Exactly, the lenses are the biggest investment so unless you are starting from scratch you are better off with a DSLR that can use your existing lenses.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The reign of DSLRs coming to an end?
- Thread starter MCAsan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because photographers all have GAS!I find it quite interesting that nobody in this discussion has raised the ecological importance of buying and continuing to use pre-owned DSLR's, whilst they still work, rather than just buying new toys because we can.
Just throwing the cat amongst the pigeons here!
And still nobody can tell me what shooting mirroless will give me as a photographer.
Slightly smaller body? Who cares it's the glass that matters.
Slightly lighter? See above. Plus by the time you factor in the extra batteries you have to carry, makes no/little difference.
Face recognition? I don't shoot people. Gimmick.
[doublepost=1524633968][/doublepost]
I've seen your photos. I'd stick with what you have. They are beautiful. I'm not understanding what a mirroless box would change.
[doublepost=1524634079][/doublepost]
60 frames a second? I think I'll skip that spray and pray method. I'd hate to have to go through those in post!
[doublepost=1524634172][/doublepost]
I suspect there will be a new range of glass for Nikon. But also an adaptor so you can use your existing glass.
If glass is the most important thing for you then surely mirrorless has your killer USP - the ability to adapt lenses from any system. That way you have access to any lens, including some wonderful vintage glass.
I'm young enough that the weight doesn't really matter, but I know there are plenty of aging photographers who appreciate the lighter weight. It lets them get out and about, and it lets them still work with equipment. Maybe it's not important to you now, but it's nothing to scoff at.
The idea is that it isn't 60 FPS unlimited, but the photos just before and just after the photo was actually taken. Still unpleasant to go through in post, sure, but a very nice option to have if you're trying to get a critical moment in time.
I think the Pany/Olympus experience of adapting their earlier 4/3 SLR lenses to m4/3 is a more valuable history lesson. They did an excellent job of engineering their new mirrorless m4/3 mount to offer the best mirrorless usage while maintaining "full" compatibility with adapted 4/3 dSLR lenses. I put "full" in quotes since the AF performance of the adapted lenses often left much to be desired. The AF systems are of necessity quite different and the dSLR lenses were not optimized for working with the m4/3's focusing logic.
Other manufacturers will encounter similar issues and as a result will likely need to have new lenses for their new mirrorless. It's quite possible that some are planning ahead and building the appropriate logic into their newest dSLR lenses so that they will adapt well to their future mirrorless offerings.
Actually, very few camera systems have that built in. PhaseOne came out with it first, and Nikon has it now. I'm not sure if there are any other brands that include it in any of their cameras, but Canon definitely doesn't. So the photographer who was presenting at your club has no other choice with his 1DX but to shoot for a focus stack manually. And quite honestly, there are good reasons why shooting a focus stack manually is most efficient anyway, just as shooting exposures in 'M' mode is preferable for a lot of people in most situations. I do quite a lot of focus stacking myself, and I've played around with those systems that have the automated stacking features, so I'm speaking from experience.
The mirrorless cameras that they are talking about here still use interchangeable lenses. The only thing different is the loss of the reflex mirror and pentaprism. In fact the full-frame mirrorless cameras use the same lenses as film camera because the so called "full" frame is the same as 35mm film.
[doublepost=1524709347][/doublepost]
As I wrote above, the new class of mirrorless use the same lens as the dSLR. The FF sensor size is the same as 35mm frame size.
Does the average person need the IQ of a large camera. What do they do with the images? Mostly they will just look at them on their phone. So there is little need for quality that will not show on a phone screen.
And finally I ask why yu are not shooting medium format. I assume because (1) you don't want to carry around such a large camera, (2) you don't want to spend that much on a camera and (3) you don't need the image quality. These are the exact reasons most people don't want an SLR.
Here are some additional things I see with mirrorless:
1. When I'm in serious mode, the camera body is one of the smallest and lightest pieces I'm carrying around next to the lenses. Having a marginally smaller camera body doesn't really change things.
2. High end mirrorless bodies don't offer any cost savings over directly comparable DSLRs. The original A7R uses essentially the same sensor as Nikon D800 and cost about the same(if you wanted to delete the AA filter on the D800, you had to pay a few hundred bucks extra for the D800E while the A7R didn't have an AA filter). Now, the D850 uses a Sony-sourced backlit CMOS that's actually higher resolution than the A7RIII(albeit it's splitting hairs at this point) and again is about the same price.
