-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
"The last days of the DSLR", before you yell, that's the name of the article...
- Thread starter Ontario Gone
- Start date
Ontario Gone
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,183
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,545
Prices will drop in time, more lenses will be offered.
The Panny 42.5mm F1.2 (85 equiv) is $1600, the Canon 85mm F1.2 is $2200. It's not all cheaper on the Canikon side.
crashpc
Veteran Member
This does not work for me, because my language is extremely "spreadable", as we can bend our words so much! I had to switch off dictionary of my phone, because I just can´t write what I want. It won´t recognize so many things and words told in my language. Still does not work for me. Not superior. Sorry!
If you are using your keyboard surreptitiously in your pants pocket, that's a completely different meaning of keep messaging your privates... ;-)or you would like to keep your messaging private...
joejack951
Veteran Member
And nothing new will be released for DSLRs?
You got the field of view part right. But you are missing the aperture side of things. 42.5/1.2 =/ 85/1.2, 42.5/1.2 = 85/2.4 and a full frame 85/1.8 is a ~$400-500 lens. Cheaper, faster, but lacking stabilization, almost better in every way.
FWIW, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ($900) is made for both Nikon and Canon mounts.
E
Erik Magnuson
Guest
That's different from "anybody claiming today's EVFs are inferior are baised." You can rationally have that preference (or the opposite preference) w/o being biased.
Still has zero vibrations DURING exposure in live view. Completely electronic has some significant limitations in current MILC designs (long exposures or flash sync or jello artifacts or lower image quality.) EFC with a physical second curtain seems to be the best compromise - some Sony MILCs only have a single shutter curtain!
This will be true for many definitions of "next camera" including DSLRs (see for example the Nikon 3300.) It's more about the timing of new models than if the optical path has a mirror or not.
Again, this is independent of the mirror, e.g. DSLRs have had wired tethered modes with complete control for ages. It's more about marketing than technology, i.e. what features vs. price will appeal to buyers.
If you missed it, Canon users have been using adapters with Nikon lenses since before digital. Nikon users have occasionally used some Canon lenses as well but have to pay a lot to have them adapted.
The point being that people like to buy "what the pros use" even if they never become pros.
Sigh - it's about if "pro usage" has any relevance what sells to ordinary people. A few posts above/below you agreed with this statement, so who's being simply argumentative?
It's my observation based on when ordinary people ask me what to buy. I occasionally teach workshops to new camera users so while it's not scientific, it's a little more than only speculation.
That's because the 5DII was (and still is) an excellent camera. The EM1 predecessors were not as relatively good. For example, the 5DII has zero shutter shock in live view mode - something you cannot say about the EM1 today. It also has arguably better video than the EM1 despite being 4 years older.
DSLRs are a failrly mature technology. But there is almost nothing than can be added to mirrorless that cannot also be added the DSLRs.
Since we both referred to using adapted lenses, duh.
A lot of people don't need a 7D -- which is why it's not Canon's best seller.
Since its share of DSLR sales is rising while overall sales are falling, it's by definition taking market share and "squeezing" APS-C. Perhaps not a lot, but "not any" is demonstrably false or rhetorical exaggeration. MF sales are so small it would be hard to say if FFs like the D800 have impacted them. It's possible it's the opposite - when FF is more affordable, photographers who want to promote a difference may feel the need to buy MF to distinguish themselves from the hoi-polloi, e.g. rising tide lifting both boats.
Yes, I'm an example who bought FF when it reached a certain price threshold. And in my local club, more people have bought FF than downsized to mirrorless. More people ask about FF than mirrorless. Actually, the mirrorless owners (including me with a NEX) tend to also have and use their FF DSLR cameras.
Most people don't know what they need. And just because they don't need it today, they may want to have it just in case they need it tomorrow. If they value size/weight most (and don't mind an EVF), they might choose mirrorless. Or they could still choose a small APS-C DSLR as the best compromise. I know people who've made each decision but more of the latter than the former.
Make up your mind: just a few paragraphs back, you were just saying that FF was not squeezing APS-C and now you are saying it is?
E
Erik Magnuson
Guest
Since maybe 50% of all texts are just "K" and that's much tougher with voice, I have to admit the keyboard can work better.Well, this is really "hardtough one".How about short message, like "Yes"...
C
canonagain123
Guest
f/0.95 on m43 is not f/0.95 on full frame! it gives the same DOF as f/1.9 does on full frame, after the focal length conversion.
Remember, APERTURE is focal length devided by the diameter of the aperture. The f-stop doesn't magically stay the same when the focal length and the sensor size change. 20 divided by 20 is not the same number as 40 divided by 20.
But don't take my word for it, here's a bunch of m43 owners explaining it in the m43 forum: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3123182
Paul B Jones
Veteran Member
Climate change? Homelessness? World peace?
I know the mirrorless crusade is pretty important but there are a few other worthy causes that folks could put their time and energy into.
I know the mirrorless crusade is pretty important but there are a few other worthy causes that folks could put their time and energy into.
C
canonagain123
Guest
I love my brand Y because of emotional and practical reasons. I also love brand X for different reasons, but right now brand Y had all that I needed in one package, and having lenses for one system is cheaper than 2 systems, especially when Y->X adapting is a lot more expensive, harder and sometimes impossible than X->Y adapting. My reasons were practical first, emotional therafter. I don't mind admitting it: I love my Canon. I love the photos I can produce with it. I love the lack of limitations compared to other DSLRs I've used, and I love its limitations as well, because they agree with me. I can use them, and work around them. I love the low noise in long exposures. I love it emotionally, and I love it practically. The artist side of me is loving, passionate. The practical side of me is practical. I wouldn't use my current DSLRs if it didn't allow me to do everything I need to do. I use it because it does. I'm perfectly happy with it, emotionally and practically. I wouldn't hang on to it if the practical side didn't work out too, or if I did, I'd hold on to it as a second or third camera. There's my admission.
As of now there are mirrorless with zero in body vibrations during exposure,
I guess that's why I made this thread . Because I'm forced to choose. In the spirit of your own words, "thanks for trying. Better luck next time."
Forrest41926
Forum Pro
If I had any doubt that you were trolling, this would have removed it.
I can accept that you just can't fathom people buying a camera because it gets them the pictures they want. It might blow your mind that some people have better things to do with their time and energy (and money!) than trying to impress strangers on the internet.
Most people who make up "the general public" don't care what type of camera you use, and can't tell cameras apart. Photography isn't that important to them, it's not a big part of their lives.
Photographers aren't impressed by what lens you use, they're impressed by your ability to make a good photo. You can't buy talent.
I'm a professional in a field that has nothing to do with photography. I use a Canon 5D v3 and a 24 mm f/1.4 L lens (v2). And a quality tripod. Here's a photo I shot with it. You can shoot rulers with any camera, but if you have a specific vision, sometimes you use what it takes to turn that into reality.
I was camped about 200 feet below the top of Slate Peak for this. We're looking at North Cascades National Park. The red and orange glow over the horizon are the light domes of Seattle and Vancouver, more than 100 miles away. Last year I slept outside 34 nights. The night sky is a wonderful thing to behold from a mountain wilderness. It isn't easy to photograph.
You can laugh at me all you want; if you'd like me to care about your opinion as it relates to photography, you'll have to show me photos. Otherwise, it's all meaningless blather.
Ontario Gone
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,183
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,545
You are confusing DOF/FOV with F stop. F stop = FL/aperture diameter. But, the FL doesn't change from one sensor size to another, only effective FL changes. F stop doesn't take into account crop factors, so a 20mm lens on a FF is still a 20mm lens on MFT. The FOV is cropped, the F stop stays the same. FL is the distance from mid lens to the sensor, and the lens doesn't magically grow longer just because it's on a smaller sensor. Please tell me you know this. Your 20 vs 40 suggests you don't.
C
canonagain123
Guest
Bob_tracks
Well-known member
There are a lot of outdoors enthusiasts for whom size and weight are critical parameters. For instance, those of use who backpack in the wilderness for days at a time, or up mountain ranges are typically not "old and "feeble". We want telephoto lenses for wildlife photography, for instance. Yet many of us take delight in toting a mirrorless camera package, especially mFT, that is pounds lighter than an equivalent camera/lenses DSLR system.
Perhaps some of us aren't the brawny "he-men" type that DSLR owners are, as apparently portrayed by Richard, but many of us are in-shape backpackers and outdoors adventurers for which every extra pound of equipment is notably unwelcome.
Certainly mFT and other mirrorless cameras aren't purchased for size/weight alone by a number of photographers, but the information I've seen shows that it's one of the largest reasons for those photographers who desire IQ far above a cell phone or P&S.
tbcass
Forum Pro
Someday DSLRs will be pretty much dead but that time is still in the future. Maybe 5-10 years.
To quote Gizmodo:
More and more manufacturers are throwing their weight behind mirrorless cameras, but it's the big guys, Canon and Nikon, playing catch-up. That makes sense; they profit heavily from DSLR sales, and have failed to capitalize on the turning of the tide. Both brands have introduced limited mirrorless offerings that have failed to live up to the competition from the likes of Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, and Fujifilm. It's a sign that they are unwilling to invest heavily in this new product category, hoping the storm will pass. Nikon just announced the Df, a slightly smaller full-frame DSLR that borrows the retro stylings of the most popular mirrorless cameras, but is stubbornly conservative in its insistence on retaining the mirror and pentaprism.
How does he know that Canon and Nikon are asleep? MILC's have been around for a few years now - surely they noticed that.
Why would he say that "they are unwilling to invest heavily in this new product category. . . . "
They've invested more heavily than all the other manufacturers put together in the past - that's why they've been dominating the camera market. Seems unlikely that they are working on something.
He may well be right about MILC's taking over, but much of what he states is unfounded.
It seems more like he's trying to create buzz and traffic for his site than be objective.
--
Glenn NK
Victoria, BC
More and more manufacturers are throwing their weight behind mirrorless cameras, but it's the big guys, Canon and Nikon, playing catch-up. That makes sense; they profit heavily from DSLR sales, and have failed to capitalize on the turning of the tide. Both brands have introduced limited mirrorless offerings that have failed to live up to the competition from the likes of Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, and Fujifilm. It's a sign that they are unwilling to invest heavily in this new product category, hoping the storm will pass. Nikon just announced the Df, a slightly smaller full-frame DSLR that borrows the retro stylings of the most popular mirrorless cameras, but is stubbornly conservative in its insistence on retaining the mirror and pentaprism.
How does he know that Canon and Nikon are asleep? MILC's have been around for a few years now - surely they noticed that.
Why would he say that "they are unwilling to invest heavily in this new product category. . . . "
They've invested more heavily than all the other manufacturers put together in the past - that's why they've been dominating the camera market. Seems unlikely that they are working on something.
He may well be right about MILC's taking over, but much of what he states is unfounded.
It seems more like he's trying to create buzz and traffic for his site than be objective.
--
Glenn NK
Victoria, BC
In the OP 's case you BECOME a tool.When you buy a DSLR, you just buy a (tool) camera.
When you buy a mirrorless camera, you become a member of a religious cult.
As of now, for all his many posts, the OP has a total of five votes. Probably all were given by himself to himself.
All the other posters votes come to 131. I guess we can see who the skunk at the picnic is.
All the other posters votes come to 131. I guess we can see who the skunk at the picnic is.
Last edited:
Worse than that, it lumps you in with some really annoying people like.....When you buy a DSLR, you just buy a (tool) camera.
When you buy a mirrorless camera, you become a member of a religious cult.
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum