Are DSLR's now pretty much dead?

mrtoad said:
you can still hear the shutter though...when the mirrorless cameras came out...and i have one...it was because of the mirror clack on my oly E420 which i didnt want
i have had quieter slr's....nikon nikkormats EL2 and some early pentax bodies...so i cant say what the more modern dslr's sound like except that from what you say must still be noisy
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about an intrusively noisy slap - I had one for a very short time that was like a rifle shot (an OM10 maybe) that was like a cry for attention.

Just as I said, the quietly reassuring noise of the mirror slap. In fact having now tested it, the shutter opening & closing is virtually undetectable without removing the lens.

If your shutter curtain is making that intrusive a noise, I'd question the design of it.
 
hunnymonster said:
I'm not talking about an intrusively noisy slap - I had one for a very short time that was like a rifle shot (an OM10 maybe) that was like a cry for attention.

Just as I said, the quietly reassuring noise of the mirror slap. In fact having now tested it, the shutter opening & closing is virtually undetectable without removing the lens.

If your shutter curtain is making that intrusive a noise, I'd question the design of it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, are you sure? Because pretty much every DSLR and MILC Ive used (many) have a noisy shutter (So far the quieter shutters have been XH1 and RP, A9 being completely silent). Mirrorless by design have no mirror and the shutter makes the noise.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Hmmm, are you sure? Because pretty much every DSLR and MILC Ive used (many) have a noisy shutter (So far the quieter shutters have been XH1 and RP, A9 being completely silent). Mirrorless by design have no mirror and the shutter makes the noise.
Click to expand...
I was actually surprised how loud the shutter is on the A7RIV compared to the Z7 when I first got it, I'd forgotten what a loud shutter was like ;)
 
twist said:
Hmmm, are you sure? Because pretty much every DSLR and MILC Ive used (many) have a noisy shutter (So far the quieter shutters have been XH1 and RP, A9 being completely silent). Mirrorless by design have no mirror and the shutter makes the noise.
Click to expand...
Yep. Certain. Withdrawing from this thread.
 
john.margetts said:
If you spend some time shooting with camera that has a leaf shutter which will be nearly silent, and then go back to a mirror/focal plane shutter combo, the noise is deafening. And it does matter. If you are in a hide, the birds some distance away can hear the mirror slap. If the photographer has the machine gum approach, birds will move. Frequently, you can hear the sighs from dedicated birders when a photographer enters the hide.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. None of those points directly affect me hence my lack of consideration. I do use a leaf shutter camera (Sony RX100) and a D850 but it doesn’t bother me noise wise switching (I’m so grateful for the heft of the dslr after the tiny rx) but I take your point.
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
Are people really so upset over the sound of a mirror? I accept mirrorless is now a serious alternative even better in many aspects than DSLRs but surely the mirror sound isn’t a consideration?
Click to expand...

I remember my Canon 20D. It sounded like an anvil being thrown into a tin bath.

As far as I remember some of the Canon APS-C cameras had a more complicated mirror movement which lead to more noise. I'm sure I read that somewhere but I've no idea if that, if true, persists into the more modern models. The 10D I had was much quieter.
 
Last edited:
I’ve still got a 10d somewhere... loved it at the time and got some really good images from it
 
Yes. I took some pictures with mine that I still look at these days.

I had mine at the same time as the 20D and for indoor pictures of friends and family I chose the 10D over the 20D as it was much less conspicuous due to the much quieter shutter.

I can't remember what happened to mine. I suppose I sold it.
 
snerkler said:
I’m not sure why it’s a “game changer” tbh, but the Z lenses have certainly been impressive so far. The 50mm is stellar, but then you’d expect it to be as it was about four times more expensive than the 50mm f1.8g at launch.
Click to expand...

The new Z mount 50mm is sharper wide open, across the whole frame, than any other 50mm I've ever used. And on Nikon alone, that includes the F1.4 and 1.8 G versions, the F1.8D, and about 3 or 4 AI/AIS versions. Significantly sharper. Of all of those, the F1.4 G version was the most disappointing. Got rid of that straight away, as soon as I saw what the Z lens could do. As for pricing; I agree that the new lens does seem poor VFM on price alone, but the IQ more than justifies that. Seeing as how it's being compared to much more expensive lenses too. I too baulked at the price, when I first saw it, but I have absolutely no regrets buying one. AndI'm more than looking forward to seeing what else Nikon can produce.
 
