Will You Ever Buy Another DSLR?

Messages
3,451
Name
Dunc
Edit My Images
No
I recently changed from dslr to mirrorless . tried as i did to like it , i hated it and after a month moved back to dslr (lost a fortune) I hated the digital view finder , I hated the fact it felt like a toy ,I hated all the bells and whistles in the menu and even though i turned them off they always seemed to find a way to turn themselves on , I hated the battery life,I hated that it didnt make a reasuring clunk when I took a shot and the list coud go on. So I will stay with a dslr for as long as possible.
I definitely get that. From my foray in to the X-T1 I had similar thoughts and issues and did the same as you eventually. This time I'm going to force myself to stick with it (I hope). Maybe I'll sync my phone to make a reassuring shutter noise when I fire the cam. :ROFLMAO:
 
Messages
3,019
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
It's a shame but I will have to consider Sony as my next one due to outrageous pricing of new canon gear.
Agree with this 100%, the pricing of the Canon mirrorless stuff is absolutely nuts. As things stood if I had to buy a new camera right now I'd go with Fuji
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,888
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
Agree with this 100%, the pricing of the Canon mirrorless stuff is absolutely nuts. As things stood if I had to buy a new camera right now I'd go with Fuji
GFX100s is certainly very tempting
 
Messages
1,493
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
I brought a Mirrorless (Sony A6000) as My first quality digital camera , I absolutely hate the thing ! the EVF is just horrible to look at and the Dynamic range is naff, and there are so many settings that I spend more time messing with it than taking a photo, and these settings appear to alter randomly in use,when I do take a photo I end up taking 10 of the same thing with different settings as I'm not convinced it is going to work. In fairness to the camera I like the simplicity of a manual film SLR. I took a dislike to it straight away so have never really spent much time with it .On the positive side it works with my film camera lenses.
I'm normally very economical with my money ( far too many hobbies and not enough time or money for all of them) but some how I got drawn into the better camera = better photos thing, This is the only time with anything I've allowed this to happen which also puts a mark against it in my head. It has sat in a cupboard and I can honestly say at this point in time I don't have a clue where it is and don't care. ( middle of a house move) A lot of this is of course down to my personality/experience and I know the camera is most likely very capable in the right hands but it just not for me.
Now if you gave me a mechanical SLR with a digital sensor, manual focus, mechanical aperture settings and not a menu in sight I maybe interested ! Keep it simple stupid is a motto I agree with and try to stick by.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Messages
17,871
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
For those who moved to Fuji expecting a more 'analogue' experience based on the exterior and were disappointed, you should definitely try some of the other options. I'm quite aware of the mechanical shutter in my A7, though it's nice to have the option to turn it off when true silence is required. The only thing I really miss with mirrorless is mechanical focussing on native lenses.

As for the idea of focus being bourgeois, I had to look up & check the meaning - apparently having pictures in focus is a middle class concept. Rather than the obvious and tempting p1sstake, please explain a bit more about what you meant. @Ed Sutton
 
Messages
17,222
Name
Hugh
Edit My Images
No
contrary to much of this thread I'm going to stick with DSLR. I have mirrorless and love it. But, for speed, acquisition of focus, and ergonomics I really don't think you can beat DSLR. I know ergonomics may change, but without some fairly unlikely physics changes then focusing speed won't change. I'm also fairly heavily invested in DSLR lenses and it would have to be something very tempting to change for
 
Messages
6,159
Edit My Images
Yes
I tend to keep my cameras for quite awhile because I like to think I have chosen the cameras that do what I want/need it to do well. ;) My DLSR life has gone from Nikon D70 > D200 > D300 (replaced a lot earlier than expected because it, and everything else, was taken in a burglary :( :mad:) > D300S > D500. Each camera bar the enforced D300 > D300S change was for comparatively big changes in performance in a lot of areas. Technology was moving a quite quickly in a lot of areas for a number of years. For sensor performance especially though, we seemed to have plateaued for awhile.

The new Pentax K-3 Mark III has recently come to bettering the the D500 in some areas, but enough to change! Nah, not for me. The D500 does everything I want/need it to do thankfully. :)

The reason I went with Nikon for the DSLR rather than the slightly better specced Canon was because my knuckles scraped the lens on the 350D/400D of the time, and the D70 felt it was designed for my hand, and each camera I got seemed to get better in that respect, peaking with the D300S. So ergonomics have always been important for me, and while the cameras seem to get heavier as I get older, :( :oops: :$ ;) :LOL: the size is the size of camera that suits me.

I've always felt that the APS-C / DX format is the right format for me as the best combination for cost, size, weight of cameras and lenses, with the added the field of view / focal length options a crop sensor gives imho. If I were to think of a replacement that rules out a lot of DSLR's and most mirrorless cameras as options.

I prefer the optical viewfinders too, which again rules out mirrorless cameras, for me. Mirrorless cameras have nothing that attracts me bar interest in the technology, and I can have an interest without the need to own one. ;)

If I were to lose everything for any reason, like I have done in the past, :( I would strive to get the best version of what I had before, like I did in the past, so upgrades if available, but if the upgrades are not there, as it would likely be now, (I can't see Nikon replacing the D500, though they surprised me and many others with the D500 :oops: :$ ;)) then I would get exactly what I have now. If / when my D500 wears out, I will get the best D500 I can find to replace it.

It is great not to have the GAS any more. :)
 
Messages
5,967
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
As for the idea of focus being bourgeois, I had to look up & check the meaning - apparently having pictures in focus is a middle class concept. Rather than the obvious and tempting p1sstake, please explain a bit more about what you meant. @Ed Sutton
It was a joke. I forgot TP is a humour free zone. ;)
 
Messages
587
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
I do not expect to buy another Camera of any sort at my age. I recently bought a Sony ML and already own a Canon FF DSLR. It is very much horses for courses. I cannot carry the weight of the Canon for long or very far so buying a lighter weight model was essential. If I had just been choosing ML for the sake of it I would probably have bought the FF Fuji which performs as well if not better than my Canon 5D4 but it is also heavier than my DSLR so was a non-starter. It is going to take a while to get used to the Sony A6600. The DR is slightly inferior to my 5D4 but acceptable but with lenses is fraction of the weight. I do not have too much of a problem with the EVF (of course I would prefer the DSLR) but I can frame images. However, the biggest problem to me is the rear screen, It is hard to see anything either for settings or reviewing a shot in any daylight (I must see if the screen brightness can be increased. Also I miss the touch screen of the 5D4 which allows one to easily move through menus etc. I am sure DSLR's will not disappear just yet and I plan to hang on to mine for the foreseeable future (I will use it sometimes).

Dave
 
Messages
1,517
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Had a few Nikons, D7000, D7200 and a D500. Bought a D700 and love it to bits. All the others have been sold for various reasons. Bought a second-hand Fujifilm XT10 a few months ago and enjoying the experience. I'd buy another D700 if the other one died. Built like a tank, it produces some cracking images with the manual lenses I've acquired during lockdown.
 
Messages
26,723
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Now if you gave me a mechanical SLR with a digital sensor, manual focus, mechanical aperture settings and not a menu in sight I maybe interested ! Keep it simple stupid is a motto I agree with and try to stick by.
Brad, can't you be happy with a digital camera and a manual lens? Even a film era lens if you like?

You put the camera in aperture or manual and you set the aperture, ISO, shutter speed and that's it. You don't have to enter the menu unless you want to format the card or set the clock.

I use cameras like this a lot.
 
Messages
26,723
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
It can be hard to tell sometimes - there might have been a serious point behind it - a smilie as you used for this post would have confirmed the fun. :)
I think part of the "fun" is that one advantage of mirrorless is that the auto focus is mostly very accurate and consistent whereas this isn't quite the case with DSLR's or SLR's for that matter. A DSLR lover can therefore claim in a sort of reverse snobbery way that mirrorless with its such bang on focus is really something not quite decent and not to be aspired to.
 
