Reading mode: Light Dark

The dying of the DSLR

Go to last post
Holger Bargen said:
With the Pentax in your hands, you know you have a reliable working horse that feels solid and well-designed. The Sony maybe even superior in terms of technical options. However, if I should have an expedition through a rainforest or Antarctic, I know which brand to select ...
Click to expand...
I would take the mirrorless because the extreme cold is more likely to have negative effects on the moving mechanical parts of a DSLR.

I want to add that what you are saying are simply your opinions and my opinions are totally different from yours.

--
Tom
 
Last edited:
tbcass said:
Holger Bargen said:
With the Pentax in your hands, you know you have a reliable working horse that feels solid and well-designed. The Sony maybe even superior in terms of technical options. However, if I should have an expedition through a rainforest or Antarctic, I know which brand to select ...
Click to expand...
I would take the mirrorless because the extreme cold is more likely to have negative effects on the moving mechanical parts of a DSLR.
Click to expand...
May we see those Antarctica photos shot with your own cameras, just to compare?
 
J A C S said:
tbcass said:
Holger Bargen said:
With the Pentax in your hands, you know you have a reliable working horse that feels solid and well-designed. The Sony maybe even superior in terms of technical options. However, if I should have an expedition through a rainforest or Antarctic, I know which brand to select ...
Click to expand...
I would take the mirrorless because the extreme cold is more likely to have negative effects on the moving mechanical parts of a DSLR.
Click to expand...
May we see those Antarctica photos shot with your own cameras, just to compare?
Click to expand...
First of all, that request is totally irrelevant, so your sarcasm was uncalled for.

I've never been nor plan to go to Antarctica. Based on my engineering background I do understand the effects of cold on electronics and anything mechanical and know that extreme cold can have negative effects on moving mechanical parts. Both types of cameras have similar electronics but the additional mechanical parts of a DSLR can potentially cause problems that wouldn't affect a mirrorless camera. People like to think that somehow DSLRs are more rugged than Mirrorless cameras, but that claim is made without evidence and is based on the fact that DSLRs are heavier which has no bearing on the ruggedness of a camera.

--
Tom
 
Last edited:
That is altered photography(manual post processing).
 
tbcass said:
J A C S said:
tbcass said:
Holger Bargen said:
With the Pentax in your hands, you know you have a reliable working horse that feels solid and well-designed. The Sony maybe even superior in terms of technical options. However, if I should have an expedition through a rainforest or Antarctic, I know which brand to select ...
Click to expand...
I would take the mirrorless because the extreme cold is more likely to have negative effects on the moving mechanical parts of a DSLR.
Click to expand...
May we see those Antarctica photos shot with your own cameras, just to compare?
Click to expand...
First of all, that request is totally irrelevant, so your sarcasm was uncalled for.

I've never been nor plan to go to Antarctica. Based on my engineering background I do understand the effects of cold on electronics and anything mechanical and know that extreme cold can have negative effects on moving mechanical parts. Both types of cameras have similar electronics but the additional mechanical parts of a DSLR can potentially cause problems that wouldn't affect a mirrorless camera. People like to think that somehow DSLRs are more rugged than Mirrorless cameras, but that claim is made without evidence and is based on the fact that DSLRs are heavier which has no bearing on the ruggedness of a camera.
Click to expand...
I shouldn't need to tell you that mechanical systems can be designed to operate at very low temperatures. Also high temperatures and anywhere in between, ask Airbus or Boeing.
 
[ATTACH]3649625[/ATTACH] MyReality said:
To me it is an unprocessed RAW file with no post processing. In film days or film now, it is an unaltered negative or positive.
Click to expand...
you are either one of the few "purist" or you are forgetting that, for example, plenty of work went on in the darkroom in the "film days" and does still go on.
 

