[blue]

On the English-speaking Wikipedia at least, there is a struggle to redefine the classifications of cameras, given all the variations of things that have come out in the last few years ...

One article is trying to explain the term MILC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_...ens_camera

The article is frankly looking a bit rough compared to a lot of articles. Part of the reason is that this term is intrinsically so hard to define, and the subjects of the article are constantly changing, but looking at some of the edits and history I do see echoes of the brand wars and all the religious debates including EVF vs. OVF, small sensor vs. large sensor and more, coming into it. For a glimpse of the argumentative underbelly, look at the Discussion page for the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mirror...ens_camera) and the comments on each revision (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl...on=history).

Attaching a screenshot from a page showing the edit statistics up to today, which I captured from the output of this page:
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articlei...=wikipedia

I think there's a clear correlation with significant product announcements such as Nikon 1, X100, and so on. And it's not just that people are adding the new cameras to the list of cameras. It's that each new system forces an adjustment, or resurrects the argument, about what MILC is, what it's purpose is, and the advantages/disadvantages.

[Toad]

Fascinating! The media is the message, for sure. This is a very interesting take on the subject - discussing not what is said, but when it is said.

Great "thinking out of the box" article, blue.

[Pavel]

I am sorry Blue. I get a sense that it is about camera "taxonomy"? This area bored me to tears as a student a century ago and I do not perceive any need for it for myself (in my capacity as a user/buyer). It may be more relevant for writers, designers etc. I am just trying to match my needs/wants with the best fitting equipment and I look at each camera as having a collection of features. Some features of some cameras overlap.

The impression you create is that there is a great deal of diversity and original thinking. I actually agree with Thom Hogan that the camera industry is very conservative and loath to truly innovate. The industry seem to like to add features, many of them gimmicks just to distinguish themselves from competition and to make their earlier models obsolete. Rangefinders (sorry "mirrorless") and SLRs (DSLRs) have been around for a very long time. The digitization of images and adding of recording of motion where basically inevitable and obvious. Of course cameras now can adjust images separately for cats and dogs and detect if people are smiling or have their eyes closed. One of the few major innovations comes from a small company Lytro. (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,238...DxDCkOZhXZ). Most of the other changes are just incremental improvements of old products, incorporating technology from other fields.

[NT73]

That Lytro looks neat, but I will have to wait and see. It most probably will have disadvantages too. :/

[blue]

Thanks for reading! It just struck me as interesting that this seems to be a sort of territory of terminology that people are trying to stake claims on.

As far as the relevance of taxonomy of cameras goes, I think it's all becoming a blur ... things overlap, as you say, and that is fine with me.

I think there's probably lots of original thinking out there, but maybe reluctance to commit to original designs. I do think there's more variety than there used to be with film. It's a lot more possible to create new formats, as Four Thirds proved - that sensor size is probably here to stay, along with many others. And with all the pieces now connected "by wire", there's flexibility that should enable evolution in lots of areas.

I like reading the news and opinions and trying to process what is happening. It's fun to try and predict which designs will be the winners. It basically has nothing to do with photography, I know! :/

For those of us who are passionate about the process of photography there's a lot of new features that seem like a waste, that's for sure. I do like composing on the screen, and having free shots to burn on experiments. I really wish they'd just let me design the camera, though

Anyway, the next thread I post, I hope, will be some pictures.

[shuttertalk]

Ha ha, I thought the buzzword was CSC (compact camera system), since EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder with Interchangeable Lens) excluded those without EVFs. I must admit that this is the first time I've heard the term MILC. But you make a good point with regards to the plethora of word choices and lack of definition for this new category of camera.

Just thinking about it, MILC does seem fitting, as opposed to "DSLR" with the reflex mirror design and "compacts" which traditionally used to encompass everything else. Until of course, someone comes along and designs a compact interchangable lens system with a mirror, then we'd be in trouble.

[blue]

Yeah - exactly. I like CSC the best, actually, except that it's hard to draw the line on what is compact. Maybe what is needed is a matrix of letters and numbers. Any combination of ©ompact, (S)ystem, ®eflex, (P)ellicle, (E)xpensive, plus a number indicating the sensor size.

[Pavel]

@NT73:

That Lytro looks neat, but I will have to wait and see. It most probably will have disadvantages too.

- I am not rushing to buy it, at least not until it is a reasonably mature and supported system. I think it is one of those few truly groundbreaking camera technologies. There have been many breakthroughs in image processing, although I am largely ignorant of those.

@ Blue - I am also a fan of new toys and i like the digital because of all the things it permits us to do and at relatively low cost. Posting is a good thing. I post mostly on Flickr ( a bigger family there, although on average not on par with this one) and i post typically 2-3 pics/day

[blue]

The Lytro does seem revolutionary but it's too early to tell. I have a feeling there could be other, better ways of doing the same thing or at least functionally similar things. Certainly too early to invest. I was tempted to invest in Nortel and Ballard Power among other things; so glad I was a chicken.

[shuttertalk]

Looks like the mirrorless market in the UK has suffered a minor setback according to market researchers. Nothing major, but year on year since 2010, number of units sold fell 1% while price competition saw the value of those sales reduced by 17%. In comparison, DSL sales rose 6%, though value fell 1%.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/111026...igures.asp