Why so much animosity between DSLR users and mirrorless uers?

[BarnET]

I prefer an OVF -- that's why I bought a Sony a900.

Now, Sony has abandoned OVF. It appears doubtful that they will ever manufacture an OVF camera again.

OVFs have also been eliminated in the Olympus product line.

I suspect that the SLT will be the next Sony format to be eliminated.

--
Chris R

Well jeff. That's kind of a problem. I don't think Sony will have any option for OVF in future. Apart from an NEX accessoiry maybe. EVF's do have some advantages over OVF's especially when manual focussing. I do prefer an OVF for fast action though. EVF's get better every year. It's remarkable how big the difference is between now and when you bought the A900. I would just try it out. Rent an A99 for a few days and try to get a feeling for it. If it's not your thing you could always jump ship. Canon and Nikon would gladly take your money as well.

 

[Chris R-UK]

I prefer an OVF -- that's why I bought a Sony a900.

Now, Sony has abandoned OVF. It appears doubtful that they will ever manufacture an OVF camera again.

OVFs have also been eliminated in the Olympus product line.

I suspect that the SLT will be the next Sony format to be eliminated.

I forgot to add that if Sony eliminates SLTs then the only way to use Minolta and Sony A mount lenses on Sony bodies will be using adapters on E/EF mount cameras. There are some very good adapters though.

 

[PerL]

I understand the internet is a place where people like to argue for no good reason, but it seems like the normal brand wars (Canon v. Nikon v. Sony etc.) have been subsumed by seemingly more virulent format wars (DSLR vs. ILC vs. superzooms vs. smartphones etc.). There have been many threads either bashing the smaller formats for being unprofessional or useless or the bigger DSLRs for being dated and predicting their imminent demise.

So my question is, why? Aren't they largely best used for different purposes? Aren't many people using cameras from more than one (if not all) of those categories? I would find it weird for people on a car forum to claim that the 1-ton pickup is so vastly superior to the compact hybrid that hybrid drivers are all stupid (or vice-versa). Or to see a computer forum where the desktop users, laptop users, and tablet users all argued about how theirs was the ultimate computing platform. Are cameras different for some reason?

Because the "death of the DSLR" is constantly predicted by some mirrorless advocates. Such posts generates answers.

 

[rhlpetrus]

I understand the internet is a place where people like to argue for no good reason, but it seems like the normal brand wars (Canon v. Nikon v. Sony etc.) have been subsumed by seemingly more virulent format wars (DSLR vs. ILC vs. superzooms vs. smartphones etc.). There have been many threads either bashing the smaller formats for being unprofessional or useless or the bigger DSLRs for being dated and predicting their imminent demise.

So my question is, why? Aren't they largely best used for different purposes? Aren't many people using cameras from more than one (if not all) of those categories? I would find it weird for people on a car forum to claim that the 1-ton pickup is so vastly superior to the compact hybrid that hybrid drivers are all stupid (or vice-versa). Or to see a computer forum where the desktop users, laptop users, and tablet users all argued about how theirs was the ultimate computing platform. Are cameras different for some reason?

Because the "death of the DSLR" is constantly predicted by some mirrorless advocates. Such posts generates answers.

Besides the "death of DSLRs" posts, one has the continuous flow of "the FF myth" posts, usually no myth actually involved in the debates.

It used to be the superiority of "telecentricity", where has it gone? (Now, it seems that the same former telecentricity fanatics are so happy with software corrected optics.) It's just a lot of fun to watch it. BTW, I use both ML and DSLRs, no issues for me, only I'm not into sects, like m43, Foveon and Fuji shooters seem to enjoy being part of so much. It's the minorities' syndrome, I think.

 

[Ontario Gone]

I prefer an OVF -- that's why I bought a Sony a900.

Now, Sony has abandoned OVF. It appears doubtful that they will ever manufacture an OVF camera again.

OVFs have also been eliminated in the Olympus product line.

