Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: PeterN on February 14, 2016, 10:29:07
Title: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: PeterN on February 14, 2016, 10:29:07
If you look at the sales figures of camera companies, there seems to be a trend: DSLR sales goes down, Mirrorless sales goes up. We've seen some disruptions in the past overhauling industries. Think of harddisks and typewriters. Each disruption starts with a technology that is initially inferior to the established technology and is only adopted by a small group of people. Gradually the technology improves and more people/companies adopt the new technology until that technology becomes mainstream.
I am wondering if that's happening to the DSLR market. If true, what about our investments in lens systems? Will Nikon and Canon be able to make their existing lens lineup available for mirrorless systems? Or will they have to develop new lenses?
There is no dispute that contemporary DSLR systems still have their edge, either because of camera features and ergonomics or because of available lenses and vested interests (i.e. lenses purchased). But mirrorless systems are catching up quickly. When mirrorless systems become DSLR-equals in terms of AF-speed and accuracy, writing speedm ergonomics, viewfinder quality, batterylife, sturdiness, etc. what will be the point of having a camera with a mirror?
There are also new sensor developments, such as organic sensors which - if I understand correctly- will offer full-frame IQ in (much) smaller format.
What are your thoughts? Will DSLRs become nostalgia for a small group? Or will it remain mainstream? What needs to be done by vendors of DSLR systems to remain mainstream?
When someone asks you what to do: buy a new DSLR system (incl lenses) or invest in a mirrorless system, what would you recommend?
Just curious what you think!
PS: mods: feel free to delete this post if it has been discussed before. I searched but could not find anything.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Mike G on February 14, 2016, 11:21:20
Peter, IMHO mirrorless is the way things will inevitably progress. In my very brief experience of m,less gear the size and weight of the big black lumps albeit excellent in their output is just too much weight to tote about unless you have a very good reason! Mirrorless gear is on the road to maturity and I'm sure will get better and better as time goes by. So in answer to your question I would have to reccommend a mirrorless system!
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Andy on February 14, 2016, 11:33:49
Well, I guess it depends, how you define future: Seen (really) long term, my guess is: No, no future for DSLR (in actual usage). Longer life in nostalgica.
The ability to change lenses might stay much longer - don't know if the core platform business component of Nikon, the F-mount, will be flexible enough to survive into future systems.
I consider myself to be a member of the "old school" - my point of familiarity and experiences are the SLR and D-SLR. Measuring and comparing many of the new developments against my personal "reference".
I still have issues with the slow startup times of mirrorless systems, can't accept the time lag in the EVF versus and optical viewfinder, find it hard to use an EVF in night photography and I am constantly suprised how bad battery life is in mirrorless systems (vs. what is already available).
Yet, I will not be the future for Nikon. I will most likely die earlier than the new customer generation currently growing around the planet. Born almost with a built-in familiarity for touch screens, a point of speed reference a mobile phone provides, an image quality experience many of us would say no to, priorities and patterns unfamiliar to many of us. Coming from this angle, a mirrorless system is a significant step-up. It is fast, provides incredible image quality, is flexible with lens changes, no need for getting to "fullframe" sensor, as they haven't experienced the old film days many of us have fond memories for.
There is an easy test to find out which camp someones belong to:
Put a D-SLR on a table. Ask a few persons what they see on the table. If the response is "a digital camera" -> this person most likely belongs to the "old camp" If the response is "a camera" -> you might have a millenial in front of you
Now ask yourself: What is on the table? :)
rgds, Andy
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: richardHaw on February 14, 2016, 11:35:27
the sales figures can be deceiving. DSLR users do not buy new cameras as much since usually we buy stuff every other release unless we need to buy the current best. mirrorless on the other hand is a growing market where people buy into the system since they do not have the gear yet and is deciding to switch or not :o :o :o
mirrorless will be the way of the future, but not in it's current form. ::)
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Almass on February 14, 2016, 11:49:25
It is sheer physics of the optical variety.
Nevermind the sensor size and res. The issue is with the lenses......long lenses - ultra wide lenses.
It is possible to mount a mirrorless onto a long lens......but the balance is thrown out and the whole point of mirrorless goes out of the window.
Mirrorless are sinply replacing P&S cameras and sitting between DSLR's and Mobile phones.
Today technology is not able to reduce the size and weight of glass optics.......this means that DLSR's are staying until this technological feast is solved.
........back to our regular program.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 14, 2016, 12:41:09
Mirrorless would make more sense for film than for a digital sensor. We had them in the form of rangefinder cameras.
Digital capture sets different demands and in fact, having optical "long" systems in which rays are better collimated when they hit the sensor enables higher quality and/or less expensive optics.
Besides often being too small to provide optimal handing, mirrorless cameras seem to have a very unfinished user interface. The EVF system is simply not tuned to the human eye characteristics and fail by being too bright when it shouldn't be and inadequate discerning when the external light is bright. The lagging of real-time events is improved, but still has a way to go. And so on.
Had mirrorless camera been designed by working photographers instead of clueless engineers, their development probably would be far more advanced.
As far as I know, sales of mirrorless systems is simply not the run-away success some people claim. Their marked share may increase, but a low pace. The compact camera really suffer, but they shouldn't be regarded as mirrorless even though they in principle are.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 14, 2016, 12:43:45
To answer a question about the lenses: any manufacturer who chose to ignore an existing lens base in the 100 Mill figure is just plain stupid.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: PeterN on February 14, 2016, 15:11:07
Mirrorless would make more sense for film than for a digital sensor. We had them in the form of rangefinder cameras.
Digital capture sets different demands and in fact, having optical "long" systems in which rays are better collimated when they hit the sensor enables higher quality and/or less expensive optics.
That's very interesting. The mirror is just relevant for viewing, right? The optical length is relevant during the image capture. So are you saying that it is beneficial to produce longer-sized lenses? Although I can't verify the differences in length between comparable Fuji and Nikon lenses, in my memory the Fuji lenses are shorter. Yet, they are considered to be top-of-class. So I am somewhat confused.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 14, 2016, 17:29:48
DSLR is my recommended camera to any pro, scientist, advanced amateur and hobby photographer as a main camera for action, sport, PJ, wedding, event, architecture, landscape, catwalk, safari, children, babies and babes.
Rangefinder is my recommended camera to any pro, advanced amateur and hobby photographer as a main or second camera for PJ, wedding, landscape, babies and babes.
M34 is my recommended camera to any pro, advanced amateur and hobby photographer as a second camera for PJ, wedding, event, children, babies and babes.
The sales figures of DSLR and Mirror-less has nothing to do with each other. It is not either or.
The people I meet have almost all of them several different systems; DSLR, mirrorless and rangefinders.
The only market suffering is the point and shoot cameras - they are replaced by mirrorless and phones...
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: bjornthun on February 14, 2016, 17:39:52
That's very interesting. The mirror is just relevant for viewing, right? The optical length is relevant during the image capture. So are you saying that it is beneficial to produce longer-sized lenses? Although I can't verify the differences in length between comparable Fuji and Nikon lenses, in my memory the Fuji lenses are shorter. Yet, they are considered to be top-of-class. So I am somewhat confused.
Rangefinder wide angles designed for film, like many Leica M compatible wide angles will have problems when mounted on a mirrorless camera, due to characteristics of the sensor and sensor cover. Wide angles designed for mirrorless are designed with the sensor characteristics in mind, so they don't have problems, and indeed they are excellent performers. A wide angle for mirrorless typically have a short distance from the rearmost lens element to the sensor and won't work on DSLRs, like Leica M wides for film, but those for mirrorless are designed to be more telecentric, which means that the light rays will hit the sensor at less extreme angles. So Fuji (APS-C), Sony (35mm full frame) and micro 43 all have excellent native autofocus wide angles today. Fuji, Zeiss, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic have all solved the problem of designing great mirrorless wide angles.
