Still worth buying an dSLR?

Messages
5,575
Edit My Images
No
#81
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.
But who is developing new DSLRs? I just don’t think the major players will be investing anything new in to them. I’m not saying they are dead or there will not be new models, but I don’t think the likes of Canon or Nikon will make any major changes.
 
Messages
3,334
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
No
#82
But who is developing new DSLRs? I just don’t think the major players will be investing anything new in to them. I’m not saying they are dead or there will not be new models, but I don’t think the likes of Canon or Nikon will make any major changes.
Where’s the development coming from in mirrorless now though? The basic format has been set, just as with DSLRs. The next big step probably global shutter. Tweaking AF response and coverage, video and adding software gimmicks isn’t developing anything over and above what could be done with a DSLR should a manufacturer want to invest the time and effort and money.

No doubt mirrorless is the future but it will run up against the same development buffer as DSLRs have.
 
Messages
7,357
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
#83
I really can’t see where your coming from with the size thing on the G80 I,m rather a large lad ,putting it mildly , and I have no problem ,I suspect there’s some other niggle that your not stating ,the menu system is quiet daunting and one little wrong setting can effect a lot . As for size to be honest even with my large hands I actually prefer the even smaller omd10 camera .
 
Messages
1,794
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
#84
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.
SLR cameras were a solution to a problem that today doesn't exist.
"How to use a single lens both to view and frame the shot and expose the imaging medium to the image at the appropriate time."
It was (and is) an elegant solution, and we've had around 100 years of investment to make that solution the very best it can be.

Fast electronic sensors and fast electronic displays (as well as a few other things) remove the problem - there is no longer a need to optically split the path, when you can do it electronically. Slow sensors and slow displays were not up to the task, so the DSLR was born, but latterly, we are at the cusp of this breakthrough.

Removing the mirror also removes some of the challenges associated with it - it's not just size, and speed of moving the thing around, it's having to maintain and calibrate two different optical paths (micro adjustment of lenses etc).

I really don't see any further significant investment into mainstream DSLRs going forward. There may be one or two more major releases, but the investment will surely be into Mirrorless, and those releases will be driven by exploiting the technology of mirrorless in a DSLR rather than enhancing the DSLR itself I feel.

That said, there is still a gulf between the legacy lens development of 100+ years on SLR format, so I don't see anything stopping DSLRs still selling well.
 
Messages
737
Name
john
Edit My Images
Yes
#85
(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:
Bit confused at your reply.

1, "Good is not good enough"? I assume you are referring to the A9? Well it has great (but certainly not the best) AF and no long lenses, so it is of little use to me.

2. "+ AF tracking is not even close to the Sonys". What camera are you referring to? If it is the EOS R then I would agree with you. Were it a relatively modern 1 Series then - just no. + Canon make the lenses that I need so no competition.

Name on the front? Who cares?

All the best.
 
Messages
14,131
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#87
You will easily get the full use of dSLR for the next few years. The bigger question is would the dSLR format lenses be as useful and valuable on the emerging formats. Some EF lenses have applications on cinema line cameras so that is hopefully not dead in the water but who knows... The lesser lenses will certainly be worth next to nothing in 10 years time.
 
Messages
14,131
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#88
But who is developing new DSLRs? I just don’t think the major players will be investing anything new in to them. I’m not saying they are dead or there will not be new models, but I don’t think the likes of Canon or Nikon will make any major changes.
Well for a start they all share the sensors, screen, GPU, and all the guts except one line is missing a few bits and mounts are different. One way or another they will both evolve along the same lines due to common components. You could argue the rest is pretty stable and reliable thus require little innovation.

At the end of the day a dSLR should be mirrorless body hybrid with a mirror, different mount and bigger size for those of us who appreciate these things as a pretty major advantage over toy digiKams.
 
Messages
5,575
Edit My Images
No
#89
TBH though - back to the OP original question.

Yes I still think its worth buying a DSLR. There are still a huge range out there, all the lenses you can ever ask for.

Buy what you enjoy, if you are happy with a DSLR just go get one. Its not like in a couple of years it will suddenly stop taking photos!
 
OP
OP
ian-83
Messages
1,513
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
#90
I really can’t see where your coming from with the size thing on the G80 I,m rather a large lad ,putting it mildly , and I have no problem ,I suspect there’s some other niggle that your not stating ,the menu system is quiet daunting and one little wrong setting can effect a lot . As for size to be honest even with my large hands I actually prefer the even smaller omd10 camera .
I think it's just a bit of GAS got me looking at different cameras. I struggle to find the motivation and time to get out and shoot as much as I would like. Then I tend to drift into thinking something new will revitalise my creative mind but I know end of the day it won't.

