In Defense of the DSLR

Started Sep 23, 2013 | Discussions
Kodachrome200
Contributing MemberPosts: 757Gear list
Like?
In Defense of the DSLR
Sep 23, 2013

As I joined this forum I started to notice a lot of people talking about how dslrs were obsolete dinosaurs. This was news to me. I knew about mirrorless cameras but i never realized anyone was predicting that they would mean the complete end of the Dslr

Now I think the predicted death of the DSLR has been greatly exaggerated. I work as a professional photographer and I of course get to meet other people in my field all the time and they are still pretty happy with their Canon and Nikons. Now i have heard people in this forum say the pros use Canon and Nikon gear because they dont know any better. Now A. i think it is pretty presumptuous for folks pounding away on a camera forum to to tell the world that they know better than pro photographers and  B. this is just not true. DSLRS have there own unique virtues. Just because it isnt the perfect camera for you does not mean it is right for a lot of people.

The fact is the current state of technology EVFs are sad little things that arent nearly up to alot of peoples standards. There plenty of valid reasons to want a full frame sensor. The almost complete lack of professional zoom lenses in the mirrorless segment and other issues with lens choices are real problem for a lot of people. and you have to realize that alot people don't want small light cameras. Not everyone but a high end camera for traveling or for hiking. Sometimes ergonomics are more important than size.

You do realize even if evfs become so good you cant tell the difference between them and reality they actually still may not be preferable to alot of people. I personally would rather not see exposure or white balance previewed in camera. and even if everyone decided to get cameras with evfs most pro's and a lot of other people would choose ones that were no smaller than current full frame cameras and they would have full frame sensors. I suspect they will be made my canon and nikon and use the same lens mount we are currently using.

Clearly Mirrorless cameras are going to have there share of the market dslrs used to dominate. but just like i really doubt cell phones are going to kill compact cameras, i think Dslrs are going to be around a long time

 Kodachrome200's gear list:Kodachrome200's gear list
Ricoh GR Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM +3 more
sshoihet
Senior MemberPosts: 2,258Gear list
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to Kodachrome200, Sep 23, 2013

It's only true that pros that use Canon don't know any better

 sshoihet's gear list:sshoihet's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Nikon D7000 Canon EOS M Nikon D600 Nikon D7100 +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Beach Bum
Contributing MemberPosts: 851
Like?
Just die already DSLRs
In reply to Kodachrome200, Sep 23, 2013

Kodachrome200 wrote:

As I joined this forum I started to notice a lot of people talking about how dslrs were obsolete dinosaurs. This was news to me. I knew about mirrorless cameras but i never realized anyone was predicting that they would mean the complete end of the Dslr

Now I think the predicted death of the DSLR has been greatly exaggerated. I work as a professional photographer and I of course get to meet other people in my field all the time and they are still pretty happy with their Canon and Nikons. Now i have heard people in this forum say the pros use Canon and Nikon gear because they dont know any better. Now A. i think it is pretty presumptuous for folks pounding away on a camera forum to to tell the world that they know better than pro photographers and B. this is just not true. DSLRS have there own unique virtues. Just because it isnt the perfect camera for you does not mean it is right for a lot of people.

The fact is the current state of technology EVFs are sad little things that arent nearly up to alot of peoples standards. There plenty of valid reasons to want a full frame sensor. The almost complete lack of professional zoom lenses in the mirrorless segment and other issues with lens choices are real problem for a lot of people. and you have to realize that alot people don't want small light cameras. Not everyone but a high end camera for traveling or for hiking. Sometimes ergonomics are more important than size.

You do realize even if evfs become so good you cant tell the difference between them and reality they actually still may not be preferable to alot of people. I personally would rather not see exposure or white balance previewed in camera. and even if everyone decided to get cameras with evfs most pro's and a lot of other people would choose ones that were no smaller than current full frame cameras and they would have full frame sensors. I suspect they will be made my canon and nikon and use the same lens mount we are currently using.