Native, excellent wide angles with is not a problem for mirrorless anymore.
What mirrorless needs, is fast AF tracking, which remains a stronghold of the DSLR.
I find EVFs to be much better than the optical finders of a DSLR. The reasons for this is that there is easy access of a magnifier function for critical focusing, manual focus is much easier in poor light and it's easier to see the subject in poor light. EVF lag is less of an issue than it used to be. The viewfinder is a very personal thing, and no general advice can be given, I made my choice based on my needs. Thank you Sony!
I have found EVFs to be much less tiresome than OVFs for my eyes. YMMV.
I have sold off my DSLRs, and I think that DSLRs have a lmited future.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 14, 2016, 17:53:56
Some people find mirrorless finders a blessing, others as being tiresome and mediocre. I firmly belong in the latter camp. My Sony A7 cannot focus reliably with an f/1.2 Nikkor lens. Tried the Fuji X-T1 with not better results even using a native Fujinon lens.
Very short focal lengths with a non-retrofocus design and digital sensors are a mismatch no matter what tricks the manufacturer tries to apply to the sensor and the signal processing therein.
What everyone should be able to agree upon is that manufacturers really need to pay more attention to the viewfinders of their cameras. The best lenses in the world and über-high megapixel figures are of little value if you cannot bring the lens to the optimal focus.
A further point is camera designs that allow better handling and that does NOT entail making the cameras smaller and lighter.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jan Anne on February 14, 2016, 17:55:20
Like with the transition from film to digital it took digital a few iterations to become a proper alternative, there were early adopters which wanted to discover the new potential and learned to live with the downsides like smaller than 35mm film sensors, terrible battery life, big battery packs, lower resolutions, etc, etc.
I can still remember the endless talks why digital was better than film and visa versa not even a decade ago. Now a few iterations later digital has more resolution than ever before, runs circles around film in the ISO and DR department and cameras can take thousands of images on a small battery. I can't remember the last new film camera being announced, film producers lower their production or stop entirely, film prices go up, can only be bought in specific places, etc. So digital beats film on all aspects besides nostalgia and the trend sensitive Hipster types so the conclusion is that digital clearly won the race.
The move from DSLR to mirrorless will follow the same path, we are still a few iterations away for mirrorless to become a proper alternative for all photogs. Again there are early adopters discovering the new potential while dealing with the limitations like terrible battery life, slow viewfinders, worse AF, etc but in a few iterations these will all be on par with a pro DSLR and probably beat them into oblivion like digital did with film. More will make the jump to mirrorless when the benefits of a DSLR disappear like snow under the sun and only a handful of photogs will keep shooting a DSLR for nostalgia purposes (and of course the trendy Hipster 2.0 types).
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: stenrasmussen on February 14, 2016, 18:04:51
Mirrorless found a niche in the "small and capable" category. Since then they've grown bigger, evolved in the EVF and AF department and will soon be ready to outclass traditional DSLR's. But not just yet.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 14, 2016, 18:06:19
Do not forget that there is no rule set in stone to have "one size fits all" camera. There will always be need for specialised or niche cameras optimised for that field of photography.
Plus, to repeat an earlier point, the better approach would be to make use of any already existing lens base. Optical designs aren't rattled out as peas in a pod, they take time to develop and even more time to fine-tune and make ready for volume production. A properly designed lens has longevity of many decades. People do want to use existing lenses on new cameras for a good number of reasons, not all originating in nostalgia.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jakov Minić on February 14, 2016, 18:15:24
A digital SLR put the analogue SLR to bed. I agree on that. Why will a digital mirror-less camera put a digital SLR to bed is not yet clear to me?
Why do we have to chose, either - or? Can't we see them as tools and use them in accordance with the assignment at hand? When I bought the AW-1, I bought it to go under water, I didn't buy it because it was mirror-less ;)
I have a question to all those mirror-less fans; when will the DSLR become obsolete as film is today? Is the inevitability going to happen next year, in 3 years, in 7 years, in a dozen years, etc?
Smartphones are, as already mentioned taking over the market of point and shoot cameras. Perhaps they are a threat to both DSLRs and mirror-less cameras?
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: charlie on February 14, 2016, 18:36:00
Film is not obsolete, it is just the minority now.
If you compare pictures from a mirrorless camera and DSLR can you tell which was taken with which camera?
What about if you compare a film capture to a digital capture?
I can more often see a difference with film, it has a different look than digital. It's not nostalgia, its just different. I've found film can do things that I've been unable to have digital replicate, granted its pretty specialized but nonetheless, film is not obsolete to me.
As for mirrorless vs DSLR, I could see it take a similar path. Mirrorless cameras become the majority but that doesn't mean DSLR's would become obsolete, I hope not anyway. As mentioned it would be a shame to see all those SLR lenses go to waste. I like using DSLR's, and SLR's, and MF cameras, and imagine I'd like mirrorless too but don't have one... yet. There are places for all of them.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on February 14, 2016, 18:51:16
I think there is room for different products and technologies in the camera market into the foreseeable future. As in the past, no single camera type was used by all photographers for all applications. So it will be in the future, I am sure. To me the EVF is not an acceptable alternative to an OVF and I don't see how that would change in the future. I do use mirrorless cameras at work as components of a technical setup but those will likely be replaced by scientific cameras (with no screens of their own) controlled by a computer in the future.
I would recommend always choosing the products which you find best fit for your needs today rather than worry about the future. You cannot take your lenses to your grave and there is no point in worrying about things outside of your control such as how old lenses will be supported decades from now or what their resale value will be. Such things are not important. I think what is important is for everyone to focus on their lives today and live it as well as they can, in the present rather than in some dream about how things may be in the future.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Les Olson on February 14, 2016, 19:05:55
That's very interesting. The mirror is just relevant for viewing, right? The optical length is relevant during the image capture. So are you saying that it is beneficial to produce longer-sized lenses? Although I can't verify the differences in length between comparable Fuji and Nikon lenses, in my memory the Fuji lenses are shorter. Yet, they are considered to be top-of-class. So I am somewhat confused.
It is not the lens length, it is the straightness or obliqueness of the path the photons follow from the lens to reach the sensor. Silver grains did not care which direction the photons came from, but silicon wells do. If the photons do not arrive relatively close to perpendicular to the sensor they do not generate photo-electrons. So the longer the distance between the lens and the sensor the straighter the photon path can be. Obviously, a short lens to sensor distance is a much more serious problem if the sensor is large, which is why the Sony A7 series cameras have extreme peripheral light fall off - and in turn why the lenses have extreme barrel distortion, because that reduces the apparent light fall-off. Purely by chance, it turns out that the longer registration distances required by the mirror are exactly what digital sensors need.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: pluton on February 14, 2016, 19:37:37
I will be very pleased if Nikon brings forth a professional style*, 24x36 EVF camera. It could be exactly the same size as the current models, so as not to cram too many controls into too little 'real estate'. I look forward to such a possible unit purely for the low-light advantages of the EVF. In bright sunlight, the OVF will still be preferred for many/most uses. Yes, the OVF focusing screens should be improved or alternatives provided for eye focusing. If Canon can do it(interchangeable screens), Nikon could do it. My current mirrorless EVF camera, a Fujifilm XE-1 ---admittedly an early generation in the Fuji product line--- is a fairly well-designed amateur camera that, while capable of producing high quality picture results, is a complete failure as a DMD(Decisive Moment Digital). *= accepted size, controls, operability and ergonomics.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jan Anne on February 14, 2016, 21:22:12
I have a question to all those mirror-less fans; when will the DSLR become obsolete as film is today? Is the inevitability going to happen next year, in 3 years, in 7 years, in a dozen years, etc?
