In Defense of the DSLR

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
semifast
Regular MemberPosts: 447Gear list
Like?
Re: worst cliche on dpreview: "Mirrorless is dead"
In reply to walkaround, 10 months ago

I see more tourists using ipads than dslrs.

 semifast's gear list:semifast's gear list
Fujifilm X-S1 Olympus Stylus XZ-10 Samsung Galaxy Camera (Wi-Fi) Nikon 1 J2 A3000 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mferencz
Regular MemberPosts: 225Gear list
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to Kodachrome200, 10 months ago

Posts like this are the sound of the hangman calling to whatever they are in DEFENSE of.   I would imagine there were those in the wagon wheel that refused to make them custom fit to the automobile.  Probably all gathered around talking about it, and patting/liking each other on the back.  Never ever let on that your on a sinking ship.  Good job folks.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Reilly Diefenbach
Senior MemberPosts: 7,990Gear list
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to mferencz, 10 months ago

mferencz wrote:

Posts like this are the sound of the hangman calling to whatever they are in DEFENSE of. I would imagine there were those in the wagon wheel that refused to make them custom fit to the automobile. Probably all gathered around talking about it, and patting/liking each other on the back. Never ever let on that your on a sinking ship. Good job folks.

Thanks, we'll let you know when we need worse picture quality for more money.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MichaelKJ
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,062Gear list
Like?
Re: Probably not
In reply to Richard, 10 months ago

Richard wrote:

MichaelKJ wrote:

Richard wrote:

If DSLRs die.

If BlackBerry smartphones die.

Business people get BlackBerry smartphones to differentiate themselves

Photographers rely on pro cameras, mirrorless does not make a pro camera. Android and Iphone can sync Microsoft Outlook info.

But you can't type as fast on an iPhone and the BlackBerry is still the best when it comes to security

http://www.tgdaily.com/opinion-features/71513-apple-beats-android-in-the-dod-but-blackberry-still-rules

from an iPhone or Androids. Business people are not going to be seen with an iPhone, Samsung or even HTC which is consumer grade. That is why the BlackBerry has stayed the same.

Sorry, Blackberry is dying. Just like mirrorless. I believe mirrorless can also survive as a niche company just like Blackberry but it will probably die.

http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/02/blackberry-director-says-it-can-survive-as-a-niche-company/

Of course it will die. I was using an obviously false analogy to criticize your comment.

 MichaelKJ's gear list:MichaelKJ's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard the picture man
Senior MemberPosts: 2,838
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 10 months ago

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

"ApertureAcolyte has not uploaded any photos to their gallery yet."

No surprise there.

So I notice.

Sadly it seems that people who have the most dogmatic views on photography find it difficult to post any of their own work. Perhaps they don`t actually take pictures.

Ah well, it takes all sorts.

-- hide signature --

Regards - Richard
Happy guy with a K5
N.B. All my Images, even the bad ones, are Protected by Copyright

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dom K
New MemberPosts: 20
Like?
Mirrorless cameras are fundamentally better.
In reply to Kodachrome200, 10 months ago

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.

With the current state of the art, this is true; DSLRs can offer far superior autofocus performance, and OVFs do have certain advantages over EVFs. However, as OSPDAF and EVF technology improve, both of these advantages will disappear.

There are also issues with some specific mirrorless models currently on the market (e.g. poor ergonomics), but this will again improve as the market matures.

The fact is the current state of technology EVFs are sad little things that arent nearly up to alot of peoples standards.

This isn't true at all; by all accounts the current crop of EVFs are far better than the OVFs of entry-level DSLRs, and probably better than those of most semi-pro APS-C DSLRs too. FF OVFs are still better in some respects but EVFs can still hold their own very respectably. And again this is something that is sure to improve in the future.

There plenty of valid reasons to want a full frame sensor.

And no valid reasons why only DSLRs can have one (look at the Leica M, and the upcoming FF Sony NEX).

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.

Again, a temporary issue. There is no reason why professional-quality lenses cannot be made for mirrorless just as easily as for DSLRs; the currently available systems are simply not mature enough yet.

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.

There is no reason why mirrorless cameras need to be any smaller or lighter than DSLRs, and nor do they need to have poorer ergonomics. The only difference is that mirrorless cameras can be small and light - they don't need to be.

