The rejection of anything novel

[J A C S]

I think you generalize too much. “People”? Some people had doubts, some exaggerated the benefits of having the new half-baked toys, and liked them just because they were new, some were resistant to change, and most were all of the above to some extent.

As already mentioned, the first digital cameras were not so great. Shooting film then made sense. I personally had both. The first CDs sounded artificial. And yet, I bought one of those early CD players. CDs improved and high resolution audio came along. There was skepticism expressed by “people.” We all know how it went. Not the way you implied. High resolution audio is dead. Stereo TVs were the new thing for a while. We all know how it went.

Back to photography. I shoot with a mirrorless camera. I do not like it but I was more or less forced to go there because the major manufacturers abandoned dSLRs.

 

[D Cox]

For the most part of humanity's existence things have tended to overall change very slowly. Ways of farming, bludgeoning the other tribe's people, healing the sick and creating tools tended to be almost similar across generations whose lives overlapped each other. It's only been the last few hundred years where the rate of changes has become so quick that people see frequent changes in many things during their lifetimes.

I think that's made humanity somewhat biased on the side of "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" by default. And of course not all novel ideas actually succeed, we just tend to remember the ones that did and the failures (excluding really spectacular ones) fade into obscurity, i.e. survivor bias.

In context of photography, few examples of novel things that didn't conquer the world that come quickly to my mind:

- SLT cameras didn't displace the regular DSLRs.

- Foevon didn't strictly speaking fail, but ended up being somewhat as a niche technology, i.e. didn't really take over.

I had an slt camera (Sony A77) and it worked for me but the advantages weren't big enough to negate the disadvantages. It worked for me because I was sick and tired of getting my reading glasses on and off to look at the picture I had just taken.

I don't think I have ever seen a camera with a Foveon sensor inside.

They don't look any different. The photos have more detail than you would expect from the number of megapixels. For instance, a 25 Mpix Foveon gives an image comparable to that from a 50 Mpix Bayer.

Don

 

[Dennis]

But even then, people would be negative. Digital cameras would never replace film.
Sony will never be a decent brand. We all know how that went.
Mirrorles would never replace d-slrs because they were not good and would stay bad.

Then again, you've got all the people who argued that:

- Pentax' 1/2.3" ILC system would never take off.
- Lytro would never take off.
- Digital backs for film cameras would never take off.
- Nikon 1 would never take off.
- Ricoh's interchangeable sensor camera system would never take off.
- No, micro 4/3 is not going to dominate the world of ILCs
- Sony's NEX menu system (based on Erickson phone menus IIRC?) are not what photographers want

And probably countless other duds. Not all change is good or destined to succeed. Meanwhile, I have no idea how many people are all that resistant to the changes you mentioned. I migrated from Konica Minolta A mount to Sony, so I was in early and remember all the brand bashing. Which is fine - that's the usual tribalism that still exists today despite the amazing capabilities of pretty much everything on the market today. Resistance to digital doesn't seem like it was all that prevalent. Resistance to mirrorless might be a reaction to a threat (don't take my DSLR away!) ... I don't know. I'm not sure how many people envisioned the Z8 when they first saw an EM1 I think a lot of people took a wait & see approach and migrated (or will migrate) when the time was/is right.

 

[D Cox]

Maybe some FOMO?

Someone is still shooting their DSLR and listening to all these people raving about how good mirrorless is ... wonders if he's missing out on more accurate AF or live view or a smaller camera, but doesn't want to spend the time and money switching ... easier to badmouth the new thing in an attempt to convince himself he's better off not switching, than to just admit that yeah, maybe he is missing out on something.

I am still using DSLRs and I may be missing out on some things that mirrorless offers, a smaller camera most certainly isn’t one of them. Much of the time I would probably not be troubled by an EVF but there are times when I want to be able to, effectively, use the camera and lens as a telescope with the ability to capture a photograph. The EVF is totally unsuited to this type of photography, which is an excellent reassuring for remaining with optical finders.

Soon after the Nikon D5 was introduced I decided that it would be very suitable for my use. I have now transitioned from the D4 to the D5, three of them, and I am very satisfied with them and the recent versions of the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8. The change was made possible by the number of users switching to the Z9 and releasing low cycle D5s.