The Sony a7 series is now on its second iteration which got rid of many of the (design) faults and short comings of the MK1 models.
Sony just announced the A6300 - their flagship mirrorless crop sensor model - and in their presentation they've openly countered the D5/D500 presentation where Nikon claimed that mirrorless wasn't suited for high fps work due to viewfinder blackout, apparently they've solved that issue now at 8 frames per second (they claim its on par with a $1000 DSLR).
This year Sony will probably announce the a7 MK3, the R and S models will follow a few monts later. I expect these puppies to be on par with their DSLR competitors in their price range, if they don't the 2018 MK4 models definitely will.
There are also some persisting rumours that Sony will bring out a professional A9 model soon, if they do so that will speed up things a little bit, literally ;D
Also when Nikon and Canon come around with their competing models the whole genre will get a boost as they can only gain market share if those models are top notch.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jakov Minić on February 14, 2016, 21:28:48
Again, I didn't get a clear answer :) Will the Olympic Games in 2020 (appropriately in Tokyo, Japan) be covered exclusively with mirror-less cameras?
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: BW on February 14, 2016, 21:41:42
The Tokyo olympics will be covered exclusively with smartphones 8)
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: David H. Hartman on February 14, 2016, 22:06:07
There are also new sensor developments, such as organic sensors which - if I understand correctly- will offer full-frame IQ in (much) smaller format.
We don't take the same photograph with a smaller format, not the same perspective, DoF and background blurring. Unless these three don't matter you won't get the same image quality in a smaller format not even DX v. FX.
What are your thoughts? Will DSLRs become nostalgia for a small group? Or will it remain mainstream? What needs to be done by vendors of DSLR systems to remain mainstream?
dSLR(s) will probably become icons of a past era. Human's are a lazy lot. What dSLR vendors need is an intermittent fixed mirror so viewfinder brightness can be maintained while viewing but during the exposure the maximum light can transmitted to the image sensor. The Dick Tracy wrist TV was once fantasy. One can buy a wrist TV today and have over-night shipping. A solid state mirror may happen.
If dSLR makers can over come the problems of current moving mirrors then a small group of professionals and very serious amateurs (lovers of photography) will remain dSLR customers. The price of dSLR(s) will increase as there will be less units sold so a greater portion of the cost R&D will fall on a single unit.
When someone asks you what to do: buy a new DSLR system (incl lenses) or invest in a mirrorless system, what would you recommend?
Well first let's clear up one mistake. We don't "invest" in a camera system. Whether for business or pleasure a camera system is an expense. Very few camera actually appreciate value against an inflated currency. Only those are an investment.
What would I recommend? I'd size up the potential camera buyer and recommend a dSLR if they are serious and if ... I'll get in trouble if I continue.
The basics for background blurring is if the background is well outside the DoF zone use a larger format with a longer lens which will give you a larger absolute aperture, a big front element. This is something that intuitively came to photographers from using 35mm, 6x6 and 4x5 in the late film era. :)
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: David H. Hartman on February 14, 2016, 22:26:31
What everyone should be able to agree upon is that manufacturers really need to pay more attention to the viewfinders of their cameras. The best lenses in the world and über-high megapixel figures are of little value if you cannot bring the lens to the optimal focus.
A further point is camera designs that allow better handling and that does NOT entail making the cameras smaller and lighter.
I feel exactly the same. The parts of mirrorless that are really enticing are the benefits that only mirrorless EVFs have been fitted with, though OVFs could support. Focus peaking and live RGB histograms could be overlayed in an OVF live, with imperceptable delay. Technology such as Google Glass and the EVFs of mirrorless camera prove this to be irrefutable. I will always prefer an OVF because I want to see what *I* see, not what an electrical system sees, and no technological improvement can change that.
Incorporating the ideas these techs have brought forward would improve the experience unquestionably for OVF DSLR users, without penalty to the experience as it has always been You would be able to toggle the OVF overlays just like you do viewfrinder grids/levels or the various overlays in live view. I think it would be quite stupid to not incorporate these new technical possibilites, as there will always be those who prefer an OVF.
Though, many stupid things have been done in hstory. Perhaps nobody keeps OVFs up to date and it is slowly killed off by EVFs. Man would that suck, yet not surprise me. So says the cynic in me.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Tom Gresham on February 15, 2016, 05:38:40
Just made a one-week trip to Key West. Decided to leave the D810 and Zeiss lenses at home and take the Fuji X system. I had just updated the firmware on the X-E2, and the focus is fast.
I felt like I was shooting pictures with a toy. Very unsatisfying. Lenses have no weight, no feel.
I returned determined to sell the entire Fuji system (6 lenses). I'd just rather use the Nikon gear when I want good photos. I also have a Sony A7r body which I bought for video. I may try that with the Nikon mount lenses.
But, the cheesy feel of the plastic fantastic just left me cold.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: richardHaw on February 15, 2016, 06:05:46
The Tokyo olympics will be covered exclusively with smartphones 8)
100% agree :o :o :o
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 15, 2016, 07:00:21
The day you pick up a nice camera, use it extensively with success, then by accident discover it is mirrorless ... maybe it will happen, maybe not.
Lest anyone should consider me a stout enemy of the mirrorless principle, I hasten to add I also own around ten different ones at present (Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Nikon). However, none of them is anywhere near fulfilling the "Turing's test for photography" outlined in the opening paragraph. So I won't hold my breath - yet. My mirrorless cameras have given me some options, most of them not new to the scene, but solved differently.
Besides the obvious points of needing much better finders and general handling, there is also the question of lenses. Using third-party lenses via an adapter is of course fun and make playing with gadgets or exotic optics entertaining, but in most cases one is robbed of all the automation progress made since the '50s with no evident reward in sight. Native lenses with good handling properties are required.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: tommiejeep on February 15, 2016, 09:37:04
I can learn the controls, user interface on any camera (sometimes a real pain in the backside). I can learn the settings that suit me best.
The day that I can pick up a camera with an EVF that allows me to continuously follow the travels of a soccer ball in a fast pitched match, with a 300mm-500mm (Dx and Fx bodies) lens for close up of the action, I will think DSLRs with OVFs have been caught. Same goes for small, fast, erratic birds which are even more difficult. Sure, I can shoot with a shorter/wider lens and , as long as I have the shutter speeds and dof, catch most of the action. I can get images and there are some great shooters that get better but even they will admit that their success rate is anything but good. That goes for "Brand Ambassadors" getting paid to promote the gear.
When talking about the Olympics, Panasonic had a guy shoot the London Olympics with a GH-4. Yes, he did get some good images but most were static targets or targets that moved in a limited, defined pattern. He did not answer questions about number of shots per keeper ;)
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 15, 2016, 09:50:08
The mirrorless crowd will do themselves a service by understanding camera ergonomics isn't something you design randomly or by following some fashionable trends. The better designs evolve by natural selection over time. The human interface has its quirks that the designers really need to pay more attention to. Extensive menu systems simply are not the answer. Straight-forward, functional designs with ample space for fingers and other human extremities are what we should ask for, but oh so rarely get. A viewfinder that "understands" the human eye needs adaptation to the ambient light conditions in order not to be "blind" when you remove your eye from the finder (an area in which current EVFs fail badly; they should ramp up brightness only on demand and likewise slowly decrease in intensity so your dark and night vision isn't impaired. Of course an OVF does this by default as it interacts with the eye in the natural way).
