Are DSLR's now pretty much dead?

Messages
4,354
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening all,

This is not in any way meant to raise any arguments or anything like that. Apologies if I have missed another thread on this someone, I did have a little look around before creating this one.

The topic came about a few months ago when myself and a few friends were sat having some tea together and discussing all things photography. Two of us use 5dmk3's and the other has an Olympus mirror less camera.

We were all kind of talking about at what stage, if at all, will the DSLR die? At what stage might it be a good idea to trade it in and try and get a good amount of money back for it to then buy into a mirror less system if we thought the DSLR was going.

Or alternatively, if we think the DSLR will be will be around for many years to come yet and the kit will hold its value. To give an idea, both myself and my friend have 5dmk3's and Canon L glass which we have always, if we were getting new lenses or something, sold older ones and got good money back for them. Presumably if the DSLR was dying, the prices for said equipment would also plummet selling second hand?

I hope this all makes sense, I feel a bit like I am struggling to say what I mean this evening and just feel very tired and have a bit of brain fog.

I would love to know what your opinions are and if any of you have jumped ship or indeed stuck with the DSLR.

Thanks.
 
This is somewhat of a crystal ball question tbh. When mirrorless finally caught up to DSLRs the feeling was that mirrorless would take over and DSLRs would die off but tbh it’s not happened, at least not in the numbers that were predicted.

Camera sales on the whole are declining, and it would be my guess that DSLR sales will continue to fall more than mirrorless, but I think there’s plenty of life in DSLRs yet and manufacturers are continuing to bring out new models, if the market was going to die any time soon I’m sure they wouldn’t be developing anything new in the DSLR world.
 
This is somewhat of a crystal ball question tbh. When mirrorless finally caught up to DSLRs the feeling was that mirrorless would take over and DSLRs would die off but tbh it’s not happened, at least not in the numbers that were predicted.

Camera sales on the whole are declining, and it would be my guess that DSLR sales will continue to fall more than mirrorless, but I think there’s plenty of life in DSLRs yet and manufacturers are continuing to bring out new models, if the market was going to die any time soon I’m sure they wouldn’t be developing anything new in the DSLR world.

Sigma said their production will favour mirrorless, tamron is looking that way, canon have also stated that their lens efforts will go to mirrorless. Sony no longer develops dslr kit and that leaves Nikon. If manufacturers are focusing the most profitable sector of their imaging departments on mirrorless then it won't be long before we see repeats of A mount all round.
 
Sigma said their production will favour mirrorless, tamron is looking that way, canon have also stated that their lens efforts will go to mirrorless. Sony no longer develops dslr kit and that leaves Nikon. If manufacturers are focusing the most profitable sector of their imaging departments on mirrorless then it won't be long before we see repeats of A mount all round.
So are Canon not bringing any more DSLRs out then, was the 1Dx3 their swan song?
 
Canon lenses adapt well to the Sony A7iii so there is a halfway house in terms of replacing the body but keeping the lenses. I have even used my Canon lenses on my Olympus EM5 but the big heavy lenses drain the battery very quickly.

If you want to trade in your current bodies I wouldn't leave it too long (this year/next year) but then what is wrong with what you have got? Wait long enough and DSLRs will be back in fashion just like film cameras are now :)
 
... EF lenses will hold value till canon adds more lenses to the RF line up because people can adapt via ef/rf and get native performance.

That doesn't mean manufacturers will continue to produce dslr cameras for years to come imo. It's unlikely in a shrinking market they'd increase manufacturing costs and make the expensive product cost even more and increase cost of repairs, servicing and failures due to more moving parts.

The adapter is their solution. The other manufactures are just doing what Sony did years ago but Canikon 1st gen is impressive and they learnt from Sonys R&D.
 
Last edited:
Canon lenses adapt well to the Sony A7iii so there is a halfway house in terms of replacing the body but keeping the lenses. I have even used my Canon lenses on my Olympus EM5 but the big heavy lenses drain the battery very quickly.

If you want to trade in your current bodies I wouldn't leave it too long (this year/next year) but then what is wrong with what you have got? Wait long enough and DSLRs will be back in fashion just like film cameras are now :)

Canon users with lots of canon glass can just use the R series, they get native performance using EF, unlike when adapting to other mounts.
 
So are Canon not bringing any more DSLRs out then, was the 1Dx3 their swan song?

Not really sure, they only commented on lenses but that says a lot.

I wouldnt spend 6,5k on a dslr when the R5 is around the corner and will likely be much cheaper, id hang onto my 1dxii if I had one or adapt. Yes, I think the 1dx3 is the last mirrored 1 series.
 
Last edited:
If starting from scratch now I'd most likely go with a mirrorless system.

However for the stuff I shoot I can see no compelling performance gain by changing anytime soon.

GC
 
I currently have seven mirrorless and one dSLR. This reflects the relative usefulness of the two types to me. Different people will have different needs and desires.
 
I was an early mirrorless adopter and the one big reason for me was to have smaller and lighter kit. I later came to appreciate the WYSIWYG, being able to manually focus really accurately and lastly I came to love face detect as it frees up brain time to concentrate on framing and when to press the shutter rather than spending time moving the focus point about.

If however these things don't matter I think a DSLR set up could make sense. A DSLR and a set of basic compact f1.8/2 AF lenses or any basic AF zoom lens set up of your choice could probably be put together for a fraction of the cost of a comparable mirrorless system and that has to be attractive to some people.

So, even if there are fewer or even no new DSLR lenses and new bodies get fewer and further between a DSLR set up could still make sense. I wouldn't spend a great amount on DSLR kit and expect it to hold any value though as I do think it's only a matter of time until values begin to slide and maybe then the slide will speed up a lot.
 
Last edited:
Not dead just yet but in danger of becoming extinct. Mirrorless cameras have less moving parts and are/ will be become cheaper to produce than DSLRs. Camera companies need sales to survive so the push for new Mirrorless bodies and lenses will become greater.
 
I currently have seven mirrorless and one dSLR. This reflects the relative usefulness of the two types to me. Different people will have different needs and desires.
:eek:
 
I was an early mirrorless adopter and the one big reason for me was to have smaller and lighter kit. I later came to appreciate the WYSIWYG, being able to manually focus really accurately and lastly I came to love face detect as it frees up brain time to concentrate on framing and when to press the shutter rather than spending time moving the focus point about.

If however these things don't matter I think a DSLR set up could make sense. A DSLR and a set of basic compact f1.8/2 AF lenses or any basic AF zoom lens set up of your choice could probably be put together for a fraction of the cost of a comparable mirrorless system and that has to be attractive to some people.

So, even if there are fewer or even no new DSLR lenses and new bodies get fewer and further between a DSLR set up could still make sense. I wouldn't spend a great amount on DSLR kit and expect it to hold any value though as I do think it's only a matter of time until values begin to slide and maybe then the slide will speed up a lot.
There's other more 'simple' things where I prefer mirrorless, that aren't big deals but make the whole experience better imo. One such thing is the auto switch between viewfinder and liveview.
 
I think both Dslr and Mirrorless will expire at the same time to the onslaught of computational photography, in whatever form that is.

It also doesn’t help that some manufacturers DSLR systems are still superior to their Mirrorless systems (I’m looking at you Nikon!) and many don’t wish to swap out to Sony.
 
It’s a tough one - there are a lot of photographers that have and continue to earn really good money with bodies as far back as 2008... the advancements in technology are *relatively small when looking at what you can offer clients.
I’m a big fan of DSLRs - however I am looking at a mirrorless alongside my dslr for two reasons - more accurate focusing and eye af - as I want this for my portrait work using fast telephoto primes - but that’s it. I’ve survived and coped very well shooting sport with various dslr bodies and in all honesty if you’re shooting for a client that usually just posts your photos on their social media - have a camera that shoots 10/12 FPS at 12 mp and good in low light is much easier to work with than 24/36/42 mp files for example.

As mentioned above the camera market in general is shrinking and those that look to enter it will imo go for a mirrorless.
 
I think you need to define "Dead" there are photographers all over the world still experimenting with pinhole photography, you can still buy large format cameras and the plates to go with them, film is still being produced in large quantitys, why? because people are still buying and using it in cameras that are 50 years old and more.

So will DSLR's die? No of course not, will they become less mainstream? Maybe but then again maybe not. None of us can see what the future holds but businesses can chart trends and then plan their strategy accordingly, equally some companies still have a lot invested in DSLR technology and because the main development costs have already been recovered the profit margin is probably higher than that of newer tech.

But like you I'm just guessing and we will all have to wait and see :cool:
 
It’s a tough one - there are a lot of photographers that have and continue to earn really good money with bodies as far back as 2008.
Can you name some with details of equipment and earnings?
 