Clearly Mirrorless cameras are going to have there share of the market dslrs used to dominate. but just like i really doubt cell phones are going to kill compact cameras, i think Dslrs are going to be around a long time

I've personally never contended that pros only use Canon or Nikon because they don't know any better, although that's certainly part of it.

The fact of the matter is, it's not like Canon or Nikon have any special sauce or special know-how of how to make DSLRs. The reason they're market leaders is because they cornered the market long ago, and now it's prohibitively expensive for any other manufacturer to compete. The only way for another manufacturer to compete in the camera business is to do something else. There's absolutely zero evidence that these two are innovators in any way, and I believe they're pretty much stifling the camera industry as a whole.

Their lower end compacts, targeted to the average consumer, are clearly behind the other, better manufacturers. Because the Canon/Nikon names are so well-known, people just buy these, even though there are better models. If/when they don't work well, people just assume that the whole compact camera industry is crap, when it might just be the one they bought.

Also, the so-called professional isn't a driver of anything. There are far more average consumers than there are professionals. Canon and Nikon sit at the top only because the average consumer is aligned with the pro at the moment. When the wind shifts, which, don't kid yourself, it will, the pro could find himself sitting alone defending the DSLR, while everyone else happily uses their, just as functional but smaller, mirrorless model.

People are fickle and often gravitate toward smaller models. The average consumer couldn't care less about the OVF vs EVF and which one provides a just ever so slightly greater visibility. In fact, I think all of the cool information overlayed on the EVF is what's more likely to catch the average consumer's eye. And lets not forget that budget DSLRs have crappy OVFs, and EVFs in this price segment may be great sight better (no pun intended) than OVFs.

Rant over.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bob Tullis
Forum ProPosts: 26,368Gear list
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to Kodachrome200, Sep 23, 2013

Kodachrome200 wrote:

As I joined this forum I started to notice a lot of people talking about how dslrs were obsolete dinosaurs. This was news to me. I knew about mirrorless cameras but i never realized anyone was predicting that they would mean the complete end of the Dslr

It's all just territorial postures.   I had a great time learning photography with DLSRs.   As of late I've wanted something other than a DSLR, something respectable w/o the mass.    Something that wasn't available 5+ years ago.

Talking down one's gear choice hits a personal note (after all, a lot of thought went into such a decision).    But in the end, it's all about the output attainable.   Just because one has a DSLR doesn't mean they know how to use it.   Same goes for all other formats as well.

-- hide signature --

...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.

 Bob Tullis's gear list:Bob Tullis's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II Rokinon 7.5mm 1:3.5 UMC Fisheye CS Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm F0.95 Aspherical Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
D Cox
Senior MemberPosts: 7,351
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to Kodachrome200, Sep 23, 2013

The basic question is, what is the best way to view the image and focus the lens.

The traditional methods are either to use a ground glass screen, with or without a mirror, or a rangefinder. Both have two disadvantages:

1. they have to be calibrated to match the exact distance from lens to film/sensor

2. they are expensive to manufacture

Live view seems to me to remove both of these problems. It has two disadvantages:

1. automatic focussing is slower than with devices using a mirror

2. in contrast to a rangefinder viewfinder, the view blacks out during exposure

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
D Cox
Senior MemberPosts: 7,351
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to Kodachrome200, Sep 23, 2013

Kodachrome200 wrote:

You do realize even if evfs become so good you cant tell the difference between them and reality they actually still may not be preferable to a lot of people. I personally would rather not see exposure or white balance previewed in camera.

You can switch off Live View. This is useful when setting up studio flash.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lightpath48
Senior MemberPosts: 2,054Gear list
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to Bob Tullis, Sep 23, 2013

+1, Bob. I have had increasing problems using a DSLR competently over the past few years. I'm dealing with having had a stroke, and with the affected processes of an aging brain. Sometimes I get into too many manual overrides and forget to revert, later. The sophistication of the newer Auto Focus systems sometimes befuddles me and I end up with out-of-focus subjects for mysterious (to me) reasons. Lately, the DSLR outfit has also felt unnecessarily heavy to lug around. Giving it to younger family members and switching to a competent, advanced compact seems to have been good for me, and for my output. At camera club when all of our files are projected for group viewing, no one seems to know the difference. I can still make pretty good photos without the DSLR.

