The DSLR doesn't die, because it actually works!

[trungtran]

Perhaps you meant to say less laggy than they used to be.

All EVFs are inherently laggy. First the sensor has to accumulate a certain amount of light. That takes time. Then the sensor has to be read and its data passed to the image processor. That takes time. Then the image processor has to create a JPEG image from the data passed from the sensor. That takes time. Then the JPEG image has to be passed, row by row to the EVF. That takes time.

The question is whether the amount of time it takes to capture and display an image on the EVF is long enough to affect the photographer negatively. That is going to depend in the photographer and what she is trying to do. We may well have reached the point where the fastest EVFs are fast enough for most photographers most of the time.

It's impossible to have a 100% non-laggy EVF like having a 100% responsive OVF; Both take milliseconds to accumulate light or to move the mirror when triggered.

The lag that matters for the photographer to track a subject is the lag between the light passing the flange and the light hitting the eye. With a 120Hz EVF that lag will be a minimum of 8.33 milliseconds. With an OVF that lag is on the order of 1/5,000,000th of a millisecond.

Mirroreless have taken a trick out of smartphones and can take pre burst shots. This more than makes up for the lag. It can only get better as processing power improves. OVF will never be able to do that. If you are a pro sports shooter, this greatly improves the chances of getting the money shot.

 

[Bob Janes]

We keep reading thinly disguised baiting- which I define as trolly-

Be aware there are a number of aspects of this OP which come across as thinly disguised baiting: some of what follows seems unnecessary unless you are trying to bait people in the other camp.

threads announcing the imminent death of the DSLR.

I am somebody who actually shoots with cameras and I have shot with many systems, with optical and electronic viewfinder. I got to borrow various stuff and got rep offers.

In case the reader doesn't have the practical experience

This is just plain patronising.

, I can tell them that shooting with DSLRs has some overriding practical advantages which don't turn up on specification sheets which a lot sing from:

- Shooting action with DSLRs is a remarkably fuss free experience a lot of the time, I see what is happening directly. There is an overlay of etched focus point boxes on. I get used to the 1/4 second reaction time I have from thinking to press the shutter button and a photo being taken. No lag in the viewfinder, no disorienting freezing of the image in the viewfinder, no slideshow, no tearing, no slowdown of response in lower light (- and none of these show on mirrorless specification sheets, do they?)

Reviews tend to bring up such details if they are significant, but they are not experienced by all mirrorless users. There is no conspiracy here...

The downside might be that with more parts to move I can't get as many fps as with mirrorless, but in practice being able to pick a moment, and stay in the moment, with DSLR makes it easier to shoot action with, especially in lower light levels. I have shot with many of the top flagship DSLRs but the same advantage goes for the mid tier ones, you just get less fps and less focus points most of the time, and slightly longer mirror blackout.

Nevertheless, I don't remember being as impeded by the blackout of a 4fps DSLR as I was by the viewfinder behaviour of a 10fps mirrorless.

- Seeing the world as it is, at a similar brightness as it is, through the optical viewfinder, is a kind of therapeutic antidote to the screen overload of today. When I am forced to work with computers and phones so much, it's nicer to keep with reality when I have to do long hours behind the lens, rather than see it on yet another screen.

Only with an SLR, you are not seeing the world as it is, you are looking at another screen (this harps back to the old Rangefinder/direct viewfinders Vs SLR viewfinder arguments of the early 70s - an example that shows that this sort of pointless factionalism predates internet forums). In reality you get 3d and you don't get out-of-focus areas...

Mirrorless has its own advantages, but I won't go on at them because that's not the point.

You should not expect DSLRs to disappear when they not just work, but work with less hassle in some scenarios. Even if you are convinced mirrorless works better than ever and don't have the experience to recognise what I write about the DSLR in use,

...thus dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as inexperienced...

the fact is that the DSLR just works. You don't expect one technology to replace another when the former had native advantages whereas the new one presents difficulties. A problematic thing only tends to replace an older one only when the older one has been legislated against. DSLRs are not the CFCs and DDT of the photographic world. As experienced shooters who know their value are still around to buy them, DSLRs will still be sold.

Great. Nothing wrong with SLRs or DSLRs, they are just another type of camera. A camera is a tool and people have individual preferences.

The main reason one technology replaces another is that it is cheaper to produce, and cost of production depends a lot on volume of production.

Great if you like an optical viewfinder - the best way to make sure such viewfinders stay around is to keep on buying them. LP records are still on sale because there were/are significant numbers of people who prefer the analogue experience. Film is still produced because some people like the process. Personally I still have LPs, CDs and MP3s, along with Film SLRs/rangefinders/TLRs and DSLRs and EVF cameras.

There is no right or wrong, there is difference. Difference is good and there is nothing wrong with being in the minority. There is only wrong in baiting and belittling people who take a different stance.

I hope you can be comfortable with that!

--
Save a life, become a stem-cell donor.
Hello to Jason Isaacs!
https://bobjanes.smugmug.com/PoTB/

 

[Tommi K1]

For my photography (mostly wide field astro and weather) the DSLR still has significant advantages. One of them is battery life. I typically shoot 1000+ photos on each shoot and it is just easier to not think about when the battery will be empty and needed to be replaced.

DSLR battery lifetime is frame based, mirrorless is time based.

With DSLR you get X frames per battery, but you can keep camera powered for hours/days with little penalty to battery if you are not taking photos.

With mirrorless you get X hours per battery, you can keep camera powered those hours with little to no penalty of you are taking photos.

With mirrorless you look your watch, you sum the event time to how many batteries you need for constant power time.

A hockey game takes that 3x20min and middle periods, so you can shoot whole event work a single mirrorless battery as typically they offer 3-4 hours power time. And you can get thousands of frames with a single battery, basically your memory card is the limit for 3-4 hour period with one battery. A wedding of typical 4-7 hours you do with two batteries or two bodies. And again possible get thousands of frames.

That is nice thing with mirrorless that you know before that when battery will go empty as you have (depending model) the 3-4 hours without sleep mode.

 

[Tommi K1]

The question is whether the amount of time it takes to capture and display an image on the EVF is long enough to affect the photographer negatively. That is going to depend in the photographer and what she is trying to do. We may well have reached the point where the fastest EVFs are fast enough for most photographers most of the time.

You really should try ones with 5-6ms lag time. You can't see the difference, not even with 16-32ms ones.

And you can't have a reaction time that is so fast that an EVF lag causes problem for you to capture the moment.

Last 7-8 years good EVF's have been lag free for even fastest action as 16ms additional delay to your average 250-350ms is nothing.

 

[sportyaccordy]

For my photography (mostly wide field astro and weather) the DSLR still has significant advantages. One of them is battery life. I typically shoot 1000+ photos on each shoot and it is just easier to not think about when the battery will be empty and needed to be replaced.

DSLR battery lifetime is frame based, mirrorless is time based.

With DSLR you get X frames per battery, but you can keep camera powered for hours/days with little penalty to battery if you are not taking photos.

With mirrorless you get X hours per battery, you can keep camera powered those hours with little to no penalty of you are taking photos.

With mirrorless you look your watch, you sum the event time to how many batteries you need for constant power time.

A hockey game takes that 3x20min and middle periods, so you can shoot whole event work a single mirrorless battery as typically they offer 3-4 hours power time. And you can get thousands of frames with a single battery, basically your memory card is the limit for 3-4 hour period with one battery. A wedding of typical 4-7 hours you do with two batteries or two bodies. And again possible get thousands of frames.

That is nice thing with mirrorless that you know before that when battery will go empty as you have (depending model) the 3-4 hours without sleep mode.

This is not a good argument for mirrorless. With DSLRs you literally don't have to think about battery life if you are shooting through the viewfinder, unless you are taking thousands of shots in a day, which an MILC can't do on a single charge anyway.

You can like MILCs without having to pretend like they are perfect and have no disadvantages. Battery life continues to be a negative in the MILC column, even with the strides that have been made.

 

[Tommi K1]

got my popcorn ready for this one, i am expecting 60fps to be mentioned more than once

60fps could be useful. But it end-loads a lot on the user in culling rather than picking the moment. Are we to shoot in pairs now, a shooter and a culler?

Mirrorless = shoot and cull

DSLR = spray and pray

Pick your poison

Apparently that's what the 'protect image' thing does. You use that to mark the images you want to keep, then run delete all.

I used to be like "why would I ever use this protect image button" until I saw people using it.

That has amazed me in last 20 years that why doesn't people use it, but people don't either read manuals or they don't comprehend all what they read in manuals.

It was such amazing feature when I read D2x manual first time before taking it in use, after using only film. Like a mind blowing feature that you can shoot 8 fps (crop mode) and then just lock wanted images and run "Delete All" to clear all unwanted.

