Are DSLR's Dead?

[OSV]

i made the jump from pentax to the sony a7r, and while some aspects of it have been a rocky road, it's given me the ability to do things that i could never do before.

i've been able to use all of my old lenses, albeit in full manual mode, but what i miss is losing three p-ttl flashes... they'll all have to be replaced with sony stuff, if i want to shoot beyond the camera's x-sync speed.

so there is a price to pay in switching platforms, regardless of what they are.

the huge win with the a7/a7r, and several other mirrorless cameras, is the ability to accurately focus the camera with the electronic viewfinder... you can use focus peaking, but i usually use the magnify function.

evf focusing blows away any optical viewfinder focusing system on the market, and it's only going to get better, as evf displays mature and improve.

the full-frame sonys are similarly priced, or a whole lot cheaper, than their dslr counterparts... for instance, since the a7r and the nikon d800e both have the same sensor, they have similar picture quality(both are far superior to anything canon has), but the a7r is quite a bit cheaper.

comparing crop sensor cameras, like the sony nex/6000 series, to dslr crop sensor cameras, can be quite a bit more complicated, it's not nearly as cut and dried.

i personally would never buy anything from olympus, largely because the company has been losing money for the last three years, and the company has been involved in a series of financial scandals, their future is uncertain.

also, the performance of those ultra-small sensors leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to things like iso capability.

where sony has been remiss is in native lens selection; for the a7/a7r, there is one killer world-class prime, a second prime that is also xlnt but very dark, and only one zoom, that has controversial picture quality... but since i have over 20 lenses that i can use on the a7r, none of that means much to me... legacy glass can be very cheap.

you have to get the camera system that works for what you want to shoot, period... for example, for shooting weddings, i'd want the nikon flash system, it's probably the best there is; for long glass, canon lenses are the way to go, fortunately there is an expensive adapter that allows canon glass to communicate with the nex/a7/a7r cameras, albeit not as cleanly as with a native canon body.

 

[GRID]

All images on my site is from m43 cameras, www.GRIDDD.se
I like that a 300mm F2.8 turns into a 600mm F2.8, and then a 2xconverter and I got 1200mm F5.6
I dont even think you can buy that for a FF, and dont even think about lugging it around and shooting handheld.
Here´s a pic i took with it 2 weeks agoe.

CAF isnt up to the mirrorcameras, but now that Olympus have the E-M1 that have both contrast and phase detection
focus i think it´s soon at the same level there.

Some times you may need more DOF, and then FF mirrorcameras have the upperhand, but then most lenses need to be
a few steps up on the aperture to be as sharp as possible, while M43 lenses seem to be closer to max sharpness from wide open.

And it´s sometimes good to not have so shallow DOF at low light when you want the subject to be all in fokus but you want
to use it full open to get quick exposuretimes. But then FF can go a few steps higher in ISO since they have bigger sensor.
So it´s a give and take on some areas, but I definetly like mirrorless when I see FF users only taking one camera and two lenses
and i have 2 cameras and 6 lenses in a both lighter and smaller bag.

 

[Bikemobile]

Canon SX50

Everything on this site was shot with a Canon SX40 or SX50. http://www.wildpanoramic.com/

 

[reldred]

Different tools for different jobs, dslr's aren't going anywhere too fast.

I love my mirrorless', used to shoot a nex7 now on the Fuji's, I think if you're already invested in dslr's I'd hold off another twelve months, the sony a7 and Fuji xt1 with on-sensor phase detect focusing are the first steps to a new breed of mirror less which will really kick the majority of dslr's into the bin, but for now it's all a load of different trade offs.

Me? I started with digital and got into shooting film, the opposite of most folks. Give me Provia or give me death!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ywen]

for casual consumer shooters DSLRs are dead.. give it some more time and the superior non-DSLR alternatives will be known to the consumers...

It would not surprise me to see the DSLR(mirror box) design to largely be gone in 5-7 years.... it will all become mirror-less

 

[Honu]

No dslr are not dead but mirroless is not going to kill them either

As I say if you had to grab one printed photo and you were going to be stranded somewhere would that photo be some perfect technical thing or would it be a perfect moment in time

Cameras are all so good anymore it does not matter !

What's the best off road rig ?
There is none IMHO
Tight hard trails I would take a bike For some things maybe a unimog For most things though a Toyota or jeep or land rover SUV or pickup ? and in tough spots does the rig make as much difference as the driver ?


Comparing Oly E-M1 pics even to my D600 which I shoot both for my living one is not always better than the other
IMHO canon and Nikon APS-C cameras are not as good as a Fuji or E-M1

As far as accurate if DSLR are superior explain back focus and the fact you can and often have to calibrate lens then in DSLR
Then go read about accuracy and off sensor focusing like CDAF
Like
http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...lity-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy


Bottom line mirrorless have a lot going for it cameras like the E-M1 and fujis are being used by pros in many situations !
Tilt screen touch to focus is FUN to use and I have focus points covering the whole frame !
I don't have to lay down or guess my shots anymore and the live view is not some nasty delayed jerky image
Those are pluses

And again quality ? In most cases if you are good one won't see the difference and again if you think FF is superior based on sensor size ? Then why not shoot only Med Format gear ?
It's always about the package as a whole

If I get the time would be fun to do some comparison shots with a D600 D4 and E-M1 exact same subject print them out at 20 inches and have folks see them real life maybe next expo could try to do that if I get time

I am not saying mirrorless are better than DSLR but they are not less either they have a lot of unique things to offer

for most folks way less weight and bulk and prints just as good and some things that might help get the shot like IBIS tilt screens etc...

 

[Applejack]

I did dip my toe in the water last week, I bought a Sony NEX 6 with an adapter to use my canon lenses. It was a cheap (relatively) way to see for myself.
Here are my initial impressions:

With Sony lenses attached it focuses just as fast as my 6D, or at least fast enough that I cannot tell a difference.

With the Metabone canon lense adapter and a canon lens, it's way slower than the 6D.

It has more focus points and higher burst rate.

The Sony's screen and viewfinder are no match for canon's. When I am manually focusing I find it difficult to tell sometimes if it is indeed in focus.

Did a couple if 16x20 prints of the same shot one with the Sony and one with a 60D (not 6D) non- edited and the Sony was quite a bit better. The Sony's sensor is larger, but only just, but the images did have noticeably less noise.

Obviously the Sony nex 6 is not part of the top brass when it comes to mirrorless rigs but it is impressive enough that have decided that my 60d body is pointless to keep, other than the fact that its weather sealed, which is something that I do desire in a camera body and lenses. My 6D....I haven't decided. I will keep it for now.

 

[swkingston]

I am late to the thread, apologies.

For me, it really comes down to purpose and function. What are you going to shoot, where and when. I have sold a majority of my DSLR gear over the past year, not all mind you. I still have my tried and true 5D2 w/Magic Lantern accompanied by both a Sigma 35mm and a 85mm in the pelican for use as my video platform only. For my every day use, family candid, carry, trail, hiking, expo'ing, and general travel needs, I happily only carry only a Fuji X100s on a Rapid Strap and 4 extra batteries. Leaf shutter and a fixed 2.0 lens rocks. Oh did I say ND included as well?! IQ straight out of the camera is simply amazing. In the studio (headshots and portraits) I have completely moved to all Fuji. My X-Pro1 is now backup to the X-T1. The new 56mm 1.2 is simply amazing, coupled with a 23mm and 35mm both at 1.4 I have all I really need.

I'm fine with not having the highest megapixel count, fastest burst rate, etc. etc. My purposes do not need that, even for the studio work. If I need huge MP, I'll simply rent a MF. Sports - 1DX, etc. etc.

Best advice I ever received was... learn what you have. Learn to light or use light. Learn composition.

 

[Applejack]

After having lived with my Sony NEX-6 for a solid half year, I thought I would rip this scab open again and pour some salt in. After owing my Sony for a month, I was so impressed by it that I sold my 60D. One major consideration for doing so was that compactness of the little Sony. There were times when I couldn't bring my 60D or 6D (very similar in size) on my backpacking trips because I had no room left in my pack. The Sony could easily be stuffed somewhere so long as I only brought my 20mm f2 lens. Image quality was pretty well on par with my 60D as long as you didn't have large prints in mind. All in all it's a pretty cool little camera but, here is where things were not so cool. Though the sensor was slightly larger than that of my 60D and many "lab tests" suggested that the image quality was actually better, they just weren't.
It's supposed to have better color depth, better dynamic range and so on, but these weren't things that were actually detectable by my eyes. Also while at first image quality seemed to be about the same as my 60D eventually I began to notice that they were pretty grainy looking even when shooting with my nice Canon glass. The Sony is not weather sealed either and that is a big issue. I can't tell you how many times I had large amounts of dust on my sensor and I really try to be careful. The Sony has a lot of cutesy apps and stuff but nothing that a professional or someone who is otherwise serious about their photography will be too interested in. The Sony has a manual mode but it's not a true manual mode, there are a few things it locks you out of. Eventually the little Sony began to display some quirks that were unacceptable for a camera that was only 6 months old. At times it will become possessed by a very blue white balance and it only gives up when it feels like it.
I also didn't like the fact that it's fastest shutter speed is only 1/4000, the same as the 6D but only half of the 60D it replaced. To sum it up, it's likable in many ways, I will keep it for backpacking but I recently got a 70D and I am liking it a lot better than the Sony. It really cannot be compared to the 6D, two very different animals, and I can't ever see myself giving up a full frame rig. Now a full frame mirrorless??? Well, we will see, but it's going to be awhile.