I suspect that the SLT will be the next Sony format to be eliminated.

I forgot to add that if Sony eliminates SLTs then the only way to use Minolta and Sony A mount lenses on Sony bodies will be using adapters on E/EF mount cameras. There are some very good adapters though.

This has actually been discussed quite a bit over the last few years and for good reason. Nobody has ever really said that the A-mount will die off, but that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the flange distance changing, which means you must either use adapters or sony has to release new lenses. It's the same reason only half a dozen lenses worked with the dual AF system on the A99.

And this goes for every other brand, Canikon included. If they go full mirrorless, what happens to all these amazing lenses that people spent thousands on? They just become full manual glass? They use adapters that are never as good as a real mount connection? Changing from mirror to mirrorless, be it SLT or DSLR presents huge problems with the lenses.

Remember, the reason most people buy into Canon isn't the cameras, it's the lenses. They already have a huge line of glass, and that in turn attracts more people. If they lose this by changing the flange, they could indeed be in trouble. But, if they don't drop that mirror someday soon, they are in trouble still. Make no mistake, on sensor PDAF will win soon enough. The GX7 is already beating EVERY DSLR in low light AF with it's CDAF. Mirror design needs to make changes and soon.

 

[Richard]

You knocked it out of the park with this one, man:

I have been around long enough to know that there are only sports photographers in the world. If you don't think I know this, I would question your ability to reason.

For the record: I'm not accusing you of "not knowing" that there "are only sports photographers in the world." I've been accusing you of being bizarre for thinking exactly that--that there are only sports photographers.

It was late and that was a typo, it was suppose to say... I have been around long enough to know that there are NOT only sports photographers in the world.

Let me say that again: it's really, really weird to argue that sports journalists are the only photographers out there.

In my previous post. I never said there were, though I could see how you would see my last typo was bizarre.

"It's deeply stupid to argue that one kind of photography is "more demanding" than another."

It is true. Many people shoot landscape. They use manual focus and calculate hyperfocus distance. This type of photography puts no demands on the AF. It is not demanding on the camera so you could use a camera with manual focus and you would not need a camera that is accurate focusing at 10fps. That is not stupid that is a fact and landscape is not demanding on the camera.

I corrected my typo, now you can get back to your fanboi dream world thinking you know what pros use. I have shown you waves of pros using Canikon in a picture. We also know waves of pros use Canikon bodies in other areas of photography including wedding, commercial, street, landscape ect. and we also know as small minority use m43 or mirrorless. But live in your fanboi dreamworld. I prefer reality when I see it on a daily basis.'

You mentioned Ansel Adams, he used 8x10/6x6/large formats. He would never consider an M43 if you look at the choices he made in cameras, he chose pro level best in class stuff. Sorry to damage your m43 fanboi dreams.

That I am not saying is more pros will or will not migrate to mirrorless, there is no way to see the future, but when I see Sony come out with a camera like the A7r with 1.5fps the future is not bright for mirrorless and pros that have heavy demands on the camera and shoot demanding types of photography. Then you tell me the OMD AF is 9fps, but it cannot focus while doing that speed, it is less than 5fps with is lower than many of Canikons non pro cameras, pros in sports are not going to chose that,. LOL. Pros in other areas of photography will not choose it either because it is not pro level gear with the lens selection of the dominant force in pro level gear, Canikon. Again live in your dreamworld and carry on without me.

 

[stan_pustylnik]

I wanted to write opposite - useless battles. But thought that in such battles even professionals are gathering tech ideas. What happens else - young photographers who read - pick ideas and grow rapidly.

For me most important photographic questions are basic:

Why do you take the photo?

How to take photos as you want, or most viewer-effective?

Second question is tech-related where choice of equipment can make big difference.

 

[Beachcomber Joe]

Meanwhile, your asking who David Hobby is tells us everything we need to know about where you are. There's nothing wrong with keeping your world as small as you want--but don't pretend you can box the rest of us into it.

David Hobby is a blogger who has worked in photojournalism. Considering how he earns a living I would be more inclined to hear his viewpoint on computer keyboards rather than camera systems.

Hey man, I'm no fanboi of anything in particular--I'm just skeptical that professional photographic practice, as a whole, can or should be defined by journalistic techniques for one olympic sport.

They certainly aren't. However the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of professional photographers continue to choose DSLRs as their tool of choice. The next largest group would be those using medium format equipment. Certainly a handful of professionals are using mirrorless because the tool fits their unique needs. There are also a handful who use equipment because they receive a financial incentive to do so.

 

[Chris R-UK]

Because the "death of the DSLR" is constantly predicted by some mirrorless advocates. Such posts generates answers.

I am absolutely 100% certain that the DSLR is going to die.

I am just not sure when. :-D

--
Chris R

 

[Gary Martin]

Mirrorless users marvel at our huge muscles as we carry our giant DSLRs around and, frankly, I think they fear us.

Or ... this is just the internet where people argue about everything and - lacking direct human contact - they get rude. Spend time in a political forum sometime, and you'll need a quick shower immediately afterwards.

 

[Beachcomber Joe]

Mirrorless users marvel at our huge muscles as we carry our giant DSLRs around and, frankly, I think they fear us.

We need those huge muscles to fight predators when they attack. We can't hear them coming because we are deaf from all the noise our slapping mirrors make.

 

[MiraShootsNikon]

Meanwhile, your asking who David Hobby is tells us everything we need to know about where you are. There's nothing wrong with keeping your world as small as you want--but don't pretend you can box the rest of us into it.

David Hobby is a blogger who has worked in photojournalism. Considering how he earns a living I would be more inclined to hear his viewpoint on computer keyboards rather than camera systems.

Hmm.

I listen to what David Hobby has to say about photography because I like his photographs. He posts many.

It makes sense that his stuff is great: he was a staff photographer for the Baltimore Sun for many years. Before the national newspaper collapse of the early 2000s, the Sun was one of those great national newspapers that had renowned, award winning photography. International bureaus; Pulitzers everywhere. Right up there with the Boston Globe or the NYT. If you follow and appreciate photojournalism, it's a heavy-duty pro credential--probably even above and beyond the big commercial clients he's had since leaving the Sun.

What are your credentials?

I'm not asking that to be a pain; but since you can pejoratively write off a former press pro like David Hobby as an infotech blogger, you must be shooting for the NYT or even bigger commercial clients and know more about it. Hey, I'd like to see your work!

Hey man, I'm no fanboi of anything in particular--I'm just skeptical that professional photographic practice, as a whole, can or should be defined by journalistic techniques for one olympic sport.

They certainly aren't. However the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of professional photographers continue to choose DSLRs as their tool of choice.

How do you know this?

I don't doubt it's true and I'm not asking to be snarky for snark's sake, but your tone is authoritative and so I can't help but therefore wonder what the source of your authority is. I suspect you might have statistics on hand or something like that--it'd be useful to share them.

(Aside from Richard's interesting photographs of sports journalists, of course.)

The next largest group would be those using medium format equipment.

Again: this is an authoritative statement, so how / where did you learn it? Please share.

Certainly a handful of professionals are using mirrorless because the tool fits their unique needs. There are also a handful who use equipment because they receive a financial incentive to do so.

Would you name a few examples of professionals who receive a financial incentive to shoot mirrorless cameras? I think we'd all be interested in knowing who they are.

 

[Beachcomber Joe]

Meanwhile, your asking who David Hobby is tells us everything we need to know about where you are. There's nothing wrong with keeping your world as small as you want--but don't pretend you can box the rest of us into it.

David Hobby is a blogger who has worked in photojournalism. Considering how he earns a living I would be more inclined to hear his viewpoint on computer keyboards rather than camera systems.

Hmm.

