buy another camera for the price of some of the Ricoh GXR modules.
In the past you had to pay a lot extra to obtain add on functions e.g. motor drives, data backs, intervalometers. Integrating these functions into the camera means you get a lot more features for you money.
Thom Hogan
2 years ago |I think you’re missing the point. From what I hear, this idea is to compete with the Panasonic AG-AF100. The high price comes from the internal changes that are necessary: high bandwidth, very fast large storage, waveform generation, high fps, and much more.
It makes sense only if Sony thinks they have the lenses for it, which from what I’ve seen of Sony’s future lens lineup, would be a no. But then, they may be counting on Cosina, Schneider, and Zeiss for lenses that would appeal to the high-end videographer.
As to the modularity, yes, it makes a lot of sense, which is why RED did it. Videographers go from one type of work (tight place) to another (roving) to another (big rig dolly work) all the time. A single predesigned shoulder cam doesn’t always work all that well for that.
Miroslav
2 years ago |You can argue that interchangeable lens camera is modular by itself, but I suppose the furthest mass market camera manufacturers could go is make another module – the mount/sensor module. Olympus and Panasonic for example could make a micro four thirds module ( mirrorless ) and a four thirds module with semi transparent mirror ( thus not requiring an OVF ). Each time a new sensor is introduced, users could just purchase a new mount/sensor module, but keep their existing lenses and back module…
Anything more complicated would just drive the common folk away from such a system. Most DSLR owners never purchase second lens anyway. How much profit could manufacturers get from selling only new sensor/mount modules is another question…
wooliudo
2 years ago |yeah as many have said modularity to some extent makes sense, and interchangeable lens is a modular system already. (can we consider storage card as a module as well?)
but i think the modularity in film and digital are quite different. since in digital the sensor/body is usually the most expensive part, and the fast technological iteration seems to make standards obsolete faster than in the film era. and it also seems that the standards today are more fragmented.
so i think it all depends how you modulate the system. e.g., the ricoh system doesn’t make any sense at all IMHO
Nathan
2 years ago |If it pushes the camera into 2000 to 7000 dollar territory, it’s a total waste of time.
Olympus’ core strength used to be that they gave you a lot of bang for the buck. They cannot pursue the professional market unless they offer more there too. Performance MUST be improved.
While the E-5 is impressive for a Four Thirds camera, it’s simply not on dollar parity with the Canon 60D which outperforms it and isn’t even considered a Pro camera.
Olympus needs to focus on consumer and pro-sumer SLR and micro-four thirds, not build 7000 dollar professional videocameras. That market is fully smitten with the 7D and 5D series from Canon, and the RED and Panasonic professional video cameras.
Making 1500 dollar camera bodies that are outperformed by 1000 dollar Canons is not a sustainable strategy. They are better off building 700 dollar cameras that sell 500 dollar lenses. The PEN could be the Pro backup camera of the 21st century, if only Olympus had the vision to bring it up to snuff.
I think it needs: Built in low-latency EVF, edge-detect AF confirmation of manual focus lenses (think highlight clip indication, but built of blinking lines representing detected sharp edges) , flash which does not conflict with viewfinder use, a PC socket, metal shell, fiberglass-reinforced plastic inner frame, and fast prime lenses from 12 to 100 mm at F-stops from 1.2 to 2.5. There should be no further mediocre f3.5-5.6 or slower zooms. Because 4/3 is disadvantaged at the sensor, the lenses should be one stop faster or more to compensate for this weakness.
I think they need a fast 25 pancake (F1.2), a fast 20-50mm (f2), a fast 12 (f2.8), and a fast 70 (2.8). F2.8 for the 25mm is not fast enough to counter the weakness of the sensor, but a sensor is not a camera system. The problem is not insurmountable, they just need to offset their weakness with a strength.
If they built a 40-150 F2.8 to 3.5, a 12-50 f1.8-2.5, that would pretty much cover 80 percent of all pro use. Extreme telephoto is disadvantaged on small cameras, so they should focus on making two spectacular lenses for less than 900 bucks, and if they prevent themselves from developing too many redundant lenses, the increased production will bring the cost of those two lenses down to the needed price range. Ideally, Olympus should shoot for 500 and 800 dollars for the 40-150 and 12-50 respectively.
At that price point, they’ll sell very well. At 900 to 1500 dollars, they will hardly sell at all.
Nathan
2 years ago |Another strategy would be a camera with a 4/3 sensor and built-in AF 0.5x teleconverter, and a line of dumb manual focus or nonfocus primary lenses. If you divide a lens in half and mount the rearmost elements to the camera with the AF mechanism, you can design and build additional lenses to mount to that assembly. Olympus already owns a patent for that very thing and is not using it fully. This is frustrating.
If you build image stabilization into the body, and that makes sense, you can build AF into the body and your lenses can be either better ground and coated or cheaper, your choice. And you get a free 2 stop gain in light transmission if you build primary lenses of a large image circle and a smaller sensor which receives concentrated illumination from the reverse teleconverter.
Olympus knows this, they know it well enough to have patented it.
DonTom
2 years ago |I think the real issue with a modular digital camera is the processing engine. Whatever other weaknesses Olympus has, their strength is in the JPEG engine, and this is tuned to the sensor. Other than those two elements, the body is just a mount, a housing and a power supply.
A modular camera will be outdated rapidly, left behind as surely as today’s bodies.
I think the modularity is already there: a lens system, and regularly updated bodies. Sure, a body could be made more accommodating for other accessories, but will remain essentially the same. Lens mount, sensor, power supply and processing engine.
I don’t update my computer when it gets too slow to process new OS and software, I get a new one. And make do in the meantime with external hard drives. Make a thing too complicated, it won’t have any commercial success.
Alfons
2 years ago |I think modular would be actually cheaper. If you don’t have to buy whole new body when new sensor comes out you will likely save some money. Of course this means that body and sensor are different modular units.
Cristian Sorega
2 years ago |I do believe digital cameras need to become more modular than they are right now.
As for the Ricoh GXR, the system itself is very modular but Ricoh has not made the most out of it (so far). I tried to explain what the GXR system is and what it can do here: http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/2011/03/ricoh-gxr-review-gxr-system-body.html
So far it is the most promissing system if Ricoh starts producing the right kind of modules and bodies for it.
It would be great if Ricoh could partner up with someone else to help developing the system further and show the full potential.
ScreensPro - HD Animated Screensavers
2 years ago |Anyone saying $7k is too expensive has clearly not seen footage from the F3, which shares the same sensor.
If this camera outputs images of even 75% the quality of the F3, then it will blow the AF100 out of the windows. The F3 has amazing low light, great resolution, s35 and upto 13 stops DR.
If this is a stripped down F3 without the 4:4:4 / S-Log options.. plus EVF etc, it will still be a dream camera for the price.
It comes with a top mounted LCD, by the way…. and handle, mic handle and probably HD-SDI