To my mind mirrorless cameras have a way to go before I start investigating them. The viewfinder issue mentioned above, whilst not entirely fixable, need some work and some lateral thinking. The trend to smaller bodies is unwelcome too, my hands aren’t getting any smaller. Other than that I am generally happy to adopt new technologies, when they offer something I want or need. There’s one caveat, it has to be affordable, if not I’ll wait until the price comes down.

I never wanted a digital SLR, having used plenty of film SLRs. If you can see the image on the back of the camera, and maybe even have a tilting screen, why have all the noise, vibration and complication of an SLR viewfinder in a digital camera ?

Keep it simple.

Don

 

[GeoffRG]

Maybe some FOMO?

Someone is still shooting their DSLR and listening to all these people raving about how good mirrorless is ... wonders if he's missing out on more accurate AF or live view or a smaller camera, but doesn't want to spend the time and money switching ... easier to badmouth the new thing in an attempt to convince himself he's better off not switching, than to just admit that yeah, maybe he is missing out on something.

I am still using DSLRs and I may be missing out on some things that mirrorless offers, a smaller camera most certainly isn’t one of them. Much of the time I would probably not be troubled by an EVF but there are times when I want to be able to, effectively, use the camera and lens as a telescope with the ability to capture a photograph. The EVF is totally unsuited to this type of photography, which is an excellent reassuring for remaining with optical finders.

Soon after the Nikon D5 was introduced I decided that it would be very suitable for my use. I have now transitioned from the D4 to the D5, three of them, and I am very satisfied with them and the recent versions of the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8. The change was made possible by the number of users switching to the Z9 and releasing low cycle D5s.

To my mind mirrorless cameras have a way to go before I start investigating them. The viewfinder issue mentioned above, whilst not entirely fixable, need some work and some lateral thinking. The trend to smaller bodies is unwelcome too, my hands aren’t getting any smaller. Other than that I am generally happy to adopt new technologies, when they offer something I want or need. There’s one caveat, it has to be affordable, if not I’ll wait until the price comes down.

I never wanted a digital SLR, having used plenty of film SLRs. If you can see the image on the back of the camera, and maybe even have a tilting screen, why have all the noise, vibration and complication of an SLR viewfinder in a digital camera ?

Keep it simple.

Don

Do feel free to ignore what I said about using the camera as a telescope. That is the reason I like SLRs you don’t need a battery to see image. You might not want to work that way but I do.

 

[gary0319]

Back to photography. I shoot with a mirrorless camera. I do not like it but I was more or less forced to go there because the major manufacturers abandoned dSLRs.

A fair assessment....

The camera industry needed a "killer app" to get photographers off their wallets, forsake all that old pre-mirrorless tech gathering dust in the closet and finally spend some money. Mirrorless was the answer. I'll submit that, were it not for the mirrorless revolution, the number of camera companies that would have made it through the pandemic era would have been very few.....maybe only Sony and Canon.

 

[PHAER]

I think you generalize too much. “People”? Some people had doubts, some exaggerated the benefits of having the new half-baked toys, and liked them just because they were new, some were resistant to change, and most were all of the above to some extent.

As already mentioned, the first digital cameras were not so great. Shooting film then made sense. I personally had both. The first CDs sounded artificial. And yet, I bought one of those early CD players. CDs improved and high resolution audio came along. There was skepticism expressed by “people.” We all know how it went. Not the way you implied. High resolution audio is dead. Stereo TVs were the new thing for a while. We all know how it went.

Back to photography. I shoot with a mirrorless camera. I do not like it but I was more or less forced to go there because the major manufacturers abandoned dSLRs.

Good point! And that last part goes on the direction of what I commented: Not everything new is good/best for everyone, even if it is for many.

By the way: There is a quite perfect counterpoint to the core of this thread: the op commented a lot of people go against the new. But at the same time, I notice a lot of people think everything new is always and necessarily better!

 

[PHAER]

I became a member in 2007 when D-slrs were the norm and Canon and Nikon the big ones.

I started out with film of course since I'm 62 and when I started to take up photography as a really hobby, I was 26 (in 1986) and anything digital didn't really exist.

My first digital camera was a Konica Minolta Dimage 7i and I loved it. I could take pictures and could see the image and decided to keep it or not. Memory cards were still incredible expensive back then so you still had to baby the storage space.