And that is part of workflow these days. You can use fastest sequence speed and then just lock the frames you want and after card is full or before import, run "delete all".

This was easy on Canon because Canon had so amazingly fast playback speed and large rear dial to quickly go through all frames and lock them.

Another thing that many doesn't use is the voice dictation feature, with Canon behind a direct button, so you press button and talk the information of photo like who is person in photo or their address etc. And then you can later name people in photos or send copy to them.

 

[stevo23]

We keep reading thinly disguised baiting- which I define as trolly-

Be aware there are a number of aspects of this OP which come across as thinly disguised baiting

I would argue neither thinly nor disguised.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

For my photography (mostly wide field astro and weather) the DSLR still has significant advantages. One of them is battery life. I typically shoot 1000+ photos on each shoot and it is just easier to not think about when the battery will be empty and needed to be replaced.

DSLR battery lifetime is frame based, mirrorless is time based.

With DSLR you get X frames per battery, but you can keep camera powered for hours/days with little penalty to battery if you are not taking photos.

With mirrorless you get X hours per battery, you can keep camera powered those hours with little to no penalty of you are taking photos.

With mirrorless you look your watch, you sum the event time to how many batteries you need for constant power time.

A hockey game takes that 3x20min and middle periods, so you can shoot whole event work a single mirrorless battery as typically they offer 3-4 hours power time. And you can get thousands of frames with a single battery, basically your memory card is the limit for 3-4 hour period with one battery. A wedding of typical 4-7 hours you do with two batteries or two bodies. And again possible get thousands of frames.

That is nice thing with mirrorless that you know before that when battery will go empty as you have (depending model) the 3-4 hours without sleep mode.

the nice thing about a Dslr is that i can stand in a field for 2.5 days taking pictures of airplanes and not have to charge the battery once

 

[stevo23]

For my photography (mostly wide field astro and weather) the DSLR still has significant advantages. One of them is battery life. I typically shoot 1000+ photos on each shoot and it is just easier to not think about when the battery will be empty and needed to be replaced.

DSLR battery lifetime is frame based, mirrorless is time based.

With DSLR you get X frames per battery, but you can keep camera powered for hours/days with little penalty to battery if you are not taking photos.

With mirrorless you get X hours per battery, you can keep camera powered those hours with little to no penalty of you are taking photos.

With mirrorless you look your watch, you sum the event time to how many batteries you need for constant power time.

A hockey game takes that 3x20min and middle periods, so you can shoot whole event work a single mirrorless battery as typically they offer 3-4 hours power time. And you can get thousands of frames with a single battery, basically your memory card is the limit for 3-4 hour period with one battery. A wedding of typical 4-7 hours you do with two batteries or two bodies. And again possible get thousands of frames.

That is nice thing with mirrorless that you know before that when battery will go empty as you have (depending model) the 3-4 hours without sleep mode.

the nice thing about a Dslr is that i can stand in a field for 2.5 days taking pictures of airplanes and not have to charge the battery once

That's all that's left of an advantage then, eh?

 

[Tommi K1]

For my photography (mostly wide field astro and weather) the DSLR still has significant advantages. One of them is battery life. I typically shoot 1000+ photos on each shoot and it is just easier to not think about when the battery will be empty and needed to be replaced.

DSLR battery lifetime is frame based, mirrorless is time based.

With DSLR you get X frames per battery, but you can keep camera powered for hours/days with little penalty to battery if you are not taking photos.

With mirrorless you get X hours per battery, you can keep camera powered those hours with little to no penalty of you are taking photos.

With mirrorless you look your watch, you sum the event time to how many batteries you need for constant power time.

A hockey game takes that 3x20min and middle periods, so you can shoot whole event work a single mirrorless battery as typically they offer 3-4 hours power time. And you can get thousands of frames with a single battery, basically your memory card is the limit for 3-4 hour period with one battery. A wedding of typical 4-7 hours you do with two batteries or two bodies. And again possible get thousands of frames.

That is nice thing with mirrorless that you know before that when battery will go empty as you have (depending model) the 3-4 hours without sleep mode.

This is not a good argument for mirrorless. With DSLRs you literally don't have to think about battery life if you are shooting through the viewfinder, unless you are taking thousands of shots in a day, which an MILC can't do on a single charge anyway.

DSLR you can use as spotting scope, but binoculars and actual spotting scope are far nicer anyways than DSLR.

That is DSLR benefit for hide shooting or weeks long camping etc.

You can like MILCs without having to pretend like they are perfect and have no disadvantages. Battery life continues to be a negative in the MILC column, even with the strides that have been made.

You can like DSLR pretending I said mirrorless are perfect with no disadvantages, but that is just your assumption.

Battery lifetime had already gone not problem in mirrorless than in special kind photography (like I mentioned above).

 

[Tommi K1]

For my photography (mostly wide field astro and weather) the DSLR still has significant advantages. One of them is battery life. I typically shoot 1000+ photos on each shoot and it is just easier to not think about when the battery will be empty and needed to be replaced.

DSLR battery lifetime is frame based, mirrorless is time based.

With DSLR you get X frames per battery, but you can keep camera powered for hours/days with little penalty to battery if you are not taking photos.

With mirrorless you get X hours per battery, you can keep camera powered those hours with little to no penalty of you are taking photos.

With mirrorless you look your watch, you sum the event time to how many batteries you need for constant power time.

A hockey game takes that 3x20min and middle periods, so you can shoot whole event work a single mirrorless battery as typically they offer 3-4 hours power time. And you can get thousands of frames with a single battery, basically your memory card is the limit for 3-4 hour period with one battery. A wedding of typical 4-7 hours you do with two batteries or two bodies. And again possible get thousands of frames.

That is nice thing with mirrorless that you know before that when battery will go empty as you have (depending model) the 3-4 hours without sleep mode.

the nice thing about a Dslr is that i can stand in a field for 2.5 days taking pictures of airplanes and not have to charge the battery once

I can do same with mirrorless.

But not with 30000 frames, neither can you....

 

[Tommi K1]

That's all that's left of an advantage then, eh?

It is for argument, yes.

But the real advantage is when you are hiking weeks and you can't recharge batteries for days because weather (solar panel) or because no power by other means when camping, that is when DSLR triumph, if you use camera longer than 3-4 hours and you are on the go with a single battery anyways.

But hiking 20-40km a day does mean don't stop to take photos... So you don't anyways spend batteries much at all.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

For my photography (mostly wide field astro and weather) the DSLR still has significant advantages. One of them is battery life. I typically shoot 1000+ photos on each shoot and it is just easier to not think about when the battery will be empty and needed to be replaced.

DSLR battery lifetime is frame based, mirrorless is time based.

With DSLR you get X frames per battery, but you can keep camera powered for hours/days with little penalty to battery if you are not taking photos.

With mirrorless you get X hours per battery, you can keep camera powered those hours with little to no penalty of you are taking photos.

With mirrorless you look your watch, you sum the event time to how many batteries you need for constant power time.

A hockey game takes that 3x20min and middle periods, so you can shoot whole event work a single mirrorless battery as typically they offer 3-4 hours power time. And you can get thousands of frames with a single battery, basically your memory card is the limit for 3-4 hour period with one battery. A wedding of typical 4-7 hours you do with two batteries or two bodies. And again possible get thousands of frames.

That is nice thing with mirrorless that you know before that when battery will go empty as you have (depending model) the 3-4 hours without sleep mode.

the nice thing about a Dslr is that i can stand in a field for 2.5 days taking pictures of airplanes and not have to charge the battery once

That's all that's left of an advantage then, eh?

depends if you need that kind of battery life or not, would a mirrorless camera produce better results? that's the real question.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

For my photography (mostly wide field astro and weather) the DSLR still has significant advantages. One of them is battery life. I typically shoot 1000+ photos on each shoot and it is just easier to not think about when the battery will be empty and needed to be replaced.

DSLR battery lifetime is frame based, mirrorless is time based.

With DSLR you get X frames per battery, but you can keep camera powered for hours/days with little penalty to battery if you are not taking photos.

With mirrorless you get X hours per battery, you can keep camera powered those hours with little to no penalty of you are taking photos.

With mirrorless you look your watch, you sum the event time to how many batteries you need for constant power time.

A hockey game takes that 3x20min and middle periods, so you can shoot whole event work a single mirrorless battery as typically they offer 3-4 hours power time. And you can get thousands of frames with a single battery, basically your memory card is the limit for 3-4 hour period with one battery. A wedding of typical 4-7 hours you do with two batteries or two bodies. And again possible get thousands of frames.

