Are DSLR's now pretty much dead?

Most of my mirrorless cameras are from 2012. Even back then they worked at least as well as DSLRs for most types of shooting. They've since improved considerably so there are very few cases where a DSLR is preferable, but there are many photographers who find the very idea of an EVF so abhorrent that they insist they'll never get one. While this state continues manufacturers will continue to make DSLRs even if they don't do any significant development on them.
 
AZ6 said:
Ah. See; MY comparison uses a camera with a much better sensor, and yields vastly different results.

View attachment 274191

Which is which?



I didn't say they did.
Click to expand...
Not sure which is which but the left one is definitely sharper, however I would put this down to either focussing errors or a bad lens as on the D610 there's only 1 mpix difference between the two lenses (and that's both wide open) and I doubt we'd be able to perceive that. The f1.4 should then be sharper overall when stopped down to f1.8 (y)
 
I hope that they carry on making DSLRs to me it’s a matter of preference
I find it easier to hold the camera steady with using the viewfinder rather than using the back screen
I have recently bought a second hand 6D 2 and will try using the live view screen for tripod macro work though
 
LCPete said:
I hope that they carry on making DSLRs to me it’s a matter of preference
I find it easier to hold the camera steady with using the viewfinder rather than using the back screen
I have recently bought a second hand 6D 2 and will try using the live view screen for tripod macro work though
Click to expand...
A viewfinder is available on most mirrorless cameras. I agree it is a significant benefit, only one of my mirrorless cameras hasn't had one built in & I got the optional extra for that one. I doubt I'll get another model that doesn't have one permanently attached.
 
Last edited:
Petrochemist said:
A viewfinder is available on most mirrorless cameras. I agree it is a significant benefit, only one of my mirrorless cameras hasn't had one built in & I got the optional extra for that one. I doubt I'll get another model that doesn't have one permanently attached.
Click to expand...
I'd also add that initially EVF's weren't great as it was obvious that you were viewing a mini LCD screen, but with the advancements in tech (such as OLED and better refresh rates) and increase in viewfinder resolution the difference is getting closer and they are now actually nice to use (IMO). In good light I still prefer looking through an OVF, but the difference is minimal for me now, and then all the pros of the EVF now outweighs this for me. In low light EVF's make life a lot easier (y)
 
Petrochemist said:
A viewfinder is available on most mirrorless cameras. I agree it is a significant benefit, only one of my mirrorless cameras hasn't had one built in & I got the optional extra for that one. I doubt I'll get another model that doesn't have one permanently attached.
Click to expand...
Thanks yes that’s a good point
 
snerkler said:
In good light I still prefer looking through an OVF, but the difference is minimal for me now, and then all the pros of the EVF now outweighs this for me. In low light EVF's make life a lot easier (y)
Click to expand...
The EVF in my Panasonic G9 suits me much better than the OVF in my Nikon D600. As always: other people may have different opinions.
 
I’ve always preferred evf for the wysiwyg feature and always wondered why you would want an ovf. That said I’ve been using an ovf since 2017 (actually since ‘92 but I digress) and switching back to an evf the tiny amount of lag for the screen to turn on when you put your eye to it seems like an age although perhaps only a fraction of a second.
 
Brazo said:
Maybe in the film era but their current 50’s just don’t stand up to the competition.
Click to expand...

One blogger I sometimes reads insists his Nikon 50mm f2 is one of the highest resolution lenses and to this day no one needs a better one. I have one of those lenses, it's 50 years old or so and although it's a nice lens it is IMO clearly of its era and something modern such as the Sony 50mm f1.8 (and I'm sure the latest mirrorless 50's from anyone else) IMO simply leaves it for dead. This is a well known guy who was a big name although I don't know if he still is. He is/was a photographer rather than a gear head.

I suppose all this proves is we like what we like :D
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
Maybe in the film era but their current 50’s just don’t stand up to the competition.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense.


Brazo said:
Either the same or cheaper than the Z 50 1.8.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to the Sigma Art 50mm F1.4, then the new Z 50 has already been found, by many, to be better. Granted, the Sigma is faster, but it's also much heavier. Price wise they're about the same. Personally, I'd rather have the Nikon. The Tamron I don't know about. Can't seem to find any new, in the most popular outlets, but I'd imagine it was about £500ish new? Bear in mind these are very different designs, so aren't really comparable to the Nikon 50s, perhaps to the silly 58mm f1.4G (which admittedly is much more expensive). The Z lens is brand new and designed for the Z mount. Now Sigma and Tamron etc do/have done 'normal' 50mm lenses; no way these are anywhere as good as the Nikons. I know; I've tried loads. The current

Nikon 50mm f1.8G is a fantastic lens both optically and in terms of vfm. They more than 'stand up to the competition'...

snerkler said:
Not sure which is which but the left one is definitely sharper, however I would put this down to either focussing errors or a bad lens as on the D610 there's only 1 mpix difference between the two lenses (and that's both wide open) and I doubt we'd be able to perceive that. The f1.4 should then be sharper overall when stopped down to f1.8 (y)
Click to expand...

See; you're making assumptions based on no real information. Both shots are at F1.8. The camera isn't a D610. The settings are the same for both lenses. The shooting environment was identical. Camera was on a tripod. There is a clear difference in IQ between the two. One lens retails at around £130. The other, just under £400.

But I digress. The real point is, that the new Nikon ML cameras have a newly designed lens mount, which the marketing spiel claims allows for better lens designs. As someone who now has experience of such a cam, albeit so far with only 2 'native' lenses, I have seen enough to convince me that this new system is quite possibly the better way forward for MY photography. To 'leave' the F-mount environment, well, now I know how Canon users felt in the late 80s, although it's not so bad cos I can at least still use all my older lenses, some with reduced functionality (no screw drive AF, grr Nikon! ). I'll keep my D600 for as long as it will continue to work, but would I replace it with another DSLR? I doubt it; the closest current equivalent is a D780 and that's way overpriced and inferior to my Z6 in many ways, for what I need. If it were more like £1000, then possibly. But I see that now as 'old tech', and that the Z system potentially offers more than the F system can give me. Shame, but that's life.
 
Last edited:
AZ6 said:
It's not just a 'simple question'.... ;)
Click to expand...

He did say there's "some life in them yet" which could I suppose encompass in intensive care but haven't had the last rights yet :D
 
snerkler said:
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)
Click to expand...
I bought my 35 f 1.4 mk 2 because I wanted the extra light in the arena where I shoot. Not because it made me feel like a pro or because I believed any hype. Last year, or was it the year before, I listened to half a presentation by a Sony user. You would think that extolling the cameras virtues would be enough but no, he slagged off just about every other brand on the way - hence only staying for half of it.... Perhaps, if he hadn't been so negative and blatantly biased , I might have considered Sony when I was pondering the way forwards. I am keen to see the R5 when it gets here eventually.
 
woof woof said:
One blogger I sometimes reads insists his Nikon 50mm f2 is one of the highest resolution lenses and to this day no one needs a better one. I have one of those lenses, it's 50 years old or so and although it's a nice lens it is IMO clearly of its era and something modern such as the Sony 50mm f1.8 (and I'm sure the latest mirrorless 50's from anyone else) IMO simply leaves it for dead. This is a well known guy who was a big name although I don't know if he still is. He is/was a photographer rather than a gear head.

I suppose all this proves is we like what we like :D
Click to expand...
Absolutely I’ve never been impressed with a Nikon 50 at least until I used the ‘58’ but that’s a different beast and a different fl.
 
Brazo said:
Maybe in the film era but their current 50’s just don’t stand up to the competition.
Click to expand...
For pixel peeping a lens test chart at 200% and scrutinising MTF plots, or for real world use? Given a hundred random images, half shot on a humble Nikon 50/1.8, and the other half shot on one of its third party boutique competitors, I wonder how many people here could reliably tell which lens was used for each image without looking at the exif data? There are lots of reasons to favour one camera system over another, mirrorless or otherwise, but I seriously doubt if the quality of the available 50mm lenses is one of them. Every major lens manufacturer has known how to make great ones for decades. It's fair enough if someone wants to spend more for a particular 'look' like large aperture razor thin DOF or swirly bokeh (I've got a Summitar!), but even the basic consumer 50s are excellent lenses.
 
Brazo said:
Lol I only entered this thread because you said back in post #93 that the Nikon 50 1.4 and 1.8G weren’t as good as the 50Z.
Click to expand...

They aren’t. That doesn’t mean they arent ‘good’ though. It’s all relative.
 
what camera would be useful to use at the albert hall during a quiet movement of a symphony?
that might be where the leaf shutter and the faster speeds would help and synch at all speeds

i had a fuji 67 rangefinder camera which had those characteristics but used roll film..
all very costly

very quiet! (tick)
 
mrtoad said:
what camera would be useful to use at the albert hall during a quiet movement of a symphony?
that might be where the leaf shutter and the faster speeds would help and synch at all speeds

i had a fuji 67 rangefinder camera which had those characteristics but used roll film..
all very costly

very quiet! (tick)
Click to expand...

Oly omd em1 mk2 has quite a fast silent shutter @snerkler , but guaranteed at all shutter speeds the Sony A9. You could still use other cameras silent shutters, really depends on how much movement there is in the shot. Not even a tick / snick.
 
twist said:
Oly omd em1 mk2 has quite a fast silent shutter @snerkler , but guaranteed at all shutter speeds the Sony A9. You could still use other cameras silent shutters, really depends on how much movement there is in the shot. Not even a tick / snick.
Click to expand...
TBH I don't know how fast the sensor readout time is on the EM1-II compared to the A9, I would guess not as fast, but I only ever saw a hint of 'jello' effect once, and that was only viewing from one image to the next consecutive one, it wasn't really noticeable viewing one image on it's own if that makes sense?

I never tried it in artificial light though so no idea how it copes with banding.
 
AZ6 said:
They aren’t. That doesn’t mean they arent ‘good’ though. It’s all relative.
Click to expand...
Well that depends, they're not as sharp but I actually prefer the rendering of the 50mm f1.4G so I would argue that the F1.4G is better, better rendering and more light gathering. I expect the 50mm f1.2 Z is going to blow them all out of the water as it will render beautifully and will also be very sharp. I don't fancy the price or the weight though :eek:
 
AZ6 said:
Ah. See; MY comparison uses a camera with a much better sensor, and yields vastly different results.

View attachment 274191

Which is which?



I didn't say they did.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The right image looks very much like something my Minolta/Sony 50 f1.4 would produce at f1.8, with a fair bit of CA and some general softening of fine detail typical of an older fast lens design. The left hand image looks like a modern 50 f1.8, with less CA & flare a bit more resolution - assuming this is at 1:1 it looks too detailed for the F mount 50 1.8G, so I'd presume it's the new Nikon 50 f1.8 for the Z series.

I don't have a horse in this race, but it's an interesting comparison.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Interesting. The right image looks very much like something my Minolta/Sony 50 f1.4 would produce at f1.8, with a fair bit of CA and some general softening of fine detail typical of an older fast lens design. The left hand image looks like a modern 50 f1.8, with less CA & flare a bit more resolution - assuming this is at 1:1 it looks too detailed for the F mount 50 1.8G, so I'd presume it's the new Nikon 50 f1.8 for the Z series.

I don't have a horse in this race, but it's an interesting comparison.
Click to expand...

Ok; I'll put you all out of your misery.

Bear in mind this is a real world test, not some carefully concocted guff with charts and other waffle. And it only relates to the specific items I had.

The left hand image was shot using the Nikon 50mm f1.8D lens, at f1.8. The right hand one, using the 50mm f1.4G version, at f1.8. Notice how much less sharp it is, as well as having loads more CA. It's just softer across the frame. Now; I may well just have had a 'bad' copy, but a scour of the internet revealed that it's probably quite typical. But this is a near £400 lens, against a much older, much cheaper lens. I'm not going to use this as 'proof' that all f1.4 lenses are inferior, but there is certainly a lot of info out there, that suggests various faster lenses aren't as sharp etc as their 'lesser' brethren. Greater compromises made in getting that 1/2-2/3 stop extra. Some fast lenses are stellar; I'd love a Nikon 105mm f1.4, or perhaps even the Sigma Art version. I enjoy the extra stop with my 70-200mm f2.8; the f4 version is a fair bit lighter and more 'portable', but I wanted the faster lens. But I'm someone who wants the best lenses; not necessarily the fastest. Fact is that the Nikon f1.8 versions do seem to be better than their f1.4 stablemates. I think it's helpful for people who aren't well informed, to know things like this; many would assume the f1.4 versions to be better simply because they are so much more expensive. My point is that they aren't, always. And having an f1.8 version isn't 'inferior' in any way.



snerkler said:
Well that depends, they're not as sharp but I actually prefer the rendering of the 50mm f1.4G so I would argue that the F1.4G is better, better rendering and more light gathering. I expect the 50mm f1.2 Z is going to blow them all out of the water as it will render beautifully and will also be very sharp. I don't fancy the price or the weight though :eek:
Click to expand...


Preferring the 'rendering' of one lens over another is fine; apparently many portrait photographers prefer the softer look. Personally. I like everything to be as sharp as possible; I can always soften it later in post, if I really wanted to (I don't ). But this is merely a subjective view; the F1.4 G isn't 'better' in any way other than having a larger maximum aperture. From my experience, it's inferior, where it really counts. IE, optically. As for the upcoming f1.2 Z mount lens; We so far have no idea how it will perform. By saying "I expect the 50mm f1.2 Z is going to blow them all out of the water as it will render beautifully and will also be very sharp", aren't you buying into the hype just a little? What are you basing this assumption on? It may well be, I doubt it'll be a turkey, and I also expect future Z lenses to be excellent, if the current offerings are an indication of what's to come. But will it really 'blow them all out of the water'? Hmm. I'l reserve my judgment until I see it. As for price; Canon's 50mm f1.2 RF lens is over £2,300 at current standard UK retail prices, so expect Nikon's offering to cost even more!
 
AZ6 said:
Notice how much less sharp it is, as well as having loads more CA. It's just softer across the frame.
Click to expand...
There's no practical difference between the two images. :thinking:
 
There's a trade off at present with lenses, generally speaking, where you can pick any 2 of fast, sharp, compact. Hence sigma, Sony et al make big, fast, sharp lenses, and small, sharp less fast lenses. There are exceptions of course.

If sharpness and lower weight are your need then mostly you'll have smaller apertures.

There are lots of reasons to choose one type over another, and I'm glad to have a choice.
 
AZ6 said:
...And having an f1.8 version isn't 'inferior' in any way...
Click to expand...

Until, of course, you need to go to f/1.4 to get every last little bit of available light...

The problem is that it all depends on which specific lenses you are comparing, at which aperture, lighting conditions, etc. - a f/1.8 is almost certainly better value that extra max aperture increases cost, size and weight, and may lead to some compromise in IQ, but not always - and imperfections that are visible at 100% may not show in the same way when an image is printed.
 
Faldrax said:
The question here is what constitutes a 'practical difference' - while the two images ARE different at this (what I take to be) 100% crop - what does that difference look like in a final printed image, would it be noticable?
Click to expand...
Maybe just barely in some occasions. But sharpness is a bourgeois concept
 
soeren said:
I can see it on my phone so.....
Click to expand...
I still can't but nor do I see much point in arguing about it. By the way, what was the last official tally of angels dancing on the head of the ISO standard pin? :naughty:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I have, there isn't.

:tumbleweed:
Click to expand...

No there really is. As has been demonstrated by others. You cannot deny fact.


Faldrax said:
Until, of course, you need to go to f/1.4 to get every last little bit of available light...
Click to expand...

With modern high ISO capability and IS/VR systems, how important is that extra bit though? In the past, it may well have meant the difference between say 1/30" and 1/15" (well not even that much tbh). Now, it's not so important. I regularly shoot in very low light with my f4 zoom, and haven't so far really needed extra light that pushing the ISO up couldn't cope with. I've never needed the extra 2/3 stop with an f1.8 lens, even back in my film days.


Faldrax said:
The question here is what constitutes a 'practical difference' - while the two images ARE different at this (what I take to be) 100% crop - what does that difference look like in a final printed image, would it be noticeable?
Click to expand...

It is noticeable at full size on my screen. I get your point; how much would it really matter? Perhaps not so much. I took some shots with the f1.4G at a gig with truly appalling lighting once, and whilst I would have preferred a little more sharpness, tbh the images I did get were more than acceptable. Looking through my LR catalogue, I've got a fair few pics shot on that lens which I like. So even considering my criticisms of it, it's still not a bad lens. But once I did the comparisons (I also did one of a map on the wall, to measure sharpness across the frame, and again the F1.4G was disappointing compared to my other lenses), once I saw what the new Z lens was capable of, I knew I wouldn't be satisfied with the G lens any longer. Why keep equipment that you know to not be as good as other stuff? It would have sat in a box, idle. Instead, it's sale helped to recoup some of the cost of the new lens at least.

AndrewFlannigan said:
I still can't but nor do I see much point in arguing about it.
Click to expand...

Well even I'm bored with this now, so God alone knows what others must be thinking...
 
Last edited:
AZ6 said:
No there really is. As has been demonstrated by others. You cannot deny fact.
Click to expand...
There is no fact present. It's about your opinion and mine. If you want to show that the difference is real, you need to get a suitable test target, photograph it under appropriate test conditions and make the full, un-edited file available. Then we'll be discussing facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top