 Lightpath48's gear list:Lightpath48's gear list
Nikon D3300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rod McD
Senior MemberPosts: 2,211Gear list
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to Kodachrome200, Sep 23, 2013

Neither DSLRs nor mirror-less cameras need a defence. They're different technologies and each has its pros and cons. My guess is that the current demand for both will see both in production for many years to come. To borrow from Mark Twain, reports of the death of either would appear to be exaggerated.......

Cheers, Rod

 Rod McD's gear list:Rod McD's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Canon PowerShot G1 X Pentax K-5 Fujifilm X-T1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dennis
Forum ProPosts: 13,367
Like?
Re: Just die already DSLRs
In reply to Beach Bum, Sep 23, 2013

Beach Bum wrote:

Good rant

I've personally never contended that pros only use Canon or Nikon because they don't know any better, although that's certainly part of it.

I don't think pros are hooked on the technology so much as the system and its capabilities.  While there are undoubtedly some pros who could work with some mirrorless systems, a lot of pro work would not be handled well with what's out there yet.  And you need some serious motivation to get a pro, who has a working system, to want to switch to something unknown.  Compactness just isn't that compelling an argument to many.  For all the people whining over the weight of a DSLR, I recall standing at the Nikon booth at Photoplus Expo two years ago checking out some lens when a little, older man started chatting with me - a working pro, about 5'7" and thin, maybe in his 70's, who told me his favorite and most used lens is the 200/2.

The fact of the matter is, it's not like Canon or Nikon have any special sauce or special know-how of how to make DSLRs. The reason they're market leaders is because they cornered the market long ago, and now it's prohibitively expensive for any other manufacturer to compete. The only way for another manufacturer to compete in the camera business is to do something else. There's absolutely zero evidence that these two are innovators in any way, and I believe they're pretty much stifling the camera industry as a whole.

Very good all the way round.  Konica Minolta/Sony never had a chance - they got in the game too late.  Pentax, same deal.  You can't compete without the system and it's cost-prohibitive to flesh out the system without the market.  And even if you did, you're back, to the "why switch" question.

The innovation happening in these companies is conservative and focused squarely on their existing markets.  Lens technologies to keep doing the thinigs they've been doing better.  Nothing remotely like what the smartphone makers are doing, or even the mirrorless mfrs.  Nothing like Sony's RX or QX lines.  (Though you can make the argument that the Nikon 1 system is as innovative as the NEX system, just in different ways).

Also, the so-called professional isn't a driver of anything. There are far more average consumers than there are professionals. Canon and Nikon sit at the top only because the average consumer is aligned with the pro at the moment.

The consumer is also aligned with retail stores and not B&H and Nikon and Canon still have the most shelf space and are most readily recommended by any clerks at these stores.

People are fickle and often gravitate toward smaller models. The average consumer couldn't care less about the OVF vs EVF and which one provides a just ever so slightly greater visibility. In fact, I think all of the cool information overlayed on the EVF is what's more likely to catch the average consumer's eye. And lets not forget that budget DSLRs have crappy OVFs, and EVFs in this price segment may be great sight better (no pun intended) than OVFs.

Actually, I think that's the biggest thing that's been holding back mirrorless camera sales in the US.  The mirrorless models at prices that compete with entry level DSLRs do *not* have better VFs; they have NO VFs.  (Panasonic G series aside ... and that's a bit pricey and lacks good retail presence).  Sony's A3000 seems like a potentially good move ... $400 with a VF.  But it remains to be seen whether it's small enough (bigger than the Canon SL1, other than depth, and approaching Nikon D3100 size) and whether the EVF is acceptable (it's very low res and just sufficient for framing, from what I've read).