That is nice thing with mirrorless that you know before that when battery will go empty as you have (depending model) the 3-4 hours without sleep mode.

the nice thing about a Dslr is that i can stand in a field for 2.5 days taking pictures of airplanes and not have to charge the battery once

I can do same with mirrorless.

But not with 30000 frames, neither can you....

over a 1200 frames taken and 40% battery left when i returned home

 

[kiwi2]

the nice thing about a Dslr is that i can stand in a field for 2.5 days taking pictures of airplanes and not have to charge the battery once

www.tethertools.com/product/case-relay-power-bundle/

 

[sportyaccordy]

For my photography (mostly wide field astro and weather) the DSLR still has significant advantages. One of them is battery life. I typically shoot 1000+ photos on each shoot and it is just easier to not think about when the battery will be empty and needed to be replaced.

DSLR battery lifetime is frame based, mirrorless is time based.

With DSLR you get X frames per battery, but you can keep camera powered for hours/days with little penalty to battery if you are not taking photos.

With mirrorless you get X hours per battery, you can keep camera powered those hours with little to no penalty of you are taking photos.

With mirrorless you look your watch, you sum the event time to how many batteries you need for constant power time.

A hockey game takes that 3x20min and middle periods, so you can shoot whole event work a single mirrorless battery as typically they offer 3-4 hours power time. And you can get thousands of frames with a single battery, basically your memory card is the limit for 3-4 hour period with one battery. A wedding of typical 4-7 hours you do with two batteries or two bodies. And again possible get thousands of frames.

That is nice thing with mirrorless that you know before that when battery will go empty as you have (depending model) the 3-4 hours without sleep mode.

This is not a good argument for mirrorless. With DSLRs you literally don't have to think about battery life if you are shooting through the viewfinder, unless you are taking thousands of shots in a day, which an MILC can't do on a single charge anyway.

DSLR you can use as spotting scope, but binoculars and actual spotting scope are far nicer anyways than DSLR.

So in addition to having to pay the MILC premium for bodies/lenses, you have to also buy binoculars and a spotting scope?

That is DSLR benefit for hide shooting or weeks long camping etc.

You can like MILCs without having to pretend like they are perfect and have no disadvantages. Battery life continues to be a negative in the MILC column, even with the strides that have been made.

You can like DSLR pretending I said mirrorless are perfect with no disadvantages, but that is just your assumption.

Battery lifetime had already gone not problem in mirrorless than in special kind photography (like I mentioned above).

Most MILCs still have terrible battery life. A7III is the first MILC I didn't have to charge every day while travelling. And truthfully I'd still have to charge it every 2-3 days. A DSLR can rely on one battery for weeks of shooting no problem. So MILC battery life is still def a big disadvantage for people who shoot a lot.

 

[sportyaccordy]

the nice thing about a Dslr is that i can stand in a field for 2.5 days taking pictures of airplanes and not have to charge the battery once

www.tethertools.com/product/case-relay-power-bundle/

Seems like the answer to all of MILCs' problems is to spend more money to carry and deal with more stuff.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

the nice thing about a Dslr is that i can stand in a field for 2.5 days taking pictures of airplanes and not have to charge the battery once

www.tethertools.com/product/case-relay-power-bundle/

so i need to spend more money on an extra battery pack thing? Why not take extra batteries instead?

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Would it be practical to put a fake battery to USB paired with one of the 30,000 mah pocket battery packs? It'd amount to 15+ battery charges. May cost $50 per camera or less.

Once you do that, you're really cutting into the size/weight advantage mirrorless cameras usually enjoy. Such a large battery pack is not light (I have a 20,000 mah one) and is borderline not pocketable.

True about the size/weight of a 20,000mah. But (much) smaller ones are available that can extend for (only) the needed time.

Also, I only have one because a cell phone battery won't last for more than a day. If my cell phone had the battery life of a DSLR, I would really like that.

I had never thought of those, that could be cheaper than getting multiple batteries and the hassle of keeping them all charged.

 

[kiwi2]

the nice thing about a Dslr is that i can stand in a field for 2.5 days taking pictures of airplanes and not have to charge the battery once

www.tethertools.com/product/case-relay-power-bundle/

so i need to spend more money on an extra battery pack thing? Why not take extra batteries instead?

For one thing it's uninterruptible power as you can swap power banks mid shoot without loosing power to the camera.

I would get one of those if I needed longer battery life in the field.

But so far I haven't run into that problem yet even though I often leave my Fujis shooting away all night long...