I listen to what David Hobby has to say about photography because I like his photographs. He posts many.

It makes sense that his stuff is great: he was a staff photographer for the Baltimore Sun for many years. Before the national newspaper collapse of the early 2000s, the Sun was one of those great national newspapers that had renowned, award winning photography. International bureaus; Pulitzers everywhere. Right up there with the Boston Globe or the NYT. If you follow and appreciate photojournalism, it's a heavy-duty pro credential--probably even above and beyond the big commercial clients he's had since leaving the Sun.

Everything you say about the Sun is true. It does not follow that Hobby was one of those international or Pulitzer award winners or even contributed to those pieces that won. In fact there is no mention of such in his bio. However this really isn't about Hobby's credentials. It IS about your using him as an example of a working pro using mirrorless. Mr. Hobby, since 2008 has been a blogger, not a working photojournalist.

What are your credentials?

I'm not asking that to be a pain; but since you can pejoratively write off a former press pro like David Hobby as an infotech blogger, you must be shooting for the NYT or even bigger commercial clients and know more about it. Hey, I'd like to see your work!

Actually you are asking to change the focus away from your prior statements. The same holds true for your requests for use statistics. You failed to provide any substantial facts to back your premise. I will note that PPA, as well as other professional organizations, poll their members on a regular basis. That data is available to the membership.

Would you name a few examples of professionals who receive a financial incenitive to shoot mirrorless cmeras? I think we'd all be interested in knowing who they are.

Read my comment again. I did not specify mirrorless. The comment holds true throughout the industry. Pick up a photo magazine. See the pro extolling the virtues of equipment in a manufacturer's ad. Are you naïve enough to think they are endorsing the products without compensation?

 

[PerL]

Meanwhile, your asking who David Hobby is tells us everything we need to know about where you are. There's nothing wrong with keeping your world as small as you want--but don't pretend you can box the rest of us into it.

David Hobby is a blogger who has worked in photojournalism. Considering how he earns a living I would be more inclined to hear his viewpoint on computer keyboards rather than camera systems.

Hmm.

I listen to what David Hobby has to say about photography because I like his photographs. He posts many.

It makes sense that his stuff is great: he was a staff photographer for the Baltimore Sun for many years. Before the national newspaper collapse of the early 2000s, the Sun was one of those great national newspapers that had renowned, award winning photography. International bureaus; Pulitzers everywhere. Right up there with the Boston Globe or the NYT. If you follow and appreciate photojournalism, it's a heavy-duty pro credential--probably even above and beyond the big commercial clients he's had since leaving the Sun.

What are your credentials?

I'm not asking that to be a pain; but since you can pejoratively write off a former press pro like David Hobby as an infotech blogger, you must be shooting for the NYT or even bigger commercial clients and know more about it. Hey, I'd like to see your work!

Hey man, I'm no fanboi of anything in particular--I'm just skeptical that professional photographic practice, as a whole, can or should be defined by journalistic techniques for one olympic sport.

They certainly aren't. However the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of professional photographers continue to choose DSLRs as their tool of choice.

How do you know this?

I work with layout/design/production of magazines and newspapers. I have received thousands of photos from professional photographers. I have worked myself as a professional photographer for a few daily newspapers. My brother is a working PJ. I know many professionals. I follow national and international competitions in news and sports photography. I don't know about a single pro PJ or sports photographer that uses mirror less. Just my experience.

I don't doubt it's true and I'm not asking to be snarky for snark's sake, but your tone is authoritative and so I can't help but therefore wonder what the source of your authority is. I suspect you might have statistics on hand or something like that--it'd be useful to share them.

(Aside from Richard's interesting photographs of sports journalists, of course.)

The next largest group would be those using medium format equipment.

Again: this is an authoritative statement, so how / where did you learn it? Please share.

Certainly a handful of professionals are using mirrorless because the tool fits their unique needs. There are also a handful who use equipment because they receive a financial incentive to do so.

