Are DSLR's Dead?

[Applejack]

I am not an "early adopter" of anything, primarily because I like to see bugs get worked out or or if something is just a kitschy here today gone tomorrow trend.
I was uncertain yet intrigued and perhaps a little fearful of the mirrorless interchangeable lens movement. Technology doing what it does, grows at a staggering rate these days and I am now convinced that CSC's (compact system cameras) are here for the long haul. I had the opportunity spend the day with s friends Panosonic GH3 and I was astounded and left feeling gutted at the same time. I saw no reason the lug around 15 lbs of camera gear anymore.
I never liked to carry so much kit around, but it was the price of admission to 'get the shot'. This is just not the case anymore and I see no reason why camera manufacturers will continue to make SLR cameras in the future because technology has now conquered the mirror.

I am not excited about this movement however, and the reason is that I have $5000 in Canon gear sitting in my office that after shooting with the GH3 is looking suspiciously like a type writer or perhaps a word processor.

Discuss.

 

[Ryanmb21]

Not even close. The shooting experience and quality of resulting images is so much better from full frame (and dx), I see no reason to shoot mirror less.

If the images aren't critical, or your shooting on a hike, or super market, sure the cameras weight might matter.

 

[Scott Brady]

I am going to buy a Fuji X-T1 for work off the motorcycle. Everything is smaller and EVF is quite good. Also weather sealed.

Otherwise, I have no plans to replace the HD Canon gear.

 

[Applejack]

Ah....but they now have full frame mirrorless. Now the shooting experience, that is something that is left to personal preference. Having the authentic sound of mirror movement, somewhat akin to having the rich fuel smell of a carbureted engine. But as far as image quality, many say, including legendary photographer Scott Bourne, you can no longer expect better image quality from DSLR's, and my experience with the GH3 although limited, would concur.
In fact Scott sold or gave away all his DSLR's last year and now only shoots mirrorless unless he is reviewing something that isn't.
This technology will only get better and even if image quality is not as good yet, soon, very soon it will be and even surpass DSLR's.

We had the digital revolution but some still are holding on to film, I think we may be in for more of the same with this movement But I tell you, with it cheaper to produce mirrorless, manufacturers are focusing their attention there. And markets are responding with people shelling out the coin for mirrorless bodies, paying nearly the same as their mirrored counter parts. And you know what they say...."money talks...."

 

[DaveInDenver]

Oh, probably, since we still don't have a DSLR (still rock the film, love my FM3a). By the time I get one it'll be obsolete technology.

I will say this, though. It would be shame if all these wonderful Nikkor lenses stop being useful. Already you have some beautiful pieces of mechanical art, Leica M3s, the F3, even the Pentax K1000, etc., just sitting as props on shelves instead of being used and enjoyed for their simplicity. The glass, man, so many years of genius and art.

So, yup, you'll find my cold, dead hands clutching my Nikon. And my turntable.

 

[Applejack]

I am going to buy a Fuji X-T1 for work off the motorcycle. Everything is smaller and EVF is quite good. Also weather sealed.

Otherwise, I have no plans to replace the HD Canon gear.

Scott, I too have been contemplating buying this camera but Fuji's video features are found to be lacking. I am primarily a stills shooter but have been dabbling more into video. I want a multi-use workhorse so I may opt for the GH3 or maybe 4 if I can wait until the end of April. I will be curious to see what you think of it. I may wait to make my decision if you promise to post a review

 

[Applejack]

Oh, probably, since we still don't have a DSLR (still rock the film, love my FM3a). By the time I get one it'll be obsolete technology.

I will say this, though. It would be shame if all these wonderful Nikkor lenses stop being useful. Already you have some beautiful pieces of mechanical art, Leica M3s, the F3, even the Penta K1000, etc., just sitting as props on shelves instead of being used and enjoyed for their simplicity. The glass, man, so many years of genius and art.

So, yup, you'll find my cold, dead hands clutching my Nikon. And my turntable.

A lot of these mirrorless bodies have adapters to use many of the older but still great glass.

 

[Ziv]

I bought the Fuji X100s about 6 mos ago. I can't say enough nice things about this camera. Extraordinary little unit. I have used my D700 maybe 3 times since I purchased the Fuji.

For serious work the mirrorless cameras will not replace full frame and medium format, but for most folks they will be a perfect fit.

 

[Pathfinder]

While I do own and use a GH3 and a GX7 among m4/3 cameras along with several lenses, they are not about to replace my Canon system for me.

They ( m4/3s) are capable of capturing great images, but they are not a replacement for my large Canon bodies and lenses for serious action shooting. The AF systems are still not as fast, as precise, or as easy to use as my Canon DSLR bodies. The batteries don't last as long either. When we see the pros shooting on the NFL sidelines with m4/3 systems on a regular basis, then we may want to reconsider. But that is not happening yet.

I strongly doubt the m4/3s lenses iris diaphragms will hold up to extended days of high frame rate shooting in the rain either, but that is just a suspicion.

I do really like the light weight and the small size of my m4/3 systems I have shot lots of wildlife with m4/3s but for action ( birds in flight ) , at least in my hands, full size DSLRs still rule. Others may disagree, I hear good things about the Olympus OM-D M-1. I love my m4/3s Lumix GX7 for walkabout shooting of landscapes and people. Very light, small, and reasonably fast. But not a camera for shooting in the rain.