Attachments

  • 60a391e1d1d942499232a379159f6e00.jpg
    60a391e1d1d942499232a379159f6e00.jpg
    81.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Holger Bargen said:
anotherMike said:
What the hell is "Honest Photography"

When I started several decades ago, I used a Zeiss Super Ikonta of some sort, with a lousy fresnel screen and a mirror that didn't return. I managed to take great photographs.

When I went to RIT and had to learn the view camera, looking at an upside down/backwards image on a dim ground glass under a cloth. I managed to take great photographs.

When AF cameras were introduced, with screens that weren't as nice looking at the film era SLR screens, I managed to take great photographs.

When I started using twin lens (Mamiya C330 and and old Rolleiflex) medium format cameras, to enjoy their zero lag time which was nice for my dance photography, but had to look unnaturally down at a viewfinder with a reversed image, I managed to take great photographs.

These days, I shoot both DSLR and Mirrorless. While initially I thought I would really miss the optical viewfinder for everything I do, it turns out I simply adapted to mirrorless and I honestly could care less which type of viewfinder I use. And I manage to take great photographs with either system.

But I guess I'm not involved in "honest photography". Give me a break. Same commentary to those morons who think "film is the only true photography" and that nonsense. And about Pentax. They were great - 50 years ago, I remember the MX (and the spotmatic before) and those lenses quite well. They're a shadow of their former selves these days, and I honestly don't even know if they have an active lens designer on staff - their last truly great lens designer, Jun Hirakawa, moved on years ago to Tamron and I think is retired today. And no, their lenses were not, and are not, uniformly superior to all other brands either. Nobodies lenses are universally and uniformly superior to everyone else.
Click to expand...
It was a citation from a photographer who has Pentax and Sony as gear.

Take both cameras in your hand and fell what you get: which of them feels more solid, more honest. You have the term "the real McCoy". This addresses originally a technical product from the original inventor and maker of it, which includes the expectation of superior quality. I see the comparison a little similar.

With the Pentax in your hands, you know you have a reliable working horse that feels solid and well-designed. The Sony maybe even superior in terms of technical options. However, if I should have an expedition through a rainforest or Antarctic, I know which brand to select ...
Click to expand...
Having owned the Pentax ME Super, Olympus OM1/2/4 and the Nikon FM2n I know which I would chose, none of them! The OM series have the best ergonomics but also the most known failings, The FM2n has slightly worse ergonomics but the meter switch in the film advance lever is a pain and the ME Super leaves much to be desired. My opinion, I'd take a Nikon F5 over any of them. I've handled a Pentax digital too, no thanks.

Camera choice is intensely personal, I find most cameras too small for comfort but I know the majority of members wouldn't give a second glance to any of the Nikon flagship cameras that I prefer. I used all of the cameras listed with a motordrive/autowinder for comfort. Feel free to dismiss my opinions but I just can't use most of what's available.
Holger Bargen said:
Regarding lens design, there was an area with true gems - and for Pentax some of these lenses are still build - just think of the "three amigos": FA 31, FA 43, FA77.

The new developments are optimized products from computer calculations. They all deliver almost sterile, error free results. However, are they created as true and honest craftsmanship, can we see them as "masterpieces"? Looking at the lenses you can buy: for which system can you still get these old masterpieces?

Just as an idea to explain the word "honest".

Looking at the cameras you used, most of them I would place in this category - with lenses available that fit with this expression, too.

Regarding the latest high tech stuff: which cameras and lenses would you put into it?
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps there are fashionable portrait photographers with high end customers that feel reassured by the ka-flop of a flapping mirror and the ka-shlick of a shutter. Just saying. It's all about appearances in those places.
 
tbcass said:
J A C S said:
tbcass said:
Holger Bargen said:
With the Pentax in your hands, you know you have a reliable working horse that feels solid and well-designed. The Sony maybe even superior in terms of technical options. However, if I should have an expedition through a rainforest or Antarctic, I know which brand to select ...
Click to expand...
I would take the mirrorless because the extreme cold is more likely to have negative effects on the moving mechanical parts of a DSLR.
Click to expand...
May we see those Antarctica photos shot with your own cameras, just to compare?
Click to expand...
First of all, that request is totally irrelevant, so your sarcasm was uncalled for.