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.

Then turn that option off, as you can do on current models. Although I can't really imagine why you wouldn't want to see what the photo you are about to take will actually look like, other than out of habit.

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.

This I agree with (although I think it's rather presumptuous to declare that "most" pros will do as you will). I would certainly prefer a camera with better ergonomics over one with a small body (especially since most lenses are too large to allow such cameras to be truly pocketable anyway). Given the popularity of "big" cameras I think there will continue to be a market for such cameras in the mirrorless segment (as evidenced by Sony's new E-mount A3000, and rumoured professional models to come)

I suspect they will be made my canon and nikon and use the same lens mount we are currently using.

I think this is very unlikely. Canon and Nikon currently produce two of the most lacklustre mirrorless systems. As for using the same lens mount, that would be ludicrous; once OSPDAF is perfected, DSLR lenses should be able to AF just as quickly on a mirrorless body with a first-party adapter as on a DSLR, and without the mirror, there is no point in retaining the very large flange distance of DSLRs. A change in flange distance necessitates a different lens mount.

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

You may be right there; it will take a while for all the new technology to catch up to the old, and much longer for people to give up holding on to their "traditional" cameras; but it's inevitable that it will happen eventually.

The shorter flange distance of mirrorless cameras allows them to use almost any lens ever made, as well as allowing more flexibility in the design of wide-angle lenses, and allowing bodies to be made smaller and lighter if desired. DSLRs offer none of these advantages, and the only advantages they do still hold (Better AF, and to some extent the use of OVFs) will inevitably be overtaken at some point in the future.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mferencz
Regular MemberPosts: 225Gear list
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to Reilly Diefenbach, 10 months ago

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

mferencz wrote:

Posts like this are the sound of the hangman calling to whatever they are in DEFENSE of. I would imagine there were those in the wagon wheel that refused to make them custom fit to the automobile. Probably all gathered around talking about it, and patting/liking each other on the back. Never ever let on that your on a sinking ship. Good job folks.

Thanks, we'll let you know when we need worse picture quality for more money.

First I'll let you know when mirroless crosses that inevitable threshold. Hold your socks goonies, it's getting closer and closer.  Feel that breath on your mirrors, fogging em up.  Thats pocketbook pride messing with your head.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
paulkienitz
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,681Gear list
Like?
Re: Stop complaining, start arguing.
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

MarkJH wrote:

Yeah, so:

(1) the last time I shot a 1DX in Live View, I couldn't help but notice that it focused with considerably less speed and finesse than an OM-D. Color me skeptical that they are as "equivalent" in that regard as you argue.

Then try a 70D.

(2) so you're arguing that DSLR can go everywhere, conveniently, a mirrorless camera can--excepting those few tiny "wedge-into" opportunities? Really? Size / weight / visibility is a complete non-issue, doesn't affect photographic opportunity in any way ever? Color me skeptical.

Light weight is a convenience, not a capability.  If cameras are too heavy, all it means is that someone in better shape than you gets the shot.

Think how many pounds of gear Ansel lugged on his back up above the timber line.  Heavy gear is no excuse for being held back from getting the shot.

(3) It doesn't bother you that a "defense" of DSLRs doesn't talk, at all, about what DSLRs are uniquely capable of doing?

OK. Carry on. Seems like kind of a weak defense to me, but clearly I'm the weird one.

I don't care about "defending" DSLRs -- I freely use both types.  The wild assertions that have a burden of proof here are yours, not his.

 paulkienitz's gear list:paulkienitz's gear list
Pentax Q Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
knickerhawk
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,114
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to Richard the picture man, 10 months ago

Richard the picture man wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

"ApertureAcolyte has not uploaded any photos to their gallery yet."

No surprise there.

So I notice.

Sadly it seems that people who have the most dogmatic views on photography find it difficult to post any of their own work. Perhaps they don`t actually take pictures.

Well, then you're ALSO implying that Kodachrome200 is just a dogmatic non-photographer and, therefore, this whole thread is a total waste of everyone's time.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Caerolle
Senior MemberPosts: 1,020Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless is dead.
In reply to Richard, 10 months ago

The development of the current generation of mirrorless cameras is what got me into photography. I don't mind the size of dSLRs, and I love all the physical buttons on the enthusiast-and-up cameras, and of course the awesome lens selections, but I hate OVFs, flopping mirrors, and back-focus/front-focus/focus-shift issues with off-sensor AF. And I love EVFs and focus-peaking for manual focus. So, if mirrorless goes away, I will be back to not doing photography again.

