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

[tbcass]

Yes, my mirrorless have needed batteries more frequently than my DSLR and while that's probably not going to change, carrying extra batteries is nowhere close to a show stopper.

Changing batteries is at worst a minor inconvenience and certainly shouldn't be important in a camera buying decision.

 

[Raziel Orlando]

We keep reading thinly disguised baiting- which I define as trolly- 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, 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?) 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.

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, 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.

I hope you can be comfortable with that!

You sound just like this guy:

 

[Jonsi]

First...

Modern EVFs are stunning, non-laggy and

Then...

It's impossible to have a 100% non-laggy EVF

These threads are always funny.

 

[Tommi K1]

If it comes down to that, my A7 won for weight and convenience over my D600 even with its extra batteries. The smaller size and weight of the A7 and the ability to adapt smaller and lighter lenses allowed that advantage. Now that A7 has increased battery life, that's not as much of a gap.

I've used both on my 6 night backcountry trips. The greater weight of D600 + lenses + two batteries was significant compared to A7 + lenses + four batteries.

D600 took until day five to need a battery change (impressive), so carrying two was exactly right. A7 needed one every 1.5 to 2 days depending on shooting conditions and I had to be conservative.

Benefit of having extra batteries separately is that in most cases you don't need to carry them. You have them in the vehicle, in the bag or even in pocket. But they are not weight on your arms like heavier camera is.

As most professionals has setups (multiple bodies, lenses, flashes etc), not one camera (one body + lens), all arguments about comparing camera weight is unrealistic as it is only the weight on arms when taking photographs, not the weight of the system carried across places to different locations.

You anyways ha have a bag with gear that you leave somewhere nearby while you have camera at hands.

And hiking is different that you carry all with you for days, and you might not be able drop extra bag on moment of photograph. And you usually don't have luxury to stop taking photographs as every minute wasted in location is from the distance. And very quickly few minutes turn to hours if one stays at photographing everything they see.

Why small kit is valuable, meaning f/3.5-5.6 lenses instead f/2.8 or 8.33x zoom instead 3 primes.

Having a solar panel to recharge something else like a phone or battery is easily very valuable thing overall and brings luxury at nights in camp as you can write down day events, listen radio or music, have a map while moving and so on. So one solar charger that can keep one battery or phone charged in few hours is valuable thing overall.

Heck, even my fire lighter is electronic with USB port. No gas, no messing etc. You just set fire with it. For emergency there are survivor kit then separately.

We are not anymore living in 60's, as even at 70's hikers used electronic travel radios, lamps etc. They just carried C batteries etc with them, among much heavier tents and sleeping bags etc...

Today even my sleeping bag, mattress and tent weights in total 1.3kg, that is nothing compared to ~12kg that was high end few decades ago.

 

[Mackiesback]

We keep reading thinly disguised baiting- which I define as trolly- threads announcing the imminent death of the DSLR.

Yet you are starting a thread that throws flames on the fire. I agree that starting an anti DSLR thread smacks of Trolling but you starting this thread might be as well.

I use Sony SLT cameras which actually are on the verge of death yet some people love to rub that fact in on the SONY SLT forum. It says something about the lack of character of the posters.

This has been covered several times.

 

[Tommi K1]

To each his own. I would rather wait until I uploaded to the computer and delete there rather than waste time on the camera when I could be taking more photos. Back in the day of low capacity cards I can see where it would have been useful but not so much today.

That it is, if you don't have problem with storage space (card or computer) and you don't care sitting front of the computer deleting files....

So you don't ever check what did you capture?

You never have time to go quickly the sequence after the action?

As example in the sports like height jumping, javelin throwing etc, you have lots of time between athletes. So you can just press playback and rotate dial to go though the previous sequence and press REC to Mark all photos you want to keep, press AEL to lock all marked photos and return to shooting with half press of shutter release button, and when you want, hit "delete all" in menu when needed?

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

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?

yeah for some it will be useful, for the majority of us....not really, i think many already shoot with the view to culling.....or from a cricket term from my youth....hit and hope

With sports and action high frame rates are indeed useful and can result in more useful photos. 60fps seems like overkill though.

yeah they can be, but as a hobbyist i really don't want to spend the time sifting through endless shots of the same thing

OK for you but don't assume that high frame rates are simply spray and pray. I'm a hobbyist and find higher frame rates can be very useful and it's not because of lack of skill or experience.

well for some there is use for them, for me i find it not worth the extra hassle, been there done that 4 or 5 years ago

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

If it comes down to that, my A7 won for weight and convenience over my D600 even with its extra batteries. The smaller size and weight of the A7 and the ability to adapt smaller and lighter lenses allowed that advantage. Now that A7 has increased battery life, that's not as much of a gap.

I've used both on my 6 night backcountry trips. The greater weight of D600 + lenses + two batteries was significant compared to A7 + lenses + four batteries.

D600 took until day five to need a battery change (impressive), so carrying two was exactly right. A7 needed one every 1.5 to 2 days depending on shooting conditions and I had to be conservative.

Benefit of having extra batteries separately is that in most cases you don't need to carry them. You have them in the vehicle, in the bag or even in pocket. But they are not weight on your arms like heavier camera is.

so you are in fact carrying them......

As most professionals has setups (multiple bodies, lenses, flashes etc), not one camera (one body + lens), all arguments about comparing camera weight is unrealistic as it is only the weight on arms when taking photographs, not the weight of the system carried across places to different locations.

You anyways ha have a bag with gear that you leave somewhere nearby while you have camera at hands.

And hiking is different that you carry all with you for days, and you might not be able drop extra bag on moment of photograph. And you usually don't have luxury to stop taking photographs as every minute wasted in location is from the distance. And very quickly few minutes turn to hours if one stays at photographing everything they see.

Why small kit is valuable, meaning f/3.5-5.6 lenses instead f/2.8 or 8.33x zoom instead 3 primes.

Having a solar panel to recharge something else like a phone or battery is easily very valuable thing overall and brings luxury at nights in camp as you can write down day events, listen radio or music, have a map while moving and so on. So one solar charger that can keep one battery or phone charged in few hours is valuable thing overall.

Heck, even my fire lighter is electronic with USB port. No gas, no messing etc. You just set fire with it. For emergency there are survivor kit then separately.

We are not anymore living in 60's, as even at 70's hikers used electronic travel radios, lamps etc. They just carried C batteries etc with them, among much heavier tents and sleeping bags etc...

Today even my sleeping bag, mattress and tent weights in total 1.3kg, that is nothing compared to ~12kg that was high end few decades ago.

the problem with extra batteries is charging them, you either need a power bank, or a wall outlet, i did 2 day event in Switzerland with mirrorless in 2014, needed 3 or 4 batteries, got me through just one single day.......but the charging....on and on it went, an absolute pain, my Bro borrowed my D7000 and i believe he didn't change the battery until the last 1 or 2 hours...if that.

 

[tbcass]

OK for you but don't assume that high frame rates are simply spray and pray. I'm a hobbyist and find higher frame rates can be very useful and it's not because of lack of skill or experience.

well for some there is use for them, for me i find it not worth the extra hassle, been there done that 4 or 5 years ago

As a point of reference I've been a photographer since the 1960s.

 

[tbcass]

To each his own. I would rather wait until I uploaded to the computer and delete there rather than waste time on the camera when I could be taking more photos. Back in the day of low capacity cards I can see where it would have been useful but not so much today.

That it is, if you don't have problem with storage space (card or computer) and you don't care sitting front of the computer deleting files....

I have tons of unused storage space on cards and computer.

So you don't ever check what did you capture?

Not very often.

You never have time to go quickly the sequence after the action?

Yes but I'd much rather do it on a computer.

As example in the sports like height jumping, javelin throwing etc, you have lots of time between athletes. So you can just press playback and rotate dial to go though the previous sequence and press REC to Mark all photos you want to keep, press AEL to lock all marked photos and return to shooting with half press of shutter release button, and when you want, hit "delete all" in menu when needed?

Good for you but that doesn't appeal to me.

 

[Tommi K1]

With sports and action high frame rates are indeed useful and can result in more useful photos. 60fps seems like overkill though.

At record peak speed, Usain Bolt moves about IIRC 20cm between frames at 60 FPS. That means that if you want a frame where he has legs and arms at wanted position, you need that 60 FPS.

Same thing is motor sports or aircrafts acrobatics, women gymnastics, fencing, classical dancing like ballet or modern dancing etc.

And who says you need 60 FPS at multiple seconds?

In cameras you can set a limiter like only 60 frames at 60 FPS or 15 frames at 60 FPS. That gives you 1 second and 250ms sequence lengths.

Combine that with example pre-capture of 60 FPS speed with 45 frames buffer and you can capture 750ms before you even reacted to action, and then have example the 15 frames as addition to it, 250ms after your reaction.

That saves space and time to go through the sequences because all your sequences are something that you saw, not what you predicted. And so on in all sequences you have something that triggered your interest.

Just point your camera at area where action will happen while keeping focus locked, and moment you see to come, press shutter release button and you have all.

Most action happens at predictable distance from the camera or position, be it a bird taking off from branches, athlete throwing or hitting something, car in a corner or jumping in air, a kid in a swing or dancer performing the move etc. All you need is to get DOF around the target or the position and capture the moment by timing.

In street photography the "F8 and be there" is with deep DOF most often and you can just keep using those to get the "defining moment" when person walks around the corner, the glance etc.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

OK for you but don't assume that high frame rates are simply spray and pray. I'm a hobbyist and find higher frame rates can be very useful and it's not because of lack of skill or experience.

well for some there is use for them, for me i find it not worth the extra hassle, been there done that 4 or 5 years ago

As a point of reference I've been a photographer since the 1960s.

that's a long time to be shooting 15, 20, 30 and 60 fps....you must have millions and millions of pictures

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

With sports and action high frame rates are indeed useful and can result in more useful photos. 60fps seems like overkill though.

At record peak speed, Usain Bolt moves about IIRC 20cm between frames at 60 FPS. That means that if you want a frame where he has legs and arms at wanted position, you need that 60 FPS.

Same thing is motor sports or aircrafts acrobatics, women gymnastics, fencing, classical dancing like ballet or modern dancing etc.

And who says you need 60 FPS at multiple seconds?

In cameras you can set a limiter like only 60 frames at 60 FPS or 15 frames at 60 FPS. That gives you 1 second and 250ms sequence lengths.

Combine that with example pre-capture of 60 FPS speed with 45 frames buffer and you can capture 750ms before you even reacted to action, and then have example the 15 frames as addition to it, 250ms after your reaction.

That saves space and time to go through the sequences because all your sequences are something that you saw, not what you predicted. And so on in all sequences you have something that triggered your interest.

Just point your camera at area where action will happen while keeping focus locked, and moment you see to come, press shutter release button and you have all.

Most action happens at predictable distance from the camera or position, be it a bird taking off from branches, athlete throwing or hitting something, car in a corner or jumping in air, a kid in a swing or dancer performing the move etc. All you need is to get DOF around the target or the position and capture the moment by timing.

In street photography the "F8 and be there" is with deep DOF most often and you can just keep using those to get the "defining moment" when person walks around the corner, the glance etc.

i do wonder how the pros get those pictures of him...they must be lucky....all the time

 

[Tommi K1]

OK for you but don't assume that high frame rates are simply spray and pray. I'm a hobbyist and find higher frame rates can be very useful and it's not because of lack of skill or experience.

well for some there is use for them, for me i find it not worth the extra hassle, been there done that 4 or 5 years ago

As a point of reference I've been a photographer since the 1960s.

that's a long time to be shooting 15, 20, 30 and 60 fps....you must have millions and millions of pictures

Why so hostile by sarcasm?

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

OK for you but don't assume that high frame rates are simply spray and pray. I'm a hobbyist and find higher frame rates can be very useful and it's not because of lack of skill or experience.

well for some there is use for them, for me i find it not worth the extra hassle, been there done that 4 or 5 years ago

As a point of reference I've been a photographer since the 1960s.

that's a long time to be shooting 15, 20, 30 and 60 fps....you must have millions and millions of pictures

Why so hostile by sarcasm?

point of reference mate

 

[Tommi K1]

i do wonder how the pros get those pictures of him...they must be lucky....all the time

So you really think that all of them never predict any moment, by learning how different athletes perform and likely do, and never use a high frame rate to help increase the moment of capture as they know their reaction times are no where near capable take the moment?

Do you know why the high frame rates has been the key feature in professional sports and wildlife cameras in the last 50 years? Just because they have so amazing skills that they can capture any moment with single frame all the time?

 

[Tommi K1]

OK for you but don't assume that high frame rates are simply spray and pray. I'm a hobbyist and find higher frame rates can be very useful and it's not because of lack of skill or experience.

well for some there is use for them, for me i find it not worth the extra hassle, been there done that 4 or 5 years ago

As a point of reference I've been a photographer since the 1960s.

that's a long time to be shooting 15, 20, 30 and 60 fps....you must have millions and millions of pictures

Why so hostile by sarcasm?

point of reference mate

So your point is that you don't know that 50 years ago 15/20/30/60 FPS were never heard?

 

[Tommi K1]

so you are in fact carrying them......

Sure, but less than heavy DSLR.

the problem with extra batteries is charging them, you either need a power bank, or a wall outlet, i did 2 day event in Switzerland with mirrorless in 2014, needed 3 or 4 batteries, got me through just one single day

So, you kept shooting continually whole day of 9-12 hours, non-stop.

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

i do wonder how the pros get those pictures of him...they must be lucky....all the time

So you really think that all of them never predict any moment, by learning how different athletes perform and likely do, and never use a high frame rate to help increase the moment of capture as they know their reaction times are no where near capable take the moment?

Do you know why the high frame rates has been the key feature in professional sports and wildlife cameras in the last 50 years? Just because they have so amazing skills that they can capture any moment with single frame all the time?

pue luck isn't it, how do they get those shots?

........

........

.........

..

.......

i am not saying that any of these new cameras with hi fps e.t.c cannot help, but knowing your subject and years of experience makes a huge difference

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

OK for you but don't assume that high frame rates are simply spray and pray. I'm a hobbyist and find higher frame rates can be very useful and it's not because of lack of skill or experience.

well for some there is use for them, for me i find it not worth the extra hassle, been there done that 4 or 5 years ago

As a point of reference I've been a photographer since the 1960s.

that's a long time to be shooting 15, 20, 30 and 60 fps....you must have millions and millions of pictures

Why so hostile by sarcasm?

point of reference mate

So your point is that you don't know that 50 years ago 15/20/30/60 FPS were never heard?

you could make a film with those frame rates......now that's an idea, if only they had digital back then