3. Mirrorless cameras suck batteries. I'd have to go nuts to run down a battery in my D800 in a day, while an A7 or A9 user needs to plan on carrying a few batteries with them.
4. The lens adapter argument comes up to counter the cost of Sony lenses. I don't know how well Canon lenses work, but I'd lose autofocus with quite a few of my Nikon lenses. No one, to my knowledge, has made an adapter with a built-in focus motor.
I like shooting film, but realistically my D800 can trade blows with my Hasselblad(6x6) and it's better than 645. 6x7 is still competitive, but unless you invest a small fortune in a 6x7 camera that won't actually break your back(Mamiya 7) you're not going to take it to places you'd take a 35mm-based DSLR. I have a reasonably complete Mamiya RB67 system, and even though I HAVE handheld it, it's a lot better on a tripod and I'd rather not have to cart it too far from the car. I don't mind to cart my Hasselblad with me all day, and my little Pentax 645 is even lighter. The RB67 is almost comically massive. I think my Speed Graphic weighs less than an RB67+back+90mm lens.
1. When I'm in serious mode, the camera body is one of the smallest and lightest pieces I'm carrying around next to the lenses. Having a marginally smaller camera body doesn't really change things.
2. High end mirrorless bodies don't offer any cost savings over directly comparable DSLRs. The original A7R uses essentially the same sensor as Nikon D800 and cost about the same(if you wanted to delete the AA filter on the D800, you had to pay a few hundred bucks extra for the D800E while the A7R didn't have an AA filter). Now, the D850 uses a Sony-sourced backlit CMOS that's actually higher resolution than the A7RIII(albeit it's splitting hairs at this point) and again is about the same price.
3. Mirrorless cameras suck batteries. I'd have to go nuts to run down a battery in my D800 in a day, while an A7 or A9 user needs to plan on carrying a few batteries with them.
4. The lens adapter argument comes up to counter the cost of Sony lenses. I don't know how well Canon lenses work, but I'd lose autofocus with quite a few of my Nikon lenses. No one, to my knowledge, has made an adapter with a built-in focus motor.
I like shooting film, but realistically my D800 can trade blows with my Hasselblad(6x6) and it's better than 645. 6x7 is still competitive, but unless you invest a small fortune in a 6x7 camera that won't actually break your back(Mamiya 7) you're not going to take it to places you'd take a 35mm-based DSLR. I have a reasonably complete Mamiya RB67 system, and even though I HAVE handheld it, it's a lot better on a tripod and I'd rather not have to cart it too far from the car. I don't mind to cart my Hasselblad with me all day, and my little Pentax 645 is even lighter. The RB67 is almost comically massive. I think my Speed Graphic weighs less than an RB67+back+90mm lens.
When µ4/3 first came out there was no way to get phase detect autofocusing (PDAF) to work. Contrast-detect autofocusing (CDAF) was born out of necessity, but as you say, the lenses needed to be reworked a bit to support it and make it work well. But eventually Olympus introduced their flagship line (the E-M1 series) that included PDAF on the imaging sensor, itself. Sony also uses this method. So as far as adapting older lenses, it's less of an issue now than it was when 4/3 began to transition into µ4/3.
It's true that a mirrorless camera will consume more power than a standard DSLR, but I think the concern about batteries may be a bit overstated, depending on the camera model. I use an E-M1 Mk2, and recently did an informal event shoot. I shot over about 6-7 hours, hitting somewhere between 400-500 photos as well as a few minutes of video. My lens of choice was one of the few with an in-lens image stabilizer, which theoretically has an increased power draw, as well. Yet by the end of it, the first battery was drained and the camera had just switched over to the second battery. I was pretty surprised that I made it all on a single battery.
I've heard that some of the Sony models fare far worse, and I can't really comment on that...
When I first transitioned to mirrorless I admit that I had battery anxiety, but after a bit over a year of shooting with it, those fears have subsided. Put another way, I had four batteries for my DSLR (an Olympus E-3, which took two batteries into the add-on grip at a time), but feel fine with only two for my E-M1 Mk2 (which is more of a pain to load two batteries into). I admit that I've become more conscious about turning the camera off, which is something I don't recall worrying about with my DSLRs, but it's so quick to start up that flicking it back on is rarely an issue. (The camera intelligently turns the EVF on and off based on its IR sensor, but as I often have the camera slung over one shoulder, sometimes my torso can trigger the EVF on, which needlessly burns battery.)