 Caerolle's gear list:Caerolle's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nexu1
Senior MemberPosts: 1,529
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to mferencz, 10 months ago

mferencz wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

mferencz wrote:

Posts like this are the sound of the hangman calling to whatever they are in DEFENSE of. I would imagine there were those in the wagon wheel that refused to make them custom fit to the automobile. Probably all gathered around talking about it, and patting/liking each other on the back. Never ever let on that your on a sinking ship. Good job folks.

Thanks, we'll let you know when we need worse picture quality for more money.

First I'll let you know when mirroless crosses that inevitable threshold. Hold your socks goonies, it's getting closer and closer.  Feel that breath on your mirrors, fogging em up.  Thats pocketbook pride messing with your head.

If or when that day ever comes, that would be the wise time to cross over.  At that point in time, the man who has waited to cross over will have many years of superior photos, taken with less expensive gear, thicker deeper pockets, and will certainly be able to rest easy at night knowing they played the market correctly.  I would say the pocketbook pride works both directions.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 3,024Gear list
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to paulkienitz, 10 months ago

paulkienitz wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

I don't understand why people have to get so egregious in either direction. I've owned several cameras over the years including an old Contax, a few classic Kodaks, Speed Graphic, some TLRs, a studio 4x5, several compacts including the old "baby rollei" which I still have, a few Nikons and a couple of mirrorless enthusiast zooms. I've enjoyed them all for their strengths and weaknesses and find the history of every camera company fascinating and fun to learn about.

Exactly. There's no reason whatever to pick a side and spew hate and bile at the other. I own one of each type, and if I had enough money to buy whatever cameras I wanted, I'd probably still go for one of each type... like for instance pairing a Nikon D800 and V3, or an Oly EM-1 and a medium format.

All thinks being equal, I miss going out with the SpeedGraphic on a snowy day and coming back with a dozen film backs to develop. Wait, what's stopping me? Digital is so easy.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
paulkienitz
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,681Gear list
Like?
Re: What do results say?
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

MarkJH wrote:

You don't pay much attention to the fashion press, do you?

Mirrorless photography is *everywhere* in the ad copy and editorials.

That's why I asked about results. Since I'm starting to see mirrorless photography in places that, two or three years ago had been the exclusive domain of FX DSLRs (or medium format), I can't help but be skeptical of the OP's "defense," which doesn't talk about results in any way.

Okay, on a fashion shoot, where you have to be conspicuous anyway due to lighting gear, are you seriously claiming that the mirrorless produces better results?

Or are you seriously claiming that DSLRs actually produce poorer pictures than today's mirrorlesses? Oy. Under what scenario would that ever happen?

Here's one example: under any scenario in which a big camera is conspicuous, either literally or symbolically. Environmental portraiture would be one case. It's not that DSLRs aren't technically capable; it's that they're big and noticed. So that wonderful dusky street shot you're trying to nail on the 5th avenue sidewalk with Karlie Kloss for Bottega Venetta? I'd rather get out there and grab it with an OM-D / 75 f/1.8 than a 1Dx / 70-200, for obvious reasons about which combination will attract distractions.

Here's another: I'm a serious climber headed up Everest. What kind of gear am I taking? (a) D4 or (b) OM-D? It's not that the D4 isn't capable. It's that I'll so freakin' tired at the top I won't want to lift it. Or carry it down. Which means it will produce poorer pictures.

No, it means you will produce poorer pictures. If weight is a real concern, you take a damn compact. Taking a larger camera, whether it's mirrorless or not, is a tradeoff to pay some weight in order to get the superior image quality of a larger format size. Making the camera light enough for you doesn't make it a better camera -- the larger format will always produce a better picture, and the man who's willing to haul it will probably come back looking like the better photographer. People have hauled clunky film cameras up Everest -- even cinema cameras. They did it for the same reason they did the climb in the first place: because for them, the agony of hauling it up is worth it.