Would you name a few examples of professionals who receive a financial incentive to shoot mirrorless cameras? I think we'd all be interested in knowing who they are.

 

[MiraShootsNikon]

Meanwhile, your asking who David Hobby is tells us everything we need to know about where you are. There's nothing wrong with keeping your world as small as you want--but don't pretend you can box the rest of us into it.

David Hobby is a blogger who has worked in photojournalism. Considering how he earns a living I would be more inclined to hear his viewpoint on computer keyboards rather than camera systems.

Hmm.

I listen to what David Hobby has to say about photography because I like his photographs. He posts many.

It makes sense that his stuff is great: he was a staff photographer for the Baltimore Sun for many years. Before the national newspaper collapse of the early 2000s, the Sun was one of those great national newspapers that had renowned, award winning photography. International bureaus; Pulitzers everywhere. Right up there with the Boston Globe or the NYT. If you follow and appreciate photojournalism, it's a heavy-duty pro credential--probably even above and beyond the big commercial clients he's had since leaving the Sun.

Everything you say about the Sun is true. It does not follow that Hobby was one of those international or Pulitzer award winners or even contributed to those pieces that won. In fact there is no mention of such in his bio. However this really isn't about Hobby's credentials. It IS about your using him as an example of a working pro using mirrorless. Mr. Hobby, since 2008 has been a blogger, not a working photojournalist.

What about the clients that have paid him for photography since 2008? I mean, Adorama seems like a pretty big name on that list. Doesn't money earned for photography provided to them qualify him to be a "working pro?" If not, why not?

What are your credentials?

I'm not asking that to be a pain; but since you can pejoratively write off a former press pro like David Hobby as an infotech blogger, you must be shooting for the NYT or even bigger commercial clients and know more about it. Hey, I'd like to see your work!

Actually you are asking to change the focus away from your prior statements. The same holds true for your requests for use statistics. You failed to provide any substantial facts to back your premise.

What is my premise? I didn't realize I had one, other than wondering how you can write with such authority without being willing to provide any basis for it. No photographs in your portfolio, no mention of where you've heard what you're talking about, no nothing.

What were my "prior statements" other than asking you about where your authoritative opinion comes from? I wasn't aware I made any of my opinions known, other than that I like David Hobby's photography.

Again, I'm not trying to make a point about whether you're right or wrong. I'm just wondering where your information and authoritative tone comes from.

I will note that PPA, as well as other professional organizations, poll their members on a regular basis. That data is available to the membership.

As a member of the PPA myself, I can't say that I know what you're talking about. I've been in the PPA for eight years; I've never seen or received authoritative survey results that talk about what the membership shoots. I have seen some anecdotal and informal discussion--certainly nothing you'd draw authoritative conclusions from.

Or maybe I've missed it? Are you a PPA member? If so, give a fellow member a hand and point to what you're talking about, here. Seriously, throw me a bone. A link, whatever. That information would be pretty useful to this discussion, wouldn't it?

Would you name a few examples of professionals who receive a financial incenitive to shoot mirrorless cmeras? I think we'd all be interested in knowing who they are.

Read my comment again. I did not specify mirrorless. The comment holds true throughout the industry. Pick up a photo magazine. See the pro extolling the virtues of equipment in a manufacturer's ad. Are you naïve enough to think they are endorsing the products without compensation?

Yikes, maybe I am; but then: if you didn't intend to demean the various mirrorless-shooting professionals mentioned in the thread, why bring it up? One of the other folks in this thread named a few people who earn money with photography produced by mirrorless cameras (David Hobby being one). You responded that many professionals receive a financial incentive to shoot what they shoot. If you weren't suggesting that those mirrorless photographers mentioned fall into this category, your comment would've been a pretty wide non-sequitur.

Why can't you just be specific about where your facts come from?