The SLR principle needed nearly a century to reach its pinnacle of design and functionality. The DSLR after nearly two decades clearly can still be improved, although many of the basics are well manifested and functional. Thus our sights for the "perfect" mirrorless system is not to be set to the present time, but somewhere in the future.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jakov Minić on February 15, 2016, 10:13:51
The Tokyo olympics will be covered exclusively with smartphones 8)
Børge, you made my day :)
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: richardHaw on February 15, 2016, 10:15:09
giorgetto giugaro is greatly responsible for that ergonomics :o :o :o i am a great fan of his works on japanese cars and the delorean 8)
mirrorless to me is a great tool fro certain jobs, but not the all around solution that fanboys make them out to be. it's like comparing a VW to a jeep. both will take you from A to B it just depends on how you want to get there.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: richardHaw on February 15, 2016, 10:15:40
i feel that this will be a long and passionate discussion :o :o :o
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 15, 2016, 10:23:34
Maybe, maybe not. There is no "winner" or "right vs wrong". Just alternate approaches towards a common goal. It really bears keeping that fact in mind.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: stenrasmussen on February 15, 2016, 10:37:15
Tis with cameras as with food, clothes, jewlery, genetics, complexion, weather, jobs, hobbies, planets, rocks, fluids, cups, guitars, string gauges, boats, ropes, religions, languages, cars, people, etc. No right and no wrong.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 15, 2016, 10:41:11
You forgot wives and girl friends, Sten ....
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Frank Fremerey on February 15, 2016, 10:47:09
After one year of heavily using the X100T I feel drawn back to the Nikongear. Why?
1) Ergonomics. 2) Reliability. 3) Autofocus.
She is a nice fun camera, but I hate loosing shots to anything but my own fault.
My D3 (F4/FM-2/F100) always does what she is supposed to do My D600 (D70/D7000) does is most of the time, because I know all the workarounds by now
The Fuji sometimes does things randomly, no explanation why: 10 shots good, suddenly 3 shots bad for no good reason.
With the Nikongear I can most of the time track back a bad shot to my fault.
Plus: I can use optics made in 50 years to give my shots a completely different look and feel and sometimes even create a new shooting experience.
So back to the starting point:
The Nikon DSLR-System is versatile and does everything I want it to do ergonomically and reliably.
I have yet to see a DSLM to do the job in a comparable manner. If the Leica SL is a hint, we will see great improvements in the Electronic finders and Fuji has done a great job to create an ergonomically sound experience, Olympus has done a great job to create impressive In Body Image Stabilisation plus fast and reliable Autofocus.
Maybe another two generations and depending on what you shoot, the DSLR will be obsolete for many amatuers and even professionals.
PS: As a digiback for my Sinar the Sony Full Frame Mirrorless Bodies seem to be a very good choice, because I can win nearly two centimeters moving the sensor nearer to the back standart for versatile movements.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 15, 2016, 11:02:18
"As a digiback for my Sinar the Sony Full Frame Mirrorless Bodies seem to be a very good choice, because I can win nearly two centimeters moving the sensor nearer to the back standart for versatile movements."
How do you cope with all the colour artefacts generated in that manner? Or are the lenses really long focal lengths the 24x36 format considered? I tried with my Sony on the Arca-Swiss F-line camera and results were in general horrible.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: stenrasmussen on February 15, 2016, 11:18:10
There are also some persisting rumours that Sony will bring out a professional A9 model soon, if they do so that will speed up things a little bit, literally ;D
It is almost a necessity for Sony , can't wait to see the size/weight ;D . Then I'll listen to the howls from the Sony fans that keep harping on the issue of small is beautiful. Not sure about the a9xx bit. I hope they come up with a faster way to move the focus point, would love to have a non-CPU menu instead of the Play Memories App. and a few other user friendly simplifications ;)
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: richardHaw on February 15, 2016, 12:07:55
It is almost a necessity for Sony , can't wait to see the size/weight ;D . Then I'll listen to the howls from the Sony fans that keep harping on the issue of small is beautiful. Not sure about the a9xx bit.
i actually like the Sony cameras. they just need to fix the ergonomics and menus :o :o :o
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: tommiejeep on February 15, 2016, 12:28:20
The mirrorless crowd will do themselves a service by understanding camera ergonomics isn't something you design randomly or by following some fashionable trends. The better designs evolve by natural selection over time. The human interface has its quirks that the designers really need to pay more attention to. Extensive menu systems simply are not the answer. Straight-forward, functional designs with ample space for fingers and other human extremities are what we should ask for, but oh so rarely get. A viewfinder that "understands" the human eye needs adaptation to the ambient light conditions in order not to be "blind" when you remove your eye from the finder (an area in which current EVFs fail badly; they should ramp up brightness only on demand and likewise slowly decrease in intensity so your dark and night vision isn't impaired. Of course an OVF does this by default as it interacts with the eye in the natural way).
.
For the ergonomics I still love my D3S, Gripped D300/s and D700. I do not shoot Vids with the DSLRs (a total of 4 ;) ) . I was upset, and still am, when the AF selector moved to the bottom front of the camera , cumbersome using long lenses >:( . My newer cameras are good, just not the same feel in my hands. When I am shooting the D3S ,70-200 2.8 or 300 2.8 I know that if I miss a shot it was me, nothing to do with the camera combo. I cannot say the same for the EM1 and a7II. The focus accuracy of those two is outstanding and the EM1 is very fast but split second acquisition in the EVF is not. Of course for casual walkabout , some events, the Df and the other two will be my choices unless the light is very bad. Then the Df is the obvious choice. Note: I've not used the Sony a7s/sII or the a7RII . JA can remark on shooting events with is low light camera :) Edit: Richard, I agree but early days with the a7II, not sure about my Monson shooting. I shot the brand new D750 in the edge of a cyclone with no ill affects :)
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Fons Baerken on February 15, 2016, 12:33:25
is there future for dslr? yes
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: ArendV on February 15, 2016, 12:37:11
Right now if I have to pick one camera for different types of shooting, it will be my Nikon DSLR with mirror. But it is clear to me that ultimately camera's with a mirror will disappear or become a niche segment.
EVF cannot fully simulate the experience with an OVF yet. Some say with the OVF "you see what you get". But actually in some ways the EVF is better at that. If I have the wrong settings by mistake (happens more than I want to) I notice this quicker in the EVF of my Sony than in the OVF of my Nikon.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Harald on February 15, 2016, 12:48:08
Yes. I used a D700 and tried Fuji (X E1 and T10) and Olympus (Omd EM 10): Neither IQ nor Handling/Speed nor AF was an the same level. And we are talking about a camera from 2009 or let me say: Prehistoric in a technical way. ;) Sony does some nice cameras, but they are much too expensive and also too slow. Let me say: You can make fantastic photos with every modern camera, expecially if you do net need low iso capability. Now i am happy with a "new" DF and the only successor would be a D900 or dF3.... :D If you want to "beat" a DSLR do it like Apple: Combine all known experience in one product and name it iCamera. Forget all the stuff about ergonimics and redesign a camera from the beginning. Fuji, Sony and Olympus try to copy a DSLR. This is the wrong way. I see the same problem in electrified cars: You have so much "chance" to redesign a car and what is it now? A "normal" car just with another engine.
Harald
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 15, 2016, 12:53:02
The least the photographic world needs is an camera designed for appearance rather than functionality. Good grief.
The reason why companies "copy" the DSLR might be because the D/SLR concept has matured in terms of ergonomics? A nicely handling D/SLR pays tribute to the fact that most humans have two hands.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Frank Fremerey on February 15, 2016, 12:57:33
"As a digiback for my Sinar the Sony Full Frame Mirrorless Bodies seem to be a very good choice, because I can win nearly two centimeters moving the sensor nearer to the back standart for versatile movements." How do you cope with all the colour artefacts generated in that manner? Or are the lenses really long focal lengths the 24x36 format considered? I tried with my Sony on the Arca-Swiss F-line camera and results were in general horrible.