All your other examples are either in this same category, or they're about the need to be inconspicuous... circumstances where a pocket compact will work even better than a Pen, but certainly can't claim to create better quality images. Everything you say a mirrorless can do better than a DSLR is something that a pocket compact can do even better still. There are plenty of reasons to use small cameras, but they're all about balancing convenience against image quality. None of them are about the compact actually being better at taking pictures. And none of them magically favor mirrorless interchangeable lens systems over either compacts or DSLRs. Mirrorless systems are just a nice middle option in a range of compromises. Sometimes those compromises are worth making and the tradeoffs are favorable. But none of those make the small camera superior to the big one in any absolute way.

And even if you were absolutely correct, and something like a Pen really is the best possible all-around camera... that still doesn't justify any tiniest part of your ad-hominem rants against people who still value DSLRs.

 paulkienitz's gear list:paulkienitz's gear list
Pentax Q Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kodachrome200
Contributing MemberPosts: 756Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras are fundamentally better.
In reply to Dom K, 10 months ago

Dom K 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.

With the current state of the art, this is true; DSLRs can offer far superior autofocus performance, and OVFs do have certain advantages over EVFs. However, as OSPDAF and EVF technology improve, both of these advantages will disappear.

There are also issues with some specific mirrorless models currently on the market (e.g. poor ergonomics), but this will again improve as the market matures.

The fact is the current state of technology EVFs are sad little things that arent nearly up to alot of peoples standards.

This isn't true at all; by all accounts the current crop of EVFs are far better than the OVFs of entry-level DSLRs, and probably better than those of most semi-pro APS-C DSLRs too. FF OVFs are still better in some respects but EVFs can still hold their own very respectably. And again this is something that is sure to improve in the future.

I feel like the people who support mirror less feel like if they keep saying this it will become true. every EVF i have ever scene has been so terrible that it would almost always be preferable to use live view on the rear screen.

There plenty of valid reasons to want a full frame sensor.

And no valid reasons why only DSLRs can have one (look at the Leica M, and the upcoming FF Sony NEX).

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.

Again, a temporary issue. There is no reason why professional-quality lenses cannot be made for mirrorless just as easily as for DSLRs; the currently available systems are simply not mature enough yet.

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.

There is no reason why mirrorless cameras need to be any smaller or lighter than DSLRs, and nor do they need to have poorer ergonomics. The only difference is that mirrorless cameras can be small and light - they don't need to be.

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.

Then turn that option off, as you can do on current models. Although I can't really imagine why you wouldn't want to see what the photo you are about to take will actually look like, other than out of habit.

here your are showing a very vague understanding of technology and photography. It has to preview something for you. an eve can ONLY show you a scene as interpreted by the sensor. you may be able to turn off previewing on the final shot is going to have but i can't imagine why. because whatever it is showing is some kind of preview.

OVFs are by nature fundamentally better for experienced photographers. They allow you to see reality and from that you can visualize what you will be able to get from the raw file. You cannot necessarily tel the difference between the levels of shadows and highlights when you are seeing them through the sensor previewing the image.

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.

This I agree with (although I think it's rather presumptuous to declare that "most" pros will do as you will). I would certainly prefer a camera with better ergonomics over one with a small body (especially since most lenses are too large to allow such cameras to be truly pocketable anyway). Given the popularity of "big" cameras I think there will continue to be a market for such cameras in the mirrorless segment (as evidenced by Sony's new E-mount A3000, and rumoured professional models to come)

its not presumptuous I have met and talked shop with hundreds of people in my trade i am qualified to make and educated guess here

I suspect they will be made my canon and nikon and use the same lens mount we are currently using.

I think this is very unlikely. Canon and Nikon currently produce two of the most lacklustre mirrorless systems. As for using the same lens mount, that would be ludicrous; once OSPDAF is perfected, DSLR lenses should be able to AF just as quickly on a mirrorless body with a first-party adapter as on a DSLR, and without the mirror, there is no point in retaining the very large flange distance of DSLRs. A change in flange distance necessitates a different lens mount.

i virtually garuntee whatever the future of pro cameras are they will be made by canon and nikon and will be fully compatible with current lenses either as they are or via adapters. If the ovfs go away in pro cameras it is not going to happen because the current mirror less systems overthrew them. it is going to happen because canon and nikon evolve the there dslr line into something that doesn't use mirrors anymore. something vaguely slt like but without a mirror in it. Though i think people using dslrs are going to go on preferring the ovfs they have. the big 2 are in no danger. Right now they are suffering like all camera makers but the dslrs they make are still the most lucrative products on the market.

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

You may be right there; it will take a while for all the new technology to catch up to the old, and much longer for people to give up holding on to their "traditional" cameras; but it's inevitable that it will happen eventually.

The shorter flange distance of mirrorless cameras allows them to use almost any lens ever made, as well as allowing more flexibility in the design of wide-angle lenses, and allowing bodies to be made smaller and lighter if desired. DSLRs offer none of these advantages, and the only advantages they do still hold (Better AF, and to some extent the use of OVFs) will inevitably be overtaken at some point in the future.

 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
paulkienitz
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,681Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras are fundamentally better.
In reply to Dom K, 10 months ago

Dom K wrote:

I think this is very unlikely. Canon and Nikon currently produce two of the most lacklustre mirrorless systems. As for using the same lens mount, that would be ludicrous; once OSPDAF is perfected, DSLR lenses should be able to AF just as quickly on a mirrorless body with a first-party adapter as on a DSLR, and without the mirror, there is no point in retaining the very large flange distance of DSLRs. A change in flange distance necessitates a different lens mount.

Actually, there is a very good reason to avoid changing flange distance: because adapters are annoying and costly.  Especially if your mount still has mechanical linkages in it.  The advantages of a shorter registration distance, at least with crop sensors, can be realized by simply allowing the back of a lens to protrude inside the mount flange.  Canon has already done this in a small way, allowing their crop-sensor lenses to stick a little closer to the sensor plane than their full frame ones do.

Rumor has it that this is the route Pentax would have gone if the K-01 had been a hit, leading to a line of mirrorless K-mount bodies.  But it flopped so they had to drop the idea.

-- hide signature --

Q with 02 zoom and Nikkor 180/2.8 ED for birding
K10D, Sig 17-70, DA 55-300, FA 50/1.4 "billy bass"
discards: DA 50-200 "zipper", F 100-300, Sigma 135-400 "piglet", M 400/5.6 "the Great Truncheon"

 paulkienitz's gear list:paulkienitz's gear list
Pentax Q Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Promit
Contributing MemberPosts: 891Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras are fundamentally better.
In reply to Kodachrome200, 10 months ago

Kodachrome200 wrote:

I feel like the people who support mirror less feel like if they keep saying this it will become true. every EVF i have ever scene has been so terrible that it would almost always be preferable to use live view on the rear screen.

Given the cameras you listed, I'm somewhat baffled about this. I understand that it's largely a matter of preference, but I've found that the Sony and Olympus EVFs are excellent and don't suffer significant lag. Blackout is actually the bigger hassle; maybe that's what you're referring to? EVF blackout kinda sucks. Sony EVFs tend to block up shadow detail a bit, that also sucks. But these are temporary practical issues and at some level I have to trust the sensor.

here your are showing a very vague understanding of technology and photography. It has to preview something for you. an eve can ONLY show you a scene as interpreted by the sensor. you may be able to turn off previewing on the final shot is going to have but i can't imagine why. because whatever it is showing is some kind of preview.

OVFs are by nature fundamentally better for experienced photographers. They allow you to see reality and from that you can visualize what you will be able to get from the raw file. You cannot necessarily tel the difference between the levels of shadows and highlights when you are seeing them through the sensor previewing the image.

I actually sort of agree with you. An EVF is not reality and it is useful to see reality. However I differ in one key area -- I do not value reality through the OVF. Why not? Because I have a pair of eyes, neither of which is permanently attached to my camera. If we're talking about seeing reality, see it DIRECTLY. Why look at it through an imperfect prism and mirror?

Maybe this is a philosophical thing, but I found early on that it's very easy to get trapped inside the camera's world. Doesn't matter if it's EVF or OVF. I don't find it healthy to be finding images inside the viewfinder. I try (imperfectly) to find the image with my eyes, seeing the entire real world in front of me and finding the image I want. Then I set the camera to create that image.

So to be honest, I think your attitude towards the OVF represents an abuse of the camera rather than anything to do with the systems involved. I don't mean that as an insult, but IMO it is the wrong way to go about photography.

 Promit's gear list:Promit's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tecnoworld
Senior MemberPosts: 4,097Gear list
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to Kodachrome200, 10 months ago

The new evf from olympus is quite outstanding, imo. Possibly better and bigger than most ovf, as far as I know.

 tecnoworld's gear list:tecnoworld's gear list
Samsung TL500 Samsung NX100 Samsung NX200 Samsung NX300 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
I do try to entertain.
In reply to walkaround, 10 months ago

walkaround wrote:

MarkJH wrote:

paulkienitz wrote:

MarkJH wrote:

Kodachrome200 wrote:

Wouldn't it be wonderful if greatness had a recipe?

I'm not saying you shouldn't have to work hard or try. But man, if it were true that there were a few constants in this world that if you just studied the he// out of them and worked hard, then bam: success, greatness, glory would be yours.

wtf are you talking about.

I'm talking about *you*. You felt a need to "defend" DLRs against people who show that more innovative, compelling results can be made with other tools. And since your "defense" doesn't talk about resulting photographs in any way, I can only conclude that you're upset about something else. (WTF am I talking about? An argument about cameras that completely disregards photographs--that's what I'm talking about.) My hunch is that you're mad other people are shooting gorgeous stuff with techniques and technology you don't really understand. You want there to be a "recipe" for professional photography, a "recipe" that happens to look a lot like the way you do it. You want everyone to agree that DSLRs are important. I'm reminding you that they don't. I'm reminding you that they, unlike you, have results to show the validity and relevance of they're doing.

Dude, seriously, what the WTF??

First, I see no grounds at all for any of your ad-hominem assumptions about what other people must be thinking and believing and experiencing. It's obviously and completely groundless.

And second, where on Earth are you getting this idea that mirrorless shooters are somehow producing new exciting results that DSLR shooters aren't capable of?? That's just nuts. There is no such thing as a picture that mirrorless can shoot and DSLRs can't, aside from rare occasions where you need to physically wedge a camera into a small space. Especially when most DSLRs now have live-view functionality, meaning they can function as mirrorless or as mirrored at will.

Yeah, so:

(1) the last time I shot a 1DX in Live View, I couldn't help but notice that it focused with considerably less speed and finesse than an OM-D. Color me skeptical that they are as "equivalent" in that regard as you argue.

(2) so you're arguing that DSLR can go everywhere, conveniently, a mirrorless camera can--excepting those few tiny "wedge-into" opportunities? Really? Size / weight / visibility is a complete non-issue, doesn't affect photographic opportunity in any way ever? Color me skeptical.

(3) It doesn't bother you that a "defense" of DSLRs doesn't talk, at all, about what DSLRs are uniquely capable of doing?

OK. Carry on. Seems like kind of a weak defense to me, but clearly I'm the weird one.

Mark, this is dammed entertaining. I have my popcorn, warming on an overheating DSLR in "Live View"!

+1 to you sir.

Well thanks I do try.

But I think I'll have to chock this one up to failure, because the folks invested in this thread aren't really responding to my argument. They seem to think I'm invested defending mirrorless in any or every case, when in fact I'm invested in arguing for favoring whatever technology gets the best result. Sometimes--often (?)--that's going to be a DSLR. Sometimes, it's not.

How does one know what equipment to use? Or where to begin innovation with that equipment? Well, I'm trying to argue that it starts with analysis of results. That we ought to have ideas about what we want to produce before we pick the tool to make it happen. That doing it the other way around--picking the tool and letting the tool alone dictate what's possible or probable--puts an arbitrary limit on our vision.

And that's my problem with the OP's "defense" of DSLRs. It doesn't defend them! He just complains that other people don't like them, indicts those people as "fanboys," and reminds us that he thinks EVFs are stupid. Apparently I'm the only one who finds that sort of "argument" unenlightening.

Meanwhile, defending a DSLR on the merit of the results it is uniquely capable of producing is easy to do: show action sports photography, which mirrorless is totally miserable at capturing. That's it--that's all you have to show. One awesome sideline NFL wide-receiver shot. One super perspective on an F1 pass at last week's circuit. Good god, send me to gallery of photography from the 2012 Olympics, which might well have been considered the world's greatest ad for the Canon 1Dx and 5DIII. That's the stuff that argues so eloquently against any mirrorless fanboy crap.

But instead of demonstration on the merits, we get this: "Light weight is a convenience, not a capability. If cameras are too heavy, all it means is that someone in better shape than you gets the shot."

Sorry @paulkienitz, but that's just totally absurd. The relationship to weight / size / shape of a tool and the job the tool performs is obvious. And to use your own example--Ansel Adams--the weight / size / shape / portability of the gear dictated huge aspects of the results he produced. His published work is uniformly incredible and he was hugely innovative (I'm thinking of all those behind-the-scenes shots of him using his Woody wagon as an elevation platform), but there were places he couldn't and didn't go, shots he didn't take. He certainly didn't climb like Galen Rowell and didn't get perspectives like Galen Rowell. I'm not saying that Ansel Adams's work isn't as good as Galen Rowell's but I am saying it's different; and one of the big differences between what they produced has to do with which of them could climb and move and which of them couldn't.

Or is it just that Ansel Adams wasn't "as fit" as Galen Rowell?  Am I the only one who finds that perspective just incredibly silly?  (Now it'd be ad hominem if I accused *you*, @paulkienitz, of being as absurd as what you've said. I'm not. But cry latin foul again anyway if you like.)

But whatever. Clearly no one cares about what's actually shot, we're just here to comfort each other's monolithic ideologies about the "right" way to do photography.

Carry on!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard the picture man
Senior MemberPosts: 2,838
Like?
Re: In Defense of the DSLR
In reply to knickerhawk, 10 months ago

knickerhawk wrote:

Richard the picture man wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

"ApertureAcolyte has not uploaded any photos to their gallery yet."

No surprise there.

So I notice.

Sadly it seems that people who have the most dogmatic views on photography find it difficult to post any of their own work. Perhaps they don`t actually take pictures.

Well, then you're ALSO implying that Kodachrome200 is just a dogmatic non-photographer and, therefore, this whole thread is a total waste of everyone's time.

Ha ha, perish the thought that it had even entered my head !

BTW. With all due respect, using capitals in threads such as this denotes shouting. Shouting is not needed and would be considered rude by some people.

-- hide signature --

Regards - Richard
Happy guy with a K5
N.B. All my Images, even the bad ones, are Protected by Copyright

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MichaelKJ
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,062Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras are fundamentally better.
In reply to Kodachrome200, 10 months ago

Kodachrome200 wrote:

OVFs are by nature fundamentally better for experienced photographers. They allow you to see reality and from that you can visualize what you will be able to get from the raw file. You cannot necessarily tel the difference between the levels of shadows and highlights when you are seeing them through the sensor previewing the image.

To quote Thom Hogan: neither OVF nor EVF is perfect. OVF over the years has been optimized for brightness and overlays, which comes at the expense of seeing focus detail. Position of the eye at the viewfinder is also a variable for OVF (try it: while looking at an edge slide your eye from one side of the viewfinder to the other; so much for 100% view). OVFs will be dimmer with slower lenses, too.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/dslr-versus-mirrorless.html

Given those limitations, I think it is difficult to argue that OVFs "allow you to see reality." Btw, by "reality" I assume you are referring to the interpretation that our visual cortex gives to visual information.

i virtually garuntee whatever the future of pro cameras are they will be made by canon and nikon and will be fully compatible with current lenses either as they are or via adapters. If the ovfs go away in pro cameras it is not going to happen because the current mirror less systems overthrew them. it is going to happen because canon and nikon evolve the there dslr line into something that doesn't use mirrors anymore. something vaguely slt like but without a mirror in it. Though i think people using dslrs are going to go on preferring the ovfs they have. the big 2 are in no danger. Right now they are suffering like all camera makers but the dslrs they make are still the most lucrative products on the market.

Sony will soon have a FF mirrorless camera and, as Thom Hogan commented in an article today, we are likely to see Canon and Nikon move to FF mirrorless cameras that use their current lenses. OVFs won't disappear for some time. However, EVFs are rapidly improving and have many advantages over OVFs.

 MichaelKJ's gear list:MichaelKJ's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads