Still worth buying an dSLR?

Messages
1,948
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes
#41
Am I correct in thinking that both the recently announced Canon and Nikon use a mirror when using legacy lenses?
 
Messages
7,446
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#42
Bought a D850 just the other day, sure hope it's not the end of DSLR.....
May be not the D850 but I can’t see any of the big players (or small players) running 2 full frame bodies line and mount at the same time.

It would be in their interest to get us to spend money all over again on the new lenses starting from scratch.
 
Messages
101
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
#44
May be not the D850 but I can’t see any of the big players (or small players) running 2 full frame bodies line and mount at the same time.

It would be in their interest to get us to spend money all over again on the new lenses starting from scratch.
I 100% agree, I think the D850 is the last of the great DSLRs we'll get. Why did I get one not the Z7? Unproven, single slot, probably not a better image, immature mount, the list goes on. I'll wait till Z7 mk2 or mk3 then will hop over.
 
Messages
1,948
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes
#45
Where would the mirror go? Without the pentaprism above the shutter, there is no point to a mirror.
I thought they would use a semi translucent mirror like the Sony Lae4?
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,446
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#47
I 100% agree, I think the D850 is the last of the great DSLRs we'll get. Why did I get one not the Z7? Unproven, single slot, probably not a better image, immature mount, the list goes on. I'll wait till Z7 mk2 or mk3 then will hop over.
The D850 might be the last of the best DSLR, if there is a current body in the pipeline that is near the end of R&D, they might just finish it but I can’t see them start a new body for a 3 or 4 years project now. In 4 years Canon or Nikon can easily have enough native glass for most people’s needs, especially if Sigma do another mount conversion for the Art series.
 
Messages
1,948
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes
#48
Mirrors reflect. Where would the mirror reflect the image to in these new cameras?
I do not know how it works John, that's why I was asking, I know that for my A mount lenses to work really well on the A7 series they need the LAE4 adaptor which includes a semi translucent mirror if I understand correctly? I thought the Nikon and Canon would use something similar.
 
Messages
2,293
Edit My Images
Yes
#49
I do not know how it works John, that's why I was asking, I know that for my A mount lenses to work really well on the A7 series they need the LAE4 adaptor which includes a semi translucent mirror if I understand correctly? I thought the Nikon and Canon would use something similar.
With your Sony adapter, the mirror reflects the image down onto an autofocus sensor in the adapter. This is because A mount lenses are very different to E mount lenses and the autofocus mechanism in the A7 camera cannot run the autofocus in the A lenses so the adapter provides a second autofocus system for the A mount lenses. Canon RF lenses use the same autofocus system as Canon EF lenses so no secondary autofocus system is required.

Edit: the original A mount lenses use a screwdriver linkage to connect the focus motor in the camera body to the motor-less lens. Your A7 camera uses in-lens focus motors. Your LAEA4 adapter provides the screwdriver linkage.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,948
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes
#50
With your Sony adapter, the mirror reflects the image down onto an autofocus sensor in the adapter. This is because A mount lenses are very different to E mount lenses and the autofocus mechanism in the A7 camera cannot run the autofocus in the A lenses so the adapter provides a second autofocus system for the A mount lenses. Canon RF lenses use the same autofocus system as Canon EF lenses so no secondary autofocus system is required.

Edit: the original A mount lenses use a screwdriver linkage to connect the focus motor in the camera body to the motor-less lens. Your A7 camera uses in-lens focus motors. Your LAEA4 adapter provides the screwdriver linkage.
Thanks John, I do not have an A7 like the OP I am trying to work out what to do next, either go for a Sony A99ii or go full mirror less or go back to Nikon with a D750, like the OP I have no issue with the mirrorless tech it is the physical size of the camera that stops me buying an A7 series or the Nikon/Canon.
At the moment I think I might buy a Nikon d700 and wait! I cannot believe that all future mirrorless will be too small, there must be a market for people with big hands!
 
Messages
5,647
Name
Lewis
Edit My Images
Yes
#51
What type of shooting are you planning to do?

I think that mirrorless is the future for anyone except pros, or those who need long lenses.
 
Messages
21,007
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#52
The only advantage I've found with mirrorless is using the rear screen in liveview works better than on my DSLRs.