Why would you assume I don't want image quality? Why do you assume that I only view my photos on a phone screen? I primarily shoot with a D800 and I regularly print photos as large as 12x12. Do I make enlargements regularly? No, but I do pixel peep and I do like the ability to crop in post. My D800 does everything I need it to, including being able to throw it in a bag when I go out with my family.
I'm having a hard time seeing the leap from I should either use a mirrorless or a medium format. I *already own* the perfect format for my uses and needs. Why would I switch, just for the sake of switching? I just can't wrap my head around why a hobbyist should all of a sudden not use a dSLR anymore, as stated in Post 20 by @unculturedswine (who hasn't seemed to come back to this thread).
I feel that mirrorless cameras have a long way to go. The tech has filtered in from the bottom up - ie from mobiles and compacts up to professional level gear. On a mobile, of course, it makes a lot of sense and is intuitive to use. On higher end cameras you end up with a collision of the old and new. There are lots of manual controls all crammed together and a million little icons appearing on the screen. Very un-Apple.
The problem comes from ourselves. We want capability, image quality, auto everything yet the ability to make manual-adjustment, ergonomics and ease of use, all in a small lightweight package. In reality, we need to give up on the notion that one camera can be perfect and do everything for everyone.
I think there is room for even more types of camera than we have now. I'd love to see more one trick ponies that excel in a single area. A world where all cameras are the same would be very dull. Let's celebrate the differences and hope none of the options come to an end.
The problem comes from ourselves. We want capability, image quality, auto everything yet the ability to make manual-adjustment, ergonomics and ease of use, all in a small lightweight package. In reality, we need to give up on the notion that one camera can be perfect and do everything for everyone.
I think there is room for even more types of camera than we have now. I'd love to see more one trick ponies that excel in a single area. A world where all cameras are the same would be very dull. Let's celebrate the differences and hope none of the options come to an end.
To be fair, the quest for small and lightweight equipment is nothing new.
Look up Galen Rowell's photography as a prime example. His entire philosophy was "small and light." He loved cameras like the Nikon FM10(something I consider a piece of junk) and the N80 because they were reliable, capable, small, and lightweight. His main camera for a while was the Nikon F4(F4, 4 cell) which admittedly is chunky(not as much as the F4s). He hated the F100 the first time he used it because the rewind crank broke(design fault on early models) but eventually switched when they sorted that problem out.
If he were still alive, he'd likely have jumped on cameras like the D40 when they became available and then mirrorless when it got good enough.
Galen Rowell is a newbie relative to "the quest for small and lightweight eqipment". Even Oscar Barnack (Google is your friend if you don't know the name) was not the first big name in the quest, and he made his big contribution 100 years ago. Photography began with small like cameras (e.g. Fox-Tablot's "mouse trap" cameras in the 1830's), but the ballooned significantly in the 1840's as photography became publicly available. Most innovations since has, at least in part, been made with an eye to making photography more reliable and easier, with size and weight being major areas of improvement.
Thanks for the condescension-and yes Barnack did shove movie film into a small camera to make something he could hike with.
Have you ever handled a Barnack-type Leica? They're small(I can put my iiic with a collapsible 50mm in a large pocket) but they're a whole lot heavier than your typical roll film folder of the day.
That's my point though. If your priority is small and light there should be options just like there should be for those who want ultimate quality or super speed. I don't think we should be expecting manufacturers to put it all in one compromised box.
Yes, I own a 111a with a 50mm Summar, the successor to the "Night Leica". It is heavier, but not a lot heavier, that the typical folder from the period. It is a lot heavier than my Vest Pocket Kodak that was a common "super compact" model at the time Barnack was working on his prototypes.
The original Barnack designs had a collapsible 50 f/3.5 lens that made the camera very pocketable and quite light. It was only the fast lenses that became available beginning in the mid-1930s that caused a Barnack-series Leica kit to "put on weight". Even the early telephoto lenses were light, though relatively slow (e.g. original 9cm f/4 and the "mountain" Elmar 10.5cm f/6.3)
I'm not a Leica guy and only have a basic 3 lens LTM kit as my token Leica.
The collapsible I referenced on my IIIc is a 50mm f/3.5 Elmar. I also have a 35mm f/3.5 Summaron and a 135mm f/4.5 Hektor. I've actually never used the 135mm, but have used the 35mm a fair bit. Things get a LOT less compact with that lens since it requires an external finder. I have a pointy Imarect, which of course is the classic choice but it leaves something to be desired(plus the image is tiny when it's zoomed to 135mm).