TBH though - back to the OP original question.

Yes I still think its worth buying a DSLR. There are still a huge range out there, all the lenses you can ever ask for.

Buy what you enjoy, if you are happy with a DSLR just go get one. Its not like in a couple of years it will suddenly stop taking photos!
Very true a camera is a camera and will always take photos unless its broken
 
Messages
1,360
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#92
Bit confused at your reply.

1, "Good is not good enough"? I assume you are referring to the A9? Well it has great (but certainly not the best) AF and no long lenses, so it is of little use to me.

2. "+ AF tracking is not even close to the Sonys". What camera are you referring to? If it is the EOS R then I would agree with you. Were it a relatively modern 1 Series then - just no. + Canon make the lenses that I need so no competition.

Name on the front? Who cares?

All the best.
I'm referring to the use of the word good. I interpret good as meaning the camera will do what I need it to. Good af will lock on and track my subjects. If its good it works for my photography and then it's irrelevant if it's the best or not. Always hunting for whats best is an endless waste of money. As to the lenses, no argument there.
Yes I was referring to the EOS R. Seems it will struggle even doing everyday photography of the kids fooling around, something even my old A6000 can do
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
ian-83
Messages
1,513
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
#93
Another thread lovely derailed by people not being able to accept others opinions aren't identical to theirs and feel the need for silly arguing and point proving :(


Anyone remember telling themselves "This camera will do me for about 10 years!"? Now it's barely 10 months :D Cameras seem to have about as much ownership expectancy as smart phones.
I think that's all down to camera company marketing departments making us think we need the latest and greatest to take pictures and also line their pockets with more money. I'd say any camera in the last 5-10 years can take good pictures but do we need all the bells and whistles??
 
Messages
12,181
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#94
I think that's all down to camera company marketing departments making us think we need the latest and greatest to take pictures and also line their pockets with more money. I'd say any camera in the last 5-10 years can take good pictures but do we need all the bells and whistles??

Definitely agree, we are slaves to marketing, all of us, some just affected that bit more than others. I stopped looking at all the latest models a while back, I've almost always been behind the times a bit when it comes to whatever I upgrade to. I think the real sensible move if switching gear is side-stepping to older models that offer what you want. I don't see anything that justifies the price of these FF ML offerings for anyone besides paid pros.
 
Messages
23,189
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#95
Definitely agree, we are slaves to marketing, all of us, some just affected that bit more than others. I stopped looking at all the latest models a while back, I've almost always been behind the times a bit when it comes to whatever I upgrade to. I think the real sensible move if switching gear is side-stepping to older models that offer what you want. I don't see anything that justifies the price of these FF ML offerings for anyone besides paid pros.
Agree wholeheartedly with this, except the bit about paid pros.
Most ‘pro’ camera gear is owned by well heeled amateurs (about 90%), in fact pros are less likely to buy gear on a whim than amateurs.

Pros generally buy gear based on whether it’ll add value, some constantly push for tiny advantages (like Raymond) but many others are happy with gear that is reliable and produces predictable results.
 
Messages
12,181
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#96
Agree wholeheartedly with this, except the bit about paid pros.
Most ‘pro’ camera gear is owned by well heeled amateurs (about 90%), in fact pros are less likely to buy gear on a whim than amateurs.

Pros generally buy gear based on whether it’ll add value, some constantly push for tiny advantages (like Raymond) but many others are happy with gear that is reliable and produces predictable results.
I guess I meant need vs want, rather than justifying it. Of course we don't need to justify what we spend on gear, it's a personal thing. I am seeing a lot of people who really don't need to upgrade any time soon, not if it means being broke, or skipping bills just for faster AF. I've had to have a wee chat with myself a few times, looking at stuff around the house I could sell to fund new gear! Quick slap and splash of water later and I remember the gear I have is just fine for what I do. I've thought on the kind of photography I do, it's mostly slow and deliberate, there's nothing really unpredictable about it and rarely anything faster moving than walking pace - so I don't need hyper-reactive AF, I'm in single shot most of the time, I also don't need a thousand AF points or eye detect because I generally have the time to find the eyes myself :D But ... there's always that niggle telling me I may need it some time ... *slaps self again*
 
Messages
3,250
Name
Dominic
Edit My Images
Yes
#97
As an amatuer photographer (and the majority of us are), I really don't need more than I have camera wise, it suits me down to the ground (a couple more lenses wouldn't go amiss though).
Camera development (other than the march of mirrorless) will be in sensor technology, I think mainly high ISO capabilities and this global shutter thing that gets mentioned from time to time.
What more can a camera do, most modern cameras have WiFi, Bluetooth, af tracking, many many focus points, adjustable this and that, etc.
 