Messages
3
Name
Jason
Edit My Images
No
I haven't had the opportunity to use a new mirrorless body yet and really dig through the menus. Im a budget photographer (cheap and broke) so I've always picked up whatever Canon Rebel is out due to the price point and specs. I still have a rebel xti from 10 years ago that gets use. I picked up the new Rebel t8i (850D) and I love it. Im also an avid user of the view finder. I guess I do some mirrorless sense the 3 cameras I keep in my kit are the rebel, along with my Osmo pocket and Mavic Mini drone as-well. I do a lot of shooting with all 3. I gotta say though I love my rebel's for my regular camera.
 
Messages
2,819
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
At the moment I'm happy with my DSLR and all that goes with it - I'm waiting for the 1dx equivalent mirrorless to decide if/when I'll change (and if budget allows).
 
Messages
3,166
Name
stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
I definitely get that. From my foray in to the X-T1 I had similar thoughts and issues and did the same as you eventually. This time I'm going to force myself to stick with it (I hope). Maybe I'll sync my phone to make a reassuring shutter noise when I fire the cam. :ROFLMAO:
Lol , yeah I went to Fuji also . I shoot weddings and also struggled with the high iso . Something I seem to be on own about with Fuji is hating the colours . Everyone shouts about the "Fuji film look" I found the opposite , I found the files very (not sure how to put it in words) sterile or digital looking and skin tones ......don't start me on that ! It very well could have been user error in editing but after a month of YouTube and Google searching on nice skin tones I gave up and sold everything at a major loss
 
Messages
439
Name
John King
Edit My Images
No
I think part of the "fun" is that one advantage of mirrorless is that the auto focus is mostly very accurate and consistent whereas this isn't quite the case with DSLR's or SLR's for that matter. A DSLR lover can therefore claim in a sort of reverse snobbery way that mirrorless with its such bang on focus is really something not quite decent and not to be aspired to.
I have never found my digital SLR's to be wanting when it comes to focussing. What I focus on, is what I get. No if's, buts, why's, or wherefore's. For that matter, neither have I found the focussing on my film SLR's to be wanting either. Most of the complaints of 'poor focussing' can be put down to camera shake, not the camera, but operator error and at odd times, a lens that is actually incapable of making a sharp image at any focussing point.
 
Messages
1,493
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
Brad, can't you be happy with a digital camera and a manual lens? Even a film era lens if you like?
I have tried using it like this but the main problem is I tend to shoot a lot of wide angle stuff where I cannot move back enough to compensate and because of the crop factor a lot of this is lost on my legacy lenses, I also find that to me the images look really sterile and I have to under expose a fair bit to stop blow out then raising the shadows tends to my eye gives a bit of a weird look add to that the fact I really hate spending time on the computer messing with photography for me the two are just different things. I did shoot digital using an old compact ( It Died ! ) and was always quite impressed with the quality straight from camera the Sony just seems incapable of this. I often wonder if I just happened to get a Friday afternoon built camera.

Back to the subject I much prefer a SLR style camera they just seem to fit my hands better and feel like a real camera ( I supose traditional). I find manual focus much more reliable as I choose what to focus on rather than the electronics or me cocking up the electronics and this for me is easier to do If I'm looking through the lens rather than an electronic representation of what the lens is seeing as on a Mirrorless camera.
 
Messages
1,638
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
DSLR production and sales have been on a downhill slide for a long time https://www.statista.com/statistics/799526/shipments-of-digital-singe-lens-reflex-cameras-worldwide/ so we can expect they won't be available to buy new in the not too distant future. I have Canon cameras and Canon seems to be accelerating the transition to mirrorless quickly now they have cracked the code. How long will DSLRs still be around? Many years I would think, as the pictures they take aren't getting worse with time.
 
Messages
6,386
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
No
I recently changed from dslr to mirrorless . tried as i did to like it , i hated it and after a month moved back to dslr (lost a fortune) I hated the digital view finder , I hated the fact it felt like a toy ,I hated all the bells and whistles in the menu and even though i turned them off they always seemed to find a way to turn themselves on , I hated the battery life,I hated that it didnt make a reasuring clunk when I took a shot and the list coud go on. So I will stay with a dslr for as long as possible.
Agree so much with this, personally I love a bit of old school tech aswell, I still shoot often with a Canon 1Ds Mark II I've owned for years and only has 30k on it, & 35mm f/1.4L superb combo
 
Messages
3,451
Name
Dunc
Edit My Images
No
Agree so much with this, personally I love a bit of old school tech aswell, I still shoot often with a Canon 1Ds Mark II I've owned for years and only has 30k on it, & 35mm f/1.4L superb combo
Funny how we're now beginning to call DSLRs "old school". It doesn't feel like long ago I was gently fondling a D1X, my first foray into DSLRs and preparing to sell the trusty F100.
 