I can *recommend* the Apo Macro ED Nikkor 5.6/120mm for table tops and the near field. Stunning results. I have not seen anything comparable with standard optics.
I can *highly recommend* the Schneider Apo Digitar 5.6/120mm (the one with 15cm image circle @f=11 and infinity) for Portraits and infinity work.
Have not tried other lenses yet, but I will not go any shorter, because I can not move my Standarts properly with shorter focal lengths.
I am looking for the AMED Nikkor of 210mm to gain more space for movements. And I will give the sinar Back Standart for Nikon DSLRs a try too.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Harald on February 15, 2016, 12:58:37
Hi Bjørn,
i did not say, that a DSLR is a bad design. A Palm or a Windows CE-Phone were also good devices. What happended? Apple presented the IPhone.... ;)Was ist totally new? No! But the ergonomic and combination of all good features where so good, that today every phone works like an Iphone.
Harald
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: tommiejeep on February 15, 2016, 13:06:43
Yes, but they only really sued Samsung... ;)
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 15, 2016, 13:16:37
Let's not get started on the bad ergonomics of 'smart' phones. There are enough material to discuss from the camera arena.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: ArendV on February 15, 2016, 13:25:10
I guess you all know this promo from Fuji, to lighten the debate ;)
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 15, 2016, 13:32:37
The answer is mirrorless. What was the question?
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Harald on February 15, 2016, 13:44:48
Hi Bjørn,
i do not want to talk about smartphones: To boring. ;) I just want to talk about the question: Why was the Iphone so successful? It just combined many ideas which where already available. But this "perfect". And now think about a camera with sensor , AF-System and "Speed" of a Nikon, a hybrid viewfinder better then Fuji, IBIS like Olympus/Sony and ergonomics from the best of two worlds. (Do not make the camera too small, a DF is nearly just right...)
Harald
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jakov Minić on February 15, 2016, 13:54:30
Why not talk about smart phones? I am taking more and more images with mine. Image quality is not always the most important. A snap with my phone and the ability to share the image instantaneously trumps the image quality on many occasions...
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 15, 2016, 13:56:16
Open a separate smartphone thread, Jakov. Please.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jakov Minić on February 15, 2016, 14:08:26
Jan Anne beat me to it, and there are some great images there too :) http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1899.0.html
This is a thread about the future of DSLRs, and I believe that smartphones also threaten the market, hence should not be excluded from discussion. (Boolean logic)
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 15, 2016, 14:30:04
Using that kind of logic, we might as well discuss the impact of climate change on camera development.
This thread deals with cameras that cannot substitute for a phone. OK?
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on February 15, 2016, 14:39:56
I don't think the smartphone is much of a real alternative for a photographer. It's convenient to snap shots of people and things that you see and but the user interface is poorly suited to the task and the optics are very limited in capability.
Now that the D500 supports continuous transfer of images to a phone, you can just shoot normally and have the same convenience of e-mailing the images or posting them online as you would with a smartphone. At least if Nikon's software works well. Previous implementations had the drawback that you had to establish the connection every time and the software is very limited in functionality. Hopefully with the new generation this will have been solved. Of course then there is the problem that this is just one camera so far (the D500) and it'll take a while for this functionality to be integrated into other models.
Personally I prefer the "slow photography" approach (where images are meticulously planned, executed and edited before anyone gets to see them) but cannot deny that there are merits to sometimes being able to do it very quickly. Also, in the studio, I want to see images immediately after on the big screen, without using a cable (simply because experience has taught me that if there is a cable, someone will trip on it). These functionalities should be as easy to use as possible. I think Nikon gets it but they are too slow to implement it in a truly fluid manner. I think it must be because of their limited software development resources (and their apparently limited know-how related to programming on a general purpose computer with other software running at the same time and greatly varying configuration options both software and hardware).
E.g. the D750, D7200 etc. really need better applications for phone operation than Nikon is providing so far. But perhaps it's just too early. Anyway I think for Nikon's success in migrating new generations to use dedicated cameras instead of (or in addition to smartphones), the fluidity of co-operation between the two devices is crucial.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jakov Minić on February 15, 2016, 14:57:38
Ilkka, I agree with every single letter that you have written. Of all the features that I have been missing since the D300 is the connectivity and the ability to immediately share images. I too am sick and tired of cables and card readers!
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 15, 2016, 14:58:53
Studio, cables, tripping, now that sounds familiar ... Just goes to show that once armed with a camera, you can trip and likely damage yourself and the camera everywhere.
Technical solutions should just work. We all agree to that pipe dream. Merely wish they weren't so evasive and elusive, though.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Frank Fremerey on February 15, 2016, 15:07:43
Ilkka: because of the lousy implementation of WLAN, also on my Fuji, I carry a cheap and short cable adapter to connect the camera directly to my smartphone if I want to share pictures fast.
I very much hope, the D500 will have a better implementation a) Fast Connect b) WLAN not drain battery c) usable interface
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Alaun on February 15, 2016, 18:59:13
Well, there is something called "intellectual property rights" or "patents". Think of everybody could use your pictures as he likes ;)
So just wait another 20 years and we will see (If we had the same protection as for pictures, we would probably still all use film 8))
Werner
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on February 15, 2016, 19:05:29
Cross licensing of patents is common in industry. If patents actually prevent the optimal product from being manufactured (because patent holders of important components in a successful product will not license their respective inventions to each other) then the question comes to mind: is the whole patent system meant to prevent/slow down progress and prevent good products from entering the market, and if so, should it not be disbanded?
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Frank Fremerey on February 15, 2016, 19:08:16
Werner: the inventor has spoken.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 15, 2016, 20:08:50
Patents force development of new products to take alternative routes which is a good thing. I cant see camera technology progress to be the reason to dissolve patent rights. Never. Copyrights is something completely different... Can't see how this would make us use film again...
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: dibyendumajumdar on February 15, 2016, 21:09:09
It appears to me that currently mirror-less cameras have a few deficiencies:
1. The viewfinder lag and general usability issue. The look through a Sony 7 viewfinder is decidedly 'video' like.
2. Autofocusing moving subjects and speed of the autofocus system in difficult conditions. I believe there are technical issues that need to be solved. For example in this post (http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/27/canon-dual-pixel-cmos-af-autofocus-secrets-of-the-canon-70d-explained) Chuck Westfall explains that the AF precision of the dual-pixel design is proportional to the maximum aperture of the lens, which is not the case with the traditional AF sensor. Also he says 'It should be noted that AF precision at f/1.2 with Dual Pixel CMOS AF is basically the same as AF precision with the Dual Cross center point of the 70D's TTL-SIR phase-detection AF system. And accordingly, AF precision at f/2.8 with Dual Pixel CMOS AF is not quite as high as AF precision at f/2.8 with the Dual Cross center point of the 70D's TTL-SIR phase-detection AF system.' Obviously it gets worse when lenses have F4 or lower aperture.
So as of now, the on-sensor PDAF implementations do better with small formats such as Nikon 1 where depth of field is enough to overcome the lack of precision; in larger formats I believe that the on-sensor PDAF has to be augmented with contrast detection to improve accuracy/precision.
I think the main reason that a mirrorless camera may replace the SLR is that without a mirror higher frame rates are possible. But until the AF issue is overcome and until the viewfinder issues are resolved, the SLR will probably still be the choice for photography under demanding conditions.