I've never been nor plan to go to Antarctica. Based on my engineering background I do understand the effects of cold on electronics and anything mechanical and know that extreme cold can have negative effects on moving mechanical parts. Both types of cameras have similar electronics but the additional mechanical parts of a DSLR can potentially cause problems that wouldn't affect a mirrorless camera. People like to think that somehow DSLRs are more rugged than Mirrorless cameras, but that claim is made without evidence and is based on the fact that DSLRs are heavier which has no bearing on the ruggedness of a camera.
Click to expand...
Interesting K3-III has -10C cold weather rating whereas the mentioned Sony is rated to only 0C. Of course any of them are routinely used at lower temps. The Nikon Z are rated to -10C but the user in this report from the Arctic, rather than Antarctic, was using and storing them outside at -30C without difficulty.

Loading…

www.squiver.com

I personally would not want to be out at -30C with any camera! Sounds like the weak link was frozen fingers rather than camera tech.
 
Last edited:
FrancoD said:
All Bushs Fault said:
Chris R-UK said:
FrancoD said:
Is Canon still actually producing DSLRs?
Click to expand...
Good question. I don't know.
Click to expand...
Yes they are still selling DSLRs.

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/cameras/dslr-cameras
Click to expand...
The question was not if they are selling them but if they are producing them.

The Canon EOS-1V was produced till about 2010 but was availiable for sale till 2018.
Click to expand...
There are still over 80,000 DSLR being produced every month. As Canon controls most of the DSLR market I assume most of those units are of existing Canon models with a few Nikons and an occasional Pentax.

Loading…

www.cipa.jp
 
All Bushs Fault said:
FrancoD said:
All Bushs Fault said:
Chris R-UK said:
All Bushs Fault said:
Is Canon still actually producing DSLRs?
Click to expand...
Good question. I don't know.
Click to expand...
Yes they are still selling DSLRs.

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/cameras/dslr-cameras
Click to expand...
The question was not if they are selling them but if they are producing them.

The Canon EOS-1V was produced till about 2010 but was availiable for sale till 2018.
Click to expand...
Do you know the answer?
Click to expand...
No but that was not my point.

I was commenting on the fact that simply because they are still selling them it does not mean they are still making them. At some point they will stop making them but will still have inventory to sell.
 
GeoffRG said:
Holger Bargen said:
anotherMike said:
What the hell is "Honest Photography"

When I started several decades ago, I used a Zeiss Super Ikonta of some sort, with a lousy fresnel screen and a mirror that didn't return. I managed to take great photographs.

When I went to RIT and had to learn the view camera, looking at an upside down/backwards image on a dim ground glass under a cloth. I managed to take great photographs.

When AF cameras were introduced, with screens that weren't as nice looking at the film era SLR screens, I managed to take great photographs.

When I started using twin lens (Mamiya C330 and and old Rolleiflex) medium format cameras, to enjoy their zero lag time which was nice for my dance photography, but had to look unnaturally down at a viewfinder with a reversed image, I managed to take great photographs.

These days, I shoot both DSLR and Mirrorless. While initially I thought I would really miss the optical viewfinder for everything I do, it turns out I simply adapted to mirrorless and I honestly could care less which type of viewfinder I use. And I manage to take great photographs with either system.

But I guess I'm not involved in "honest photography". Give me a break. Same commentary to those morons who think "film is the only true photography" and that nonsense. And about Pentax. They were great - 50 years ago, I remember the MX (and the spotmatic before) and those lenses quite well. They're a shadow of their former selves these days, and I honestly don't even know if they have an active lens designer on staff - their last truly great lens designer, Jun Hirakawa, moved on years ago to Tamron and I think is retired today. And no, their lenses were not, and are not, uniformly superior to all other brands either. Nobodies lenses are universally and uniformly superior to everyone else.
Click to expand...
It was a citation from a photographer who has Pentax and Sony as gear.

