My World: Have I missed it? Or is not worth the bandwidth.

For the past week or so, the photographic internet has been abuzz with MILC offerings.

I checked the OPF Canon, Nikon, Fuji, MFT forums..but see no mention of them. Of course, I could have totally missed to spot them.

Or is OPF just too passé to keep up with current camera offerings. If so, no worry..I too am 'passé ', or so says my dear wife.

Hi, Fahim,

fahim mohammed said:

For the past week or so, the photographic internet has been abuzz with MILC offerings.

I checked the OPF Canon, Nikon, Fuji, MFT forums..but see no mention of them. Of course, I could have totally missed to spot them.

Or is OPF just too passé to keep up with current camera offerings. If so, no worry..I too am 'passé ', or so says my dear wife.

Click to expand...

I seem to recall that we here are discouraged from discussing "rumoured"(i.e., not yet "announced" by the manufacturer) equipment.

But maybe that came to me in a dream.

Best regards,

Doug

Time to wake up Doug!
And maybe the bartenders here too.

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Fahim,



I seem to recall that we here are discouraged from discussing "rumoured"(i.e., not yet "announced" by the manufacturer) equipment.

But maybe that came to me in a dream.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Dear Fahim,

You are poetic! Have we actually neglected the MILK this week’s incoming waves of new offerings?

After all, Nikon burst forth with two and 3 lenses and A PDF from Canon leaked the coming R system. Actually, behind the scenes a number of us have been discussing these new offerings at length.

But here, almost everyone already has at least one mirrorless perfectly competent and mature mirrorless system, (that they’ve dedicated much thought to and we’ve discussed), but we never, AFAIK, called them “MILK”, (I stand corrected, Fahim, “MILC”), cameras.

But why not? Well that term have little advantages to us. We don’t call our female companions, young and old, rich and poor, educated or not, “PWOPS”!

“Persons without penises”

Yes, many new cameras have no need for mirrors!

But they also mostly have no need for rangefinders, spirit levels, interchangeable backs or twin lenses!

We already have been using Leicas, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and recently Fuji mirrorless camera’s for years that adding the later arrivals from the hold out dinosaur giants doesn’t justify any new terminology, surprise, frenzy or dances of joy. Nikon fanboys can rejoice at last, yes I admit that, but what is really remarkable about this week’s camera disclosures? I will mention that in due time, I promise

Anyway, for now, tell me, why should we call these common cameras, that we are used to, each for special reasons, by a some odd marketing name, MILK, that doesn’t respect the differences that ARE important.

Asher

Doug Kerr said:

I seem to recall that we here are discouraged from discussing "rumoured"(i.e., not yet "announced" by the manufacturer) equipment.

Click to expand...

Some equipment is already officially announced (e.g. Nikon Z, Leica M10-P). Interested members are of course free to start a thread about new offerings.

MILC Systems, Asher.

To, if you insist, MILK the customers.

Asher Kelman said:

Dear Fahim,

You are poetic! Have we actually neglected the MILK this week’s incoming waves of new offerings?

After all, Nikon burst forth with two and 3 lenses and A PDF from Canon leaked the coming R system. Actually, behind the scenes a number of us have been discussing these new offerings at length.

But here, almost everyone already has at least one mirrorless perfectly competent and mature mirrorless system that they’ve dedicated much thought to and we’ve discussed, but we never, AFAIK, called them “MILK” cameras.

But why not? Well that term have little advantages to us. We don’t call our female companions, young and old, rich and poor, educated or not, “PWOPS”!

“Persons without penises”

Yes, many new cameras have no need for mirrors!

But they also mostly have no need for rangefinders, spirit levels, interchangeable backs or twin lenses!