Messages
7,357
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
#98
I think it's just a bit of GAS got me looking at different cameras. I struggle to find the motivation and time to get out and shoot as much as I would like. Then I tend to drift into thinking something new will revitalise my creative mind but I know end of the day it won't.



Very true a camera is a camera and will always take photos unless its broken
I can see where your coming from with this , we all do it I was looking at some really good pics last night from a local photographer went to Flickr to see what gear he was using and then the gas kicks in . But if I did change apart from losing a lot of money would I be able to emulate ,the weather when he took the pics , the time of day he took them , the waiting around for it to happen etc , hell no I already have the gear I wanted , it produces what’s good enough for my skill level . Looking back through my older pics on Flickr I reckon that it will take another 10 years at least till there’s a noticeable difference in i.q . And even then I really have ask myself if I dug out some of those 10 year old RAW files and processed them on up to date lightroom and photoshop would there be enough difference to substantiate what gas has cost over that time
 
Messages
9,115
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
Agree wholeheartedly with this, except the bit about paid pros.
Most ‘pro’ camera gear is owned by well heeled amateurs (about 90%), in fact pros are less likely to buy gear on a whim than amateurs.

Pros generally buy gear based on whether it’ll add value, some constantly push for tiny advantages (like Raymond) but many others are happy with gear that is reliable and produces predictable results.

Although you are probably over-generalising it is definitely the case with me. I keep on saying this, but knowing your way around a camera so well that you can operate it instinctively is far more important than having the latest tech to hand but not knowing where to find it!


I'm still working my way through a 5d3 and seeing what it can do.......
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,269
Edit My Images
Yes
Agree wholeheartedly with this, except the bit about paid pros.
Most ‘pro’ camera gear is owned by well heeled amateurs (about 90%), in fact pros are less likely to buy gear on a whim than amateurs.

Pros generally buy gear based on whether it’ll add value, some constantly push for tiny advantages (like Raymond) but many others are happy with gear that is reliable and produces predictable results.
this is definately the case with the 4 pros I know.they buy what is functional to do the job well but that will earn them a living. they dont fuss over gear in the least
 
Messages
9,115
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
this is definately the case with the 4 pros I know.they buy what is functional to do the job well but that will earn them a living. they dont fuss over gear in the least

And I suspect that when they get together the last thing they talk about is gear.........
 
Messages
9,269
Edit My Images
Yes
And I suspect that when they get together the last thing they talk about is gear.........
I arranged to meet 2 at the brum photo show as usual and your completely correct,they came to buy a few bits for the business,didnt bother looking at other stuff other than a passing interest,headed sraright for the bar and food hall lol,me and my mate were yapping about some of the latest
cameras and they didnt even know they existed :D
they were busy talking about the chinese meal they were going to in brum later lol
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,115
Name
Joel
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't understand why DSLRs will become extinct. From the mirrorless cameras I have seen the ergonomics look awfully uncomfortable. I much prefer the grip of a DSLR. Add to that lens selection - the ratio of superior optical glass is weighted heavily in DSLR favour. Can't see wildlife and sports photographers with mirrorless cameras anyway.
 
Messages
12,181
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I don't understand why DSLRs will become extinct. From the mirrorless cameras I have seen the ergonomics look awfully uncomfortable. I much prefer the grip of a DSLR. Add to that lens selection - the ratio of superior optical glass is weighted heavily in DSLR favour. Can't see wildlife and sports photographers with mirrorless cameras anyway.
There's already plenty of pro-wildlife photographers using mirrorless gear, I don't see them complaining. There's also loads of wedding, urban/street, documentary, travel, landscape and portrait professionals who use mirrorless gear, many of whom use micro four thirds and you won't hear them whining about sensors or ergonomics or lack of lens choices - they're too busy out in the world actually shooting great images.
 
Messages
2,204
Edit My Images
No
I don't understand why DSLRs will become extinct. From the mirrorless cameras I have seen the ergonomics look awfully uncomfortable. I much prefer the grip of a DSLR. Add to that lens selection - the ratio of superior optical glass is weighted heavily in DSLR favour. Can't see wildlife and sports photographers with mirrorless cameras anyway.
The ergonomics are unrelated to whether there's a mirror inside the camera or not (well that's not entirely true, mirrorless can be heavier or lighter than a DSLR) but there's no reason they have to make a mirrorless camera small, that's simply a choice they've made. I fully expect manufacturer's to exploit different sizes between ranges as they further develop their mirrorless systems.

Lenses aren't really much of an advantage, the Canon and Nikon adapters are supposed(?) to work as well as native and going forward their latest lens designs are for mirrorless so DSLR's won't have those options eventually.
 
Messages
1,074
Edit My Images
Yes
For my part, I have tried briefly in the past full Fram DSLRs with big view finders, but more the APS c models. Now.. I would NEVER want to go back to a normal viewfinder model. For me, the difference is amazing and personally, I have no issues with it. Plenty clearer, (esp for those with poor eyes!) and so much more information. The first good EVF I ever tried was in an FZ1000 - and I was blown away! I remember EVFS when it was on the Canon Powershot S3IS way back when and was a blurry 114k pixels! Times have changed and I am happy to jump on the band wagon!
 
Messages
737
Name
john
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm referring to the use of the word good. I interpret good as meaning the camera will do what I need it to. Good af will lock on and track my subjects. If its good it works for my photography and then it's irrelevant if it's the best or not. Always hunting for whats best is an endless waste of money. As to the lenses, no argument there.
Yes I was referring to the EOS R. Seems it will struggle even doing everyday photography of the kids fooling around, something even my old A6000 can do
I see what you are getting at and mostly agree. When I briefly tried the EOS R the AF was excellent on static subjects and still very good on moving subjects. What put me off is that it does not seem to be a "Fast" camera. By that I mean near instant response/AF/shutter release etc. Whilst it did nail the focus on the moving subjects (passing cars) it was a bit pedestrian for my uses. I am certain that it would be good enough for most users
 
Messages
22,918
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
There's already plenty of pro-wildlife photographers using mirrorless gear, I don't see them complaining. There's also loads of wedding, urban/street, documentary, travel, landscape and portrait professionals who use mirrorless gear, many of whom use micro four thirds and you won't hear them whining about sensors or ergonomics or lack of lens choices - they're too busy out in the world actually shooting great images.
Take away the Brand Ambassadors and their disproportionately vocal blogs and vlogs... then how many are there? Who knows, but it's a tiny number.

I was watching a Leica promotional video earlier today with some action-sports photographer singing their praises. He was either mad, or paid.
 
Messages
12,181
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Take away the Brand Ambassadors and their disproportionately vocal blogs and vlogs... then how many are there? Who knows, but it's a tiny number.

I was watching a Leica promotional video earlier today with some action-sports photographer singing their praises. He was either mad, or paid.
Still doesn't make what I said incorrect, it was in response to a post suggesting no wildlife pros shoot mirrorless, there is plenty of them, whether ambassadors or not, that's what they chose to go with.
 
Messages
22,918
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Still doesn't make what I said incorrect, it was in response to a post suggesting no wildlife pros shoot mirrorless, there is plenty of them, whether ambassadors or not, that's what they chose to go with.
That depends on exactly what you mean by 'plenty' and 'loads' of professional photographers. The way I read it, you were implying that at least a significant minority of professional wildlife/wedding/portrait/etc professionals are using M4/3 and so that was a vindication of the format. I seriously doubt that, and it's not ;)
 
Messages
1,519
Edit My Images
Yes
The death of the dslr. It’s been around for a long time, about 100 years. I don’t see it going away just yet. I am sure that new technology will come and go and fit in market place. Will it take over who knows. We should buy the camera that suits our needs.
 
Messages
12,181
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
That depends on exactly what you mean by 'plenty' and 'loads' of professional photographers. The way I read it, you were implying that at least a significant minority of professional wildlife/wedding/portrait/etc professionals are using M4/3 and so that was a vindication of the format. I seriously doubt that, and it's not ;)
You tell me, what is 'plenty'? I know that I could google a couple dozen within a minute, you think they're the only ones? The numbers weren't the point. If only one decent pro wildlife photographer is using the gear and producing fantastic images, who cares how many exactly? Not me. The guy above said he can't see [any?] wildlife or sports pros using mirrorless [in general] ... maybe ask him why he thinks none or not many do. How many is not many? Nit picking me isn't making any point tbh
 
Top