Take both cameras in your hand and fell what you get: which of them feels more solid, more honest. You have the term "the real McCoy". This addresses originally a technical product from the original inventor and maker of it, which includes the expectation of superior quality. I see the comparison a little similar.

With the Pentax in your hands, you know you have a reliable working horse that feels solid and well-designed. The Sony maybe even superior in terms of technical options. However, if I should have an expedition through a rainforest or Antarctic, I know which brand to select ...
Click to expand...
Having owned the Pentax ME Super, Olympus OM1/2/4 and the Nikon FM2n I know which I would chose, none of them! The OM series have the best ergonomics but also the most known failings, The FM2n has slightly worse ergonomics but the meter switch in the film advance lever is a pain and the ME Super leaves much to be desired. My opinion, I'd take a Nikon F5 over any of them. I've handled a Pentax digital too, no thanks.
Camera choice is intensely personal, I find most cameras too small for comfort but I know the majority of members wouldn't give a second glance to any of the Nikon flagship cameras that I prefer. I used all of the cameras listed with a motordrive/autowinder for comfort. Feel free to dismiss my opinions but I just can't use most of what's available.
GeoffRG said:
Regarding lens design, there was an area with true gems - and for Pentax some of these lenses are still build - just think of the "three amigos": FA 31, FA 43, FA77.

The new developments are optimized products from computer calculations. They all deliver almost sterile, error free results. However, are they created as true and honest craftsmanship, can we see them as "masterpieces"? Looking at the lenses you can buy: for which system can you still get these old masterpieces?

Just as an idea to explain the word "honest".

Looking at the cameras you used, most of them I would place in this category - with lenses available that fit with this expression, too.

Regarding the latest high tech stuff: which cameras and lenses would you put into it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You are probably still shooting the way you did back then. I'm now shooting birds-in-flight and focus stacking macros in ways that were next to impossible in film days. I'm now seeing nature in ways I never could before.
 
The only reason mirrorless are taking over is because there is little choice to the consumer! If Canon released a 5D MKV I bet they would sell a ton of them. I have little interest in replacing my DSLR's.
 
Trevor Sowers said:
The only reason mirrorless are taking over is because there is little choice to the consumer! If Canon released a 5D MKV I bet they would sell a ton of them. I have little interest in replacing my DSLR's.
Click to expand...
What do you see as the main advantage of having a mirror?
 
Bobapingu said:
GeoffRG said:
Holger Bargen said:
anotherMike said:
What the hell is "Honest Photography"

When I started several decades ago, I used a Zeiss Super Ikonta of some sort, with a lousy fresnel screen and a mirror that didn't return. I managed to take great photographs.

When I went to RIT and had to learn the view camera, looking at an upside down/backwards image on a dim ground glass under a cloth. I managed to take great photographs.

When AF cameras were introduced, with screens that weren't as nice looking at the film era SLR screens, I managed to take great photographs.

When I started using twin lens (Mamiya C330 and and old Rolleiflex) medium format cameras, to enjoy their zero lag time which was nice for my dance photography, but had to look unnaturally down at a viewfinder with a reversed image, I managed to take great photographs.

These days, I shoot both DSLR and Mirrorless. While initially I thought I would really miss the optical viewfinder for everything I do, it turns out I simply adapted to mirrorless and I honestly could care less which type of viewfinder I use. And I manage to take great photographs with either system.

But I guess I'm not involved in "honest photography". Give me a break. Same commentary to those morons who think "film is the only true photography" and that nonsense. And about Pentax. They were great - 50 years ago, I remember the MX (and the spotmatic before) and those lenses quite well. They're a shadow of their former selves these days, and I honestly don't even know if they have an active lens designer on staff - their last truly great lens designer, Jun Hirakawa, moved on years ago to Tamron and I think is retired today. And no, their lenses were not, and are not, uniformly superior to all other brands either. Nobodies lenses are universally and uniformly superior to everyone else.
Click to expand...
It was a citation from a photographer who has Pentax and Sony as gear.