I also have a Canon 7, which of course gives a swing out back and projected frame lines. I use it with my Leica lenses(although I like the Canon 50mm 1.8) and the Elmar is comically small on it.
I don't use my LTM any longer, but back in the day I used at 35mm f/3.5 Summaron (post-war coated, but the early lens barrel style) far more than the Summar. I have a somewhat rare TOC (??Tokyo Optical Company, aka Topcon) zoom finder. I did have a 111g with a collapsible Summicron that was sweet, but too pristine and valuable for knock around street shooting so I sold it off and picked up a war weary Nikon SP with a 50 f/1.4 Nikkor. The SP worked flawlessly, but looked like week-old road kill, perfect for the job.
All that was film, and digital rules now. One note that many overlook, is that the supposed advantage of some cameras being able to use older legacy lenses is of no advantage to those wanting the best quality. Those older film era lenses usually don't deliver really good results on digital even if they were great on film. I have a Pany G-1 (12mpx) with the original 14-45 kit zoom and it will clearly out perform my bosses Nikon D800 when he uses one of his old film-era lenses, even those those lenses were the best premium options 15-20 years ago. Even my "superb" Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 in M-mount isn't as sharp on digital as my kit zoom, and that is with a "lowly" 12mpx sensor limiting what the kit zoom can deliver.
You can have a lot of fun adapting old lenses to new digital bodies, and I do. This ability was a great asset to m4/3 in the beginning as it made a lot of lens choices available. These days, any mature mirrorless system has a good selection of lenses and adaptation is of less value. Canon's and Nikon's ability to mount their antique lenses is not of great value except for those still transitioning from film to digital, where their old lens inventory can be used until they can be replaced with new lenses.
My boss has replaced his most used lenses (good) and even added a D850 to his kit (good for me because the new media cards are vastly faster), but he still has a very old lenses that he uses occasionally. My job is to take any image he shoots and "process" it (Lr & Ps) to deliver what he dreamed that he shot (usually quite different from what the camera recorded) at 48"x72" (or larger) while being sharp and displaying no noise. This can be quite a challenge when the edge resolution is very marginal and displays severe chromatic aberration (the optical kind, not the sensor based type that software is good at removing). I yearn for the day he replaces those "antiques".
I don't know that it's fair to say that the technology has filtered "from the bottom up." It's true that "mirrorless digital cameras" existed before the so-called MILCs (mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras) in the form of cellphone cameras and compacts, but the technologies behind them were pretty different, as was the performance.
Manual controls being crammed together, I don't know... I can tell you that the mirrorless camera bodies I've used never felt cramped, but it's really a matter of personal taste, as well as the size of your hands. Icons on the screen are also customizable; I tend to shoot with all information present, but you can easily remove it so that it's just you and the scene. EVFs allow for some neat features that traditional DSLRs don't have, though; for example, I have a digital level, so I rarely need to rotate my photos for a level horizon anymore. As another example, I can "live view boost" to slow down the refresh rate and essentially give myself night vision; I can also magnify the view through the EVF to further my manual focusing accuracy, which is doubly useful when shooting in extreme darkness with Live View Boost.
Cellphones benefit from digital trickery and other options that come from not being limited to the traditional camera design, such as depth sensing when combining two lenses. Cellphones can't currently replace cameras, but their rate of advancement is rather amazing, and they're constantly chipping away at the camera market. Mirrorless gives camera companies more options for technological advancement.
But as you say, it'd be boring if all cameras became the same. I worry that we're going to lose a lot of diversity in the camera world as sales decrease; hopefully we'll continue to see interesting camera and lens designs and developments.
Holy ****!
Do any of you guys actually take photos...or just spend your time typing walls of text on the internet about how much you know about cameras?
Do any of you guys actually take photos...or just spend your time typing walls of text on the internet about how much you know about cameras?
I'm sure some of us find time to snap some quick pics in between keystrokes.Holy ****!
Do any of you guys actually take photos...or just spend your time typing walls of text on the internet about how much you know about cameras?
Nikon new mirrorless system by spring 2019.
https://www.43rumors.com/new-competition-from-nikon-hitting-the-market-in-spring-2019/
https://www.43rumors.com/new-competition-from-nikon-hitting-the-market-in-spring-2019/