Bought a D850 just the other day, sure hope it's not the end of DSLR.....
Am I correct in thinking that both the recently announced Canon and Nikon use a mirror when using legacy lenses?
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 thought they would use a semi translucent mirror like the Sony Lae4?Where would the mirror go? Without the pentaprism above the shutter, there is no point to a mirror.
Mirrors reflect. Where would the mirror reflect the image to in these new cameras?I thought they would use an semi translucent mirror like the Sony Lae4?
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.
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.Mirrors reflect. Where would the mirror reflect the image to in these new cameras?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
that can be arranged ,especially if you dont describe the voices [/QUOTE][QUOTE="woof woof, post: 8264124, member: 22277"
Personally I'd only go back to a DSLR with a gun to my head...
that can be arranged ,especially if you dont describe the voices
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.Bought a D850 just the other day, sure hope it's not the end of DSLR.....
There’s no mirror in the body or the adapter so I can’t see how this is possible?Am I correct in thinking that both the recently announced Canon and Nikon use a mirror when using legacy lenses?
I've never looked at a histogram and I rarely chimp, then it's to see what the picture looks like.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 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!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!
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 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'
In fact I'm rather looking forward to the Canon 5D Mk5 and Nikon D860
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?
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.
"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...........
"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?
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.
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.