Regards Dibyendu
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 15, 2016, 21:22:42
Thanks for a very helpful contribution :D
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on February 15, 2016, 21:40:50
Patents force development of new products to take alternative routes which is a good thing.
I see the biggest problem in techology development in scientific applications at least is that different researchers have developed solutions to subproblems but they do not talk to each other sufficiently and don't use the best of what their peers have developed to come out with a working solution. They will stubbornly try to work out the solution by themselves and refuse to see the good in their peers' work since they didn't think of it in the first place. This is a huge problem in my field (biomedical optics) and can easily delay clinical applications by 1-2 decades.
Volkswagen was initially using Mercedes' technology to get rid of nox in the exhaust (BlueTEC) but later they stopped this collaboration and developed their own system which didn't work and then they decided to cheat emissions tests using a software trick. Do you think VW trying to come up with an alternative solution was a good thing to the people of the world? I think this kind of pride is harmful and people and companies should collaborate more. Because it is for the benefit of the whole.
Sorry for the digression. I know that enterpreneurs in general would not agree with me but I'm looking at the big picture.
I suspect some Nikon users would be happy to see Nikon use in-body image stabilization, for example, or Canon users who could benefit from Sony/Nikon/Toshiba sensors' extensive dynamic range. But the best combination of features will never make it to a commercial product because of anti-progress legislation which puts the benefits of investors ahead of mankind.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Olivier on February 15, 2016, 22:01:26
Well, the patent agent working with my company keeps repeating me that I can't patent something based on the absence of a feature or ingredient (in my case, formaldehyde). So the whole idea of mirrolessness is groundless... For me, it is just an interesting evolution in camera technology that brought to me a good EVF with which it is easier to MF my old Nikkors, and finally a decently light body. This was already enough to get me interested. And once the process tamed (more or less!), image quality was not a limitation for me. Of course, it will get better with time, and I couldn't care less if it did or didn't replace SLRs. As long as we can all chose based on our needs...
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: BW on February 15, 2016, 22:06:49
I have tried a few mirrorless cameras during my photographic life, but for my kind of photography there is nothing that can come close to the DSLR when it comes to cold weather, battery life and durability. This picture took me two weeks to get. The D3s was standing on a tripod with a SB 910 attached in fluctuating temperatures ranging between -27 degrees celsius and +1 degrees celsius, snow and sleet, without changing batteries. Show me a mirrorless that could do something like this?
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Andy on February 15, 2016, 22:08:13
Volkswagen was initially using Mercedes' technology to get rid of nox in the exhaust (BlueTEC) but later they stopped this collaboration and developed their own system which didn't work and then they decided to cheat emissions tests using a software trick. Do you think VW trying to come up with an alternative solution was a good thing to the people of the world? I think this kind of pride is harmful and people and companies should collaborate more. Because it is for the benefit of the whole.
2006 VW, Audi and Mercedes agreed on a collaboration to mutually market Mercedes's patented BlueTEC technology 2007 VW canceled the collab (the value of the patent license is unknown) 2007 Mercedes litigated against Audi over the patent license, as they used the technology without a license 2007 A court in Munich confirmed the validity of Mercedes's patent 2009 An appelate court invalidated Mercedes's patent, as they found prior art in the market. (Mercdes lost the patent income they planned for the years to come)
rgds, Andy
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: bjornthun on February 15, 2016, 22:50:42
I have tried a few mirrorless cameras during my photographic life, but for my kind of photography there is nothing that can come close to the DSLR when it comes to cold weather, battery life and durability. This picture took me two weeks to get. The D3s was standing on a tripod with a SB 910 attached in fluctuating temperatures ranging between -27 degrees celsius and +1 degrees celsius, snow and sleet, without changing batteries. Show me a mirrorless that could do something like this?
If the battery in the camera isn't sufficient, you can attach an external powersource, battery or AC. Mirrorless as well as DSLRs support that.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: BW on February 15, 2016, 23:16:00
Don't misunderstand what my point is, the DSLR are durable, proven systems. The mirrorless systems will probably be capable after 5-10 years, but right now they are not ideal for field conditions, unless as you state, one bring an external power source. The Olympus OMD E-M1 is the closest contestant to the DSLR but unfortunately the inability to turn of the LCD or EVF completely cripples battery life. It also falls short when it comes to AF-performance and night images.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: bjornthun on February 15, 2016, 23:39:16
Don't misunderstand what my point is, the DSLR are durable, proven systems. The mirrorless systems will probably be capable after 5-10 years, but right now they are not ideal for field conditions, unless as you state, one bring an external power source. The Olympus OMD E-M1 is the closest contestant to the DSLR but unfortunately the inability to turn of the LCD or EVF completely cripples battery life. It also falls short when it comes to AF-performance and night images.
I don't misunderstand your point. Mirrorless are durable already now, you don't need to wait 5-10 years. The temperature is not going to kill your camera whether it is a mirrorless or a dslr camera. Bring an ample supply of batteries or external power and you'll be just fine. I've used my Sony mirrorless in freezing, below 0 C, temperatures and the camera survives just fine.
In poor light I find mirrorless easier to manual focus than a DSLR, ymmv. The low light EV spec of various AF systems is a moving target.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: BW on February 15, 2016, 23:54:28
I was using the Olympus paralell with a friend who was using the Sony A7s under field conditions for a week on a canoe trip in the Adirondaks in october 2014. I can assure that the Sony had its problems both with weather, AF-performance and batteries. But Sony has released lots of cameras since then, so lets hope they have solved some of the problems. Remember that the D3s nailed all this things almost six years ago.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: bjornthun on February 16, 2016, 00:13:30
I have used film, manual and AF SLRs, DSLRs and mirrorless in the cold and never broken anything. But I take precautions, and I'm paranoid about moisture and condensations. That helps for Sony as well as Nikon.
No brand has nailed it wrt weather sealing. You will find anecdotal evidence of all brands failing due to climatic conditions. The presense or absense of a mirror is not going to change that.
canoe ride = possible moisture
On a canoe ride I would have considered a Nikon AW 1 and and put everything else in watertight bags.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: BW on February 16, 2016, 00:30:05
I agree Bjørn. As photographers we create workarounds when our equipement is not up to the task. Thats what make us photographers. But doesnt mean our equipement has stellar performance in all aspects. It just mean that we cope with what we use and what fits our specifications. As others have stated, there is no right or wrong in choise of gear. I also think its quite absurd to try to guess what the future holds, because we make pictures right now. They dont get any worse or better whatever the future might bring.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Øivind Tøien on February 16, 2016, 01:46:29
I have tried a few mirrorless cameras during my photographic life, but for my kind of photography there is nothing that can come close to the DSLR when it comes to cold weather, battery life and durability. This picture took me two weeks to get. The D3s was standing on a tripod with a SB 910 attached in fluctuating temperatures ranging between -27 degrees celsius and +1 degrees celsius, snow and sleet, without changing batteries. Show me a mirrorless that could do something like this?
What a great shot, well done, Børge, it deserves its own thread.
As stated above weather sealing can be done on any camera as exemplified by AW1 but keeping those screens and sensors continuously powered eats batteries. AW1 is a hog on batteries, I got 4 of them for AW1 and that does not seem too much.
A DSLR is principally a mirrorless camera (with screen only) with a mirror and prism added and a special "mirrorless mode" (live view). ;) What development we really would like to see is more responsiveness in live view, not a one second delay like is more common. With electronic front-curtain shutters appearing in DSLRs, I do not see why they could not all be just as responsive and shooting without blackout in continuous mode and in complete silence with live view like some of the Nikon 1 series bodies. This game with repeated closing and opening of a mechanical shutter in live view does not make "sense". Of course DSLRs also become battery hogs when they work in "mirrorless mode"...
