DSLR's Are Dead (1 Viewer)

[perlin]

I think you are all forgetting,what ever the system you use,its the person behind the camera that matters.

 

[Victor Vector]

I think you are all forgetting,what ever the system you use,its the person behind the camera that matters.

^^^This. I use a 300 dollar camera (actually purchased for $215) and have been featured on Explore on Flickr and also have many Opus entries here on the forum. Same thing goes with anything: music, art, sports, whatever.....you can buy all the gear you want, talent on the other hand can not be purchased. It is a blessing from God. (doesnt mean I dont want a better camera though, lol....someday)

 

[perlin]

Thankyou those who liked my comment.

 

[opisska]

The viewfinder of my camera is also the main tool I use to look at birds. If I wanted to look at a display, I would google bird photos. So no, DSLRs are not "dead".

 

[THE_FERN]

The viewfinder of my camera is also the main tool I use to look at birds. If I wanted to look at a display, I would google bird photos. So no, DSLRs are not "dead".

I have nothing but admiration for those who can actually find things in the small optical viewfinder of a Canon 7dii in dark rainforest conditions. I know someone who can in an uncanny manner...

...Those who take photos of other things find it difficult to understand the resistance there has been to adding swing out EVs to DSLRs. Very difficult to photo flowers etc without this...

 

[opisska]

I have recently taken up insects and other tiny things. I have a DSLR with a fold out display, yet I still find it far easier to do macro shots with extension rings through the optical viewfinder. The benefits of 1. looking straight forward and 2. leaning the camera against my face are just far too big, especially for high magnification macro where it's difficult to keep the subject even on the field of view.

 

[Frank Anderson]

The viewfinder of my camera is also the main tool I use to look at birds. If I wanted to look at a display, I would google bird photos. So no, DSLRs are not "dead".

I have a sneaky feeling there’s a touch of sarcasm in that statement as clearly there’s no similarities between Googling bird pictures and being out and seeing them in a EVF and taking bird pictures.

As someone who’s been looking at optical viewfinders since my OM-10 days, I can say I quickly adapted to them and any disadvantages are massively outweighed by their advantages.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

I didn't fancy exposing the gubbins of my R5 to the sun through a long lens while photographing this morning's solar eclipse. I was going to have to experiment with exposure and density of ND filter and one problem with mirrorless is in the name - a lack of mirror to protect the shutter from the focused heat when pointing at the sun. I had more or less decided not to bother, but then I gave it a bit more thought.

I couldn't use my go-to 150-600 Sigma because I don't have any 105mm diameter filters, but then I remembered my trusty old Canon 400/F5.6 that has lain forlorn and almost forgotten in the cupboard since I bought the Sigma in 2015. It's got a 77mm filter ring and I've got ND filters that size. That lens with my hardly-ever-used Canon 1.4 TC might do the trick.

Clear skies this morning and a bright sun. The 5D IV that I've used only once since December came out of the cupboard. I screwed a 10 stop ND filter onto the lens and gave it a go - far too bright, blinding in fact. The R5 shutter might have withstood it with that filter, but I wasn't going to risk it. I screwed a 6 stop ND in front of the 10 stop. Just the job.

30 minutes in. Maximum at 67 minutes and 100 minutes in. 1/2000 sec (hand held and no IS on the lens, so not taking any chances), F8 and ISO 125, 16 stop ND.

Long live DSLRs

 

[opisska]

With a mirrorless camera I wouldn't worry about the shutter - that comes in contact with the light only for a split second, because it spends 99.9% of the time open - otherwise you wouldn't see anything in the finder. Not that it's good news, because the part constantly exposed to the light - the chip - is far more expensive

 

[Barred Wobbler]

With a mirrorless camera I wouldn't worry about the shutter - that comes in contact with the light only for a split second, because it spends 99.9% of the time open - otherwise you wouldn't see anything in the finder. Not that it's good news, because the part constantly exposed to the light - the chip - is far more expensive

You're right. My mistake. The shutter is open to the the light 100% of the time that there is no lens cap on the lens, but only as long as the camera is switched off. With a long focus lens on even in transit, if the lens happens to point at the sun there is a real danger that damage to the shutter will result.

However, with the camera switched on it's another and potentially much more serious matter. It's the sensor that's exposed to all those nasty rays through the uncovered lens and I wasn't about to risk pointing it at the sun while I experimented with what ND filter(s) to use.

 

[Bafty]

Even more news DSLR's are dead with values heading south as the reports now are EF lens are also now being discontinued heading the same way. Apart from one remaining "big white" the rest of my EF system has gone !

 

[Dave Williams]

Even more news DSLR's are dead with values heading south as the reports now are EF lens are also now being discontinued heading the same way. Apart from one remaining "big white" the rest of my EF system has gone !

The EF lenses work perfectly well , in fact better , with the R bodies but that said the R bodies are not perfect by any means, well the R5 isn't anyway.

 

[Bafty]

Can't agree that EF lens work better on a RF body, yes my remaining EF 500mm 2 lens works just fine on the RF body but is that better than a RF version ? I don't know I haven't tried and I'm unlikely to find out at £13k. My 100-400 was changed to the 100-500, (I wouldn't do it now, as since Feb the trade in has dropped a further £400) it's lighter, longer FL, IQ seems better, focus's quicker but you've heard and read all this in reviews. Incidentally I've had no issues or lock ups in any firmware to date.