Seriously: don't squirm and accuse me of having "premises." You're the one who stated an authoritative truth, now back it up with something! Anything! If you think David Hobby's advice is bad, show us why you're more qualified. Show us the PPA statistics (or PM me the link and I'll share them).

Just to be clear: I don't have a specific gear-pimping agenda. I shoot a 5D3 and pretty much hate the mirrorless cameras I've tried. But me hating mirrorless cameras does not also mean that mirrorless cameras aren't or shouldn't be a preferred choice for anyone else. I can't presume to speak for other professionals. Can you blame me for wondering how you can?

 

[MiraShootsNikon]

I work with layout/design/production of magazines and newspapers. I have received thousands of photos from professional photographers. I have worked myself as a professional photographer for a few daily newspapers. My brother is a working PJ. I know many professionals. I follow national and international competitions in news and sports photography. I don't know about a single pro PJ or sports photographer that uses mirror less. Just my experience.

Sounds reasonable to me, PerL. How about portrait photographers? Wedding photographers? Fashion photographers? Commercial photographers? Catalog photographers? Family / Lifestyle photographers?

Again, not trying to be snarky: it's useful to know the discussion's limits, right? Professional photography is a big tent. Is the going argument that the PJ and sports shooter's kit really ought to define what's most effective for every creative situation or result? I thought some other folks had covered that ground, above, and had decided that the answer is "no."

I'm a DSLR shooter myself, but I think I can imagine some professional situations and creative goals that would really favor a mirrorless kit.

 

[Graham Hill]

The fact is, unless you need blinding fast AF, most shots can be taken on most cameras.

Absolutely false. Most mirrorless cameras struggle mightly tracking even a slight amount of movement. Olympus cameras are supposed to be the best, and in fact I have never used one of those. But I have used various Fujifilm mirrorless cameras extensively and they simply fall down hard tracking movement.

People prone to the above resist this simple fact because it throws their whole photographic identity and minireligions into doubt. Looking back at my last 16 years of of photos taken on everything from a Minolta Dynax 7 35mm film SLR to Voigtlander Bessa R2 rangefinders (extremely primitive technology but charming cameras) to a Nikon D2x to a Fuji X Pro, most of my photos could have been taken on any of them the only differences being the maximum print size attainable, which is perhaps the least interesting aspect of any photo.

 

[Graham Hill]

Because the mirrorless gang wants to claim that SLRs are dead or dying because of MILCs, despite all evidence to the contrary.

--
Lee Jay

Yep...mirrorless cameras have not turned a penny of profit, for ANYONE yet somehow they are taking over the world. Absolutely laughable.

 

[Graham Hill]

The war was started by group of "insecure" Mirrorless Users keep calling for the DEATH OF DSLR.....in spite that DSLR outsold every mirrorless camera combine.

Well spotted. There is no group of photographers more insecure, nor more scared, that the mirrorless advocate. Their relentless need to proclaim the death of SLR's and the victory of mirrorless shows how utterly frightened they are. Non stop condescending remarks about "flipping mirrors" etc, just shows how insecure they are.

jayrandomer, post: 52744858, member: 356582"]
I understand the internet is a place where people like to argue for no good reason, but it seems like the normal brand wars (Canon v. Nikon v. Sony etc.) have been subsumed by seemingly more virulent format wars (DSLR vs. ILC vs. superzooms vs. smartphones etc.). There have been many threads either bashing the smaller formats for being unprofessional or useless or the bigger DSLRs for being dated and predicting their imminent demise.

So my question is, why? Aren't they largely best used for different purposes? Aren't many people using cameras from more than one (if not all) of those categories? I would find it weird for people on a car forum to claim that the 1-ton pickup is so vastly superior to the compact hybrid that hybrid drivers are all stupid (or vice-versa). Or to see a computer forum where the desktop users, laptop users, and tablet users all argued about how theirs was the ultimate computing platform. Are cameras different for some reason?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Graham Hill]

LOL!! That shows you how utterly bankrupt the mirrorless arguments are.