We already have been using Leicas, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and recently Fuji mirrorless camera’s for years that adding the later arrivals from the hold out dinosaur giants doesn’t justify any new terminology, surprise, frenzy or dances of joy. Nikon fanboys can rejoice at last, yes I admit that, but what is really remarkable about this week’s camera disclosures? I will mention that in due time, I promise

Anyway, for now, tell me, why should we call these common cameras, that we are used to, each for special reasons, by a some odd marketing name, MILK, that doesn’t respect the differences that ARE important.

Asher

Click to expand...

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

. . .but we never, AFAIK, called them “MILC” cameras.

Click to expand...

Well, now that I'm awake, to join this notion: I have never referred to such cameras as "MILK" cameras., I don't even refer to them as "MILC" cameras. I speak of them with descriptions that include the format size (possibly being ff35, "full frame" being quite ambiguous), whether or not they have interchangeable lenses, and then, for interchangeable lens cameras, which for many years (forgetting the noble Leica) we have taken to imply "single lens reflex" (and I recognize that), whether or not they are in fact of the single-lens reflex configuration (generally saying "not" by using the term "mirrorless").

Yes, there are many things that distinguish them from other kinds of cameras, but the most prominent thing that distinguishes then from single-lens reflex camera is the lack of a (reflex) mirror (which by definition an SLR camera has). Indeed they also don't have viewfinders, nor winding cranks.

Yes, I have been following closely the impending emergence of a new Canon camera family that seems to be called the "EOS R family" and have written extensively on it, privately, believing however that there was an "unwritten law" that we should not ruminate on un-announced cameras here.

Now my observations on the apparent bayonet lug angular dimensions of the "RF" mount are . . .

Oh, maybe that is nikuturniy.

Still, it would be best if unwritten laws were written someplace. But then they wouldn't be . . .

Back to sleep now.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug, my wise and scholarly friend,

You are free to write about whatever you wish on photography! The banning of rumors is from Rob Galbraith’s distinguished forum of ancient times.

Today, rumors are very well filtered in the websites specially setup to filter rumors!

@ Fahim, my good friend and most experienced user of many camera systems all around the world.

As to our not celebrating the arrival, at long last, of Canon and Nikon mirrorless camera’s, how important is presence or absence of a mirror except in the most pocketable compact cameras?

Here’s the reality: while removing the mirror somewhat decreases the weight, the features of today’s cameras that are so special are generally far more important than whether or not they are mirrorless. MILK camera’s as a category just for marketers and has little relevance to the choices we make. For example, in the last 12 months, thousands of established Nikon and Canon sports photographers have moved to the Sony A9, beacause if it’s advantages for high speed accurate tracking AF. Being a reflex optical camera is not significant. After all, when using Long sports lenses, we need the heft of a solid camera body.

Lenses by Leica, for example, are so distinguished by quality that the camera is distinguished mainly because of the pedigree of the lenses. Phase one’s lenses with built in shutters make the cameras so special because of the high synch speed for studio and potato work, even in the brightest sunlight.

The same is true of Amazing Pentax MF digital, presence or absence of a mirror is irrelevant to its choice. People buy that camera for the rubustness of the files and ability to get detail and gradients hardly possible with many competitors.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

You are poetic! Have we actually neglected the MILK this week’s incoming waves of new offerings?

Click to expand...

No milk today my love is gone away
The bottle stands forlorn a symbol of the dawn
No milk today it seems a common sight
But people passing by don't know the reason why
How could they know just what this message means
The end of all my hopes the end of all my dreams
How could they know a palace there had been
Behind the door where my love reigned as queen
No milk today it wasn't always so
The company was gay we turn'd night into day
But all that's left is a place dark and lonely
A terraced house in a mean street back of town
Becomes a shrine when I think of you only
Just two up to down...

Jerome Marot said:

No milk today my love is gone away
The bottle stands forlorn a symbol of the dawn
No milk today it seems a common sight
But people passing by don't know the reason why
How could they know just what this message means
The end of all my hopes the end of all my dreams
How could they know a palace there had been
Behind the door where my love reigned as queen
No milk today it wasn't always so
The company was gay we turn'd night into day
But all that's left is a place dark and lonely
A terraced house in a mean street back of town
Becomes a shrine when I think of you only
Just two up to down...