But that's where some focus needs to be.  The $500 market.  Mirrorless manufacturers seem to have assumed that the "point and shoot upgrader" just wants a better point & shoot, and it seems they prefer a DSLR.  When the entry level mirrorless offers more of what consumers want (primarily a VF in my opinion, but also something with a body style that differentiates itself from the little p&s they're upgrading from) then they'll sell more.  That, and whenever someone figures out how to provide the consumer with their cell-phone-simple workflow (sharing) in a good camera in a way that's not a kludge, then we'll see some sales.

What's going to keep most pros from going away from Nikon & Canon is:

  • Those companies will eventually introduce mirrorless cameras for their SLR lens mounts, providing the technical benefits of mirrorless (minus the size benefits of the reduced registration distance lens mount)
  • The size benefits of the reduced registration distance lens mount aren't all that significant unless you step down in sensor size and accept the compromises of doing that

- Dennis

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tko
tko
Forum ProPosts: 10,190
Like?
Re: Just die already DSLRs
In reply to Beach Bum, Sep 23, 2013

Beach Bum wrote

The fact of the matter is, it's not like Canon or Nikon have any special sauce or special know-how of how to make DSLRs. The reason they're market leaders is because they cornered the market long ago, and now it's prohibitively expensive for any other manufacturer to compete. The only way for another manufacturer to compete in the camera business is to do something else. There's absolutely zero evidence that these two are innovators in any way, and I believe they're pretty much stifling the camera industry as a whole.

Innovation for innovation sake is useless, and right now, the dSLR performs better. End of that story. Sally. "We can't compete." Jimmy. "Lets innovate." Sally. "I know, we'll put a MP3 player on it." Jimmy. "Will it take better photos or cost less?" Sally. "No, but it's more innovative!"

Innovation is what manufacturers with nothing else to offer trumpet.

Their lower end compacts, targeted to the average consumer, are clearly behind the other, better manufacturers. Because the Canon/Nikon names are so well-known, people just buy these, even though there are better models. If/when they don't work well, people just assume that the whole compact camera industry is crap, when it might just be the one they bought.

Also, the so-called professional isn't a driver of anything. There are far more average consumers than there are professionals. Canon and Nikon sit at the top only because the average consumer is aligned with the pro at the moment. When the wind shifts, which, don't kid yourself, it will, the pro could find himself sitting alone defending the DSLR, while everyone else happily uses their, just as functional but smaller, mirrorless model.

Amateurs follow, pros lead.

People are fickle and often gravitate toward smaller models.

Trouble is, they're gravitation towards cell phones and dSLRs, leaving mirrorless stuck in the middle. Cell phones do what most people want, while people who are serious go w/the dSLR. More expensive than dSLRs with less performance, mirrorless is a nich product appealing to those who want decent performance but can't carry an extra half pound or so.

Will the mirrorless fad last a year, two years or more? Will you lenses still be good tomorrow? Will the manufacturer innovate your product into obsolescence in a frantic effort to boost sales? Buyers aren't as stupid as the mirrorless crusaders would make them out to be.

Many people are still using 5 year old dSLRs. Does anyone really think today's mirrorless are going to last that long?

According to sales, mirrorless is a non-event.

The average consumer couldn't care less about the OVF vs EVF and which one provides a just ever so slightly greater visibility. In fact, I think all of the cool information overlayed on the EVF is what's more likely to catch the average consumer's eye. And lets not forget that budget DSLRs have crappy OVFs, and EVFs in this price segment may be great sight better (no pun intended) than OVFs.

Then when aren't they being sold? I think there's a big difference that's immediately obvious when you pick up the camera. It gives mirrorless a video game feel.

Rant over.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Beach Bum
Contributing MemberPosts: 851
Like?
Re: Just die already DSLRs
In reply to tko, Sep 23, 2013

tko wrote:

Beach Bum wrote

The fact of the matter is, it's not like Canon or Nikon have any special sauce or special know-how of how to make DSLRs. The reason they're market leaders is because they cornered the market long ago, and now it's prohibitively expensive for any other manufacturer to compete. The only way for another manufacturer to compete in the camera business is to do something else. There's absolutely zero evidence that these two are innovators in any way, and I believe they're pretty much stifling the camera industry as a whole.

Innovation for innovation sake is useless, and right now, the dSLR performs better. End of that story. Sally. "We can't compete." Jimmy. "Lets innovate." Sally. "I know, we'll put a MP3 player on it." Jimmy. "Will it take better photos or cost less?" Sally. "No, but it's more innovative!"

Innovation is what manufacturers with nothing else to offer trumpet.

Their lower end compacts, targeted to the average consumer, are clearly behind the other, better manufacturers. Because the Canon/Nikon names are so well-known, people just buy these, even though there are better models. If/when they don't work well, people just assume that the whole compact camera industry is crap, when it might just be the one they bought.

Also, the so-called professional isn't a driver of anything. There are far more average consumers than there are professionals. Canon and Nikon sit at the top only because the average consumer is aligned with the pro at the moment. When the wind shifts, which, don't kid yourself, it will, the pro could find himself sitting alone defending the DSLR, while everyone else happily uses their, just as functional but smaller, mirrorless model.

Amateurs follow, pros lead.

People are fickle and often gravitate toward smaller models.

Trouble is, they're gravitation towards cell phones and dSLRs, leaving mirrorless stuck in the middle. Cell phones do what most people want, while people who are serious go w/the dSLR. More expensive than dSLRs with less performance, mirrorless is a nich product appealing to those who want decent performance but can't carry an extra half pound or so.

Will the mirrorless fad last a year, two years or more? Will you lenses still be good tomorrow? Will the manufacturer innovate your product into obsolescence in a frantic effort to boost sales? Buyers aren't as stupid as the mirrorless crusaders would make them out to be.

Many people are still using 5 year old dSLRs. Does anyone really think today's mirrorless are going to last that long?

According to sales, mirrorless is a non-event.

The average consumer couldn't care less about the OVF vs EVF and which one provides a just ever so slightly greater visibility. In fact, I think all of the cool information overlayed on the EVF is what's more likely to catch the average consumer's eye. And lets not forget that budget DSLRs have crappy OVFs, and EVFs in this price segment may be great sight better (no pun intended) than OVFs.

Then when aren't they being sold? I think there's a big difference that's immediately obvious when you pick up the camera. It gives mirrorless a video game feel.

Rant over.

I think you're being short-sighted. How long do you think DSLRs will maintain the advantage for stills? On sensor PDAF will eventually take off and squeeze out the mirror box entirely. That's the way innovation works.

My point is that the mirror box will eventually be a thing of the past. It may not seem like that now, but you can't stop progress. Some people just look at today's sales figures and feel it will always be this way.

And DSLRs don't do everything better. I have yet to find a DSLR I'd prefer to use for video than an mFT, the Canon 70D excepted. Frankly, Panasonic mFTs work as well as dedicated camcorders, with better video quality.

People don't buy things based on what's better. That's been conclusively shown time and time again. The average consumer is, for lack of a better word, immensely stupid. They follow trends that don't necessarily have anything to do with quality or lack thereof. That's why it's so difficult to predict. If I were to just invest in the company that made the best products, I'd go broke, because that has nothing to do with what sells.

But, for my money, I'd predict something smaller and trendier being the big seller over yesterday's behemoths. Eventually word of mouth will favor the mirrorless camera. You'll get the right articles endorsing them, the right people endorsing them, and eventually you'll begin to see a shift. That's just my prediction.

And, IMO, I don't believe that the so-called pros are going to have much of a say either way.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,672
Like?
Mirrorless is dead.
In reply to Kodachrome200, Sep 23, 2013

If DSLRs die.

Look at all the articles both mirrorless and DSLR face stiff competition from the cell phone industry. When Samsung and others are producing 41mp phones, consumers are going to say, hey, it is a phone, I get it for free, or discounted when I get a contract, and it is a computer, I can edit and share with it, it is always hooked to the internet so I can share my photographs with people who would never see them in the film days or before facebook, and the IQ is good enough.

Phones have cut into the ENTIRE camera business. DSLRs in the market place as staying about the same. That is because Pros use them and buy them. The rest of the market like pocket phones have taken a hit, even m4/3 and mirrorless are in decline. And this will only get worse

So we see pros get pro camera to differentiate them from a phone photographer. Pros are not going to be seen with a Oly Panny, or even Sony mirrorless which is consumer grade. That is why the DSLR has stayed the same. Mirrorless is already in decline. Because the masses see the IQ of the new phones and say, it is good enough. Even DSLRs will take a hit in the consumer grade, but not as much as mirrorless because pros still buy DSLRs. If Mirrorless if so good, would start taking market share from DSLR but it hasn't. Advanced non pro (amateur) is the only segment of photographers that may might even consider mirrorless over a non pro camera like the 5d3/6d/D800/D600. That market of photographers that would choose a mirrorless over a higher end no pro camera is small and niche and is in decline in American and now declining in other parts of the world

As phones get better, the only way that mirrorless will survive is if pros start buying them, and that is not going to happen as we have seen.

The masses are who control the low end DSLR and mirrorless, and mirrorless is in decline because even the masses see that DSLRs are a step up from a camera, a mirrorless works just like a phone camera with a display on the back, the IQ (for them) is not that much better than a phone or the phone is good enough. Pros and advanced amateurs are supporting higher end DSLRs sales and those sales are flat.

So you are right in your line of thinking. If you are a pro, you buy a pro camera for $6+, if you can't afford that or not a pro but want a good camera you get 5d3/6d/D800/D600. If you want good quality, need something light, you buy a phone. If you are the masses, you are going to buy a phone anyway. That leaves no room for mirrorless whether it be the m4/3 or a pocket point and shoot, that market will only decline.

I think that is sad but capitalism will bring the best to the top for less, and it is not mirrorless.

Kodachrome200 wrote:

As I joined this forum I started to notice a lot of people talking about how dslrs were obsolete dinosaurs. This was news to me. I knew about mirrorless cameras but i never realized anyone was predicting that they would mean the complete end of the Dslr

Now I think the predicted death of the DSLR has been greatly exaggerated. I work as a professional photographer and I of course get to meet other people in my field all the time and they are still pretty happy with their Canon and Nikons. Now i have heard people in this forum say the pros use Canon and Nikon gear because they dont know any better. Now A. i think it is pretty presumptuous for folks pounding away on a camera forum to to tell the world that they know better than pro photographers and B. this is just not true. DSLRS have there own unique virtues. Just because it isnt the perfect camera for you does not mean it is right for a lot of people.

The fact is the current state of technology EVFs are sad little things that arent nearly up to alot of peoples standards. There plenty of valid reasons to want a full frame sensor. The almost complete lack of professional zoom lenses in the mirrorless segment and other issues with lens choices are real problem for a lot of people. and you have to realize that alot people don't want small light cameras. Not everyone but a high end camera for traveling or for hiking. Sometimes ergonomics are more important than size.

You do realize even if evfs become so good you cant tell the difference between them and reality they actually still may not be preferable to alot of people. I personally would rather not see exposure or white balance previewed in camera. and even if everyone decided to get cameras with evfs most pro's and a lot of other people would choose ones that were no smaller than current full frame cameras and they would have full frame sensors. I suspect they will be made my canon and nikon and use the same lens mount we are currently using.

Clearly Mirrorless cameras are going to have there share of the market dslrs used to dominate. but just like i really doubt cell phones are going to kill compact cameras, i think Dslrs are going to be around a long time

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PerL
Forum ProPosts: 12,528
Like?
Agree
In reply to Kodachrome200, Sep 23, 2013

Kodachrome200 wrote:

As I joined this forum I started to notice a lot of people talking about how dslrs were obsolete dinosaurs. This was news to me. I knew about mirrorless cameras but i never realized anyone was predicting that they would mean the complete end of the Dslr

Now I think the predicted death of the DSLR has been greatly exaggerated. I work as a professional photographer and I of course get to meet other people in my field all the time and they are still pretty happy with their Canon and Nikons. Now i have heard people in this forum say the pros use Canon and Nikon gear because they dont know any better. Now A. i think it is pretty presumptuous for folks pounding away on a camera forum to to tell the world that they know better than pro photographers and B. this is just not true. DSLRS have there own unique virtues. Just because it isnt the perfect camera for you does not mean it is right for a lot of people.