Take both cameras in your hand and fell what you get: which of them feels more solid, more honest. You have the term "the real McCoy". This addresses originally a technical product from the original inventor and maker of it, which includes the expectation of superior quality. I see the comparison a little similar.

With the Pentax in your hands, you know you have a reliable working horse that feels solid and well-designed. The Sony maybe even superior in terms of technical options. However, if I should have an expedition through a rainforest or Antarctic, I know which brand to select ...
Click to expand...
Having owned the Pentax ME Super, Olympus OM1/2/4 and the Nikon FM2n I know which I would chose, none of them! The OM series have the best ergonomics but also the most known failings, The FM2n has slightly worse ergonomics but the meter switch in the film advance lever is a pain and the ME Super leaves much to be desired. My opinion, I'd take a Nikon F5 over any of them. I've handled a Pentax digital too, no thanks.
Camera choice is intensely personal, I find most cameras too small for comfort but I know the majority of members wouldn't give a second glance to any of the Nikon flagship cameras that I prefer. I used all of the cameras listed with a motordrive/autowinder for comfort. Feel free to dismiss my opinions but I just can't use most of what's available.
Bobapingu said:
Regarding lens design, there was an area with true gems - and for Pentax some of these lenses are still build - just think of the "three amigos": FA 31, FA 43, FA77.

The new developments are optimized products from computer calculations. They all deliver almost sterile, error free results. However, are they created as true and honest craftsmanship, can we see them as "masterpieces"? Looking at the lenses you can buy: for which system can you still get these old masterpieces?

Just as an idea to explain the word "honest".

Looking at the cameras you used, most of them I would place in this category - with lenses available that fit with this expression, too.

Regarding the latest high tech stuff: which cameras and lenses would you put into it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You are probably still shooting the way you did back then. I'm now shooting birds-in-flight and focus stacking macros in ways that were next to impossible in film days. I'm now seeing nature in ways I never could before.
Click to expand...
In case you were unaware, the F5 has a very different user interface from the ther film cameras I mentioned, it is actually closer to the D5 than it is to the F3 and F4. One cannot shoot an F5 in the same way as an FM2n. I'm sorry but whilst I like looking at Macro images I have little interest in taking them.
 
Bobapingu said:
Trevor Sowers said:
The only reason mirrorless are taking over is because there is little choice to the consumer! If Canon released a 5D MKV I bet they would sell a ton of them. I have little interest in replacing my DSLR's.
Click to expand...
What do you see as the main advantage of having a mirror?
Click to expand...
With stills photography a direct view of the subject was the norm for over 100 years. When the first digital cameras with electronic viewfinders came along that changed. However, there are times when a direct view is preferable. The most obvious advantage of reflex viewing is that there is no battery drain when looking through the viewfinder, through not at, at ones subject. That might not matter in a lot of instances but when it matters, it matters.

The mistake. that is being made currently is to assume that the mirrorless camera is a better tool in all circumstances. It isn't. As with all tools, sometimes it is quicker and easier to use the old tool than to set up the new one. Many people are happy to spend longer to set-up a power tool than to use a hand tool, which is fine, but some of us know that we can do the job with a hand tool and derive greater satisfaction from doing so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DaisyL
Mirrorless vs DSLR in 2025: Is There Still a Debate for Professional Use?
Replies
3
Views
8
RubenJ
R
Marty4650
Some interesting statistics from CIPA
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
70
ahaslett
ahaslett
M
Beginner’s Guide to Getting Started with Photography – What Camera Should I Buy?
Replies
2
Views
3
MJ_Photo38
MJ_Photo38
J
Tethering as a feature in lower end cameras
Replies
6
Views
7
Gato Amarillo
G
C
F-bodies to Z - a real step forward or not?
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
150
commiebiker
commiebiker

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