OrdinarilyInordinate: Well, it's great for professionals or people who have a lot of money to burn on software, but it's prohibitively expensive for an average amateur photographer. I wish they had a more reasonably priced trimmed down option, perhaps without tethering functions.
Maybe what some are missing here is it can be hard to justify spending $300 for something when you think you'll never use (or even want to use) more than a fraction of its capabilities.
Kiril Karaatanasov: It is sad to see Canon fall so massively behind Sony and Nikon. Given that we have a real monster camera as A7R II with both high resolution but also substantial improvement on all other characteristics like DR, noise, color response that will probably score well above D810 and A7r. Nikon will probably do D820 or D4x very soon. Given that A7r II can use Canon glass just as well as the 5DS it seems to be game over for Canon
Don't the Sony Alphas give up a little of their performance with RAW compression?
rw22: My hand and wrist are fine (after exercises for carpal tunnel and wearing a brace) until I use my heavy DSLR gear equipment. For work that is not done with a tripod it's time to switch to something lighter, probably a 4/3rds camera. I know I'll miss the OVF experience and all my great Canon lenses but at least I get to keep shooting.
Barty, the weight comparison is apples-to-oranges because you have a significant difference in sensor size between those cameras. You didn't have the lightest DSLR by any means, either.
axlotl: The 20th Century way to provide a range of focal lengths was interchangeable lenses. The 21st Century way is a single zoom lens.Convergence renders the DSLR vs MILC debate less pressing. The new debate is about the merits of the Interchangeable Lens Camera (ILC) vs Fixed Lens Camera (FLC) in particular Fixed Zoom Lens Camera (FZLC).Some of the new FZLCs are so good they challenge the need for any kind of ILC at all for many enthusiast photographers.
I get your point but no lens can cover all the possibilities, especially at the wide end.
Rooru S: Hey DPR team, you know what you should do? A versus match between the best focusing mirrorless against the best focusing DSLRs.
The test should include the following. Tracking in the Z-axis (subject coming towards you). X-axis (panning) and low light focusing (night and indoors)
The lens of choice should be simple. If you're comparing A6000 with A77M2, you should use the SAL70200G2 in the A77M2 and the SEL70200G in the A6000. Or A7RM2 against D810 with similar lenses (native lenses only).
browne, did you know DSLRs can use precise CDAF with face detection, too, for portraits?
AksCT: Nikon and Canon are quite capable of developing state of the art ILC cameras, but they are probably struggling with the critical decision of protecting their traditional market. The longer they wait, the harder will be to enter and compete in ILC (and if too late, exist may become the only option).
I vividly recall having a meeting in Rochester in 1991 with key people in Kodak imaging group. The main question was shifting to electronic imaging or staying with film (I was testing their CCD sensors then that eventually became DCS420/460, the best DSLR of its time). Management and sales group voted for staying with film and not damaging core business by investing more in digital. The rest is history. I was back Rochester when recently when Kodak filed for bankruptcy, which was quite painful to see.
Isn't the film vs digital issue more of a hosreless carriage vs horse-and-carriage analogy? I find the whole DSLR vs MILC comparison more like V6 vs Turbo 4 for car engines, or something like that.
Mister Joseph: If my mirrorless setup was just as physically big/heavy as my DSLR setup, I'll probably stick with my cheaper DSLR setup.
In the meantime, my APS-C mirrorless with a tiny wideangle lens will stay as my "discreet street camera." The problem with Full-frame mirrorless is the same problem as my Full-Frame DSLR; The lenses tend to be HUGE.
Doug, my Fujifilm makes a bigger "thunk" than my Pentax.
AndyGM: The Mirrorless vs DSLR debate really comes down to viewfinders.
I think we are now at a point where even die hard DSLR fans will say that entry level EVFs are a better experience than entry level OVFs, and even mid range EVFs are a better experience than mid range OVFs.
That just leaves the high end, full frame DSLR OVFs as an example of the best of viewfinder tech.
Someone mentioned they like OVFs because they have full dynamic range. Well I would have thought that was a DISADVANTAGE. The DR of your eyes is over 20 stops, whereas even the best camera are more like 15 stops. So the camera will "see" less than you will, you just don't get a representative idea of the exposure through an OVF.
Plus EVFs can show some much additional information. And an SLR OVF is just dead weight if/when you shoot video.
OVFs (the top end, good ones) have just 2 advantages left AFAICS. No lag. And they are solar powered so save on your batteries!
@ Roman -- your point holds for basic JPEG shooting. For the vast majority here who would use a RAW file format, not so much. Further, I wouldn't trust a tiny EVF with white balance if I was making a 20" x 30" print.
User1879099186: There will always be guys that insist "film" is far superior to digital; there will always be the guys that insist a big, bulky "Professional-looking" DSLR is superior to mirrorless. The fact is, mirrorless has the significant technological and economical advantages, and this gap will continue to become more and more evident.Canonikon used to stick their noses in the air at mirrorless features like EVF, now they're doing everything they can to make DSLRs act like a mirrorless, locking the mirrors up and employing live-view.
There is no need for mirrors and prisms and large internal cavities; they are hold overs from the film days.
The mirrorless revolution is here. Congrats to Sony, Olympus, Samsung and Panasonic for leading the way into the future. Canon and Nikon are heading the way of Kodak.
Maybe you didn't read Richard's article? If DSLRs and MILCs are using the same sensors, how can one become "obsolete" if the primary criteria is image quality?
I've read that a modern EVF has a dynamic range of around 5 to 6 EV. Maybe there are a few that are a little bit higher but I've many times that the sensor's DR capability greatly eclipses any EVF.
Great article, Richard. What isn't mentioned is something of an "elephant in the room" issue... legacy lenses. A lens will be functionally current far longer than any camera body and those with a closet full of Nikkor lenses aren't just going to throw them away. Sure, you can buy an adapter to marry them to a MILC but that alone negates the size advantage and degrades focusing speed. As it was mentioned, PDAF lenses weren't designed to fast-focus on MILCs so that option has a built in drawback that only a new closet full of lenses can rectify.
DBE: This may be a 'niche' response, but I will stick with a DSLR / OVF for the foreseeable future since an EVF cannot be used when photographing night landscapes. With an OVF your eyes eventually adjust to the darkness and you can properly frame your shot by starlight. An EVF? Pure black - at least with my previous Sony SLT. The same goes for bright sunlight. The current crop of EVFs cannot and perhaps never will match the dynamic range of what your eye sees through an OVF, and the 'look' of a final print is what you remember from the viewfinder composition. But then again, I still create framed prints, which may also be going the way of the Dodo ...
@David GranoDeOro -- i don't think this is right because the sensor is able to record far higher DR than any EVF can currently display. In fact, I'd say what the sensor can record is better represented by what is viewed through an OVF than through an EVF with current technology.
WiFi -- convenience itemGPS -- adding permanent and sometimes useful information to the image file itself.
There are times I wished I had the Pentax GPS unit but I never bought one and adding location info via Geotracking or map placing into software is by no means the same thing. OTOH, I've never bothered to take my FLUcard out of its package.
badi: "This has two direct benefits: firstly it provides images with full color resolution, [...] Secondly, as a result of sampling the same point four times, the images will have greatly improved noise characteristics. The other benefits over the Olympus system is that it could be faster, as it only requires four exposures, rather than eight"
About the first two benefits... yes, they are true, but they are also true for olympus. Maybe you just rephrase, so that should be clear. The term "the other benefits over the olympus system" suggest that also the first two are "better" in pentax.
About the last one - it's not a benefit, it's a different approach - some will prefer the increased res, as taking 4 shots or 8 is usually about the same thing: it can only be applied to perfect static subjects.Also here, i would rather say that both manufacturers just didn't want to go the full way and make both options available. At least in the case of olympus it's clearly only a matter of software.
It's quite possible you don't need a tripod for this 4-shot "shot". HDR can be done on Pentax without one because it has an auto-alignment capability. Maybe the sensor shifting detects camera movement and factors that into the processing. We'll just have to wait and see.
photo perzon: Apple could sell Aperture for millions instead of letting it die. It is not perfect, but nothing is, and it had a lot of love behind it. Not that Apple needs the millions, no, it does not, but it would be a favor to those users who love it and miss it.
I don't think they could sell it because the image processing itself is done in OS X and not in the Aperture app.
Richard Weisgrau: The simple answer is NO!
I became a Pro user of Aperture when it was first released. I have used it ever since. I do not like LR or other software.
Photos is a nice amateur product for making minor adjustments and feeding images to different applications. I could use it, if it allowed me to edit in Aperture and store in Photos. It does not.
I do not need Aperture to be improved. I just need it to not become obsolete because of OS changes.
Can you be more specific, please? What edits have you been using in Aperture that you don't have in Photos? I ask not because I'm a Photos user/defender but want to know what I'm getting into if I make that transition.
Whitesands: Can't bring black and white raw photos into the new photos app without it automatically changing them to color photos....it's aggravating...IPhoto's would at least do this
I've never seen a B&W RAW photo. Are you sure that's what you have or is it a color RAW with a B&W adjustment/edit? In that case, Photos is failing to pick up the edit.
Mister Roboto: About time to move on to Windows world. Give it a rest, Apple is not serious (or not doing it seriously) in Photography at least with their iPhones and software like this.
@thorn -- no one I can think of specifically bought a Mac because you get Aperture. Instead, they paid double (really?) for a bunch of other reasons that made it a better proposition than a Windows box.
yuribel: I used Final Cut Pro/Final Cut Studio for years. When Apple switched to Final Cut Pro X I was really shocked with this vivid downgrade. But 3+ years later, with a lot of professional feathers added to the early version of FCP X, I came to conclusion that workflow in this 'downgraded' program is fast and comfortable, and practically nothing of abilities is lost (and a lot useful is added). I hope after several upgrades Photos will become closer to Aperture than in this early version. What I like in Photos right now — it's speed and automatic synchronization with iPad/iPhone library. But I'll wait for upgrades of Photos — using Aperture as long as I'll be able to to this.
I have that hope, too, but I'm coming to my senses and thinking it won't at all be the same situation. FCP X is professional software at a price. They have to put resources into improving it. Photos is free and comes with every Mac (and iOS device) so the audience is entirely different and the motivation to make it more pro-like is different, too.
mazoeca: As a satisfied user for some years, I was most disappointed by Apple's decision to stop supporting Aperture. Most of what I have read about Photos for Mac has convinced me that it will not come anywhere near replacing Aperture for the kind of PP I like to do.Based on what I have been able to learn about potential replacements for Aperture, I have decided to go with Lightroom..... wish I had made that decision a few years ago when I switched from iPhoto to Aperture !
Going from iPhoto to LR was an entirely different proposition than going from iPhoto to Aperture. The transition to Aperture was not really any transition at all since it's just "iPhoto on steroids" where the library itself is common between the two. The hard part will be the change to something else.