Messages
132
Name
richard
Edit My Images
Yes
I have had MILC’s since 2012 ( Olympus OM-D EM-5 ) and a DSLR ( D7100 ) just a year later. P&S before that and Contax SLRs before and since.

Several ( used ) MILCs and DSLRs since then.

Now with a Z6 for general photography and for use with my SLR lenses, I have a D500 also for action / wildlife.

If the D500 broke and couldn’t be fixed I would just try and get another used one.

The reason is twofold:

I prefer OVF’s for wildlife and since I do little video, the DSLRs just do what I want - cheaply.

To get an MILC to match AF on the top DSLRS is going to be pricey when they become available.

I just want the gear that will do the job I want-as cheaply as possible - right now, for me, that is the combo of MILC and a D500.
 
Messages
439
Name
John King
Edit My Images
No
You may buy the latest technological masterpiece that does everything with the least effort on behalf of the owner but if you are a crap photographer in the first place, then then that will not make you any better as a photographer. The only people that will see any difference will be the accountants of the companies, gleefully pocketing your hard earned cash.

Of all the cameras I have owned since 1963, the one that gave me the most satisfaction was my first Pentax SV and a couple more lenses. I learned more from that simple camera than any of the more sophisticated ones I have had since then. Even half of my successful ARPS panel in 1993 were taken with it's successor a Pentax Spotmatic 2. Pentax had a an advertising slogan 'Just hold a Pentax' and by golly they were right.
 
Messages
439
Name
John King
Edit My Images
No
I believe the current Canon and top end Sony’s beat the DSLR’s for AF performance.

may not be true of Nikon yet, but eye AF is a game changer in terms of AF.
Yes in the days of Minolta, their last film models had the edge of focussing speed, but really why is 'eye AF' it a 'game changer'. Already we are in the zone of focussing on an object in a split second, possibly than eye itself can focus.. This rush for speed is all very well, but I cannot see the difference a couple of milliseconds will make. I may be old school, and also a sceptic, with a degree in the philosophy of scepticism. As I see it the only people who will really benefit from the new, I shall call them gimmicks, are the controllers of the coffers of the manufacturers fuelled by the customers who must have the latest bit of kit. Look at my previous post at 67 above
 
Last edited:
Messages
23,967
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
Yes in the days of Minolta, their last film models had the edge of focussing speed, but really why is 'eye AF' it a 'game changer'. Already we are in the zone of focussing on an object in a split second, possibly than eye itself can focus.. This rush for speed is all very well, but I cannot see the difference a couple of milliseconds will make. I may be old school, and also a sceptic, with a degree in the philosophy of scepticism. As I see it the only people who will really benefit from the new, I shall call them gimmicks, are the controllers of the coffers of the manufacturers fuelled by the customers who must have the latest bit of kit. Look at my previous post at 67 above
For a working pro or anyone else shooting moving people, then it’s the difference between having 10 out of 10 perfectly focussed images from which to choose the best ‘micro expression’ or only having 6 out of 10 (and seeing that the best one is slightly OoF).

If that’s not important to you, then no problem, but it is important to me and lots of other people.

BTW when the Minolta was the ‘fastest AF’ I was shooting Bronica - I didn’t buy an AF camera till this millennium (shortly followed by going digital).

I’m also aware that a lot of ‘photographers’ never really understand why focussing on the closest eye is the difference between a stunning portrait and something ‘not quite right’.
 
Messages
17,871
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
This is mildly amusing, but I bought a Minolta 7000 in the 80's because the focussing screen was simply so much brighter and clearer than conventional cameras of the time - I would almost always manually focus my AF camera. I was also shooting Bronica at the same time.