Click to expand...

Herman’s Hermits! That’s a name from the past. They sing like fun cute and smiling motorized metronome puppets! I imagine ? Madonna ? covering this song, “No Milk Today” , marching back and forth across a stage between slim, erotic male dancers, caressing her own body in sensual sweeps, rolling on the floor, thrusting her hips and pouting her lips! ?

Things became much more sensual since the Hermits!

For me, I miss the arrival of the milkman and his horse and cart, every day bringing us bottles of milk with aluminum caps that lifted up on a column of ice if left overnight by error on our porch!

So “Tevia the milkman”, was more than just a dramatic figure in a film, but an everyday person who was important to my life.......and to my garden. I would follow the horse and collect the generous dropping of poop which I used a manure for my garden!

Asher

Refresher

Sorry, but not discussed in the linked article above are acronyms for men without dicks, or women without cunts. But then again, I don’t search for such acronyms. Not my field of interest in the least.

However, Asher, I am more versed in acronyms such as ADHD and such like.

You take care, you hear!

Asher Kelman said:

Doug, my wise and scholarly friend,

You are free to write about whatever you wish on photography! The banning of rumors is from Rob Galbraith’s distinguished forum of ancient times.

Today, rumors are very well filtered in the websites specially setup to filter rumors!

@ Fahim, my good friend and most experienced user of many camera systems all around the world.

As to our not celebrating the arrival, at long last, of Canon and Nikon mirrorless camera’s, how important is presence or absence of a mirror except in the most pocketable compact cameras?

Here’s the reality: while removing the mirror somewhat decreases the weight, the features of today’s cameras that are so special are generally far more important than whether or not they are mirrorless. MILK camera’s as a category just for marketers and has little relevance to the choices we make. For example, in the last 12 months, thousands of established Nikon and Canon sports photographers have moved to the Sony A9, beacause if it’s advantages for high speed accurate tracking AF. Being a reflex optical camera is not significant. After all, when using Long sports lenses, we need the heft of a solid camera body.

Lenses by Leica, for example, are so distinguished by quality that the camera is distinguished mainly because of the pedigree of the lenses. Phase one’s lenses with built in shutters make the cameras so special because of the high synch speed for studio and potato work, even in the brightest sunlight.

The same is true of Amazing Pentax MF digital, presence or absence of a mirror is irrelevant to its choice. People buy that camera for the rubustness of the files and ability to get detail and gradients hardly possible with many competitors.

Asher

Click to expand...

So, Fahim, you appear to agree! Except for Nikon and Canon fanboys who won’t go to Leica or Zeiss and the like, we are already used to mirrorless camera’s and it’s no big deal to fuss about...

....except that the Canon R will focus at f11. That IS revolutionary, as now for ~ $2,000 or so folk with a 100-400 and a 2x converter can photograph birds and fill the frame like the pros!

Asher

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

As to our not celebrating the arrival, at long last, of Canon and Nikon mirrorless camera’s, how important is presence or absence of a mirror except in the most pocketable compact cameras?

Click to expand...

The choice of "mirrorless" to indicate this camera viewing and composition paradigm is unfortunate and misdirecting, as if the aviation industry had chosen to speak of what we call "jet aircraft" as "crankshaftless".

The actual matter of interest is the replacement of the single lens reflex viewing paradigm, (de rigueur for interchangeable lens cameras in the modern age, with the electronic viewfinder ("EVF") paradigm. That brings many potential advantages and many potential challenges. And it essentially forces other design changes, such as not easily having a separate focus detection system (since those generally shared part of the SLR optical path). And thus, in the new Canon camera announced today, we are led to essentially-total dependency on Canon's marvelous dual-pixel autofocus scheme.

Best regards,

Doug