Yes, some think they know better what professionals should use than the pros themselves. The thing is that those professional DSLRs with fast, heavy, big lenses are tools that produces fantastic results. You will be judged by your photos, no customer wants to hear that the photos are of a little less quality, but hey - my camera is very small and comfortable to carry.

The fact is the current state of technology EVFs are sad little things that arent nearly up to alot of peoples standards. There plenty of valid reasons to want a full frame sensor. The almost complete lack of professional zoom lenses in the mirrorless segment and other issues with lens choices are real problem for a lot of people. and you have to realize that alot people don't want small light cameras. Not everyone but a high end camera for traveling or for hiking. Sometimes ergonomics are more important than size.

You do realize even if evfs become so good you cant tell the difference between them and reality they actually still may not be preferable to alot of people. I personally would rather not see exposure or white balance previewed in camera.

Exactly - it is only disturbing, it is better to learn to expose and concentrate on the subject.

and even if everyone decided to get cameras with evfs most pro's and a lot of other people would choose ones that were no smaller than current full frame cameras and they would have full frame sensors. I suspect they will be made my canon and nikon and use the same lens mount we are currently using.

Clearly Mirrorless cameras are going to have there share of the market dslrs used to dominate. but just like i really doubt cell phones are going to kill compact cameras, i think Dslrs are going to be around a long time

DSLRs are by far the most effective shooting machines in the photo world, IQ-wise, ergonomical, lens wise.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PerL
Forum ProPosts: 12,528
Like?
Re: Just die already DSLRs
In reply to Beach Bum, Sep 23, 2013

Beach Bum wrote:

Kodachrome200 wrote:

As I joined this forum I started to notice a lot of people talking about how dslrs were obsolete dinosaurs. This was news to me. I knew about mirrorless cameras but i never realized anyone was predicting that they would mean the complete end of the Dslr

Now I think the predicted death of the DSLR has been greatly exaggerated. I work as a professional photographer and I of course get to meet other people in my field all the time and they are still pretty happy with their Canon and Nikons. Now i have heard people in this forum say the pros use Canon and Nikon gear because they dont know any better. Now A. i think it is pretty presumptuous for folks pounding away on a camera forum to to tell the world that they know better than pro photographers and B. this is just not true. DSLRS have there own unique virtues. Just because it isnt the perfect camera for you does not mean it is right for a lot of people.

The fact is the current state of technology EVFs are sad little things that arent nearly up to alot of peoples standards. There plenty of valid reasons to want a full frame sensor. The almost complete lack of professional zoom lenses in the mirrorless segment and other issues with lens choices are real problem for a lot of people. and you have to realize that alot people don't want small light cameras. Not everyone but a high end camera for traveling or for hiking. Sometimes ergonomics are more important than size.

You do realize even if evfs become so good you cant tell the difference between them and reality they actually still may not be preferable to alot of people. I personally would rather not see exposure or white balance previewed in camera. and even if everyone decided to get cameras with evfs most pro's and a lot of other people would choose ones that were no smaller than current full frame cameras and they would have full frame sensors. I suspect they will be made my canon and nikon and use the same lens mount we are currently using.

Clearly Mirrorless cameras are going to have there share of the market dslrs used to dominate. but just like i really doubt cell phones are going to kill compact cameras, i think Dslrs are going to be around a long time

I've personally never contended that pros only use Canon or Nikon because they don't know any better, although that's certainly part of it.

The fact of the matter is, it's not like Canon or Nikon have any special sauce or special know-how of how to make DSLRs. The reason they're market leaders is because they cornered the market long ago, and now it's prohibitively expensive for any other manufacturer to compete. The only way for another manufacturer to compete in the camera business is to do something else. There's absolutely zero evidence that these two are innovators in any way, and I believe they're pretty much stifling the camera industry as a whole.