AZ6 said:
The new Z mount 50mm is sharper wide open, across the whole frame, than any other 50mm I've ever used.
Click to expand...
I find myself a little confused by all this lens testing. In more than 50 years I've run the gamut of lenses from the 3 element East German Meritar to Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. I've used many dozens of lenses for everything from press shots to technical shots of small engineering parts. I've printed shots 6 foot wide or more and cropped out 1/20th of a frame to make 10x8 prints.

At the end of the day I don't think I've seen any difference that makes me think "I wish I'd used another lens". Still, as my American cousins never seem to tire of saying: "your mileage may vary".

:tumbleweed:
 
Well considering my Canon EOS D30 and Canon Digital Rebel and Kodak DCS Pro SLR C are still producing the goods, I think we'll continue for a while yet! (Circa 20 year old models!)
 
AZ6 said:
The new Z mount 50mm is sharper wide open, across the whole frame, than any other 50mm I've ever used. And on Nikon alone, that includes the F1.4 and 1.8 G versions, the F1.8D, and about 3 or 4 AI/AIS versions. Significantly sharper. Of all of those, the F1.4 G version was the most disappointing. Got rid of that straight away, as soon as I saw what the Z lens could do. As for pricing; I agree that the new lens does seem poor VFM on price alone, but the IQ more than justifies that. Seeing as how it's being compared to much more expensive lenses too. I too baulked at the price, when I first saw it, but I have absolutely no regrets buying one. AndI'm more than looking forward to seeing what else Nikon can produce.
Click to expand...

I think part of the problem with the pricing of some of the new mirrorless lenses is that we haven't really seen high performance f1.8's like them too often before, if at all, and perhaps we've got used to paying less for f1.8 options which have perhaps traditionally been more the cheaper less good option and nowhere near technically as good as these new modern very good f1.8 lenses which are good/excellent from wide open.
 
AZ6 said:
The new Z mount 50mm is sharper wide open, across the whole frame, than any other 50mm I've ever used. And on Nikon alone, that includes the F1.4 and 1.8 G versions, the F1.8D, and about 3 or 4 AI/AIS versions. Significantly sharper. Of all of those, the F1.4 G version was the most disappointing. Got rid of that straight away, as soon as I saw what the Z lens could do. As for pricing; I agree that the new lens does seem poor VFM on price alone, but the IQ more than justifies that. Seeing as how it's being compared to much more expensive lenses too. I too baulked at the price, when I first saw it, but I have absolutely no regrets buying one. AndI'm more than looking forward to seeing what else Nikon can produce.
Click to expand...
I get all that, but it was the game changer comment that confused me, I don't see how it's a game changer?
 
snerkler said:
I get all that, but it was the game changer comment that confused me, I don't see how it's a game changer?
Click to expand...

Well, daft expression I suppose. No real justification for using it tbh. I just meant that it's significantly better in terms of IQ. Which is only good.


woof woof said:
I think part of the problem with the pricing of some of the new mirrorless lenses is that we haven't really seen high performance f1.8's like them too often before, if at all, and perhaps we've got used to paying less for f1.8 options which have perhaps traditionally been more the cheaper less good option and nowhere near technically as good as these new modern very good f1.8 lenses which are good/excellent from wide open.
Click to expand...

That's marketing; '14 is better than 1.8!'. When actual, the reverse is often true. Many 'slower' lenses are actually optically better than the faster ones, cos of less compromise in design to get that large aperture. But many people like to own the faster lenses, as they think they help them look more 'pro', plus the greater expense makes them better at enhancing 'status'. People can be very silly. My 'cheap' 50mm f1.5D is a much better lens than the F1.4G I owned. But about a quarter of the price...

AndrewFlannigan said:
At the end of the day I don't think I've seen any difference that makes me think "I wish I'd used another lens". Still, as my American cousins never seem to tire of saying: "your mileage may vary".
Click to expand...

Very much this. I've nerdishly done tests and compared results. But even just looking at my pics generally, it's clear the new Z 50 is better. Sharper, less distortion, less aberration. Just better all round. Why not use something that's superior? And yes, I do have shots from my F1.4G, that I wish I'd had a better lens. Perhaps I'm too picky. But as you say; YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Funny to see these remarks about "game changing" sharpness etc while also seeing Lots of people praising the first Fuji X series cameras and original lenses for their "personality" and pleasing looks. Seems to me a Lot of people are caught Up in and uneccesary specrace with No real substantial effect in images
 
soeren said:
Seems to me a Lot of people are caught Up in and uneccesary specrace with No real substantial effect in images
Click to expand...
I would substitute "men" for "people" there. I've yet to meet a woman who holds (or at any rate expresses) that sort of view. :naughty:
 
soeren said:
Funny to see these remarks about "game changing" sharpness etc while also seeing Lots of people praising the first Fuji X series cameras and original lenses for their "personality" and pleasing looks. Seems to me a Lot of people are caught Up in and uneccesary specrace with No real substantial effect in images
Click to expand...
Yeah for some reason sharpness seems to be the holy grail these days, yet I still often prefer the look of older lenses. I just look at overall rendering and don’t worry too much about sharpness these days (unless it’s shocking), but if it’s sharp as well that’s a bonus. I do like my landscape lenses to be able to resolve good detail though, although there are of course other important factors such as contrast and flare resistance.
 
AZ6 said:
That's marketing; '14 is better than 1.8!'. When actual, the reverse is often true. Many 'slower' lenses are actually optically better than the faster ones, cos of less compromise in design to get that large aperture. But many people like to own the faster lenses, as they think they help them look more 'pro', plus the greater expense makes them better at enhancing 'status'. People can be very silly. My 'cheap' 50mm f1.5D is a much better lens than the F1.4G I owned. But about a quarter of the price...
Click to expand...

I know.

In the past the smart money may have been on the f1.8 option but I do think a lot of people viewed them as the lesser option and I do think that attitude is still there in some people to this day. I don't know about the latest Nikon mirrorless lenses but I've seen comments about the Sony 55mm f1.8 being way overpriced for what it is quite a few times when it is arguably one of the better 50-ish mm lenses ever made. Granted that may not be saying a lot as some 50mm lenses haven't been exactly spectacular but I think the newer lenses are a new breed, higher end f1.8 lenses with a cost that places them (IMO) in the upper mid section, not too expensive but not cheap ether.

One lens I've recently got is the Voigtlander 50mm f2 pro lanthar in Sony mount and it is IMO an outstanding lens. Some would probably think it's expensive for a 50mm f2 but at the same time it is possibly rivaling lenses in the £5k+ range.
 
AZ6 said:
.




That's marketing; '14 is better than 1.8!'. When actual, the reverse is often true. Many 'slower' lenses are actually optically better than the faster ones, cos of less compromise in design to get that large aperture. But many people like to own the faster lenses, as they think they help them look more 'pro', plus the greater expense makes them better at enhancing 'status'. People can be very silly. My 'cheap' 50mm f1.5D is a much better lens than the F1.4G I owned. But about a quarter of the price...
Click to expand...
I’m not sure it’s marketing, and I’m not sure that anyone says f1.4 lenses are better than the f1.8 versions. Some are, some aren’t. People buy f1.4’s for various reasons, and I’ve bought several over the years. Did I buy these because it made me feel more pro, or because I wanted to get into a willy waving contest?
 
snerkler said:
I’m not sure it’s marketing, and I’m not sure that anyone says f1.4 lenses are better than the f1.8 versions. Some are, some aren’t. People buy f1.4’s for various reasons, and I’ve bought several over the years. Did I buy these because it made me feel more pro, or because I wanted to get into a willy waving contest?
Click to expand...

Of course you did, only reason to buy a 1.4 lens :LOL:
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I’m not sure it’s marketing, and I’m not sure that anyone says f1.4 lenses are better than the f1.8 versions. Some are, some aren’t. People buy f1.4’s for various reasons, and I’ve bought several over the years. Did I buy these because it made me feel more pro, or because I wanted to get into a willy waving contest?
Click to expand...

Who knows? Did you buy it because you believed it gave you better IQ? Or because you needed that half stop extra? I've no idea. The F1.4 versions are more 'desirable', because they are seen as the 'superior' product by some folk. I bought the 1.4G because I thought it would AF faster than the F1.8D (it did), and because I thought it would be better in terms of IQ (it was worse). I tried the F1.8G version, didn't see enough of a difference to bother with it. Possibly slightly better than the D. Not enough to make me want to part with any money for it though.

Not sure what the relevance of those pics above is, quite frankly.
 
Last edited:
AZ6 said:
Who knows? Did you buy it because you believed it gave you better IQ? Or because you needed that half stop extra? I've no idea. I bought the 1.4G because I thought it would AF faster than the F1.8D (it did), and because I thought it would be better in terms of IQ (it was worse). I tried the F1.8G version, didn't see enough of a difference to bother with it. Possibly slightly better than the D. Not enough to make me want to part with any money for it though.

Not sure what the relevance of those pics above is, quite frankly.
Click to expand...

The relevance? The f1.4G looks better than the f1.8D right across the frame. Better contrast, better CA control and better sharpness at the same aperture. Not everyone carries a 1.4 lens for status.
 
twist said:
The relevance? The f1.4G looks better than the f1.8D right across the frame. Better contrast, better CA control and better sharpness at the same aperture. Not everyone carries a 1.4 lens for status.
Click to expand...
But that only matters if you spend your life photographing charts. When photographing landscapes, my 1936 f/2.0 Carl Zeiss Tessar takes a lot of beating.
 
Lot of comments, as a sports tog - as long as a body can:

  1. Take a beating
  2. Be 100% weather proof in terrible conditions (even when tethered)
  3. Have min 10+ FPS + associated transfer rate
  4. Editable copy info in body
  5. Have AF equivalent to the D4 (or later) or 1D X
  6. Dual slots
  7. Manufacturers will to make rain covers for the model & lens
  8. Be full frame - yes it makes a difference in HDR & AF
  9. Be comfortable and have usable buttons, including portrait and landscape modes
Then I'll use what's available - at the moment that's Nikon DSLR's
 
john.margetts said:
But that only matters if you spend your life photographing charts. When photographing landscapes, my 1936 f/2.0 Carl Zeiss Tessar takes a lot of beating.
Click to expand...

No, it matters in real life, when shooting wide open, as you shoot landscapes that might not matter to you but it does to a lot of people. If the photographer needs a fast aperture (for low light or creative shooting), sharpness across the frame wide open and doesnt like CA when taking backlit shots light portraits. Everyone has different standards and requirements.
 
twist said:
The relevance? The f1.4G looks better than the f1.8D right across the frame. Better contrast, better CA control and better sharpness at the same aperture.
Click to expand...

Ah. See; MY comparison uses a camera with a much better sensor, and yields vastly different results.



Which is which?

twist said:
Not everyone carries a 1.4 lens for status.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they did.
 
Last edited:
AZ6 said:
Who knows? Did you buy it because you believed it gave you better IQ? Or because you needed that half stop extra? I've no idea. The F1.4 versions are more 'desirable', because they are seen as the 'superior' product by some folk. I bought the 1.4G because I thought it would AF faster than the F1.8D (it did), and because I thought it would be better in terms of IQ (it was worse). I tried the F1.8G version, didn't see enough of a difference to bother with it. Possibly slightly better than the D. Not enough to make me want to part with any money for it though.

Not sure what the relevance of those pics above is, quite frankly.
Click to expand...
But that was my point, you made a sweeping generalisation that people buy f1.4's because they believe the marketing hype, or want to be seen as a pro etc yet you don't know why I bought mine, and I dare say anyone else here on TP etc (y)
 
snerkler said:
you made a sweeping generalisation that people buy f1.4's because they believe the marketing hype
Click to expand...

I didn't. I said:

AZ6 said:
But many people like to own the faster lenses, as they think they help them look more 'pro'
Click to expand...

I don't mind you arguing a point, but please don't mis-quote me.
 
AZ6 said:
I didn't. I said:



I don't mind you arguing a point, but please don't mis-quote me.
Click to expand...
Ok, then I mis-read and apologise. You did say at the start that it's marketing that f1.4 is better than f1.8, and then went on to say that people buy them to look more pro and to enhance their status, and I took it as all in one (y)
 
AZ6 said:
Who knows? Did you buy it because you believed it gave you better IQ? Or because you needed that half stop extra? I've no idea. The F1.4 versions are more 'desirable', because they are seen as the 'superior' product by some folk. I bought the 1.4G because I thought it would AF faster than the F1.8D (it did), and because I thought it would be better in terms of IQ (it was worse). I tried the F1.8G version, didn't see enough of a difference to bother with it. Possibly slightly better than the D. Not enough to make me want to part with any money for it though.

Not sure what the relevance of those pics above is, quite frankly.
Click to expand...
Nikon don’t really make a good F mount ‘50’ . Sigma and Tamron (45) do and they may be a better comparison to the z50.

The Nikon 50 1.8 Z is a great lens but it’s ‘just’ another ubiquitous 1.8 and I can’t get excited about it. I hear what you say about the 1.4’s sometimes being worse but they can also be much better if made properly. A good example is the Nikon 35 1.8 is better than the Nikon 35 1.4 but the Tamron 35 1.4 is better than both (put together!) .

Roll on the 50 1.2 Z
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
I couldn't say.
Click to expand...

I could.

twist said:
Are they both at the same aperture? Because either one of them is at a wider aperture or its front focusing.
Click to expand...

Same aperture, F1.8. Focused on the exact same spot. Sorry, but you're wrong there.


Brazo said:
Nikon don’t really make a good F mount ‘50’ . Sigma and Tamron (45) do and they may be a better comparison to the z50.
Click to expand...


And how much do those lenses cost?

Haven't used either, but I found the Nikon F1.8 50s to be excellent really. The Z mount version is just better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top