 

[nwoods]

Nice follow up Applejack. I personally am pretty content with my 7D. Love the bulletproof build quality. Although being honest, it's IQ is not quite as good as what I got with my 20D. That was a great camera! Really worked well with the lenses I have (16-35 L, 10-22 EFS, and 70-200 L)

 

[kojackJKU]

Nothing is going to "kill" DSLR cameras. People are still shooting film professionally. Now, that being said, You can get amazing images that you can print huge with from with compact cameras now. I know I can get ultra sharp photos from my x10 and X-S1 Fuji compacts that can be printed 16x20. Most amateur photographers will never print this big. I bought a photo printer that does 16x20 and have no issues even with my nokia 1020 I can print this big and have awesome looking photos. If I was shooting sports for a living, I would have a D4 Nikon. But as an adventuerer that wants to capture family, people, and places on our trips, my new Fuji cameras are the gear. Again I go back to my 1020, having this with me is awesome. It takes 41mp photos and they are super sharp because of the lens used, as well as on board OIS. I shot many photos with my 1020 on our trip to Nova Scotia this summer and they were amazing.

If you are set on a DSLR, but still want a compact setup. Buy an Olympus 4/3s kit, like an e-30 and an e-5 (fully watersealed). The lenses from oly are some of the sharpest available and are overlooked a lot because it does not have canon or Nikon wrote on it.

 

[workerdrone]

DSLR's are definitely not dead, but I'm sure their days are numbered.

If I want ultimate quality, want to be absolutely sure I get the shot, I'm still taking my DSLR every. single. time.

If I want to have fun and probably get some great shots, lately I'm taking my mirror less. But basically it's because it doesn't weigh anything and I enjoy the challenge of trying to get something out of it that looks like I shot it on a pro camera.

My analogy would be keyboards - laptop full size keyboard vs typing on my iPhone. The DSLR is the full-size - it just does what I want it to do and I can change settings all over the place and make it perform without thinking about it. It fits my hands and there are manual controls under every finger.

The mirror less are the iPhone - they can do the job, and are a LOT easier to carry around, and the auto-suggest is getting pretty good, but I wouldn't want to rely on it for paid work. I know people are making them work and that's great, not trying to argue it can't be done. Personally I think they'd generally prefer a pro DSLR, they just don't want to carry it around and don't want to have that much $ tied up in the system if it's no longer absolutely necessary.

People always use the analogy of birds in flight because they're such a challenge. You know what else is a challenge? Kids running around, especially in poor light. Give me the DSLR with a fast lens there too.

 

[DiploStrat]

My first digital camera was a Sony F707, which had a video viewfinder. I thought the idea was great but the viewfinder was slow scan so it was hard to capture images of fast moving objects. That, and the camera itself suffered from the typical focus lag of most cameras of the day. I still managed some great photos!

I love the bright viewfinder of my Nikon and the near instantaneous response, but there is no reason why these cannot be incorporated into a mirror less camera. Thom Hogan holds forth on mirror less cameras here: http://www.sansmirror.com

 

[aluke0510]

For the average consumer level sales have dropped considerably in favour of more compact systems. These are people who like the feel of more control; most really don't understand how to control exposure in different settings. The other crowd are the outdoorsy adventures who are realising the advantage of easy of carrying smaller systems allowing them to use it more. Yet the side staying with dslrs is the people who have always had them, or like the feel, or already have a good investment into lenses, or use more of the control, etc.

Professionals will not be dropping dslrs or medium format digital (what I use) anytime soon. They are certainly supplementing with certain cameras such as the Sigma dp Merrils, Ricoh GR, Sony A1 and similar variants as quicker carry everywhere tools. For the most part it is the lenses that are a major drawback; either low quality (most lenses for compact cameras can't deliver full resolution to even a 16mp sensor...) or the cost of added lenses (remember they already have money invested into a full system and aren't exactly rich). Lenses on the cameras above are really very nicely tuned and designed for the camera sensor combination package. For these you can do a much better job with the lens since they are fully integrated and designed together. That and for this style fixed lens is much easier as an always with you or quick access...

 

[Pathfinder]

I wrote that post last spring and I haven't changed my mind yet. I have friends who use the Sony full frame mirror less camera bodies for landscape shooting and they like the files fine. If you are going to shoot everything in manual focus from a tripod, that seems to work pretty well, but I need/want more versatility that that.

I just bought a Canon 7D MkII - bigger than the GH3, but smaller than a large ff body, for wildlife shooting this winter and next spring. So I haven't given up on DSLRs just yet, despite their mechanical complexity.

For star shots, I prefer my full frame camera over my m4/3 system too, despite the weight disadvantage. I can focus the m4/3 system manually with live view ok, but the files just don't match those from my ff Canon body yet - at least in my hands.

If I am just shooting snapshots, though, I reach for my Lumix GX7 - small, light, easy to handle, and takes pretty nice shots for snapshot and even 8x12 prints or bigger.