 

[Dave Williams]

I presume you misunderstood what I wrote Bafty. EF lenses can and do work better on an RF body than an EF one depending on the lens.
RF bodies can AF on an f11 lens combination such as the EF100-400 f5.6 with a 2.0x TC attached. Not sure about the 1DX3 but you certainly couldn't on the 1DX2 or anything previous to it. The 500mm f4 doesn't perform any better as a lens but attached to the R5 the focus tracking is vastly improved but there are drawbacks too...start up time and accurate focussing in a crowded background, the latter not a problem on an EF body such as the 1DX2
When it comes to the question of are RF lenses better than EF ones, again it depends on the lens. The RF 600mm f4 is the same glass and build as the EF 600mm f4 Mk3 and the only difference is you need an adaptor to use the EF one. You can't use an RF one on an EF body though but I doubt anyone would want to anyway.
Lenses like the RF800mm f11 and 600mm f11 are not better than their EF equivalents simply because there isn't one. What they bring to the table though is an economical opportunity to get undreamed of "reach" which was only available to those with deep pockets previously. Those lenses can deliver extremely sharp images but the 800 certainly has limitations on AF point availability, can't comment on the 600 as I don't own one.

 

[andy271]

i have a nikon z7 Pentax k-1 and they are used for different things but my main camera for fast focus and superb high ISO is 1dx mk1 yes its heavy but i much prefer that to my friends r5 which just feels like a toy i am waiting until say 5 years for mirroless to get better
Ive had 3 100 400mm is 2 lenses and the quality control on them is amazing made in japan to a very high standard yes the r5 and 100m 500mm may be better in certain ways but for what i do im hanging on

 

[DoghouseRiley]

With the advent of the 9.44M dot EVF in the Sony a1, I think we are now on the cusp.

Certainly for Sony, and Olympus etc the mirrorless future is here already.

Canon with it's R5 is leading Nikon, and now that the R mount 'big whites' come with built in adapter there's one less joint to worry about. There's probably many a 7D user that has jumped already, having given up hope of ever seeing a 7D III ! (Interesting that lil ol' Pentax has just shown the way with the 26MP APS-C K-3 MkIII .... ! The weight of the lenses at the long end though are no match for Canon, or the Nikon PF's)

You are still waiting to see what the future brings with the R3 and R mount f2.8 300, f4 500, and f4 400 DO .... though they are rumored to be a step ahead.

For Pro shooters they would just use whatever is needed, either keeping, buying or hiring/leasing a Pro DSLR now.

Interesting question of whether to unload the 5D MarkIV (and most lenses too I assume) ..... 2nd hand values will probably never be higher than now ..... I suppose it comes down to is that your last camera, and serving you well ? Or do you expect to still be snapping away ten years from now ?? (In which case now[ish] is probably the best time, economically, to make the mirrorless switch ....)

Over at Nikon it's a little bit different - hard to beat a D500 + PF500 f5.6.
The potential is there to increase the lead with an updated (D6 AF + 26MP BSI CMOS) video capable (a la' D780) D550 .... same could be done for a D860. Nikon could also market those together with a higher 61MP D880 /Z8 twin offering. Over to you Nikon .....

Their 'Pro' lenses are a generation behind weight wise, so it's very much fingers crossed on all fronts there ..... lenses + bodies - they are really going to have to extract the digit to match Sony/Canon/Olympus as lighter weight systems.

If Nikon really had the fire in the belly they'd release a Z mount PF600 f5.6 to compel people to pull the trigger into their mirrorless system ....



Chosun 🙆

There are many a 7D Mk2 user that have grown tired of Canon promising to deliver a mirrorless 7D and not doing so. After being told the 90D was the replavement and now the R7, I am sure 7D Mk2 users have had enough. I have shot Canon for nearly 40 years but my next camera won't be a Canon. I have come to the conclusion that Canon will not deliver a true wildlife crop sensor camera and as such don't deserve my custom any more. You see I stayed with Canon all thee years because they delivered. By my allegiance is built on that not on some sort of cultish worship.
Fortunately, others are seeing Canon's failings and taking advantage. So I will get my 7D Mk3, it might not be made by Canon or be called the 7D Mk3 but it will be a damn good camera, it will be weather sealing, crop sensor, CF card, decent buffer, great auto focus, no rolling shutter - find the camera that delivers and buy it!
Companies who do not listen to customers, fail.

 

[mike nesbitt]

i have a nikon z7 Pentax k-1 and they are used for different things but my main camera for fast focus and superb high ISO is 1dx mk1 yes its heavy but i much prefer that to my friends r5 which just feels like a toy i am waiting until say 5 years for mirroless to get better
Ive had 3 100 400mm is 2 lenses and the quality control on them is amazing made in japan to a very high standard yes the r5 and 100m 500mm may be better in certain ways but for what i do im hanging on

When a battery grip is fitted to the R5 it's quite similar in size to the 1DX - which already has a battery grip.

 

[kimmik]

DSLR in medium format is a sight to behold. Irreplaceable.

 

[MikeInPA]

DSLR in medium format is a sight to behold. Irreplaceable.

Give me one of these anyday.

Hasselblad X1D II 50C

 

[kimmik]

Give me one of these anyday.

Hasselblad X1D II 50C

and live view like any other small sensor camera.

Dslr medium format has far bigger and brighter viewfinder. But they aren't for fast photos.