But even then, people would be negative. Digital cameras would never replace film. Digital cameras were fake and film was real. Real photographers would never ever use a digital camera. Well, we all know how that went.

I sometimes wonder about these discussions in the past. I bought the first Sony that came out the Sony a100 and Sony was a brand that many people found vastly hilarious. Sony will never be a decent brand. We all know how that went.

Then the rise of the mirrorless. Mirrorles would never replace d-slrs because they were not good and would stay bad. Real photographers would never use a mirrorless camera.

I loved mirrorless because I could review the picture in the EVF so that I didn't need to put on my reading glasses but mirrorless was hated by many in the past.

I think we all know how that went.

Even the stupid discussion about flip-out screen in which some people would say that professional cameras could only have a fixed screen.

And now the same discussion about mobile phones.

I just wonder why lots of people are so against change. I don't get it.

Thinking a bit more about it... what if the exact opposite of your impression also occurs? I have noticed a lot of people think anything new is always and necessarily better for everyone. And then, anyone who disagrees with it is, welp... negationist? haha

 

[tony field]

As a DSLR and Leica M user, the only novel attribute I would find ueful would be "mirrorless" which is usually silent without shutter noise. This would very useful when shooting theatrical, musical, ballet, etc in rehearsal or live performances. Other attributes that may be unique to mirrorless are immaterial for my photography.

 

[Mako2011]

Maybe some FOMO?

Someone is still shooting their DSLR and listening to all these people raving about how good mirrorless is ... wonders if he's missing out on more accurate AF or live view or a smaller camera, but doesn't want to spend the time and money switching ... easier to badmouth the new thing in an attempt to convince himself he's better off not switching, than to just admit that yeah, maybe he is missing out on something.

I am still using DSLRs and I may be missing out on some things that mirrorless offers, a smaller camera most certainly isn’t one of them. Much of the time I would probably not be troubled by an EVF but there are times when I want to be able to, effectively, use the camera and lens as a telescope with the ability to capture a photograph. The EVF is totally unsuited to this type of photography, which is an excellent reassuring for remaining with optical finders.

I don't really understand this part. You can do the same with an EVF camera unless you mean when the DSLR is turned off....but even in this case the viewfinder on many DLSR models will dim when power is off so often not usable either.

 

[Mika Y.]

Maybe some FOMO?

Someone is still shooting their DSLR and listening to all these people raving about how good mirrorless is ... wonders if he's missing out on more accurate AF or live view or a smaller camera, but doesn't want to spend the time and money switching ... easier to badmouth the new thing in an attempt to convince himself he's better off not switching, than to just admit that yeah, maybe he is missing out on something.

I am still using DSLRs and I may be missing out on some things that mirrorless offers, a smaller camera most certainly isn’t one of them. Much of the time I would probably not be troubled by an EVF but there are times when I want to be able to, effectively, use the camera and lens as a telescope with the ability to capture a photograph. The EVF is totally unsuited to this type of photography, which is an excellent reassuring for remaining with optical finders.

I don't really understand this part. You can do the same with an EVF camera unless you mean when the DSLR is turned off....but even in this case the viewfinder on many DLSR models will dim when power is off so often not usable either.

This is slightly confusing to me. I've only used Canon DSLRs so maybe things are different on other DSLR systems, but switching the camera off always only affected the overlay elements, not what was reflected via the mirror.

At one point when I was working on customer premises and I used a bus to commute, I actually did use occasionally my back-then 5D mk III and a tele to check if a bus approaching from distance was my line without turning the power on. My bus stop was on a fairly long straight stretch of a road, so it was possible to see the bus about half a km away.

 

[thinkinginimages]

I became a member in 2007 when D-slrs were the norm and Canon and Nikon the big ones.

I started out with film of course since I'm 62 and when I started to take up photography as a really hobby, I was 26 (in 1986) and anything digital didn't really exist.

My first digital camera was a Konica Minolta Dimage 7i and I loved it. I could take pictures and could see the image and decided to keep it or not. Memory cards were still incredible expensive back then so you still had to baby the storage space.

But even then, people would be negative. Digital cameras would never replace film. Digital cameras were fake and film was real. Real photographers would never ever use a digital camera. Well, we all know how that went.

I sometimes wonder about these discussions in the past. I bought the first Sony that came out the Sony a100 and Sony was a brand that many people found vastly hilarious. Sony will never be a decent brand. We all know how that went.

Then the rise of the mirrorless. Mirrorles would never replace d-slrs because they were not good and would stay bad. Real photographers would never use a mirrorless camera.

I loved mirrorless because I could review the picture in the EVF so that I didn't need to put on my reading glasses but mirrorless was hated by many in the past.

I think we all know how that went.

Even the stupid discussion about flip-out screen in which some people would say that professional cameras could only have a fixed screen.

And now the same discussion about mobile phones.

I just wonder why lots of people are so against change. I don't get it.

We have perspective to "what was". We witnessed the evolution of photography first hand.

Digital had to happen. Wet processes were too toxic and silver was getting a bit "too precious". Once drum scanning of film and Photoshop hit, it was "game on". The timing was good, too. Relatively affordable computers for editing were coming out, too.

Yes, I have a strong sense of nostalgia for view cameras and Leica rangefinders. I never really warmed up to SLR's. Digital SLR's always seemed like a compromise and missed opportunity. Why mimic the 35mm form factor? There's no film. Mirrorless, Panasonic and Micro Four Thirds hit the right balance for me.

 

[gary0319]

As a DSLR and Leica M user, the only novel attribute I would find ueful would be "mirrorless" which is usually silent without shutter noise. This would very useful when shooting theatrical, musical, ballet, etc in rehearsal or live performances. Other attributes that may be unique to mirrorless are immaterial for my photography.

That in itself would seem to be enough to at least procure a single mirrorless body. Even if just as a courtesy to the performers.

 

[J A C S]

I don't really understand this part. You can do the same with an EVF camera unless you mean when the DSLR is turned off....but even in this case the viewfinder on many DLSR models will dim when power is off so often not usable either.

This is slightly confusing to me. I've only used Canon DSLRs so maybe things are different on other DSLR systems, but switching the camera off always only affected the overlay elements, not what was reflected via the mirror.

If I remember correctly, removing the battery would dim the OVF on my Canons but not turning it off.

 

[Carey Brown]

I feel the same about people who sneer at new developments. I was delighted when digital photography became the norm, doing away with the huge amount of rubbish and pollution generated by film photography, but you can’t please everyone. In 1971, the money in the UK was “decimalised” and we went from having 240 pence, 20 shillings, ten florins and eight half-crowns in a pound to simply 100 new pence*. I was 15 at the time but even I could see that the new system was clean and simple. Not everyone agreed, of course. For years afterwards, you could hear mutterings of, “They should have waited until all the old people were dead before doing this.”

*Not just those old currency units, but even older ones which were still referred to or even used in some places. There were four crowns in a pound, four farthings in a penny and 21 shillings was a guinea (guineas remained in use for some time by stores and businesses which considered themselves upmarket).

My iPhone might not produce results comparable with those from a full-frame camera but it still seems like magic to me. In addition, it allows me to talk to people anywhere, consult the internet, read my mail, watch TV and have in my pocket hundreds of music albums. What’s not to like?

When NASA, science, and math were in their heyday I looked forward to going metric in the USA. Sadly, missed that boat and not sure it will ever return.

--
Photos at http://inasphere.com

 

[Mika Y.]

I don't really understand this part. You can do the same with an EVF camera unless you mean when the DSLR is turned off....but even in this case the viewfinder on many DLSR models will dim when power is off so often not usable either.

This is slightly confusing to me. I've only used Canon DSLRs so maybe things are different on other DSLR systems, but switching the camera off always only affected the overlay elements, not what was reflected via the mirror.

If I remember correctly, removing the battery would dim the OVF on my Canons but not turning it off.

Huh. That's interesting, I just tried what happens when I remove the battery on my 5D mk IV when it's already powered off and the OVF does indeed get both dimmer and somewhat fuzzy. I hadn't ever before looked through the OVF when there's no battery inserted.

Edit: Found a description why this happens. Interesting and nice to learn something new about a camera that I thought I knew pretty well.

 

[PieterB]

As a DSLR and Leica M user, the only novel attribute I would find ueful would be "mirrorless" which is usually silent without shutter noise. This would very useful when shooting theatrical, musical, ballet, etc in rehearsal or live performances. Other attributes that may be unique to mirrorless are immaterial for my photography.