Can you name some with details of equipment and earnings?
Well I earn an ok amount shooting with a canon 1d mkiii and a nikon d3 - the d700 is still used by a few even as a back up. In good light for web publishing it holds up well imo.

And 2012 with the release of the d4 & d800 & 1dx all of which are still very competitive cameras. I know that David Rams still uses a d800
 
Last edited:
Can you name some with details of equipment and earnings?

If you actually look into it properly, the vast majority of full time professionals freelancers and employees at businesses that are preliminarily photo based, where those people are earning good solid money you'll largely find that the dominant cameras are Canon 1dx's, 5D series, Nikon 800 range and a good sprinkling of MF. And of course similar specced cameras.

I've worked alongside literally hundreds of photographers over the last 15 years and rarely ever see a Sony / Fuji etc. and when I do its normally the junior photographers. In my circle of professional photographers I know of only one single photographer using a Sony mirrorless.

I personally use 1dx's and at some places a 5d mk III. Both models from 2012.

What you will see all over the internet are 'photographers' blogging about how much they love there Sonys etc. usually they are wedding or event photographers and when you really look into it they often don't have much work, covering a half dozen weddings and low key events a year. This is why they have so much time to write blogs and articles.

Getting back to the OPs question, for your average hobbyist, no doubt mirrorless will continue to rise in sales, after all they are lighter, cheaper often easier to use and these days from the likes of Sony offer extra technology that make obtaining a pretty decent image much easier with much less skill.

Professionals are going to be holding on to their DSLRs for quite some time though. They work perfectly. If it ain't broke don't fix it. And I cannot see a single advantage to mirrorless with the possible exception of weight in some very specific specialist circumstances.
 
I remember such a 'discussion' on another forum, some years ago. I said then, that DSLRs still had another 5 years or more before we started to see ML come to the fore. A couple of idiots disagreed with me. Fools. Sony users I think they were... ;)

I think what you prefer to use depends on the kind of photography you are doing. I know that many wildlife photographers, who may sit for literally hours to wait for a shot, looking through a viewfinder, will favour the much longer battery life that DSLRs currently offer. Many sports photographers will prefer the 'real time' nature of the OVF over any delay (however tiny) with an EVF. ML cams will have to bulk up a bit to become as tough as DSLRs can be. Thus negating the 'smaller and lighter' appeal of ML. People can be slow to change habits; market forces will ultimately decide the future of cam design. but I think DSLRs will be around for a few years at least.

I bought a Nikon Z6 cos I wanted a smaller, lighter camera to take travelling etc. I'm sacrificing battery life and handling for that. TBH the D3300 it replaced felt nicer in the hand really. And my D600 with grip handles a lot nicer with heavier lenses and in portrait mode. Were I to want a do it all new camera now, I'd be a bit stumped though; the D750 is a bit long in the tooth, the Z6 is a better performer. The D780 is way overpriced, and again outperformed in several respects by the Z6. The D850 is too big and bulky for my liking. The D5/6 is again too big, and way too expensive for me to justify. Right now, the best camera for me, is the Z6. In spite of the negative points. So do I sell my F mount lenses in anticipation for new Z mount ones? It's a dilemma, but not one I really worry about. I've been happy up 'til now with my kit, so no reason to change just yet. Maybe if it becomes clear the Z lenses are a significant step up, then I might sell up. But then I'd like to keep doing a bit of film, so will keep at least a few F mount lenses. Ultimately though,I don't see my future with DSLRs, I have to say. The EVF in the Z6 is amazing, and such tech will only improve. When it eventually comes time to replace my D600, it probably won't be with a DSLR. Certainly not new, anyway.
 
Last edited:
What you will see all over the internet are 'photographers' blogging about how much they love there Sonys etc. usually they are wedding or event photographers and when you really look into it they often don't have much work, covering a half dozen weddings and low key events a year. This is why they have so much time to write blogs and articles.

Ooof. Don't let the fanbois hear you say that.... :LOL:
 
I've worked alongside literally hundreds of photographers over the last 15 years and rarely ever see a Sony / Fuji etc. and when I do its normally the junior photographers. In my circle of professional photographers I know of only one single photographer using a Sony mirrorless.
While I accept that is your experience it's always best to be careful about making large claims. When I did this stuff for a living, albeit a very long time ago, there were similar claims made which didn't stand up to close inspection.