The 'advantages' listed above simply haven't applied in my experience. In fact in-view histograms are a distraction best switched off. :D
In my case they have and on the histogram I think they cut the chimping out and are a useful aid. My first time keeper rate is near 100% whereas with a DSLR chimping or at least bracketing is par for the course.

Anyway, the mirrorless argument is pretty much over now and DSLR's will slowly slide into niche oblivion.
 
Messages
14,449
Edit My Images
No
#55
Bought a D850 just the other day, sure hope it's not the end of DSLR.....
It’s far from the end of the DSLR imo. I think mirrorless is the future for sure, but I think it will be another couple of generations yet before there’s a ‘huge’ shift. Also the consumer market is arguably the biggest, consumers aren’t going to spend £4K plus for a body and lens so DSLRs will still be in high demand until Canikon make ‘affordable’ mirrorless.

Am I correct in thinking that both the recently announced Canon and Nikon use a mirror when using legacy lenses?
There’s no mirror in the body or the adapter so I can’t see how this is possible?
 
Messages
12,969
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#56
I am seriously considering a move back to dslr just to pull away from all the ML BS around atm. Just get back to taking pictures, F the 'gimmicks'
 
Messages
555
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
#57
Still worth buying an dSLR?

Nah

I'm not sure about these TLR cameras, I prefer to estimate the focus.
Rangefinder cameras pfff, dark magic.
SLR? Can't do street shots because of that huge flappy mirror.
Digital won't replace film.
And so it goes on................................
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,808
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
#59
Yes because they still take great pictures!

That said, there's nothing inherently 'special' about a DSLR. They have simply been the focal point of the research and development for so long that the tech was developed to overcome the limitations sticking a mirror into the optical path creates. Imagine if mirrorless cameras came first, you'd never even consider sticking a mirror in between the lens and the film if you didn't have to - you'd be laughed out of the industry!

Personally, I'll stick with Mirrorless going forward it is the future and the tech is catching up and in some cases surpassing the DSLR model. Going forward, the R&D will certainly be focused in that area, so I see today's DSLRs as being at the pinnacle of the tech pyramid for that model, and very good they are.
 
Messages
2,762
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
#60
Yes it’s still worth buying a dslr because it’s not ‘yet’ worth buying a mirrorless (assuming we are talking ff). Sony have actually produced a camera in the A7iii that can match and even surpass the four year old D750 so the tech is coming along. I do find Sony on the pricey side which is why I’m not going back just yet.

Nikon’s inaugural mirrorless model about matched Sony’s mk2 A7 and Canons barely exceed the original A7 so it’s certainly not worth switching to the main manufacturers just yet.

It will be worth switching to mirrorless at some point in the future that will happen that’s a certainty, just for the time being at least dslr truly rules!

I’m not one to stick with immature tech whilst it catches up, why hobble yourself?
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,709
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
#61
In my case they have and on the histogram I think they cut the chimping out and are a useful aid. My first time keeper rate is near 100% whereas with a DSLR chimping or at least bracketing is par for the course.
I've never looked at a histogram and I rarely chimp, then it's to see what the picture looks like.

I've nothing against mirrorless, I like the concept, it's just that it's not 'there' yet for me. And in terms of value for money it's nowhere near DSLR tech. Time will change that and it certainly will come to predominate. But that will have nothing to do with functionality, just reduced costs to the manufacturers. But at present it's being overhyped by fanboys and people trying to get clicks to their blogs and vlogs.

All IMO, of course.
 
Messages
22,917
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#62
From what we've seen recently, there is plenty of reason for optimism with mirrorless, but it's not there yet for me. In fact I'm rather looking forward to the Canon 5D Mk5 and Nikon D860 that must surely be in the final stages of development. They could be the swansong for the DSLR, and given how good the current cameras are with extraordinary all-round capability, they will surely be pretty amazing.

I think that with all this mirrorless hoohah recently, and folks like me who have put things on hold while the dust settles, there's some pent-up demand for top-end DSLRs.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,293
Edit My Images
Yes
#65
Imagine if mirrorless cameras came first, you'd never even consider sticking a mirror in between the lens and the film if you didn't have to - you'd be laughed out of the industry!
I have cameras dating back to 1918 and they do not have mirrors. The modern SLR concept dates to 1949 and Zeiss Ikon sticking a mirror in the mirrorless Contax II to produce the Contax S. It seems to have caught on!
 