That in itself would seem to be enough to at least procure a single mirrorless body. Even if just as a courtesy to the performers.

What do you mostly shoot?

 

[GeoffRG]

Maybe some FOMO?

Someone is still shooting their DSLR and listening to all these people raving about how good mirrorless is ... wonders if he's missing out on more accurate AF or live view or a smaller camera, but doesn't want to spend the time and money switching ... easier to badmouth the new thing in an attempt to convince himself he's better off not switching, than to just admit that yeah, maybe he is missing out on something.

I am still using DSLRs and I may be missing out on some things that mirrorless offers, a smaller camera most certainly isn’t one of them. Much of the time I would probably not be troubled by an EVF but there are times when I want to be able to, effectively, use the camera and lens as a telescope with the ability to capture a photograph. The EVF is totally unsuited to this type of photography, which is an excellent reassuring for remaining with optical finders.

I don't really understand this part. You can do the same with an EVF camera unless you mean when the DSLR is turned off....but even in this case the viewfinder on many DLSR models will dim when power is off so often not usable either.

If you have an EVF on you are powering the entire system, with an SLR in “sleep” mode very little is powered and it can stay that way for days with little battery drain. Simply pressing the shutter button wakes the camera. Try looking through an EVF for any length of time.

 

[sybersitizen]

Much of the time I would probably not be troubled by an EVF but there are times when I want to be able to, effectively, use the camera and lens as a telescope with the ability to capture a photograph. The EVF is totally unsuited to this type of photography, which is an excellent reassuring for remaining with optical finders.

I don't really understand this part. You can do the same with an EVF camera unless you mean when the DSLR is turned off....but even in this case the viewfinder on many DLSR models will dim when power is off so often not usable either.

If you have an EVF on you are powering the entire system, with an SLR in “sleep” mode very little is powered and it can stay that way for days with little battery drain. Simply pressing the shutter button wakes the camera.

That's also what happens with my EVF cameras. The EVF and rear display shut down in sleep mode. They might use somewhat more power during sleep than DSLRs, but I see no reason to think there's a significant difference. So, if by totally unsuited you mean the battery will be exhausted faster, that issue goes away if you carry maybe one additional battery.

Try looking through an EVF for any length of time.

What length of time are you talking about actually looking through an EVF or OVF?

BTW, EVFs (and live view rear screens) typically offer the option to significantly enlarge portions of the image for viewing, which can make them better for some telescopic purposes than a purely optical system in an SLR.

 

[GeoffRG]

Much of the time I would probably not be troubled by an EVF but there are times when I want to be able to, effectively, use the camera and lens as a telescope with the ability to capture a photograph. The EVF is totally unsuited to this type of photography, which is an excellent reassuring for remaining with optical finders.

I don't really understand this part. You can do the same with an EVF camera unless you mean when the DSLR is turned off....but even in this case the viewfinder on many DLSR models will dim when power is off so often not usable either.

If you have an EVF on you are powering the entire system, with an SLR in “sleep” mode very little is powered and it can stay that way for days with little battery drain. Simply pressing the shutter button wakes the camera.

That's also what happens with my EVF cameras. The EVF and rear display shut down in sleep mode. They might use somewhat more power during sleep than DSLRs, but I see no reason to think there's a significant difference. So, if by totally unsuited you mean the battery will be exhausted faster, that issue goes away if you carry maybe one additional battery.

Read my post again, please, not that I put it very well. You cannot use an EVF to view anything without waking the camera. You can use the finder of an SLR with the camera in sleep mode. Which is precisely what I want to do.

Try looking through an EVF for any length of time.

What length of time are you talking about actually looking through an EVF or OVF?

BTW, EVFs (and live view rear screens) typically offer the option to significantly enlarge portions of the image for viewing, which can make them better for some telescopic purposes than a purely optical system in an SLR.

I’m not an early adopter of technologies, now that I have to use my own money, I have seen too many that have been launched prematurely and failed. I’ve also seen them come back working properly. Experience says, wait patiently and you can have it later when it works, and for less money.

I don’t want to carry a spare battery, thank you, and I haven’t needed to do so since parting with my D1X 17 years ago. I can keep the battery in a D5, using it regularly, for weeks without needing to charge it. DSLRs meet my requirements, mirrorless cameras don’t end of discussion.