I'm also cautious about your claims that you've met "literally hundreds of photographers over the last 15 years". At a time when there were many more people in the press field alone I doubt that I met more than 50 photographers across all areas during the years 1967 to 1985 that I was active. At the time I was not only selling my pictures but also buying as an editorial assistant and later editor.

Of course, everyone's experience is different.
 
Love my D700, why would I want to change it if it's doing the job I want it do. Spending money is SO easy, trying to resist is HARD! Saving for a Z50 to take out on short walks.
 
there were similar claims made which didn't stand up to close inspection.

I'm also cautious about your claims that you've met "literally hundreds of photographers over the last 15 years". At a time when there were many more people in the press field alone I doubt that I met more than 50 photographers across all areas during the years 1967 to 1985 that I was active.

Thats fair enough, so lets explain a little further.

I do lots of different work. At events / catwalks / press / launches etc. There can often be a half dozen photographers easy, covering for various different magazines or client sectors. When it comes to catwalks / music events / red carpets etc. There can often be 20 or 30 photographers there. And whilst you see familiar faces, I see new people all the time.

At all these kind of events its split much more evenly between Canon and Nikon, and its at these kind of events I usually see junior photographers with the lower end cameras. If I ever get a moment I like to help them a bit, drop a couple of tips, because you can see it in their body language that they are struggling and don't really know what they are doing.

I also shoot lots of products / fashion / ecommerce and I'm working in studios with up to 30 photographers, freelancers who are bringing their own equipment. And here the Canon 1dx / 5d's really dominate, and a few are using MF with digibacks.

When it comes to fashion again I can be working in a small team, sometimes 3 or 4 photographers.

Definitely a good two or three hundred photographers easily.

Now if I 'm more subjective about this discussion, if for example I am at a big press event, there may be a dozen of us in the press pit. Most people are friendly and chatty and I often ask people who they are covering for and you'll receive the usually this magazine, that agency etc. But if you look outside the press pit there you'll see the amateur photographer and thats where you'll see a whole multitude of different cameras.
 
@riddell Thanks for your insight - that reflects my observations, albeit on a smaller scale and more focused on sport.

I think a lot of people get carried away with the specifications / capabilities of the camera before assessing their actual needs. I know I am guilty of this, however I only really appreciate what I need when I'm out shooting, keeping busy, then so many of the features of your particular camera fall by the side. For example, network tethering - I've never used it - however there will be some where the 1000 base Ethernet port on the newer pro DSLR's is essential.
 
If I ever get a moment I like to help them a bit, drop a couple of tips, because you can see it in their body language that they are struggling and don't really know what they are doing.

Ooh. See, that could easily be construed as extremely patronising and arrogant. How do you know they are 'struggling', if you can't actually see what pictures they're taking? For all you know, they could be taking better photos than you. Whilst I always appreciated constructive criticism, if you'd approached me, as a 'struggling' young photographer, with some 'helpful advice', I'd likely have told you to **** off. Particularly if I didn't know you. Maybe better to allow it and let them learn for themselves. Everyone needs to find their own groove.
 
Old technology dies away and is replaced by new technology. The Old Farts continue to use the old technology until it becomes too difficult. Happened to film cameras when digital came along. Now I can buy professional film kit for a song. Now I have SLR, DSLR, Mirrorless, and several even older technologies that I (as the Old Fart par excellence) continue to use with varying levels of difficulty. But i cannot buy the SLR cameras new, nor the other film cameras - small production lines are too expensive to maintain.
 
Dead as a dodo. As a service to the forum, I will be happy to dispose of any recent, fully working professional or semi-professional dSLR for a very reasonable fee. You need only pay the cost of shipping, and a flat £20 service charge to cover my costs.
 
How do you know they are 'struggling', if you can't actually see what pictures they're taking?

Because you see or feel them panicking, sweating, chimping, panicking. And when its comes to fast paced events like catwalk, they are clearly missing everything.
If you've ever been in a press pit squashed in with a dozen other photographers and videographers, you are often so close to other people that you can tell everything from their body language, their stressed flitted movement to hearing them curse as they chimp.

In that environment it actually stresses me to be next to someone like that. So when we get a moments recess I often ask the problem and I'm often met with - 'This is my first gig, and all my photos are so dark / bright / out of focus, if I don't get the images they won't be happy'

I often give advice, like 'well I'm shooting 1/250, f7.1 and ISO800. What are you using?' and often I'm met back by a blank stare as they clearly don't know anything other than the automode they are using.
 
I'd guess that professionals may be less demanding than moneyed amateurs in some areas. For example an amateur with money to spend might be more likely to buy what they want rather than what they need whereas a professional may I guess have more of an eye on what they need to spend their hard earned money on to get the results they need.

I've recently bought a Voigtlander 50mm f2 which is a nicely made manual lens and price wise it is I suppose a mid market offering not costing too much but significantly more than a 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 consumer zoom. It goes nicely with my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and 40mm f1.2 lenses. These lenses are probably of no interest at all to professionals and perhaps more tempting to an amateur with money to spend, like me :D

Lenses like this could be a right royal PITA to use on a standard DSLR as they're just not built for their use especially if you pixel peep but on a mirrorless camera they're a joy and it's easy to focus very accurately indeed and maybe more accurately than you can with an AF lens, if you have the time.

I do think that DSLR's will become ever more niche partly as the older men (as that's what a significant percentage of them probably are) retire and are replaced by newer and maybe younger people, people with maybe less of an interest in the Canon and Nikon DSLR duopoly that recently existed in just about every area and more open to the new stuff that mirrorless brings like consistently accurate pixel peeping friendly focus, bang on just about every time eye detect and all the other wizardry that DSLR's can only maybe do in a clunky way. The new bells and whistles bring me to video and video and stills convergence and maybe other technologies like light field or things we aren't even aware of today may make todays mirrorless cameras seem like a stepping stone between DSLR's and whatever may come after the current mirrorless cameras we have now.
 
It's different if people ask for advice. Then it's fine to offer it. But is that what you do?

In that environment it actually stresses me to be next to someone like that.

It's actually got **** all to do with you. Just concentrate on your own game. They'll either sink or swim. I'm amazed, that in such a high pressured environment, you'd actually have time to offer anyone else and advice...

I say all this, cos I've had 'helpful' people try to offer me 'advice'. Well; actually it was insecure blokes trying to assert their fragile egos, truth be told. 'Oh you won't get anything decent with a camera like that'. 'You need X Y or Z flashgun/lens' etc. Blah blah blah. Often said well in the haring of others, clearly intended to assert their egos in a group. I've known many female photographers who've endured all this, and worse. Pathetic. I'm not saying you're like this, but it's good to think on it. YOU may think you're being 'helpful', but it might not be construed like that.


f you've ever been in a press pit squashed in with a dozen other photographers and videographers

At a political event, a couple of years ago, I was fortunate to get into an inner enclosure by the stage, access afforded to me by a friend with connections. Loads of press etc outside the metal barriers. At one point, some **** grabbed my backback to pull me out of the way of 'his' shot. Not even an 'excuse me mate'. IE, used physical violence. Assault. What a dick.

Suffice to say I made a point of standing directly in front of him at every opportunity. He can't have got many shots at all, of the crucial part of the event. Afterwards, I sought him out to have a word, only to find him in a row with another press photographer, over who had the biggest penis or whatever. Clearly someone who felt he was more entitled than others. There are quite a few people like this, sadly. They may feel they need to be like that in order to further their own careers or whatever, but such behaviour just marks you out to be a ****. And oneday, someone will call you out on it, or worse. As photographers, it's our duty not to be that ****.
 
Last edited:
While I accept that is your experience it's always best to be careful about making large claims. When I did this stuff for a living, albeit a very long time ago, there were similar claims made which didn't stand up to close inspection.

I'm also cautious about your claims that you've met "literally hundreds of photographers over the last 15 years". At a time when there were many more people in the press field alone I doubt that I met more than 50 photographers across all areas during the years 1967 to 1985 that I was active. At the time I was not only selling my pictures but also buying as an editorial assistant and later editor.

Of course, everyone's experience is different.
I think it's safe to say the amateurs are much more interested in the lavest and greatest while professionals but new gear when what they got gets worn out.
It's also important to recognise some are ambasadeurs ogåf a brand and therefore will always have the latest iteration or the one the marketing people want them to have.
The bread and butter photographer will simply have and use what allows them to make money effieciently and thats not neccesarilly what some reviewers decides is the absolutely best on the market right now
 
I think it's safe to say the amateurs are much more interested in the lavest and greatest while professionals but new gear when what they got gets worn out.
I'm not sure one can make a definite statement about that. I've known several commercial guys who were quite happy to buy new toys when funds permitted. I was always chopping and changing, seeing it as a nice perk of the job.
 