Messages
1,808
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
#66
I have cameras dating back to 1918 and they do not have mirrors. The modern SLR concept dates to 1949 and Zeiss Ikon sticking a mirror in the mirrorless Contax II to produce the Contax S. It seems to have caught on!
In reality it could not have happened any other way - it’s digital sensor tech that makes mirrorless possible in the context of the post and clearly that isn’t realistic.

SLR was a tech approach to improve the user experience and yes, it really caught on! The tech now (or soon will) exists to surpass that user experience and taken it to another level. Exciting times.
 
Messages
32
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
#67
I think others will echo my experience. Back in my film days I only reached the level of SLR after progressing through many other sorts of cameras such as first fixed lens then on to rangefinder, then to SLR. I think the same can be said for digital. It seems to me that there will be a similar progressive ladder say smartphone camera to high end compact to DSLR to FF. I am not sure how true is the suggestion that with the advent of mirrorless FF from the major camera manufacturers means there will be less new development of MFT, and APS-C technologies. Instead, the manufacturers will be pouring more effort into perfecting mirrorless FF. But, I think the only photographers that have to worry about that is the professionals that must have the newest tech to compete and to keep their clients happy. These are the ones that has to stay up with the very newest technology of photography. For the rest of us I think it is a great time to be a photographer. There really hasn't been any other time when you could choose from such a wide array of systems. Each system offers a progressive advancement from entry level to advanced camera. The only problem is trying to stay committed to the initial system chosen. Good shooting, everyone.
 
Messages
1,808
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
#68
I think others will echo my experience. Back in my film days I only reached the level of SLR after progressing through many other sorts of cameras such as first fixed lens then on to rangefinder, then to SLR. I think the same can be said for digital. It seems to me that there will be a similar progressive ladder say smartphone camera to high end compact to DSLR to FF.
Almost :)

photographerevolution.jpg
 
Messages
6,484
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
#69
I am seriously considering a move back to dslr just to pull away from all the ML BS around atm. Just get back to taking pictures, F the 'gimmicks'
Hipster!

I think there's a little life left in DSLR's yet. They still represent the majority of the market for interchangeable lens cameras, just about. So you can't just kill off half of the cameras that sell overnight. But now that Nikon and Canon have fully joined the mirrorless market, we're clearly now running down the DLSR clock. Maybe another 1 or 2 generations of things like the D5 and 1D line while Canon and Nikon get their tech up to speed. Not sure about everything else below. I guess we'll still see a few more APSC DSLR's, particularly from Nikon who don't have anything mirrorless in that market. It's things like the next gen D500 or D850 that are more curious to me. I'm not 100% sure the D850 will be replaced.

Also, in a world where even my Gran is exhibiting a new full frame mirrorless at photokina, what are Pentax up to? They've always been a bit oddball but when even Zenit and Zeiss are announcing new mirrorless stuff, Pentax seem incredibly quiet. Or have I missed something?
 
Messages
2,257
Edit My Images
No
#70
In fact I'm rather looking forward to the Canon 5D Mk5 and Nikon D860
I think you'll be waiting a very long time for a D850 DSLR replacement, unless Nikon finds a cheaper way to manufacturer them I doubt there's many meaningful technical improvements they can make to it.

Even assuming a 3 year release window that means there shouldn't be anything till 2020.
 
Messages
12,969
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#71
Hipster!

I think there's a little life left in DSLR's yet. They still represent the majority of the market for interchangeable lens cameras, just about. So you can't just kill off half of the cameras that sell overnight. But now that Nikon and Canon have fully joined the mirrorless market, we're clearly now running down the DLSR clock. Maybe another 1 or 2 generations of things like the D5 and 1D line while Canon and Nikon get their tech up to speed. Not sure about everything else below. I guess we'll still see a few more APSC DSLR's, particularly from Nikon who don't have anything mirrorless in that market. It's things like the next gen D500 or D850 that are more curious to me. I'm not 100% sure the D850 will be replaced.

Also, in a world where even my Gran is exhibiting a new full frame mirrorless at photokina, what are Pentax up to? They've always been a bit oddball but when even Zenit and Zeiss are announcing new mirrorless stuff, Pentax seem incredibly quiet. Or have I missed something?
Do you realise that hipster is actually following trends as it is a trend in itself? And Mumford and sons weirdos can go jump :D
 
Messages
4,901
Edit My Images
Yes
#72
In reality it could not have happened any other way - it’s digital sensor tech that makes mirrorless possible in the context of the post and clearly that isn’t realistic.

SLR was a tech approach to improve the user experience and yes, it really caught on! The tech now (or soon will) exists to surpass that user experience and taken it to another level. Exciting times.
Well it looks like mirrorless is the new wave with Medium Format Mirrorless also no longer just a dream beyond a normal person's price range:

https://petapixel.com/2018/09/27/fujifilm-officially-wins-medium-format/

Fujifilm makes the GFX 50S which has 50MP in a 44x33 mm (approx) sensor and has now announced the 100MP GFX 100S medium format mirrorless camera.

Considering the size of the sensor, mirrorless is virtually essential for such cameras.

And Sigma has announced a mirrorless Foveon camera is in development:

https://petapixel.com/2018/09/26/sigma-to-launch-full-frame-foveon-l-mount-mirrorless-camera/

So I can see the day when our "normal" DSLRs are a niche item much in the way that film cameras are today.
.
 
Messages
801
Name
john
Edit My Images
Yes
#73
"Still worth buying a DSLR?" Shouldn't the question be Is it worth buying Mirrorless?

Having tried most of the options ML is only useful for a small part of my photography needs - perhaps 10%. So no an ML is of little value - whereas a DSLR fits all my needs, though at the cost of some extra weight. The EVF is limiting and there are not the long (native) lenses that I need for the vast majority of what I do.

When (if) they can get the viewfinders sorted, make the lenses that I need and improve the AF significantly then I will wonder if a DSLR is worth buying - that may take a little time though...........
 
Messages
12,969
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#74
"Still worth buying a DSLR?" Shouldn't the question be Is it worth buying Mirrorless?

Having tried most of the options ML is only useful for a small part of my photography needs - perhaps 10%. So no an ML is of little value - whereas a DSLR fits all my needs, though at the cost of some extra weight. The EVF is limiting and there are not the long (native) lenses that I need for the vast majority of what I do.

When (if) they can get the viewfinders sorted, make the lenses that I need and improve the AF significantly then I will wonder if a DSLR is worth buying - that may take a little time though...........

I'm curious, what is the 90% of your photography that ML cameras can't do?
 
Messages
2,762
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
#75
"Still worth buying a DSLR?" Shouldn't the question be Is it worth buying Mirrorless?

Having tried most of the options ML is only useful for a small part of my photography needs - perhaps 10%. So no an ML is of little value - whereas a DSLR fits all my needs, though at the cost of some extra weight. The EVF is limiting and there are not the long (native) lenses that I need for the vast majority of what I do.

When (if) they can get the viewfinders sorted, make the lenses that I need and improve the AF significantly then I will wonder if a DSLR is worth buying - that may take a little time though...........
Well a Sony A9 has better af than most DSLRs and I should imagine the A7iii isn’t too far behind.

An evf is far better than an ovf as it gives you wysiwyg rather than the ‘fake’ view than a ovf gives. When shooting with my D810 tonight I couldn’t see the lcd screen as I was shooting into the sun and the ovf just gave me my eyesight view rather than any exposure info.

Other than that I agree with you ;) Mirrorless at least Sony Mirrorless is nearly there. The others are comically behind but will catch up.
 
Messages
3,334
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
No
#76
DSLRs have a way to go yet. All these FF mirrorless bodies and lenses are expensive and relatively high end. Until they start producing APSC bodies that are significantly cheaper, along with the lenses to match then DSLRs will continue to sell. When you look at what the lower end of the market price range is producing for the money then that’s where mirrorless is going to have to introduce bodies to finally drive a nail in the DSLR. I guess the question is does any manufacturer want to produce cheap mirrorless bodies. I cannot see Sony really wanting to compete, they seem to be doing ok with what they’ve got.

It’s hard to generalise but out of 50 members of the camera club I belong to probably 20% use relatively high end gear, the others are firmly in the lower end of the market whether through choice or circumstance and to ditch their DSLR they need a comparable choice.

I do wonder where Canon are going with releases of new MkIII 400 and 600 lenses. Have these been developed to work seamlessly with the mirrorless bodies or do they see themselves always producing a couple of pro spec DSLRs and want the lens line up.

I would assume that Canon and Nikon will introduce D5/1DX2 mirrorless equivalents eventually but they’ll have to be pretty damn good to match them. Getting rid of a mirror box and slapping an EVF on the top isn’t going to be enough unless they move the game on from what many photographers use to get great results from now.
 
Messages
801
Name
john
Edit My Images
Yes
#77
I'm curious, what is the 90% of your photography that ML cameras can't do?
Very fast, accurate AF on fleeting subjects with long lenses.

Sony look promising - but they don't make any long lenses (their 400mm is half the focal length that I use) and even on that their AF is not the best. Good but not the best.

The new EOS R system looks interesting but they (Canon) have only introduced a mid range body so far. I tried it and liked many aspects of it (especially the sensor) - but the user interface was horrible compared to my DSLRs. Also the EVF (apparently one of the best) was pretty hopeless for my uses.

I want a camera that drives long lenses fast, locks on to a subject faster than an EVF adjusts for differing light conditions, has an instant viewfinder (OVF) and can be left turned on all day etc etc. I have two DSLR's that will do this - ML isn't doing it for me yet.

Having said that and having tried the EOS R with a couple of R lenses - were I a traveller then this would be in my bag without any hesitation! Great camera - but not (yet) the camera for me.
 
Messages
801
Name
john
Edit My Images
Yes
#78
Well a Sony A9 has better af than most DSLRs and I should imagine the A7iii isn’t too far behind.

An evf is far better than an ovf as it gives you wysiwyg rather than the ‘fake’ view than a ovf gives. When shooting with my D810 tonight I couldn’t see the lcd screen as I was shooting into the sun and the ovf just gave me my eyesight view rather than any exposure info.

Other than that I agree with you ;) Mirrorless at least Sony Mirrorless is nearly there. The others are comically behind but will catch up.
Sony still has a long way to go. Their AF tracking is not the most reliable and they don't make any long lenses. Battery power/voltage is still below what I need (same with all ML cameras). Even the latest EVFs are too slow for my needs. They are great but only if you can spare a second or two - I can't for the vast majority of my use.

We all have different wants/needs but there are not, necessarily, the products out there that we want. We have to make do and get the best for our individual needs.
 
Messages
1,435
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#79
Very fast, accurate AF on fleeting subjects with long lenses.

Sony look promising - but they don't make any long lenses (their 400mm is half the focal length that I use) and even on that their AF is not the best. Good but not the best.(1)

The new EOS R system looks interesting but they (Canon) have only introduced a mid range body so far. I tried it and liked many aspects of it (especially the sensor) - but the user interface was horrible compared to my DSLRs. Also the EVF (apparently one of the best) was pretty hopeless for my uses.(2)

I want a camera that drives long lenses fast, locks on to a subject faster than an EVF adjusts for differing light conditions, has an instant viewfinder (OVF) and can be left turned on all day etc etc. I have two DSLR's that will do this - ML isn't doing it for me yet.

Having said that and having tried the EOS R with a couple of R lenses - were I a traveller then this would be in my bag without any hesitation! Great camera - but not (yet) the camera for me.

(1) strange thing that good is not good enough. Its gotta be the best of the bunch to make do. Stiil a lot of people make great images of fast moving objects with, by that standard mediocre gear (n)
(2)+ AF tracking is not even close to the Sonys, the frame rate is pedestrian and it wont even do AF in a continious high setting. But then again the name on the front makes up for all the shortcomings, funny that. :LOL: :exit:
 
Messages
152
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
#80
I can see mirrorless driving improvements in dslr liveview, which is a good thing.

I don't know if this is possible, but if you put a miniature display into a dslr viewfinder that works when mirror is up then you get a dslr that can work as a modern mirrorless. Combine it with a shutterless sensor (when Sony make them) and you get a very versatile camera without changing much mechanically.
 
Top