If you're a landscaper then better AF is irrelevant, but if you shoot things that move or you shoot on the move then it can make the difference between getting and missing the shot. Not everyone can make use of this advantage.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,450
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Doubt it, maybe as some little side project if ever offered a decent dslr for cheap. I'm using a beginner friendly Nikon dslr in work and it's a bit painful to work with toward my own ML cam. I don't care about true OVF, I much prefer the wysiwyg nature of an evf and the one on the XH1 is good enough for me. I also like to use the LCD to compose about 50% of my shooting, especially when teaching people with disabilities to compoase [I end up pulling out the phone most times to demonstrate] and on older/cheaper dslr this is just poor, there's too much lag between shutter press and actual capture. I know some of the later Canon dslr like the 80/90D are almost as instant as ML LCD, so maybe one of those would suit me but I'd still prefer an evf
 
Messages
6,159
Edit My Images
Yes
I believe the current Canon and top end Sony’s beat the DSLR’s for AF performance.

may not be true of Nikon yet, but eye AF is a game changer in terms of AF.
Is that just Eye AF, or overall AF for some mirrorless cameras? For those that don't take pictures of people, and now increasingly also animals, Eye AF is largely irrelevant. I understand it is a big thing for a lot of people like yourself, but in some instances I think on some (mostly top end) DSLR's their AF is still ahead of most mirrorless cameras in certain situations.
For a working pro or anyone else shooting moving people, then it’s the difference between having 10 out of 10 perfectly focussed images from which to choose the best ‘micro expression’ or only having 6 out of 10 (and seeing that the best one is slightly OoF).

If that’s not important to you, then no problem, but it is important to me and lots of other people.
Are the Eye AF modes 100% accurate on any camera? :thinking: In all the tests/demonstrations I have seen online, none have been 100% accurate, unless I have missed some.

I understand not all cameras AF systems are as good across the price ranges, never mind DSLR or mirrorless, so generalisations may not be appropriate unless comparing specific cameras and specific situations. ;)
 
Messages
26,723
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
With mirrorless you can select eye/face AF and leave it to the camera. This lets you concentrate on composition and pressing the button at the right moment. And as I mentioned composition, with mirrorless you're free to position your main point of interest (the eye? or at least the face?) just about anywhere in the frame not just in the central area where a traditional SLR/DSLR would have its focus point or points.

This compositional freedom and the freedom to leave the mundane task of focusing to the kit whilst you concentrate on more important things such as composition and pressing the shutter at the right moment are IMO biggies and really have to be tried to be appreciated and if you are into shooting at f1.x will I think get you the shot much more reliably and consistently than any other method.

You can also do other non people things. Instead of focusing and recomposing as some still do you can focus on a subject and then recompose and the focus will stay on the subject.

Generally I think that focusing is much more consistent with mirrorless and of course there's no need to match lenses to cameras and MA as there is with DSLR's. Years ago I remember it said on the Canon website that if you took a number of pictures of the same subject you'd see differences in the focus and that this was normal. That shouldn't happen to any significant degree with mirrorless as focus is taken off the recording medium rather than derived through a device located in a different location as with autofocus SLR's and DSLR's.
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,489
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
Is that just Eye AF, or overall AF for some mirrorless cameras? For those that don't take pictures of people, and now increasingly also animals, Eye AF is largely irrelevant. I understand it is a big thing for a lot of people like yourself, but in some instances I think on some (mostly top end) DSLR's their AF is still ahead of most mirrorless cameras in certain situations.
Are the Eye AF modes 100% accurate on any camera? :thinking: In all the tests/demonstrations I have seen online, none have been 100% accurate, unless I have missed some.

I understand not all cameras AF systems are as good across the price ranges, never mind DSLR or mirrorless, so generalisations may not be appropriate unless comparing specific cameras and specific situations. ;)

I've got an A9 which has a very good AF system but the eye-AF isn't 100% reliable, sometimes the rim of glasses can get in the way and also my daughters hair at the moment comes over her face which prevents it locking onto the eye, but then the face-detect tracking immediately takes over in both cases so you are pretty well covered.

It is good though, especially if shooting at very shallow depth of fields and allows you to concentrate on the subject, which at the end of the day is pretty much the most important thing above everything else bar being out of focus. As others have said, this is relevant to shooting moving subjects though. Another important factor is the AF coverage, it's pretty much the whole screen, whilst my D750 did require a little more work to maintain tracking, but when you were in the zone it was terrific at keeping focus.

Perhaps a downside with electronic shutters is distortion, although the A9 uses a stacked sensor to somewhat counter this. Mainstream global shutters will probably be the next jump in tech.

Like anything I think you buy what is suitable for your needs. You can get an awful lot of good camera and lenses in the DSLR market, especially used, which still gives it a strong place as far as I'm concerned. But for me, mirrorless suits my needs better.
 
Messages
23,967
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
Is that just Eye AF, or overall AF for some mirrorless cameras? For those that don't take pictures of people, and now increasingly also animals, Eye AF is largely irrelevant. I understand it is a big thing for a lot of people like yourself, but in some instances I think on some (mostly top end) DSLR's their AF is still ahead of most mirrorless cameras in certain situations.
Are the Eye AF modes 100% accurate on any camera? :thinking: In all the tests/demonstrations I have seen online, none have been 100% accurate, unless I have missed some.

I understand not all cameras AF systems are as good across the price ranges, never mind DSLR or mirrorless, so generalisations may not be appropriate unless comparing specific cameras and specific situations. ;)
Specifically the R5 and R6 and a few of the top end Sony’s, so it’s definitely model specific. (Eye AF on older Canon cameras and IIRC the Nikon’s isn’t as good)

Because of the way contrast detect vs phase detect works though, the best DSLR will never be able to track as well as the best mirrorless camera, because with a DSLR the object you’re focussing on has to land on your focus point. The more focus points, the better, but a mirrorless camera can focus ‘anywhere’ on the sensor.

And tbh if I’m not shooting moving subjects AF is simply a gimmick, I focussed a camera for 20 years without AF, it’s not difficult (but tracking a moving subject is really difficult).

So, as has been said, eye AF isn’t for ‘everyone’, but if you think you might find it useful, it’s a game changer.
 
Messages
1,399
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
You may buy the latest technological masterpiece that does everything with the least effort on behalf of the owner but if you are a crap photographer in the first place, then then that will not make you any better as a photographer. The only people that will see any difference will be the accountants of the companies, gleefully pocketing your hard earned cash.

Of all the cameras I have owned since 1963, the one that gave me the most satisfaction was my first Pentax SV and a couple more lenses. I learned more from that simple camera than any of the more sophisticated ones I have had since then. Even half of my successful ARPS panel in 1993 were taken with it's successor a Pentax Spotmatic 2. Pentax had a an advertising slogan 'Just hold a Pentax' and by golly they were right.
I'm a crap photographer but I still get more "in focus" crap pictures than I ever did with a 1dx3.:snaphappy:
 
Messages
2,119
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
Well I still have my D500 (and some mirrorless) which I have no plans to sell.

I have a few Nikon AI-s lenses and some Voigts which are manual focus. These work fine on the Z7 but I sometimes wonder if a D780 would be useful (when the price drops a lot).
As well as the FTZ I have a dumb adapter so it is unlikely I will ever buy another DSLR.
 
Messages
132
Name
richard
Edit My Images
Yes
I believe the current Canon and top end Sony’s beat the DSLR’s for AF performance.

may not be true of Nikon yet, but eye AF is a game changer in terms of AF.
I understand why eye AF is important for portrait photographers - but it isn’t for me- not even animal eye AF.

My focus is on something that works ( and eg the hit rate on bif from the d500 is good and it is cheap.)

I hear good things of the Canon MILCs and maybe the A1 or A9ii.

They are expensive and also I definitely need high mpx or crop to get the reach.

It is difficult to replace the cross type phase direct arrays and their fast processing with line type ( on all but the om1.2,3 etc ) and get the fast tracking ability, afc performance on moving targets etc that some dslrs have. It needs an awful lot of secondary data from the sensor and a hell of a lot of processing to achieve this. My reading of the A1, A9ii, Canon R’s ( some ) is that they are close.

Anyway - would they offer more that is useful to me ( and 10 fps burst is fast enough ) - probably not and I am certainly not in the habit of spending money to get something that has little cost benefit.

When dslrs disappear that will be another matter.
 
Top