I say all this, cos I've had 'helpful' people try to offer me 'advice'. Well; actually it was insecure blokes trying to assert their fragile egos, truth be told. 'Oh you won't get anything decent with a camera like that'. 'You need X Y or Z flashgun/lens' etc. Blah blah blah.

There are a hundred reasons why someone might say that your equipment isn't much good, and often its because people have been through the same experience, learnt the lessons. And when we are talking work in a professional capacity even gaining a 5% improvement to keep your clients happy is worth it.

When you are talking press event, as mentioned their maybe 20 or 30 photographers there, if you are working on spec. then you want every advantage you can, so that your photos are the ones brought and not another photographers. When its comes to a magazine or paper making a choice about which photo to buy it can be miniscule things that make a difference.

If you want my own experiences, I once got a very lucky break because a magazine commissioning some work knew that a regular photographer they used didn't have the right equipment for a particular event, so I got the job and got into that publishers. I also lost a very nice contract with a syndication house when a lens went faulty and I used a backup lens, that quite honestly was a cheap backup. The editor complained that the images didn't look good, questioned my equipment and stopped using me after that.

Professionals have learnt to use what they need to use. Thats all.

[QUOTE="AZ6, post: 8669192, member: 91509"
At a political event, a couple of years ago, I was fortunate to get into an inner enclosure by the stage, access afforded to me by a friend with connections. Loads of press etc outside the metal barriers. At one point, some **** grabbed my backback to pull me out of the way of 'his' shot. Not even an 'excuse me mate'. IE, used physical violence. Assault. What a dick. [/QUOTE]

This is why amateurs / junior photographers are frowned upon at any event. They simply don't know the etiquette or basic politeness. At many events as the photographer your turn up early to get a good position. If I turn up late I ask people where they are standing, which way they plan to swing their lenses and if they are shooting long or wide. We work it out amongst us so we can all get shots. We are all there to do a job.

Saying that I cover some political events for an agency and I have main position, I'm the only commissioned photographer, everyone else is on spec. And I have full access to go and get what I need. Everyone else has to stay out of my way. Thats how it works. Others respect it. If it was the other way around I would because I know the score.
 
This is why amateurs / junior photographers are frowned upon at any event. They simply don't know the etiquette or basic politeness. At many events as the photographer your turn up early to get a good position. If I turn up late I ask people where they are standing, which way they plan to swing their lenses and if they are shooting long or wide. We work it out amongst us so we can all get shots. We are all there to do a job.

Exactly this, it's professional respect. Just like removing big hoods on long lenses.

GC
 
Dslr's are the workhorse of photographers
mirrorless as i understand relies on an electronic viewfinder?

"Mirrorless cameras have the advantage of usually being lighter, more compact, faster and better for video; but that comes at the cost of access to fewer lenses and accessories. DSLRs have the advantage in lens selection and an optical viewfinder that works better in low light, but they are more complex and bulkier.29 Jan 2018"


dont we just love the feel of a reel body and lens combo?
 
dont we just love the feel of a reel body and lens combo?
Yep - and if the mirror slap is a pleasant, reassuring sound (I've returned bodies that were otherwise wonderful because the timbre of the mirror slap was displeasing - having no mirror slap at all is disconcerting)
 
Dslr's are the workhorse of photographers
mirrorless as i understand relies on an electronic viewfinder?

"Mirrorless cameras have the advantage of usually being lighter, more compact, faster and better for video; but that comes at the cost of access to fewer lenses and accessories. DSLRs have the advantage in lens selection and an optical viewfinder that works better in low light, but they are more complex and bulkier.29 Jan 2018"


dont we just love the feel of a reel body and lens combo?

Were now in 2020, there have been significant advancements since 2018 in MILC technology and the A9 was around in 2017 so seems a biased quote. They are smaller, lighter, faster FPS, faster more accurate AF for stills and video and the lenses and accessories are at a point where not many can complain. An optical viewfinder does not work better in low light, an EVF lets you see what the sensor sees incl exposure in real time, in low light the sensor sees in the dark better than your eyes can.

On the latest higher end MILC you are getting 20FPS, blackout free, completely silent shooting with AF that is better than DSLRs and the accuracy of on sensor PDAF. The AF points also stretch across nearly 100% of the entire frame.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top