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Ron Scubadiver on February 16, 2016, 01:56:37
The simple reason why DSLR's are not going away is they just work.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Andy on February 16, 2016, 02:04:20
This game with repeated closing and opening of a mechanical shutter in live view does not make "sense".
Large CMOS sensors used to have no global shutter capability - hence the mechanical curtain. Over time, this issue will fade away, but for now it is/was an issue.
rgds, Andy
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: bjornthun on February 16, 2016, 02:05:59
Ron, typewriters used to work too. Today we've got computers... ;)
Btw, the Nikon AW 1 needs a native macro lens.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 16, 2016, 02:19:16
Ron, typewriters used to work too. Today we've got computers... ;)
Btw, the Nikon AW 1 needs a native macro lens.
We have keyboards. Same idea in a better interface.
The AW system could do with a true fisheye and a dedicated lens for close-ups.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Øivind Tøien on February 16, 2016, 02:40:52
In the mean time the Olympus fisheye converter on the 10mm will have to do. It gives pretty good reproduction ratio, but of course not all subjects are happy with being so close that that they almost touch the lens.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Ron Scubadiver on February 16, 2016, 05:05:08
Ron, typewriters used to work too. Today we've got computers... ;)
Btw, the Nikon AW 1 needs a native macro lens.
Yeah, but nothing works better than an optical viewfinder yet. Your analogy does not fly as typewriters don't just work anymore. OVF are fast, accurate and easy to use. Small senosors have limits imposed by physics. Lenses have size limitations imposed by physics. Sony makes mirrorless bodies for FX, and they are more compact than a DSLR, but once the lenses come into the equation the size of the body makes little difference. Sure, there are some applications for IFV that are nice, but I shoot on the fly and OVF is still king there. Mirrorless cameras have a piece of the market, but that is what it will be, a piece.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Gary on February 16, 2016, 08:18:38
I have evolved from SLR to dSLR to Mirrorless. I was shooting a news event with my XT1's and I ran into an LA Times photog shooting the same event. We chatted for a bit, he looked at my XT1's and said "Mirrorless, that is the future." He was shooting with 1D's.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 16, 2016, 09:10:00
I once tried, in the ancient dawn of history known as the Age of f.i.l.m., to shoot wildlife (deer) with a 4x5" up close. Wild animals, not locked up in a zoo. It was doable, about just, but mostly to point out there ought to be better solutions to the challenge on the technical side. However, the 4x5" view camera was the only one I had with me.
The situation today is not different although the camera types are. As a photographer, you need the appropriate tool for the job.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jan Anne on February 16, 2016, 09:12:27
Note: I've not used the Sony a7s/sII or the a7RII . JA can remark on shooting events with is low light camera :)
Now that you mention it I wasn't all too pleased with the a7S and 35/1.4 FE earlier this month when shooting an evening carnaval parade, the AF was very slow or even refused to focus on a few occasions.
That said the a7S has the worst AF setup of all the a7 cameras with only a handful contrast detect sensors. This was never an issues as I mainly use MF lenses for which the a7S is perfect, now that the Sony Zeiss 35/1.4 FE is my new main lens the AF needs to work in all light conditions, probably will get one of the MK2 or MK3 models later this year.
Thats my beef with Sony btw, none of their models are perfect for my intended use. The S models have the sensor I want but have the worse AF setup (no phase detect), the R MK2 model has the best in class AF setup but not the high ISO performance I want and way too much pixels for my little MBA to handle. The a7 MK2 seems to be in the middle in the MP, ISO and AF department but somehow an "in the middle" camera doesn't fit my bill either but will probably end up buying one anyway.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: richardHaw on February 16, 2016, 09:17:10
Now that you mention it I wasn't all too pleased with the a7S and 35/1.4 FE earlier this month when shooting an evening carnaval parade, the AF was very slow or even refused to focus on a few occasions.
That said the a7S has the worst AF setup of all the a7 cameras with only a handful contrast detect sensors. This was never an issues as I mainly use MF lenses for which the a7S is perfect, now that the Sony Zeiss 35/1.4 FE is my new main lens the AF needs to work in all light conditions, probably will get one of the MK2 or MK3 models later this year.
Thats my beef with Sony btw, none of their models are perfect for my intended use. The S models have the sensor I want but have the worse AF setup (no phase detect), the R MK2 model has the best in class AF setup but not the high ISO performance I want and way too much pixels for my little MBA to handle. The a7 MK2 seems to be in the middle in the MP, ISO and AF department but somehow an "in the middle" camera doesn't fit my bill either but will probably end up buying one anyway.
speaking of AF, wait till you use a Fuji :o :o :o m43 has great AF as far as im concerned but not sure how it performs in near no-light situations. i can AF in moonlight with my D7200, i did that once to AF on a cicada and some other night bugs. i am was using the reflection (on the bug's eyes and shell) of a lamp 10m away from me. ::)
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: BW on February 16, 2016, 09:47:04
I once tried, in the ancient dawn of history known as the Age of f.i.l.m., to shoot wildlife (deer) with a 4x5" up close. Wild animals, not locked up in a zoo. It was doable, about just, but mostly to point out there ought to be better solutions to the challenge on the technical side. However, the 4x5" view camera was the only one I had with me.
The situation today is not different although the camera types are. As a photographer, you need the appropriate tool for the job.
I know the feeling of not bringing the right tool to the job. I watched a wolf den for three week as part of a behavioral study, bringing only a 35-70 mm lens. Fortunately it had a macro mode so I was able to couple it with a telescope with a piece of cardboard and some tape to make some lousy pictures, but fine memories. Its a scan of paper copy, of a slide ::)
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 16, 2016, 09:49:29
You made your photographic record. of the event. That's the most important aspect. By counting the legs and diving by four, one can also get a population estimate :D
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 16, 2016, 09:54:30
A side-line anecdote is in order. I once did a lot of studies on water film structures using only an 8x10" sheet of photo paper in an 8x10" holder and a [mouth-held] flash as my "photo" gear. A very cold and wet experience, but I got my images. No camera, no lens.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: BW on February 16, 2016, 10:04:57
The effort and challenge is sometimes more fun than the outcome. I have some beer can/m photos to prove it ;D
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Almass on February 16, 2016, 11:05:47
I have tried a few mirrorless cameras during my photographic life, but for my kind of photography there is nothing that can come close to the DSLR when it comes to cold weather, battery life and durability. This picture took me two weeks to get. The D3s was standing on a tripod with a SB 910 attached in fluctuating temperatures ranging between -27 degrees celsius and +1 degrees celsius, snow and sleet, without changing batteries. Show me a mirrorless that could do something like this?
WoW. That is some picture.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: PeterN on February 16, 2016, 11:08:22
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Erik Lund on February 16, 2016, 11:20:52
Fantastic shot Børge!
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jakov Minić on February 16, 2016, 12:36:08
May I join the crowd and say WOW, what a photo Børge!
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: BW on February 16, 2016, 12:38:41
Thanks guys! Out of 20 shots that night, 18 was with the marten looking away from the camera, two with the marten looking towards the camera but only one with ok aurora.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Frank Fremerey on February 16, 2016, 18:25:27
Thanks guys! Out of 20 shots that night, 18 was with the marten looking away from the camera, two with the marten looking towards the camera but only one with ok aurora.
Certainly worth the wait and effort. A result to be proud of. Very good planning and trapping.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Anthony on February 16, 2016, 21:10:49
I am late to the party, but what a great shot, Børge!
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jan Anne on February 29, 2016, 09:09:34
Sony seemed to have cracked the viewfinder blackout and slow AF with slow lenses most of the older mirrorless cameras are known for.