But the big C and N cameras takes the best photos in the most demanding situations. Which system would do a better job at the Olympics, World Cup in Soccer, NHL etc?

Their lower end compacts, targeted to the average consumer, are clearly behind the other, better manufacturers. Because the Canon/Nikon names are so well-known, people just buy these, even though there are better models. If/when they don't work well, people just assume that the whole compact camera industry is crap, when it might just be the one they bought.

Also, the so-called professional isn't a driver of anything. There are far more average consumers than there are professionals. Canon and Nikon sit at the top only because the average consumer is aligned with the pro at the moment. When the wind shifts, which, don't kid yourself, it will, the pro could find himself sitting alone defending the DSLR, while everyone else happily uses their, just as functional but smaller, mirrorless model.

People are fickle and often gravitate toward smaller models. The average consumer couldn't care less about the OVF vs EVF and which one provides a just ever so slightly greater visibility. In fact, I think all of the cool information overlayed on the EVF is what's more likely to catch the average consumer's eye. And lets not forget that budget DSLRs have crappy OVFs, and EVFs in this price segment may be great sight better (no pun intended) than OVFs.

Rant over.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Beach Bum
Contributing MemberPosts: 851
Like?
Re: Just die already DSLRs
In reply to PerL, Sep 23, 2013

PerL wrote:

But the big C and N cameras takes the best photos in the most demanding situations. Which system would do a better job at the Olympics, World Cup in Soccer, NHL etc?

That may or may not be true. Frankly, I don't know. But, if true, the margin is small IMO. And, the mirrorless cameras will catch up. Count on it.

Frankly, this is irrelevant to the average consumer, who doesn't use his gear under the most demanding conditions. I don't think this has anything (or at least it won't) to do with future sales figures.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kodachrome200
Contributing MemberPosts: 757Gear list
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to D Cox, Sep 23, 2013

live view at this stage is not sharp enought visually to focus manually without zooming or peaking

thats the primary disadvantage you can see well enough. again many people will pay more to overcome this

 Kodachrome200's gear list:Kodachrome200's gear list
Ricoh GR Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cailean Gallimore
Senior MemberPosts: 6,082
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to Kodachrome200, Sep 23, 2013

Some people have invested so much ego into the idea that a DSLR makes them a 'serious' photographer, that they feel the need to defend them.

How odd.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Beach Bum
Contributing MemberPosts: 851
Like?
Truer words were never spoken...
In reply to Cailean Gallimore, Sep 23, 2013

Cailean Gallimore wrote:

Some people have invested so much ego into the idea that a DSLR makes them a 'serious' photographer, that they feel the need to defend them.

How odd.

While some of us are interested in the health of the camera market as a whole, there are others with a whole pile of bread whose only interest is taking taking away the few scraps from everyone else and making sure that no crumbs fall their way.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
D Cox
Senior MemberPosts: 7,351
Like?
Re: Agree
In reply to PerL, Sep 23, 2013

PerL wrote:

Yes, some think they know better what professionals should use than the pros themselves. The thing is that those professional DSLRs with fast, heavy, big lenses are tools that produces fantastic results. You will be judged by your photos, no customer wants to hear that the photos are of a little less quality, but hey - my camera is very small and comfortable to carry.

I'm not clear why photos from a Leica M240 should be of lower quality simply because it doesn't have a mirror.

And I expect the same to be true of other full-frame mirrorless cameras when they are released.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
D Cox
Senior MemberPosts: 7,351
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to Kodachrome200, Sep 23, 2013

Kodachrome200 wrote:

live view at this stage is not sharp enought visually to focus manually without zooming or peaking

thats the primary disadvantage you can see well enough. again many people will pay more to overcome this

Well, peaking is the whole point. It is a better way of judging focus than a ground glass, microprism, or rangefinder. It operates across the whole image area and is very clear.

And it is derived from the actual image that the camera will record, not from some other surface that may or may not be at the same distance from the lens.

However, you can also if you want magnify the image for careful focussing.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads