Farewell to the DSLR camera - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Picuino
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2022, 09:30:43 pm
content: https://medium.com/enrique-dans/farewell-to-the-dslr-camera-e1bcf0d8f9ad"A brief note in Nikkei Asia, later denied by Nikon, announces the end of the development of new DSLR or reflex camera models by the company, to be replaced by mirrorless cameras..."

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2022, 10:45:17 pm
content: Not surprising, mirrorless have already taken over the market. Other than battery life there is no real advantage to DSLR over mirrorless from a technological standpoint and lots of advantages for mirrorless.

author: nightfire
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2022, 11:34:55 pm
content: The demise of optical viewfinder cameras was to be seen about 10 years ago. Thom Hogan in his blog was one of the first to note and elaborate about the lack of understanding the established camera brands had to new challenges, especially for the role of software and a workflow.Meaning: Most of the mainstream companies had really lost the contact to the customer and the way stuff has to be handled, and instead of listening to the trends, they continued to produce cameras with a technical better image quality, but otherwise no changes.In the meantime, the lower end market acutally has been assimilated by smartphones, the whole area where workflow really matters still is not understood well by nearly all traditional camera manufacturers.As a Nikon shooter for a long time, I still have some analog equipment with me, and what is nice that Nikon managed to be able to use lots of the old lenses from as far back as 1977 on modern DSLR, which can be benefical with some special setups. But, the writing was on the wall for a long time, and now Nikon as one of the last established companies has successfully turned to mirrorless with their Z-Series, and finally made lots of things right, after some "dipping the toe half-heartedly into the water" with the Nikon 1 Series failed miserably.Actually, with the recent introduction of the Z30, Nikon has a full portfolio of cameras at their hands, from entry-level to pro body, and the lens setup (Note: Nikon always was an optical company, not necessarily a camera menufacturer) is something that begins to be useable for most needs. Still something in the DX/crop sensor setup that is desireable, but beginning to be reasonable.Regarding optical viewfinders: They have still some value over mirrorless cameras in special situations, but as mirrorless is getting better at this stuff, it actually is more than useable in everydays shooting. For sports and wildlife photographers an optical viewfinder still has no lag, and in case of flash photography (fill flash etc.) there are moments where a mirrorless camera still does not displays the environment right. Also the battery life is better, which matters especially in nature photography when you have to pack light.

author: mawyatt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 01:05:46 am
content: Like you have been a Nikon user for a long time and still have a D500, D800, D800E, D850, Z7 and a bunch of F mount lenses and only one Z mount lens. We've used all these bodies with our pioneering chip imaging work over the past couple decades. Now find we are always "reaching" for the Z7 rather than any of the F mount DSLRs!!Nikon has done a nice job with the newish Fresnel type longer lens. The 300mm F mount we have is superb and suspect the new Z mount types should be quite good as well.Any future DLSR purchases will be mirrorless and likely Nikon Z type camera body or Z type lenses.Best

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 06:54:10 am
content: Yep. Z50 here. Love it. Absolutely perfect as a travel camera. Thing I was shocked at is how good the kit lenses are now. And also the low light performance.

author: nightfire
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 09:05:27 am
content: The Nikon Kit lenses were always quite good, compared to some cheap stuff other manufacturers provided. But with the Z system, the game has been upped again a bit.Basically, one could consider the old E-Series 50mm/1.8 as kit lens for Nikon cameras in the begin of the 1980ies- small lightweight lenses, intended for sale with the small entry-level models. Those were made with lots of plastic from the inside, which was frowned upon in japan, and had usually only single-coating on the glass surfaces, whereas the more expensive Nikkor branded lenses had multi-coating and massive metal insides.So Nikon did the budget cuts at the right places without jeopardizing the optical quality too much.I still have some 50mm/1.8 E series, which is small and lightweight, and gets regular use on a DSLR for portrait shooting, when I want to pack light, or capture some low contrast situation in sunlight due to the higher probability to flare- and create a look like in the 80ies pictures...Optically, when handled right, those lenses are able to even make some very good pictures on todays DSLR.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 10:42:33 am
content: Isn't it harder to judge the quality of modern lenses, since much of the 'quality' comes from in-camera compensation, rather than outright optical quality? Whereas, when using older lenses you can be assured there are no hidden shenanigans. As long as you're happy with the result I guess it doesn't really matter

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 10:49:29 am
content: I think older lenses tended to have a hell of a lot more weird shenanigans going on. The corrections applied in body are usually for very minor distortion and vignetting and that's about it now because the lens engineering is better. People got used to being able to make corrections and see them as past of the post-processing workflow but now they are gone and that's where this noise comes from.Your last point is spot on though. I know a lot of camera owners who can discuss the details but very few who can actually take a decent photo

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 11:06:17 am
content: Well, I don't know enough to discuss the details and rarely take a decent photo, so I'm in the wrong thread hereI have acrustytrusty old DSLR and I like the mirror clatter noise. It makes taking a photo somewhat real and mechanical, or even something more emotive, perhaps a last tenuous connection to the past 180 years of photography. I think I'd miss that with mirrorless. Like film, DSLRs will likely drag on and maybe ten years from now I'll get a cheap used D850!

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 11:08:36 am
content: My mirrorless has a shutter still and makes that noiseIn ten years I’ll get a cheap Z9 instead(I would love a D850 but can’t justify it)

author: nightfire
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 04:57:54 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on July 14, 2022, 10:49:29 amYes, the "character" attributed to old lenses are usually technical flaws that were (or had) to be incorporated into the design.Nikon has made public some tales of the design of some legendary lenses, that shed some very good light on the way about 30-70 years ago technical things were constructed, that still can be used today- and with which efforts the engineers with the limited ressources of the past days were able to achieve some good results!This said: Nikon has made some other leap with the Z lens setup- they are optically very good, and better in nearly every aspect against their predecessors of the F Mount.If I were a professional, I would not hesitate to build a new setup with those lenses, as they make lots of things easier in difficult lighting situations.But as a hobby photographer, the priorities are elsewhere, here the road is the target, to make the most of existing (or cheap to acquire) gear.

author: Neper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 05:12:28 pm
content: I couldn't care less about Nikon as long as Pentax go on making them.

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 05:40:04 pm
content: FUUU now I want a mirrorless and need to sell my DSLR.. I hate you all.

author: nightfire
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 05:46:01 pm
content: Sorry, forgot the link:https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/

author: mawyatt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 06:29:41 pm
content: Quote from: nightfire on July 14, 2022, 09:05:27 amThat old 50/1.8 was quite good, think we still have one!! The old Nikon 24-70 F2.8 and original 70-200 F2.8 VR were also good but heavy, we used these often on the D800 and D500 when they were introduced.Used the old 24-70 F2.8 and D800 over a decade ago for a few images that are in the Huntington Gardens Museum Book shown, with up front was a 2 page spread on the Desert Gardens taken with an old 24-70 F2.8 & D800. BTW this image had such high DR that it required TIFF instead of JPEG, this was discovered during processing for the book printing, JPEG caused banding in the background sky, however since we always used Lossless TIFF for serious work, we had the original TIFF file!! Beautiful museum and gardens in Pasadena Ca. definitely worth visiting.In another use of older Nikon lens with the D800 and D500 we did many of the images used in the booklet and displays for the World Offshore Racing held here in Clearwater, FL every year in September. We also used these old/new combos with some success at the Sebring ALMS Races in Sebring, Fl.These older lenses did work well, however the newer replacements are better optically and lighter with much improved Vibration Reduction, especially the new Z types. Although we're not getting rid of the older Nikon and Nikkors just yet, they kinda remind of the old analog scopes, still have a couple Tek 2465's that we're not getting rid of just yet eitherBest,

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 06:40:09 pm
content: Quote from: Zucca on July 14, 2022, 05:40:04 pmBecause you think that's actually better?

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 07:26:12 pm
content: The VR in the cheap ass 250mm is pretty amazing.Hand held… (phone resized it for ref)

author: mawyatt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 07:46:39 pm
content: Handheld...wow!!!Best

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 07:48:58 pm
content: I’d had a few beers when I took it so I had some VR in my arms too but it was surprising.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 07:56:33 pm
content: That's interesting.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23099040/

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 08:16:24 pm
content: Vindicated now (just got back from pub)

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 09:10:15 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on July 14, 2022, 07:26:12 pmHandheld is easy since nowadays the image sensor is sited on top of a chicken head like this:https://youtu.be/L9jhWTrv9rY

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 09:12:01 pm
content: Actually no it isn't in my Z50. The sensor is static. The VR is entirely in the lens.The only annoying bit is when the lens isn't powered the barrel clunks around as you're walking which is really bloody annoying when you're on a huge great long hike to somewhere to take photos of stuff.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 09:30:41 pm
content: So anyway, I am no professional photographer at all but I do think you tend to take "better" photos with an optical viewfinder. It's purely a "user interface" point. An optical view beats an indirect view through a camera and a display. It might not be the case at all for future generations when people will have become cyborgs, or something.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 09:39:10 pm
content: Definitely can't agree with that. You get to see what the sensor is seeing. That gives you a better chance to retake anything where you've blown out areas. Also on the rear screen of the camera you get a live histogram so you can actually manage exposure better.Good example here. Contrast of this was extremely difficult to capture without reviewing it during the shot.That was taken on a smartphone for ref, not a proper camera. But the point is it gives decent feedback instantly as to what you are taking rather than having to work with what you thought you took later.

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 09:49:45 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 14, 2022, 10:42:33 amSurely the fact that the lens can be detached from the camera body makes it somewhat straightforward to test on an optical bench?

author: nightfire
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2022, 10:04:52 pm
content: Yes and no- due to the nature that some parts are present in todays lenses that were not present in the mechanical lenses we had till the 80ies, it is harder.For example, in modern days lenses the aperture control is digitally controlled in most lenses. Nikon F Mount is one of the manufacturers that did not do this due to downwards/upwards compatibility of the whole system. But in the Z system, they are also electronically controlled.Same goes for the VR system, that lots of lenses have.Apart from these things, a comparison on an optical bench would be really interesting, as camera manufacturers are able to remedy in software the known kinks of their lenses to a certain degree.

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 02:13:07 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 14, 2022, 06:40:09 pmWYSIWYGAs bd said, mainly exposure control....No more bad surprises after you took the shot. Plus all the mechanical mirror system jazz circus is gone....I am pretty much sold on the Canon R6, R5 is a nice horse but it is an expensive warm battery killer. No bueno senor.Plus I am starting to hate the CF cards...

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 03:52:39 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on July 14, 2022, 09:39:10 pmYou rocks!

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 07:29:01 am
content: I don't think any manufacturer has been caught doing lens correction to raws yet. That's what lens reviewers use to test their "raw" (hehe) performance. With JPEGs, such tests would be screwed by many other factors too, like sharpening.Some cheap wide angle zooms do exhibit quite a bit of barrel distortion which is corrected by the JPEG engine.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 07:35:08 am
content: Nikon Z does correction to the raws in camera. You can turn it off though.I leave it on though. Because I don’t give a crap. More interested in composition and subject. My father was obsessed with technical camera stuff but couldn’t take a decent photo if he tried.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 08:00:18 am
content: Yes interesting developments and a lot coming I guess.I like to hike now and then and love to spot wildlife with my Swarovski boinoculars 10x42Then when I see a bird , fox, dear whatever I like to take a nice picture as "souvenir".But I am always too far away.So I came across the P1000 from Nikon, pro photographers laughed at it since it is a small 6mm sensor and AF etc is not at par with the current tech etc. But for me it is great, it has a 125x optical zoom which is equivalent of 3000mm. I can shoot from hand and to show you just an example, this is from May holiday I spent in south Germany.Sitting on my balcony I saw a bird landing on top of that small christmasstree in the middle. With the naked eye you could not see it, this is what 3000mm handheld can do. And the pictures with 1500mm were much better.Just as an example. I had to compress the pictures for the forum so the originals are better but it gives a good id.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 08:13:03 am
content: Oh now that's very impressiveI get max 375mm equivalent with my 250mm zoom on a crop sensor. That gets me this without being headbutted:Yours is the equivalent of taking a photo of a ladybug on top of the deer's head though

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 08:20:06 am
content: Indeed, how did you get that dear to stay standing still so close? Is it tame? If I come within a 800m they already start runningAnother picture of what we call a mountain marmot, it would stay at distance to see what we were up to. It was off season no other people around.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 08:38:55 am
content: Quote from: Bassman59 on July 14, 2022, 09:49:45 pmStraightforward for those who have an optical bench at hand.Surely the fact that 99.99999% of SLR owners don't have one would be somewhat obvious, and we make do with what we have.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 08:41:03 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on July 15, 2022, 08:20:06 amThey're pretty chilled as they are used to people being around. Location was Richmond Park which is a major in-city park in London.Liking the marmot photo

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 09:09:35 am
content: I have played with those megazooms. A problem with the concept of focal length equivalence is that you get the field of view equivalence, but you don't get the resolution equivalence. In practical terms, there is plenty of pixels on this bird but not that many feathers. I have no practical experience with big boy telephoto lenses to offer, but going by maths alone I suppose a true APS-C or hi-res FF equivalent would be 1000~1500mm plus appropriate digital zoom to narrow the angle of view.Not in terms of price and portability, though

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 09:46:58 am
content: Yes I never said it could keep up with the big boysEsp. With flying birds this camera can not hold up.The focus is also extremely difficult in the bird picture you see that the focus is more on the green tipends than the bird. It was just an example standig hand shot.Even with a Z9 and 600mm with 2x objective weighing what 12kgs and costing what my car is worth, I would not been able to take this shot that fast because the bird sat there for three seconds, I would have also need a tripod setupSo no discussion, quality AF etc. is nowhere near the big boys toys but for my application it is more a low weight scope replacement I can carry with me on hikes without braking my back, with the foto as souvenir.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 10:01:05 am
content: You can also do macro with megazooms, here with Raynox DCR-250 +8D close-up lens.Verdict: somewhat usable, but there are better pics out there, even ignoring the out-of-focus corners due to tilt. Not much texture on the thing and the sharp edges of metal traces must be a heroic work of in-camera sharpeningThe die was some 1.5x1.5mm.

author: Fgrir
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 12:25:53 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on July 15, 2022, 07:35:08 amI don't think this is quite true - you can turn on/off the settings for lens corrections in the camera, but the image data in the raw file doesn't actually get corrected in-camera. If you load the raw file into nikon software, the corrections will be applied then based on the camera settings, but you can still turn the corrections on/off in the viewer. Well most of them, it doesn't seem to want to let you turn off the distortion correction - probably so you can't see how bad it really is sometimes. But if you load the raw into a third-party software you can see that the actual image data in the file is completely uncorrected, to the extent that other raw viewers need to apply their own lens corrections to approximate the results from the nikon software.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 12:43:15 pm
content: Sorry you are correct there. My bad. The NEF embeds the lens corrections and they are carried out in LR or whatever using the embedded profile. If you use JPEG then it applies the corrections in body.I'll now make everyone puke here by saying that I mostly shoot in JPEG fine because I don't want my family to have to sift through 4TB of raws when I drop dead

author: Fgrir
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 12:49:33 pm
content: I won't judge you for shooting jpeg - I am accumulating terabytes of raw files that I will never get around to converting because I am more interested in shooting than post-processing. Maybe I need to turn on RAW+JPEG mode

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 01:05:12 pm
content: I was going down that route as well. I worked out that I was only really doing light edits on 90% of the photos. The last 10% I was trying to undo shitty shooting where raw came in as beneficial. Figured if I hit myself with the clue stick enough I won’t need to shoot rawThis is a hobby for me. If it was commercial I’d see it as a operating cost.My workflow did involve Lightroom but I now shoot JPEG, import into Apple Photos on my iPad directly and edit on that or the mac. Also the phone feeds into that as well and it’s not bad on the edit front (80% as good as lightroom).

author: mawyatt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 01:07:15 pm
content: When your images are going to be published by a museum like the Huntington Gardens Museum mentioned earlier (image of 2 page spread shown again for convenience, can't show actual image as it's owned by Gardens now, so phone image of book pages), they demand no alternations to camera RAW files. They don't want any PS either and even JPEG wasn't good enough because of limited DR range (faint banding in the sky background), so we supplied RAW and Lossless TIFF to them. The colors must be spot on and the contrast as one would see if present, very demanding without any post processing, and the old Nikon 24-70 F2.8 and D800 were good enough at the time.Best,

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 01:48:32 pm
content: Quote from: Fgrir on July 15, 2022, 12:49:33 pmIn my digital cameras that can shoot RAW, there is always an accompanying JPEG file in RAW mode.

author: nightfire
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 02:03:03 pm
content: Quote from: mawyatt on July 15, 2022, 01:07:15 pmThat was a top-of-the-line combo back then, if you wanted better technical quality, you had to go for medium format!

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 02:44:51 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on July 15, 2022, 12:43:15 pmMake that petabytes for some snappers. Also, in the future, jpeg readers will still exist. Viewing granddad's raw files might not be possible. Even if you wanted to view 10,000 high dynamic range photos of ducks on a pond,Modern Jpeg algos are very good; given a good piece of glass and low ISO, they will match any 35mm slide in dynamic range - even Fuji RDP (which was the best film ever). Yes there are 'artefacts' at 16x12 inches, but who the hell prints anything over A4 - or even prints?Puke mode = true ; RAW is for professional photographers who have a team of colorists who have the need and resources to match every pixel to a target gamut. Otherwise it is used extensively by (male) photographic club poseurs who talk loudly about "mastering on RAW" whilst dismissing cracking images taken on smart phones.

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 02:59:16 pm
content: In my research about the Canon R6, I discovered this formathttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_Formatseems to be a successor for the jpeg format...

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 03:07:32 pm
content: My phone shoots HEIC by default...

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 03:12:14 pm
content: Quote from: AndyBeez on July 15, 2022, 02:44:51 pmThat's a good point about RAW files. The NEF format is not an open standard with an open specification for example. Every spec and open source codec out there is reverse engineered. JPEG is open.Agree with JPEG quality. It's fineI was actually talking to an actual professional photographer the other week. He does event stuff for press at Wimbledon, with a D850. He shoots JPEG because turnaround is the important thing for them. It takes less time to shift that to the agency so he can get cash.

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 03:59:01 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on July 15, 2022, 03:12:14 pmAs long you stay with the big ones, Canon, Nikon etc... I would not be so worried about the future RAW compatibility.We should also not forget C-RAW for Canon addicted like me.Interesting enough turning HEIF on disable some functions in Canon R6...ops...https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65624591What?Not surprised,we live in a JPEG world.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 04:01:47 pm
content: With any RAW files I want to keep, I first "develop" them into TIFF files, which I then edit/crop/correct.The services I use to print them, always want JPEG files, which I create after resizing the images and canvas for the intended format.(Since I often start with a full-resolution scan from a 4x5 inch film transparency, I can hear the pixels screaming as I compress them down to 11x14 at 300 dpi.)Clarification: my Epson 750 film scanner produces TIFF files directly, but my DSLRs produce RAW files, and the Pentax software "develops" them to TIFF.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 06:15:47 pm
content: Quote from: Zucca on July 15, 2022, 02:13:07 amAnd I do not agree with that. But surely we all have a different definition of "better" anyway.And you never exactly get what you see in the camera display/viewfinder anyway. At least color wise.I do not care about taking the "perfect" (if by that you only take purely technical parameters anyway, hence why I said it was good for cyborgs =) ) picture at first shot anyway. Digital cameras have this benefit that you can take almost as many as you want for basically free. Many DSRLs (including my Canon) have a mode with which it can automatically take a series of shots with varying parameters. That's more than enough for me. And for moving targets, you have a hard time beating a direct optical view anyway, and those automated shots modes are pretty handy.Besides, most DSLRs can do both anyway. (Not necessarily both in the viewfinder, but at least on the embedded display, in cases you need that kind of view.Just my opinion. The only real benefit for manufacturers is cost reduction.

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 06:38:23 pm
content: A few facts...Mirrorless has better exposure control than DSLR.It is not an opinion it is a fact.Focus? DSLR are doing an excellent approximation job. Mirrorless do not need an approximation.Again, the above it is not an opinion it is a fact.Furthermore the absence of a mirror between lens and sensors is hard to beat to get the best out of a lens.The closer you are to the sensor the better.Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 15, 2022, 06:15:47 pmMirrorless does it too.... unrelated to the topic.Here is were mirrorless are suffering:1) battery life2) Not real time viewfinderColors? Yes it's a taste thing, I love black and white portrait.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 06:42:21 pm
content: Also to point out that SLR cameras were a hack. DSLRs we’re a perpetuation of that hack. Mirrorless are the fix for the hack.The viewfinder is not even slightly laggy on the Nikons. And yes the battery life isn’t great.If I have any complaints it was that when I bought it you couldn’t get any spare batteries anywhere. by sheer coincidence I walked past a Nikon dealer in London who happened to have some in stock just delivered but I had to wait 4 weeks for that to happen.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 07:48:34 pm
content: Quote from: Zucca on July 15, 2022, 06:38:23 pmIf you don't follow the discussion or reasoning. =)The point was that some people on here including you were saying that it was just better because you could see directly (WYSIWYG, remember?) exactly what you would get on the photo. To which I respond that I'll favor a direct optical view, combined with the fact I may not be able to select the best parameters this way, but largely mitigated with this feature of automatic varying parameters, which would let me select the best results later on.That is largely opinion, and this is mine. So I'll repeat: I *personally* favor a direct optical view *even if I don't see the end result directly before taking the picture*, which can be largely mitigated (and often, more productively, at least again IMHO) with a rafale of shots using automatically varying parameters. Is that clear enough?

author: radar_macgyver
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 07:56:21 pm
content: My rather old DSLR (Nikon D5100) has a 'live view' mode, but it disables the phase-based autofocus. The amplitude-only autofocus is a lot slower, and prone to hunting. Has this improved with the mirrorless cameras? The smaller body size is appealing, though many Nikon mirrorless bodies are not significantly smaller than their DSLRs.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 07:59:18 pm
content: Autofocus only hunts if you are well underexposing.As for size, attached. I have the peak designs bag clip. It’s small enough and unobtrusive enough to clip onto the shoulder strap when I’m out hiking.

author: mag_therm
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 08:14:34 pm
content: I have a case full of collection of vintage Pentax and Ricoh K mount metal body lenses starting from late 1970's.For those of us wanting to continue using their brand of 35mm vintage lenses, a mirrorless body is not much of a size advantage.That is because the lenses have to maintain the original distance to the film plane that included the mirror swing.Pentax bought out a apsc mirrorless. I had one and it was useless, being as big as a dslr and without an eyepiece v/f !I also had an Olympus M43 mirrorless, I purchased the electronic eyepiece v/f but I never liked it.Now I have a Pentax/Ricoh K-S1 dslr. It is a few years old now, almost as small and light as a K1000 or MX.I use it completely as manual aperture and shutter and focusFuther it has ability to switch off completely the rear screen and menu crap etc. That greatly increases battery life, it goes 6 months per charge and I have taken it on travels a few times without even the charger.

author: nightfire
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 08:34:21 pm
content: Quote from: radar_macgyver on July 15, 2022, 07:56:21 pmThe Autofocus of the actual generation of mirrorless cameras has drastically improved.The Nikon D5100 and other cameras that era (about 10 years ago) used mostly contrast-based autofocus, which is slow and was used with simple algorithms.(D)SLR Systems back then were/are using phase-detection based AF, which means that there is a whole sensor array (usually placed in the bottom of a (D)SLR and getting its light via a second mirror behind the main mirror, which is translucent) dedicated to that.Fun fact: The placement and way of function of that AF is the reason, why the best aperture for quick focusing is 2.8- higher numbers as widest aperture yields less light and worse coverage of the AF module, and a wider open aperture can cause internal reflexes due to much more light coming in, therefore reducing contrasts.(In the german DSLR forum some years ago there was a long thread elaborating on this)Also the live view of early cameras like the D300 or so was not intended to be able to use the camera like a "point&shoot" and hold in in the "stinky diaper hold" (C) Kirk Tuck- it was intended to make focusing easier with macro shots and such.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 08:40:46 pm
content: Quote from: radar_macgyver on July 15, 2022, 07:56:21 pmLook up "dual-pixel / quad-pixel phase-detect AF".In short, on high end MILC, pixels are made in such way that each of them could also technically serve as a PDAF pixel (dunno if all are actually used). The image sensor itself implements the function of SLR's PD sensors and PDAF works in live view mode.Another (older) variation is replacing a regular subset of image pixels with dedicated split PDAF pixels and interpolating over them during image acquisition.

author: radar_macgyver
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 09:58:31 pm
content: Thanks, good to know that the newer mirrorless cameras have decent AF mechanisms. The Quad-pixel stuff is very impressive. Since Nikon's mirrorless series is not F-mount compatible (the lenses I have aren't fancy enough to warrant an adapter), I might make the jump to Canon.I use a Google Pixel 5a, and its camera's autofocus is really good (practically no hunting), even without assistance from a laser rangefinder. Wonder what method they use.

author: nightfire
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2022, 10:15:00 pm
content: Depending on the lenses, there are mechanical Adapters for F-Mount lenses to Z bayonet. This allows for manual adjustment of all parameters, if only some standard lenses have to be carried over for migration and features like AF and aperture adjustment from the camera body are not important.Otherwise: Nikon is making now the break Canon did decades ago whilst transitioning to autofocus-so lots of things are disruptive now.

author: mawyatt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2022, 12:32:57 am
content: If one doesn't have a previous lens bias, then Sony might be worth considering. They are the source of the better image sensors available for consumer cameras, Nikon uses some Sony sensors in certain models, and has been for some time now.As much as I like Nikon they were late to the mirrorless game, but we've been using Nikon for many decades now and have many Nikon or Nikon compatible lenses, so would be more expensive to switch to Sony now, so we'll stay with Nikon.Earlier the dedicated autofocus sensor was much more sensitive than the autofocus sensors integrated within the image capture sensor on mirrorless cameras, and this was the main reason for the mirrorless poor low light focus performance, however that has now improved.Today all the cameras are so good and the algorithms for just "pointing and shooting" are almost as good as if someone knowledgable sets up everything before hand. Have a former colleague that is sort of a camera nut, and he has a bunch of the latest Nikon Z cameras (a D850 also) & lenses, yet he says his wife almost always gets equal or better images with her iPhone!!!The new lenses are also getting much smaller & lighter, especially the new longer reach types that rely on Fresnel elements (have a Fresnel type 300mm that's about same size as regular 105mm and lighter)!! With the post image capture lens corrections capability the lens designers can focus (pun intended) on getting a sharp image at the corners without worrying about vignetting, or some aberrations and keeping the number of elements down which reduces weight.Anyway, we are seeing a significant shift taking place with consumer cameras, although most of which is in the Smartphones, but as in many things the semiconductor technology is behind much of this.Best.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2022, 08:08:04 am
content: If this would be made around $2000 I think companies would have a winner.

author: vtp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2022, 02:01:31 pm
content: I do not miss DSLR after using mirrorless cameras. Focus errors and need to compensate due to different distance between exposure/focus sensor and image sensor, mirror and shutter shock ruined pictures and bulkier size due to mirror box are things that I do not miss at all.Canon R5, R6, R7 and a lot RF glass here.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 16, 2022, 04:22:37 pm
content: I think there are some non-issues listed above.I see mirrorless as having incremental improvements in quite a few aspects over DSLRs. Video is a big improvement though.How much these mean to you is for the individual to decide, based on their own use case.I'm a cheapskate, who bought a broke D750 on eBay (gambled) and fixed myself (flex connector fubar).I like it and the huge range of secondhand Nikkor glass available.If you add the adapter size to the ML cameras, they're the same size as DSLR really, so you gotta buy ML glass, if the smaller size/weight matters to you.Would I spend the £1K+ to go ML? No, I'm a cheapskate (in photography).But would it improve my photos? Nah, not at my skill level, and I don't do video.Choose the camera you like, and enjoy using itWe're lucky to live in times when such a wide choice of gear is available, camera obsucra must have been a bitch to humph around the hills

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 16, 2022, 05:24:18 pm
content: right, but I see my DSLR equipment losing value over time quickly. So I decided to sell it asap before it is too late.

author: mawyatt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2022, 06:39:45 pm
content: Another important technology innovation that has been emerging over the past decade is the use of an Electronic Shutter/Curtain with CMOS sensors. We began following this when they were first introduced since some of our Stack & Stitch Chip images can take 20 sessions with each session having 200~400 individual images per session. That's a lot of shutter/curtain excursions to render one final large Gigapixel image, which could easily wear out the shutter mechanism.The Electronic Shutter/Curtain may not sound that difficult at first, just electronically turn on the image sensor and then turn it off to capture the image and then read out the pixels....right!!When one digs into the details it's not so easy, the mechanical shutter/curtain has almost perfect optical opaqueness when closed, electronic shutter/curtains don't and can let intense light bleed thru before or after image capture, or even during readout. This is why some cameras with electronic shutter/curtains block the use of flash with electronic shutter/curtain use. Some of the Nikon cameras with Electronic Shutter/Curtains also employ mechanical shutters and have modes where both types are utilized.Anyway, just another technology hurdle that requires addressing.Best,

author: vtp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2022, 06:41:23 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 16, 2022, 04:22:37 pmLOL, more like €20k glass includedQuote from: voltsandjolts on July 16, 2022, 04:22:37 pmYou are being too harsh to yourself. Will you get good pictures with DSLR? Absolutely. But with ML more of those and less frustration. I have noticed that of the amount of pictures taken with ML technically good ones are definitely majority, not so much with DSLR.Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 16, 2022, 04:22:37 pmYes and then it becomes expensive. However, that old adapted glass works much better in my experience in ML. Also, depends on what you would be adapting, with for example Sigma 40mm f/1.4 art or large telephoto the adapter is hardly an issue.Any camera can be used to take excellent pictures. I have taken some of the best ever for myself with pocketables and DSLRs but ML makes the job definitely easier. They have their own quirks though.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2022, 07:52:57 pm
content: An old saying in photojournalism to get good pictures:"f/5.6 and be there"

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 16, 2022, 08:04:20 pm
content: My favourites:"If your photographs aren't good enough, you're not close enough.""if you want to be a better photographer stand in front of more interesting stuff"

author: Picuino
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2022, 09:18:04 pm
content: Capture thedecisive moment

author: harerod
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2022, 09:14:32 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts onYesterdayat 21:04:20Great quote, sadly, towards the end, it didn't work too well for Bob.Although I had some close encounters while taking pictures, so far without fatal results.My favorite hobby targets are birds. Especially with the smaller ones, quite often a 600mm lens on a full frame sensor is still not long enough. So it takes lots of patience to wait for something interesting to happen close enough.Some of my better pictures feature a couple of grebes, who keep building their nest in a lake, about 10m from the shore. This year it was the fourth season that I followed their raising chicks.A typical session lasts between one and two hours. The 5DmkIV is usually mounted on a tripod and in standby. I make a habit of using the viewfinder and manually focus on interesting targets. Only for actual shooting I wake the camera up.https://harerod.de/lbr/tierbilder/voegel/grebe/pics/1080/IM5_4967-7.jpghttps://harerod.de/lbr/tierbilder/voegel/grebe/grebe.html<- "13.05.2022 - Erstes Küken" - "First Chick" - in this year's series.Before anyone asks "Why grebes?" Well, they have a funny mating ritualhttps://harerod.de/lbr/tierbilder/voegel/grebe/grebe_2020.html#200316and it is cute to see them carry the newborn on their backs.A friend of mine has been using Sony Alphas for years. I like the features of the electronic viewfinder, especially exposure control. The option of switching to fully electronic shutter is also a rather nice feature in noise sensitive environments (e.g. church). I would like to make the switch to mirror less, however, at the moment I couldn't bring myself to shell out the money.

author: harerod
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2022, 09:21:00 pm
content: Quote from: Picuino on July 16, 2022, 09:18:04 pmReminds me of Gary Ramage's "The Shot", which kept me company during a long journey from Sydney (via Perth and Dubai) back to Frankfurt.https://shawjonathan.com/2016/08/23/gary-ramages-the-shot/

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 18, 2022, 05:33:59 pm
content: I've just been watching this months episode of The Sky at Night (UK astronomy program by the BBC) and in the background of an interview (Oslo Uni) there was a very cool big print of an elephant charging with Kilimanjaro in the background. Quick search online revealed it to be one ofDavid Yarrow's most famous pictures. Just a funny coincedence as I'd just mentioned him above.

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2022, 01:53:49 pm
content: Amazing shot!I just dropped $7.6K for some Canon ML stuff.On sale in USA:Canon 5D Mark4EF 85mm 1.2L II USMEF 24-70mm 2.8L II USMEF16-35mm 2.8L IS II USMEF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II USMPM me if interested.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2022, 03:01:13 pm
content: LOL that's "buy my stuff so I can eat" territory.Congratulations either way

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2022, 03:04:36 pm
content: I thought worst case they will laugh at me.

author: Cubdriver
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2022, 11:54:12 pm
content: I'll be sticking with my DSLRs for the time being - got the 5D-IV a few years back to go with my 5D-II and am quite happy with it.-Pat

author: harerod
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2022, 06:47:21 am
content: Quote from: Zucca on July 26, 2022, 01:53:49 pmThe secret of making money with professional photo equipment: Sell it...

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2022, 07:59:08 am
content: Quote from: Zucca on July 26, 2022, 01:53:49 pmThere is a Canon ML, even more portable and above your budget

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2022, 12:17:04 pm
content: I have already two GoPros

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2022, 03:36:16 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 14, 2022, 10:42:33 amNo. Modern lenses, even cheap ones, are great because we have better engineering and manufacturing than in the past. Modern optical design is computer aided, allowing the design of complex distortion-reduction aspherical designs, and modern manufacturing makes it possible to manufacture those affordably.Yes, many modern cameras (Nikon for sure) apply compensation, too,but they do that for old lenses, too!!!But the compensation is for things like pincushion distortion, lateral chromatic aberration, etc. It’s not improving the fundamental sharpness of the lens.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2022, 03:48:44 pm
content: Quote from: mawyatt on July 16, 2022, 06:39:45 pmWhat’s funny on the Nikon side is that they used to do that a lot more! My old D70s used a shutter curtain up to 1/250 (IIRC) and everything faster than that was electronic. (So it never did moving-slit exposure.) But it used a CCD image sensor, not CMOS.

author: mawyatt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2022, 06:02:33 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on July 30, 2022, 03:48:44 pmNikon stayed with CCDs for much longer than Canon an others, they had specific advantages beyond just noise over CMOS, like the electronic shutter. Even today think CCDs still have a DR advantage over CMOS.Regarding the lenses discussion old vs new designs, many of the very old lenses utilized special glass that is forbidden today. The old Lomo microscope lens we have believe used some form of radioactive glass that has been banned for a long time. No it doesn't "glow in the dark"Best,

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2022, 07:45:13 pm
content: I don't own one, but there were classic apochromatic lenses made for medium- and large-format cameras containing lanthanum-glass elements, under the trade name "Apo-Lanthar".Voigtländer now makes modern lenses (for Sony mirrorless cameras) with that trademark, but I doubt they use (slightly) radioactive lanthanum glass (apparently an alpha emitter due to a minority isotope and possibly thorium included in the mixture).In general, heavy elements (such as lead and rare earths) will increase the optical index when mixed in glass.After thoriated glass fell out of favor, the less-radioactive lanthanum replaced it. seehttps://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/radiation/lens/