The A6300 can do 11 fps but at 8 fps the viewfinder blackout is comparable to a DSLR. The whopping 425 phase detect AF sensors are spread out over the entire screen, its very quick, tracks well en focusses even in the outer corners of the image. The A6300 is an APS-C camera priced around $1000 and I expect the a7 MKIII later this year with the same or better capabilities.
Here's a test with a preproduction model and a adapted A mount Sony 70-400/4.5-5.6 SSM II. In the first half he uses the auto playback feature, around 13:20 he talks about this and turns this off and uses the 11fps and 8fps modes.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 29, 2016, 10:21:07
A little off tangent and absolutely not connected to the last post, I more and more often think the problem is rather the serious and knowledgeable photographers are becoming the endangered species, not their gear.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jan Anne on February 29, 2016, 10:45:48
Good point, with the over simplification of everything technological in the last couple of years camera gear also becomes more commoditised.
So more people are taking up photography with much lower skill levels, from this group talent will arise and become the new professional photogs. These guys and galls have never seen the inside of an art school, etc. Their work will be good but they are mostly known due to their social media and marketing skills.
Btw, I am one of those fully autodidact photogs, though far from professional ;D
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: PeterN on February 29, 2016, 11:06:00
I do not think there is anything wrong with that. The same has been said about cars, planes, and other other technologies that evolved and became more user friendly over time. I don't believe that one should be an engineer or an artist to hold and use a camera. I like simplicity as a design principle.
It might even be liberating to be unaware of conventions and rules and just experiment with whatever camera one has (those awful stand-with-your-back-to-something-interesting-selfies may one day been seen as a sign of our time and at display in museums). Many great photographers, who broke rules, are auto-didacts, I've been told.
On the other hand, it is also good that there are people who understand photography and the gear: they can transfer their knowledge to the new generation.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 29, 2016, 11:19:02
Mankind advances because knowledge accumulates. That assumes each generation builds on the insights of their predecessors not that they start inventing the wheel every time.
I don't doubt for a second that some persons intuitively "know" and can use new technology to its advantage in a very short time, but that does not alter the fact that professional results come from a lot of work, not serendipity. And understanding what and why.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jan Anne on February 29, 2016, 11:21:41
I am not sure the new generation cares all that much....
Look at NG where the technical knowledge is of a pretty high standard, I just turned 41 and am one of the youngest guys around.....
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 29, 2016, 11:22:38
We need to worry about the future, is that what you really are saying?
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jan Anne on February 29, 2016, 11:52:33
Worrying doesn't solve anything, I am just glad that we resurrected NG so your generation can transfer all their knowledge to those of the newer generations still willing to learn and hopefully a little the other way around ;D
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on February 29, 2016, 13:33:57
I am not sure the new generation cares all that much....
I don't think this is a generational issue. Young adults are busy with studies, work, and family/relationships. They get more time for discussions of their free-time pursuits later in life. Also in their 20s and 30s most people don't have the money to put into gear that might enable them to pursue technical sides of photography, for the same reason they don't have time. ;-)
For professional photographers, quite a lot of them in my experience have their primary focus on the subject and business side, and the camera is just one gadget that is part of the process but not a particularly central part. However, this depends greatly on which type of photography is pursued - e.g. studio/portrait/fashion photographers do not need a camera that is particularly special in features or performance but they need to be able to manage the subject and light them expertly (or have someone else do it for them, in a few unusual cases). In this case I think the people skills are the majority of the recipe for a successful result. However, for sports or wildlife photography, people skills are not as mandatory and skills with the camera do matter. Or, for example, in macro work technical skills as well as finding the subject, and having the ability to imagine the photograph are of key importance.
I do not think technical expertise is evaporating but the field of photography is expanding and includes a lot of people who are not particularly interested in cameras or lenses, but they may have other things to contribute (artistic vision, people skills and post-processing skills). I personally would like to achieve as much as possible before and during the capture, and minimize my post work simply because I don't particularly enjoy the latter, but I know others who achieve miraculous things in post-processing. But in the end it is the outcome that matters, not so much the tools that get you there. I seem to be naturally interested in technology and tools - maybe it's a genetic defect - but at work I don't for a second lose sight of the purpose of the research that we're doing - there is no time for that, if we want to achieve our aims.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Jørgen Ramskov on March 07, 2016, 15:33:37
The lagging of real-time events is improved, but still has a way to go.
I think that's the toughest issue to solve in regards to EVF's and probably what annoyed me the most when I owned a X-T1. The other issues can no doubt be fixed and at least some of them will become better than OVF's eventually. But some kind of the lag will always be there I believe? The question is whether they can get it so low it's not really noticeable?
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Hugh_3170 on March 07, 2016, 16:18:16
One thing I feel that gets frequently overlooked in the debate about the future of DSLRs (read OVF) and Mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses (hopefully with some form of eye level view finder) is of course the humble eye level view finder itself.
Without debating the relative merits or otherwise of OVFs and EVFs, there will be an ongoing place for cameras with eye level viewfinders.
From the first Leicas and Contaxs, the first film SLRs, then DSLRs, and now mirrorless cameras there is a consistent camera body form that has evolved over nearly 100 years and that many camera bodies today that embody this lineage & form factor, which I do think will continue irrespective of whether there is an OVF, EVF, or hybrid optical/electronic technology inside the viewfinder.
I do however admit to a strong personal dislike of screen only cameras without an eye level viewfinder - the camera holding and viewing mechanics are all wrong with these accountant friendly monstrosities. (OK, I do accept 4x5s, 8x10s etc, as they are tripod oriented beasts - but they are in another world.)
End of rant - just my 0.02c worth. ;D
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Anthony on March 07, 2016, 16:29:34
I entirely agree with you, Hugh, but in reality a very large number of people prefer to use the rear LCD. I sometimes want to go up to them and say, try the eye level viewfinder, you will be so much more stable. I suppose some people just find it easier to compose with a bigger frame held away from the face.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on March 07, 2016, 16:40:44
One day they'll find their eyesight has deteriorated to the extent that the arms aren't long enough ... Either the end of their photography, or use the finder with a proper dioptre installed.
Title: Re: Is there a future for DSLR?
Post by: Andrea B. on March 07, 2016, 16:54:36
I just do not see all that much difference between DSLR and Mirrorless systems. One system is missing a mirror and has TV viewfinder. One system has a mirror and a Reality viewfinder. Both systems require lenses & settings. So what is the big deal??? :P You simply pick the system which works best for your particular shooting needs.
The actual game-changing innovation was the Cellphone camera. Simply brilliant!! I use mine constantly. And the photos are as good as anything I got off my Coolpix 990 and D100 back in the early days.
On a recent trip back home I noted that in my own family everyone just grabs for their Cellcam and snaps away when the usual family photo is called for of grand-kids, group events, visitors, etc. Including me, the current owner of about 7 camera bodies (mix of DSLR & Mirrorless). Nobody even uses a little compact camera anymore. They don't want to mess about with cards and inability to transmit instantly. I GET THAT !!!! ;D
DSLR vs. Mirrorless is not an issue. Interchangeable lens systems versus Cellcam is the real divide. IMHO. YMMV. And all the usual disclaimers. 8)
*****
FWIW, here in the US there is still a very heavy preference for DSLRs. I couldn't tell you why. I just was at 3 of our national parks. Anyone seen shooting "seriously" - that is, not using a Cellcam - had either a Canon or a Nikon DSLR. I saw one Oly EMD type. No Sony. No compacts at all. Granted, this was a very informal observation because I was a bit busy with my own work.
*****
I commend everyone for their most excellent discussion in this thread. These kinds of threads can veer off course. I LOVE NikonGear for being so cool !!!