The Sony mirror less full size sensor bodies are very interesting, with an adapter they can be used with most Canon or Nikon lenses, and I can see for a landscape shooter on a tripod, that is a very workable system. I have even considered it, as the Sony body is so much smaller and lighter, but manual focus lenses are to high a price in convenience for me right now.

For web based images and smaller prints, small sensors are just fine. For larger prints, say 16 inches by 24 inches, smaller sensors will be at a disadvantage.

It is like a hammer, just how big, or small, a hammer is the optimal size. It really depends on the job you have to do.

Is one better than the other, not really, unless you specify what you want to use it for. I am quite happy to have both at my disposal.

I have been using m4/3s systems since the original Lumix GF-1 and I still use it from time to time. I am thinking of having it converted to IR, since m4/3 bodies offer real advantages for IR conversion, since there is no adjustment needed for focus for IR wavelengths, since they focus via the imaging sensor itself.

 

[Applejack]

Thanks for the input Pathfinder. I like to hear what you and others with experience with both m4/3 and full frame have to contribute. I may just have to go buy one and see for myself though.

 

[Pathfinder]

For many folks I think they will be perfectly happy with a good m4/3s camera like the GH3. It provides very nice files, and handles remarkably well. The lenses are smaller and lighter by far than Canon or Nikons pro grade lenses, and the m4/3s lenses are 1/3 to 1/10th the prices. You can get a Lumix 100-300mm lens for about $600, and it is the full frame equivalent of a 200-600mm full frame lens which is not even available and would cost from a minimum of $1k to up to $10K from Canon or Nikon or Tamron. The files are certainly suitable for web usage and prints less than 8 x 12 inches or a bit larger.

What Panasonic has done that is very smart,and that is since they know the built in optical limitations of their lenses, they correct them in their software profiles IN THE CAMERA, so the RAW files come out of the camera without significant chromatic distortion or barrel or pincushion distortion. Very smart idea - I wonder why the major DSLR makers did not think of this first. Canon now does it in the 1DX and the 5DMkIII I believe. That is why there are no lens profiles for Lumix lenses in Lightroom or Photoshop ACR.

I do not want folks to think I do not like the m4/3s system - I do, quite a bit. It has some great glass now, and for walk about shooting it is really nice. With adapters almost any older interchangeable lens can be mounted and used if one is content to shoot in manual mode with no autofocus nor auto aperture.

"Lumix Link" is a free program that lets you use your iPhone or iPad as a device to remotely control all the controls on your Lumix camera - camera aperture, shutter speed, focus, ISO, and even zoom control with certain Lumix lenses AND you get to see the image you are composing REAL TIME on your iPad. And you can trip the shutter remotely as well. Now that is pretty cool!

So why don't I abandon my larger cameras? Speed and accuracy of AF, larger, cleaner files, and better weather proofing. Heavier and beefier build, and I think the lenses are constructed to a much heavier use cycle, at least the L quality lenses from Canon. For birds in flight, I have a few frames with my GH3, but they are a poor 2nd cousin to what I can get with my 7D, let alone a pro 1series body.

Like I said earlier, I do not think that one is better than the other, UNTIL I specify what I am going to be shooting that day. Just like a 1/4 inch drill and a 3/4 inch drill. They both have their uses, and neither is always the best for the job at hand.

I find for lots of shooting the the GX7 is a very nice, relatively inexpensive ( compared the the GH3 ) and very capable camera. The 45mm F 2.8 Leica derived macro Elmarit lens is a very sweet combination on the GX7 - razor sharp, great closeups, and a "90mm equivalent" portrait lens as well. Shoots pretty nice video as well, although I am not really a videographer in the least.

The ability to shoot handheld at ISO 3200 with useable files really opens up a lot of ambient light shooting that never really existed in the film world. The current m4/3s cameras can do this now, they could not a couple years ago.

 

[wyomingben]

The best camera is the one you have in your hands. If a camera is too big to fit in your pocket, like the ones being talked about and the Fuji X100 (from personal experience) you may as well just have a full sized DLSR just for the fact that they shoot so much faster even if the images with this awesome mirror-less cameras are the same.

 

[Applejack]

Can anyone explain why DSLR's shoot faster? It may be a dumb question but I'm asking it anyway :-D. Is there something other than manufacturers deciding to keep SLR's faster that make this so?

 

[mtnbike28]

Power up time, shutter lag, but more important from talking to Fuji X??? owners I have talked to, AF time.

 

[grogie]

The issue with small point and shoot cameras is that smart phones are replacing them, and manufacturers know it too and I'm sure that's going to effect the market of such cameras. I personally have a very nice small Sony, but I'm finding myself leaving it at home as my iPhone is good enough for casual pictures.

I also own a Canon DSLR (SL1) that I do grab if I know I'll want better pictures. At work I also have three Canon DSLRs (T1i, T3i, SL1). I use these for event coverage (usually indoor low light levels and some outdoor). Most of these photos end up on the web, archival use, and some end up in a magazine including on the cover. I love these cameras. But they do each have their bags for additional lenses, batteries, flashes and tripods...

Most recently I bought a Sony RX100 for an Executive Director that didn't want the size of a DSLR (last time I had her borrow one, she hit a city mayor with it while it was swinging around her neck ). So far the photos are from the RX100 are very good and it's a great pocket camera. Time will tell if their cover shot quality? Probably so (especially with Photoshop), but for now, the DLSRs give me the lens choices and I'm not about to replace them.