Canikon another dinosaur?

Started Jun 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 13,035
Like?
Re: Service? and then I read part 1
In reply to Cimarron, Jun 5, 2013

Cimarron wrote:

But the fact is that a lot of former DSLR users, myself included, have gone all-in with M43.  I didn't plan to.  I bought an OM-D last year as a lighter travel option to supplement my Nikon D90 and four lenses.  But when I saw what the OM-D could do, and how much more comfortable it and its lenses were to use and carry -- well, all the Nikon stuff is gone now and I have six superb (and very small) M43 lenses to go with my OM-D.

Great! I'm glad you're happy. But you apparently don't do the same type of shooting I enjoy, and I would not enjoy my kind of shooting at all if I had to fight an EVF that lags or tears or freezes or is too dim to view on a bright sunny day without waiting several seconds for my eye to adjust to it. For you that change works fine. It would not for me.

Fact No. 2 is that M43 is also gaining traction among professional photographers.  I come across another blog or video almost every day in which a pro talks about his/her conversion from 35mm-equivalent DSLR to M43.

Hmm, I have seen numerous posts from professionals who say 'don't believe it, I'm a professional, I'm not changing and neither are any of the dozens of other pro's I know.' So I think this is maybe just a bit premature.

Why would a pro switch? To get a smaller camera and all they have to give up is a superior viewfinder and body controls that make their job easier? A smaller camera that they aren't worried about having smaller anyhow? I'm not a pro but I do not want a smaller camera, in fact I anticipate my next one will be somewhat larger perhaps.

Fact No. 3 is that most photographers today -- even the professional ones -- don't actually need 35mm-equivalent DSLRs.  Why? Because the output vehicles degrade the image so much anyway.  Most pictures taken these days are displayed on small cell phone screens or computer screens of various sizes.  And most of those images are reduced significantly in order to be small enough to load and display quickly.  Even an HDTV picture is only 2 megapixels, so a 24- or 36-mp sensor is extreme overkill.

That's a rather blue-sky guess. We need what we want and I want good image quality that I can print at 13x19.

In the print world, check out the grainy, fuzzy photos in your daily newspaper.  Does anyone think a 35mm-equivalent sensor is needed to produce such crappy images? Of course not. And even in high-quality glossy magazines, a full-page photo only has the equivalent of 5 mp.

Really not relevant to me though.

Kirk Tuck, who uses mirrorless cameras and a Sony A99, says the benefits of 35mm-equivalent cameras really only become apparent in a studio, on a tripod, where you can take advantage of all that fabulous resolution.  But even then, if his fabulous studio shots end up in a magazine or on a computer screen, that 35mm-equivalent advantage is negated.

But it's always there if he wants it later for some reason, to crop out part of the larger image or print it large. I'm not looking to race to the least I can find acceptable.

Will Crockett, a professional photographer in Chicago who uses all kinds of cameras, says he does a test in his studio.  He takes a photograph, blows it up to 24x24 inches, sticks it on a wall and asks his staff and colleagues if they'd feel comfortable charging a client $400 for it.  Results: The M43 images stand up just as well as the 35mm-equivalents.

But the m4/3 cameras don't focus or track or 'viewfind' as well. It's not just straight image quality, it's how the camera works to help you get the images.

Fact No. 4: DSLRs are still using last-century technology.  When SLRs morphed from film to digital, camera makers just slapped a sensor in there to replace the film, and voila!  But in the digital world, there simply is no need for a flopping mirror or, for that matter, a mechanical shutter.

Actually there is a need for both. The EVF cannot replace the TTL OVF and it's not feasible yet to do away with the mechanical shutter. An electronic 'first curtain' works fine but you still need a shutter for the last part of the shot.

Fact No. 5: M43 offers two key differentiators: video compatiblity and small lens size/weight.  As more and more clients and consumers want still photos AND video, M43 cameras offer a single, great solution in one small package.  Shooting video with a DSLR is an extreme pain, because of that antiquated mirror being in the way.  Mirrorless cameras, on the other hand, are perfect for such jobs.

Good for them. That's fine. But they don't suit what I need my camera to do.

And skeptics may discount the size/weight advantage of M43, but it is real.  Ask any amateur or pro who's made the switch and that  is likely to be the No. 1 factor.  Other mirrorless systems offer small bodies, but the smaller M43 sensor means M43 lenses can be made significantly smaller and lighter.

Smaller, lighter, and doesn't get the shots I want isn't going to be a satisfactory bargain for me.

Look, I'm not rooting for the demise of the DSLR either. I've had SLRs and then DSLRs for 40 years.  But the fact is that their mirrors are being rendered obsolete by digital technology, both inside the camera and in the output media.  However, I don't think they'll entirely disappear.  After all, you can still buy turntables.

More like, you can still buy concert tickets and hear real music instead of a brilliantly recorded copy of same. Even if it sounds virtually the same, why do people go to a show?

Would you replace the windows in your house with flat panel displays that show a view like looking out the window captured by a video camera? It could be just as good as reality (not really) so would you be okay with it? Just wondering.

Obviously we shoot different things different ways and what works for you isn't going to cut it for me. I guess I get a bit weary of hearing why my camera is going away, driven off by a camera that still cannot do the job I need done.

-- hide signature --

It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice. (sarcasm)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
YepNew
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
GeesNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow