Reading mode: Light Dark

DSLRS

Go to last post
DeeNikon said:
... how long do you think Canon will support the now obviously dying EF System?
Click to expand...
The EF mount will go quicker than people believe.

There was still a few EF Lenses that I wanted, but now, no, it’s not worth the investment.

DLRS cameras are too much computers to keep value over time, but not advanced enough for 2018
 
Last edited:
Fog Maker said:
DeeNikon said:
... how long do you think Canon will support the now obviously dying EF System?
Click to expand...
The EF mount will go quicker than people believe.
Click to expand...
so i gather it is purely your thinking, not millions of people who own EF lenses, and most of them heavily invested in "L" lenses!
Fog Maker said:
There was still a few EF Lenses that I wanted, but now, no, it’s not worth the investment.
Click to expand...
again, your own feelings, not general feelings!
Fog Maker said:
DLRS cameras are too much computers to keep value over time, but not advanced enough for 2018
Click to expand...
sorry to say, but that is a peculiar perspective of looking at DSLR/MILC issues ;-)
 
Mike CH said:
Jonneymendoza2 said:
Mike CH said:
Jonneymendoza2 said:
1Dx4me said:
Jonneymendoza2 said:
1Dx4me said:
Jonneymendoza2 said:
DeeNikon said:
... how long do you think Canon will support the now obviously dying EF System?
Click to expand...
By 2020 dslr will be dead
Click to expand...
i think you are hiding your hear in the sand! there is a huge majority that do not participate in MILC hype...only gear heads! canikon will respond to DSLR needs for long time to come! what can one see in MILC that will entice them to ditch their BSLRs and join the MILC bandwagon...to gain what, small size, OVF, etc, etc? not compelling to me! so dream on ;-)
Click to expand...
If canikon force you to ditch your dslr then u all will move to MILC or take up another hobby/job .simple as that.

the next 1dx will be Mirrorless and that will be the start of the end of DSLR
Click to expand...
i have absolutely no problem with that! but what if people absolutely hate the small size the ergonomic of the new MILC? we'll see.
Click to expand...
The add a battery grip!
Click to expand...
There are plenty of smaller cameras available, if you want smaller, you can buy one of those. And, positive side effect, leave the larger cameras to those of us who prefer them.

Win-win, I'd say.
Mike CH said:
Do people have gigantic hands or something?
Click to expand...
People come in different sizes, quite varied. Their hands to, too. Some have smaller, some have larger hands.

People come with different wishes and needs. Some like larger cameras, some like smaller cameras.

It's good, isn't it, that the market provides a variety of styles of cameras?

Regards, Mike
Click to expand...
Add a Battery grip to make it bigger
Click to expand...
You didn't catch that about different people wanting different things and that the market already provide cameras in different sizes?

If you can get a small camera from one brand, and I can get a larger camera from another brand - why do you want to make all bodies the same size?

Regards, Mike
Click to expand...
 
Morvegil said:
i imagine in a decade or so...but in the near term? Vibrant as ever.
Click to expand...
if MILC meets the needs of the users and even surpass it, then i can see the process of the disappearance of DSLR may take place faster and painlessly! however, if a silent majority decide to stay with DSLRs due to having better ergonomics and ease of use and long term familiarity, then DSLRs, then logically it will stay around a lot longer, methinks!

i have always been in favor of miniaturization of appliances and electric components, but cameras in DSLRs category, is an exception, if they are large or small, they can become clumsy and irritating--i don't think i am alone thinking this way!
 
1Dx4me said:
Morvegil said:
i imagine in a decade or so...but in the near term? Vibrant as ever.
Click to expand...
if MILC meets the needs of the users and even surpass it, then i can see the process of the disappearance of DSLR may take place faster and painlessly! however, if a silent majority decide to stay with DSLRs due to having better ergonomics and ease of use and long term familiarity, then DSLRs, then logically it will stay around a lot longer, methinks!

i have always been in favor of miniaturization of appliances and electric components, but cameras in DSLRs category, is an exception, if they are large or small, they can become clumsy and irritating--i don't think i am alone thinking this way!

--
Who are you gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes? Groucho Marx.
Click to expand...
Canon is very good at ergonomics and I don’t see that knowledge disappear all of a sudden. They will continue to cater to the professional market.
 
Jonneymendoza2 said:
Mike CH said:
Jonneymendoza2 said:
Mike CH said:
Jonneymendoza2 said:
1Dx4me said:
Jonneymendoza2 said:
1Dx4me said:
Jonneymendoza2 said:
DeeNikon said:
... how long do you think Canon will support the now obviously dying EF System?
Click to expand...
By 2020 dslr will be dead
Click to expand...
i think you are hiding your hear in the sand! there is a huge majority that do not participate in MILC hype...only gear heads! canikon will respond to DSLR needs for long time to come! what can one see in MILC that will entice them to ditch their BSLRs and join the MILC bandwagon...to gain what, small size, OVF, etc, etc? not compelling to me! so dream on ;-)
Click to expand...
If canikon force you to ditch your dslr then u all will move to MILC or take up another hobby/job .simple as that.

the next 1dx will be Mirrorless and that will be the start of the end of DSLR
Click to expand...
i have absolutely no problem with that! but what if people absolutely hate the small size the ergonomic of the new MILC? we'll see.
Click to expand...
The add a battery grip!
Click to expand...
There are plenty of smaller cameras available, if you want smaller, you can buy one of those. And, positive side effect, leave the larger cameras to those of us who prefer them.

Win-win, I'd say.
Jonneymendoza2 said:
Do people have gigantic hands or something?
Click to expand...
People come in different sizes, quite varied. Their hands to, too. Some have smaller, some have larger hands.

People come with different wishes and needs. Some like larger cameras, some like smaller cameras.

It's good, isn't it, that the market provides a variety of styles of cameras?

Regards, Mike
Click to expand...
Add a Battery grip to make it bigger
Click to expand...
You didn't catch that about different people wanting different things and that the market already provide cameras in different sizes?

If you can get a small camera from one brand, and I can get a larger camera from another brand - why do you want to make all bodies the same size?

Regards, Mike
Click to expand...
You diddnt catch the part about battery grip did you?
Click to expand...
And why should I use a crutch to satisfy your need for ‘small’?
Jonneymendoza2 said:
A small camera with a additional battery grip option caters for both people who want a small camera and ones who want a big camera.
Click to expand...
No, they don’t. They are secondary solutions, which solve a battery capacity problem, not a size, and they typically extend the body in a direction which I neither want nor need.

Go buy a Sony Oly or Panny if ‘small’ is your sole driver.

Regards, Mike

--
Wait and see...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.
 
Last edited:
Fog Maker said:
DLRS cameras are too much computers to keep value over time, but not advanced enough for 2018
Click to expand...
Interesting. Have the newer mirror-deprived cameras, and mobile phones, reverted to analog technology? ;-)

If “value over time” refers to investment value, well, I have always considered both computers and digital camera bodies to be consumable items, intended for consumption, not “investments.”
 
Rexgig0 said:
Fog Maker said:
DLRS cameras are too much computers to keep value over time, but not advanced enough for 2018
Click to expand...
Interesting. Have the newer mirror-deprived cameras, and mobile phones, reverted to analog technology? ;-)
Click to expand...
"Mirror-deprived cameras" I love it. I'm going to steal that line from you"
Rexgig0 said:
If “value over time” refers to investment value, well, I have always considered both computers and digital camera bodies to be consumable items, intended for consumption, not “investments.”
Click to expand...
You're a genius. You and I are the only people on the forum that have figured out that you don't make money on electronic gadgets.

I don't get rid of anything until there is something much better that is tested and proven. By that time, whatever it is that I was using is worth next to nothing. This applies to cars, computers, TVs, and I'm sure it will apply to my camera gear. I haven't tried to sell any of my camera gear yet. Maybe I'll make a fortune in it and come back here to brag. More likely, I'll give it to a younger person interested in photography.
 
Rexgig0 said:
Fog Maker said:
DLRS cameras are too much computers to keep value over time, but not advanced enough for 2018
Click to expand...
Interesting. Have the newer mirror-deprived cameras, and mobile phones, reverted to analog technology? ;-)

If “value over time” refers to investment value, well, I have always considered both computers and digital camera bodies to be consumable items, intended for consumption, not “investments.”

--
I wore a police badge and pistol, and made evidentiary images at night, incorporating elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. (Retired January 2018.) I enjoy using Canon and Nikon gear.
Click to expand...
Nah, I wasn’t talking about investment value (we all know how that goes),
 
Mike CH said:
Jonneymendoza2 said:
Mike CH said:
Jonneymendoza2 said:
Mike CH said:
Jonneymendoza2 said:
1Dx4me said:
Jonneymendoza2 said:
1Dx4me said:
Jonneymendoza2 said:
DeeNikon said:
... how long do you think Canon will support the now obviously dying EF System?
Click to expand...
By 2020 dslr will be dead
Click to expand...
i think you are hiding your hear in the sand! there is a huge majority that do not participate in MILC hype...only gear heads! canikon will respond to DSLR needs for long time to come! what can one see in MILC that will entice them to ditch their BSLRs and join the MILC bandwagon...to gain what, small size, OVF, etc, etc? not compelling to me! so dream on ;-)
Click to expand...
If canikon force you to ditch your dslr then u all will move to MILC or take up another hobby/job .simple as that.

the next 1dx will be Mirrorless and that will be the start of the end of DSLR
Click to expand...
i have absolutely no problem with that! but what if people absolutely hate the small size the ergonomic of the new MILC? we'll see.
Click to expand...
The add a battery grip!
Click to expand...
There are plenty of smaller cameras available, if you want smaller, you can buy one of those. And, positive side effect, leave the larger cameras to those of us who prefer them.

Win-win, I'd say.
Mike CH said:
Do people have gigantic hands or something?
Click to expand...
People come in different sizes, quite varied. Their hands to, too. Some have smaller, some have larger hands.

People come with different wishes and needs. Some like larger cameras, some like smaller cameras.

It's good, isn't it, that the market provides a variety of styles of cameras?

Regards, Mike
Click to expand...
Add a Battery grip to make it bigger
Click to expand...
You didn't catch that about different people wanting different things and that the market already provide cameras in different sizes?

If you can get a small camera from one brand, and I can get a larger camera from another brand - why do you want to make all bodies the same size?

Regards, Mike
Click to expand...
You diddnt catch the part about battery grip did you?
Click to expand...
And why should I use a crutch to satisfy your need for ‘small’?
Mike CH said:
A small camera with a additional battery grip option caters for both people who want a small camera and ones who want a big camera.
Click to expand...
No, they don’t. They are secondary solutions, which solve a battery capacity problem, not a size, and they typically extend the body in a direction which I neither want nor need.

Go buy a Sony Oly or Panny if ‘small’ is your sole driver.

Regards, Mike
Click to expand...
 
Rexgig0 said:
Auto-loading pistols have not caused the death of revolvers.

Case-less ammunition has not cased the death of metal-cased cartridge ammunition.

Electric vehicles have not caused the death of internal-combustion-engine vehicles.

Jet airplanes have not caused the death of piston-engine airplanes.

Eight-track tapes did not cause the death of vinyl records.

Cassette tapes did not cause the death of viny records.

This is six quick examples of the “old” technology continuing, in spite of the newer technology. In half of the above examples, the newer technology ascended, for a time, then declined into insignificance, while the old technology remained extant. The other half are examples of the newer technology co-existing with the old, with each having a stable place in the market.

The “flapping mirror” may be with us, indefinitely. ;-)

This being a photography forum, I will not debate each of the above non-photographic examples individually, in detail. My point is that the DSLR’s mirror is a way of accomplishing a goal. Mirror-less is a way of accomplishing a goal. The market will determine what remains in production.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Also, if OVF was invented today everyone would be amazed by the life like, no real life images on the view finder. Mirrorless offers many benefits but so does SLR technology.
 
Battersea said:
Agreed. Also, if OVF was invented today everyone would be amazed by the life like, no real life images on the view finder. Mirrorless offers many benefits but so does SLR technology.
Click to expand...
No, if OVF was invented today, after a long time of being used to EVF, we would see religious zealots proclaiming that the OVF sucks because they can't magnify the image, they can't see the shooting info or histogram, and it is dark in dim light. People would say "so what if my battery lasts a long time, I can't see any information in the VF".
 
PhotoFactor said:
Battersea said:
Agreed. Also, if OVF was invented today everyone would be amazed by the life like, no real life images on the view finder. Mirrorless offers many benefits but so does SLR technology.
Click to expand...
No, if OVF was invented today, after a long time of being used to EVF, we would see religious zealots proclaiming that the OVF sucks because they can't magnify the image, they can't see the shooting info or histogram, and it is dark in dim light. People would say "so what if my battery lasts a long time, I can't see any information in the VF".
Click to expand...
Spot on
 
Battersea said:
Rexgig0 said:
Auto-loading pistols have not caused the death of revolvers.

Case-less ammunition has not cased the death of metal-cased cartridge ammunition.

Electric vehicles have not caused the death of internal-combustion-engine vehicles.

Jet airplanes have not caused the death of piston-engine airplanes.

Eight-track tapes did not cause the death of vinyl records.

Cassette tapes did not cause the death of viny records.

This is six quick examples of the “old” technology continuing, in spite of the newer technology. In half of the above examples, the newer technology ascended, for a time, then declined into insignificance, while the old technology remained extant. The other half are examples of the newer technology co-existing with the old, with each having a stable place in the market.

The “flapping mirror” may be with us, indefinitely. ;-)

This being a photography forum, I will not debate each of the above non-photographic examples individually, in detail. My point is that the DSLR’s mirror is a way of accomplishing a goal. Mirror-less is a way of accomplishing a goal. The market will determine what remains in production.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Also, if OVF was invented today everyone would be amazed by the life like, no real life images on the view finder. Mirrorless offers many benefits but so does SLR technology.
Click to expand...
It amazes me how folks who insist on "life-like" in the VF are accepting of prints/images made by a digital sensor.
 
OVF is pointless. Its note even the picture you are taking.
 
PhotoFactor said:
Battersea said:
Agreed. Also, if OVF was invented today everyone would be amazed by the life like, no real life images on the view finder. Mirrorless offers many benefits but so does SLR technology.
Click to expand...
No, if OVF was invented today, after a long time of being used to EVF, we would see religious zealots proclaiming that the OVF sucks because they can't magnify the image, they can't see the shooting info or histogram, and it is dark in dim light. People would say "so what if my battery lasts a long time, I can't see any information in the VF".
Click to expand...
Well yea, this being DPR people will always hate something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top