# The DSLR is obsolete? Oh.



## nerwin (Jun 7, 2016)

So apparently DSLR cameras are obsolete because of mirrorless cameras. Listen, I have nothing against mirrorless cameras. I think they are fine little cameras but the are not the end-all solution, they are simply just another _different _tool in the bag.

I have a little story to tell you from my experiences this past weekend. I attended this HUGE car show in Carlisle, PA which almost had 4,000 cars (by the way, we placed second!). Saturday was a really long humid gloomy day but it was packed full of people like it always is every year.

I brought my D610 + 24-120 f/4 VR and walked around all day using my blackrapid strap, I didn't have a single problem. It was comfortable. Why do mirrorless vs DSLR debaters ALWAYS insist that us DSLR shooters carry our camera hanging around our necks?

When I was sitting behind our car we had on display and watching it put smiles on peoples faces, I decided to observe how many were using a mirrorless camera. Guess how many? NONE. I didn't not see one out of the 20,000 people that probably walk by our car. Okay, I'm exaggerating and sure there were some but they were few and far in between. Most of the time I saw people using their smart phone or a cheap point & shoot from Nikon and Canon. But what I did see a lot of is people using DSLRs, some are using full frame bodies, some are just your entry level bodies. I saw one guy walking around with a 70-200 2.8, others with fish eyes, others with just a 18-55 and everything in between.

If DSLRs are "obsolete" why do I see more of them over mirrorless cameras? I'm sorry...but DSLRs are not obsolete, not yet anyways. Maybe they never will. Who knows.

A lot of these mirrorless vs dslr debate articles you find are clickbait. I read one this morning and he was writing about how DSLR are dead because they are big and heavy, but yet he personally uses one of those Sony A7 cameras....lol, they are pretty much the same size as a DSLR. What a joke.

I'm just tired of this mirrorless vs dslr debate. Who cares anymore? Just shoot with what you have.

/rant


----------



## Peeb (Jun 7, 2016)

The interwebz mind is made up- don't confuse us with facts!


----------



## Braineack (Jun 7, 2016)

I just did a two week tour of Italy.  I saw so many Nikons it was crazy.  *Tons* of D3xxx and D5xxx cameras with kit lenses; only a few Canons.

But there were quite a large number of mirrorless shooters, but they seemed to be the smaller, 1" to 1/1.7" sized cameras.

The size factor of my a6000 was great for my trip, I really didnt want to have to lug around my large D600 and 24-70; it becomes a bit unwieldy.  I would have preferred it, but the a6000 did okay.  It takes too long bumbling with settings, changing focus modes, etc.  The DSLR is just so much easier to shoot with.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 7, 2016)

Braineack said:


> I just did a two week tour of Italy.  I saw so many Nikons it was crazy.  *Tons* of D3xxx and D5xxx cameras with kit lenses; only a few Canons.
> 
> But there were quite a large number of mirrorless shooters, but they seemed to be the smaller, 1" to 1/1.7" sized cameras.
> 
> The size factor of my a6000 was great for my trip, I really didnt want to have to lug around my large D600 and 24-70; it becomes a bit unwieldy.  I would have preferred it, but the a6000 did okay.  It takes too long bumbling with settings, changing focus modes, etc.  The DSLR is just so much easier to shoot with.



I saw quite of few Pentax DSLR shooters too!


----------



## table1349 (Jun 7, 2016)

Internet opinions are like armpits, everybody has them and most of them stink.  60 years ago we were all going to be riding around if vehicles like the Jetsons by now because automobiles were going to be dead.  Film is dead.  Yeah right.  

The only thing that seems to be dead is the ability for the younger generation to hold something in their hands that weighs a pound or two for more than two minutes.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 7, 2016)

Mirroless is great for some things, but the DSLR won't be "obsolete" until mirrorless or another technology can do everything it can do or better, and at this point in time that just isn't the case.

Mirroless is great from a size/weight perspective of course, which makes them a very attractive option for some.  However for me personally one of the big drawbacks to most mirrorless systems is telephoto.

Ok, yes they do make telephoto lenses for them but the vast majority of the native telephoto's are of course designed to be small and lightweight which of course makes perfect sense.  However it also limits their telephoto range, if I want anything bigger than a 300 mm I'm looking at buying a rather expensive adapter (unless I want manual focus only) and a lens from another camera system that is going to be rather unwieldy when attached to such a small camera.   Even if I want to stick with native lenses, the telephoto's are usually pretty expensive when compared to their DSLR counterparts.  Again that makes sense, they are newer designs, much smaller and lighter for the most part, and as such your paying a bit of a premium for being on that cutting edge.

So for me at least a mirrorless doesn't make good financial sense.  I can get a lot more bang for my buck especially with the types of photography I do using a traditional DSLR.

For folks that shoot mostly at closer distances and those that don't need a monster stomping AF system that can track say birds in flight, mirrorless is a much more attractive option.  I'll wouldn't mind having a mirrorless setup on occasion, something I could throw in a small bag and keep in the car for those times when breaking out the DSLR is just a bit of overkill.  

In truth though even when mirrorless does eventually advance too the point where they can compete in all categories with DSLR, I'll still be using a DSLR.  Having a smaller, more portable camera would be nice, on occasion.  But if I'm going to be out for an entire day shooting, no, I don't want a tiny little camera like that.  I need something my big bear paws can use comfortably.  So I actually prefer the larger form factor of a DSLR in that regard.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 7, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> For folks that shoot mostly at closer distances and those that don't need a monster stomping AF system that can track say birds in flight, mirrorless is a much more attractive option. I'll wouldn't mind having a mirrorless setup on occasion, something I could throw in a small bag and keep in the car for those times when breaking out the DSLR is just a bit of overkill.



That's why I bought the RX100 M3 because there are times when a DSLR is just bit of an overkill. But often people will argue a smart phone would be better in that situation. While I think smart phones are getting better in the camera department, there is just no way they can compete with larger sensors from cameras like the RX100 or mirrorless cameras with APS-C or M43 sensors. I only use my phone for snap shots. 

I've played around with mirrorless cameras and some of them are just too dinky and often the options that are mapped to physical buttons on a DSLR are now require you to scroll through the menu system to find it.


----------



## SnappingShark (Jun 7, 2016)

So I had a large DSLR with grip and many lenses. I thought Mirrorless were compact, the future, the next best thing - so I got one - the OMD-EM1 from Olympus - I had 5 lenses for it. It was a great little setup. However, the images were limited in terms of size, and the colors weren't that great. The auto focus was sluggish compared to a DSLR, and the noise was pretty apparent.

So I switched BACK to a DSLR.  I carry a few lbs extra, but at least I know that I now don't have to worry about any limitations outside of myself.

However, that said, I can see them being the future when they nail down their flaws.

But back to post - I see many DSLRs out and about - and the only "mirrorless" I see are Leica replicas - such as the fujis!


----------



## table1349 (Jun 7, 2016)

That's what I don't understand, the whole size weight argument.  If someone has disabilities that is one thing, but if not it's not like we are talking about the difference between holding a pencil and a baseball bat.  

Some specs based on a previous thread on mirrorless.
Fujifilm X-T10: 4.7 x 3.3 x 1.6", 381 g
Sony Alpha a6000:  4.7 x 2.6 x 1.8", 344 g
Olympus O-MD E-M10: 4.7 x 3.2 x 1.8, 396 g
Canon T6i: 5.2 x 4.0 x 3.1, 555 g

The DSLR is Less than 1/2 pound heavier than lightest of the three mirrorless.  If that half a pound is that big of difference then FYI.  Walmart sells 2.5 pound wrist weights.  Check them out.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 7, 2016)

nerwin said:


> So apparently DSLR cameras are obsolete because of mirrorless cameras. Listen, I have nothing against mirrorless cameras. I think they are fine little cameras but the are not the end-all solution, they are simply just another _different _tool in the bag.
> 
> I have a little story to tell you from my experiences this past weekend. I attended this HUGE car show in Carlisle, PA which almost had 4,000 cars (by the way, we placed second!). Saturday was a really long humid gloomy day but it was packed full of people like it always is every year.
> 
> ...


Isn't this a rehash of one of your posts from a couple weeks ago ?



> I'm just tired of this mirrorless vs dslr debate. Who cares anymore? Just shoot with what you have.[\quote]
> YES!! and stop reposting about it every few weeks!!
> Just go out and shoot with what you have.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 7, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> Isn't this a rehash of one of your posts from a couple weeks ago ?



Of course not, don't be silly.  A couple of weeks ago only Nikon was going out of business.  Now all DSLR manufactures are going out of business.

See, completely different.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 7, 2016)

Its official, Sony is no longer making mirrorless cameras.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 7, 2016)

nerwin said:


> Its official, Sony is no longer making mirrorless cameras.



Wait, Sony completely abandons a format and leaves all of the people who own it high and dry?

Umm... ya.. well love to say that's never happened before but... 

Lol


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 7, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't this a rehash of one of your posts from a couple weeks ago ?
> ...


No, not the last post about this, but the previous post.  lol


----------



## nerwin (Jun 7, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> YES!! and stop reposting about it every few weeks!!
> Just go out and shoot with what you have.



Its all the mirrorless propaganda man, its messes with my head.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 7, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't this a rehash of one of your posts from a couple weeks ago ?
> ...



Hey, everything you read on the internet is true or becomes true. 

Lol.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 7, 2016)

it's marketing

reality ... it does NOT have a mirror box so it's a little bit smaller.
if you want to use the same quality lenses, etc .. and say a FF or APS-C sensor the lenses are still going to be nearly as big.   If you need more battery life then you need a bigger battery, thus making the body bigger,etc etc.   In the end for a 1-1 MirrorlessSLR it's going to be nearly the same size.  Add a nice Viewfinder and viola, nearly identical.

if they get the super fast FPS with AF between shots working well (then they can transplant that tech into DLSRs too, right ?)    

it's just a camera above a P&S with various sized sensors from FF to small ones.

stop spending money and take pictures ... improve your photography.  Experience & technique will improve anything more than equipment.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 7, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> it's marketing
> 
> reality ... it does NOT have a mirror box so it's a little bit smaller.
> if you want to use the same quality lenses, etc .. and say a FF or APS-C sensor the lenses are still going to be nearly as big.   If you need more battery life then you need a bigger battery, thus making the body bigger,etc etc.   In the end for a 1-1 MirrorlessSLR it's going to be nearly the same size.  Add a nice Viewfinder and viola, nearly identical.
> ...



I think its true that someday we will outgrow the mirror BUT I don't see why the camera needs to be smaller, some people much like my self and @robbins.photo like our chunky cameras because its comfortable. 

If Nikon released a mirrorless camera that is the same size as a DSLR but has a ultra high res EVF, super long battery life, same great if not better AF and tracking, more FPS and the cool features of mirrorless tech today, I'd buy one.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 7, 2016)

That's why the last line of Sony Mirrorless was named BetaMax.


----------



## goodguy (Jun 7, 2016)

nerwin said:


> So apparently DSLR cameras are obsolete because of mirrorless cameras. Listen, I have nothing against mirrorless cameras. I think they are fine little cameras but the are not the end-all solution, they are simply just another _different _tool in the bag.
> 
> I have a little story to tell you from my experiences this past weekend. I attended this HUGE car show in Carlisle, PA which almost had 4,000 cars (by the way, we placed second!). Saturday was a really long humid gloomy day but it was packed full of people like it always is every year.
> 
> ...


DSLR will be completely obsolete when both Canon and Nikon will make the move to mirrorless and will let you use their current lenses on these bodies.
If not then Sony will keep slowly bleeding more and more DSLR users to their system.

Mirrorless size advantage was their big thing but if anyone saw DigitalRev TV review of Sony's new 24-70mm 2.8 G lens saw how huge it looks on the A7 camera and Kay mentions it like 100 times throughout the review.
I can only imagine how weird and unbalanced this camera will be with the new 70-200mm 2.8 lens mounted on it


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 7, 2016)

nerwin said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > it's marketing
> ...


Yeah, a nice BIG clear EVF sitting in the middle on top of the camera body right where the prism box would sit.  Perfect. But now need the EVF to be instantaneous instead of delayed.

I like my EVF and LCD but the image is delayed especially noticeable if it's moving.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 7, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...



The delay is a little annoying on my RX100 M3..some people say you don't notice it but when you are used to using a OVF, you notice it clearly.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 7, 2016)

I don't notice EVF delay, I notice MAJOR startup delay.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 7, 2016)

Braineack said:


> I don't notice EVF delay, I notice MAJOR startup delay.



Start up delay as in turning the camera on or switching to viewfinder?


----------



## Braineack (Jun 7, 2016)

turning on the camera and waiting for it to be able to take a picture.   Part of it is waiting for the kit lens to extend.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 7, 2016)

Braineack said:


> turning on the camera and waiting for it to be able to take a picture.   Part of it is waiting for the kit lens to extend.



Have you tried playing the Girl From Ipanema while you wait?


----------



## Braineack (Jun 7, 2016)




----------



## astroNikon (Jun 7, 2016)

you should leave the camera on at all times.  That will alleviate startup.

Don't worry, the instant on mirrorless cameras will come out soon obsoleting all existing mirorrless cameras.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 7, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> you should leave the camera on at all times.  That will alleviate startup.
> 
> Don't worry, the instant on mirrorless cameras will come out soon obsoleting all existing mirorrless cameras.



I left my D610 on in my bag for over a week. Still had full charge. 

I think my RX100 M3 will shut it self off after 2 minutes of no activity.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 7, 2016)

The reason why people believe DSLRs are on the way out is because mirrorless keep selling, while DSLRs are on a slow decline.

Why ? Because if you have a decently current camera, you're all set. A D700 for example is still a great camera and 12 Megapixel are still plenty of resolution. Heck, even a Canon 5D still can do just as good images as back when it was released.

While I'm looking into mirrorless - specifically into the rumored Fuji medium format that might come soon - even if I would get into it, for the forseeable future I still plan keeping my DSLR as my main system.


----------



## FXA (Jun 7, 2016)

IMO,  the whole DSLR vs. mirrorless debate is pointless. There is no better or worse camera type. Everyone should just choose the one fitting his needs the best.  

Gesendet von meinem A0001 mit Tapatalk


----------



## nerwin (Jun 7, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> The reason why people believe DSLRs are on the way out is because mirrorless keep selling, while DSLRs are on a slow decline.
> 
> Why ? Because if you have a decently current camera, you're all set. A D700 for example is still a great camera and 12 Megapixel are still plenty of resolution. Heck, even a Canon 5D still can do just as good images as back when it was released.



That's what my thoughts are. DSLRs are so good today that there really isn't any reason to upgrade until there is something that significantly helps you to achieve better pictures.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 7, 2016)

I dunno





State of the Camera Industry Report: Are Canon/Nikon dying?

The last several months looks like both Mirrorless and DSLR sales are dropping.  Plus the chart is "shipped", not "sold".  So some previously shipped cameras may be sitting on shelves.

I think the hand held camera alone is dying, and cell phones are taking over.
Just look at the rumors of of the death of Samsung and Sony mirrorless cameras.

I'll buy a high end mirrorless when the viewfinder is instantaneous and AF fps is true to their statements.  extended batter life, good grip, high IQ lenses, etc.  Hey, my mirrorless might be the same size as a d4.  Oh, and I want it to fit in my pocket even with a prime 300/4 lens attached to it.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 7, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> I dunno
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would have given you a like and an agree, but I could only choose one.  Even a Chinese takeout has more choices than this forum.


----------



## DarkShadow (Jun 7, 2016)

I have actually met a few Facebook friends,almost all of them have switched from shooting with Phones to DSLR and not a one had a mirrorless anything.One lady went from a phone to a Canon 5DIII and the others Mostly Nikon entry level and few Canon Entry level. DSLR are not even close to Being Obsolete.

Personally I like to have a camera that my hand fits well,no pinky dangle or tiny little buttons that needs a finger nail to press and IMO it just don't make sense having a 8 ounce body with a few pounds of glass hanging off the front. My tarmac Expedition back pack weights more then a mirrorless body.Just sayin.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 8, 2016)

dslr is done stick a fork in it. camera fits in your pocket, carries your calendar, can play videos and songs and make phone calls? And its still fine for 99 percent of the photos people take and in some cases might even come out better? They can automatically upload really? Might even be waterproof drop it in the pool?   so whats the dslr for shooting weddings in lowlight and taking photos of the moon? so that means 1 percent of photographers need a dslr? And out of that 1 percent 99 percent of them wont have it with the the majority of the time? sounds about right.  IT was a enthusiasts phase that has ran its course of the photography "bubble" over the last decade expect all sales to slip both dslr and mirrorless the professional market demanding them has probably accounted for just a fraction of the actual camera market and everyone else is moving on.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 8, 2016)

DarkShadow said:


> I have actually met a few Facebook friends,almost all of them have switched from shooting with Phones to DSLR and not a one had a mirrorless anything.One lady went from a phone to a Canon 5DIII and the others Mostly Nikon entry level and few Canon Entry level. DSLR are not even close to Being Obsolete.
> 
> Personally I like to have a camera that my hand fits well,no pinky dangle or tiny little buttons that needs a finger nail to press and IMO it just don't make sense having a 8 ounce body with a few pounds of glass hanging off the front. My tarmac Expedition back pack weights more then a mirrorless body.Just sayin.



Same here, I get a ton of questions when I post on facebook about what DSLR I use, what I recommend, etc, etc.  I also see a lot of posts from people talking about getting their first DSLR, how they are so much happier with it than they were with their cell phone camera, etc.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 8, 2016)

This is What the History of Camera Sales Looks Like with Smartphones Included

gonna drop like a rock


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 8, 2016)

bribrius said:


> This is What the History of Camera Sales Looks Like with Smartphones Included
> 
> gonna drop like a rock



If you say so.  Funny thing though, when I sold my D7100 on Ebay it had 35 watchers and sold in less than an hour, for over $600. 

Last lens I bid on had over 40 bids on it before I finally won the auction.  I don't see much of anything in the DSLR realm selling at rock bottom, give away prices.. which, I mean you think it would if the DSLR were truly yesterday's news and all anybody wanted now was a cell phone camera.  Nope, seems like there are still a ton of folks out there who are interested in purchasing DSLR's, lenses and such for them.  

I guess the actual public hasn't gotten the memo yet.. or something.  I still get daily questions from people on facebook asking me about DSLR's.. and everyone of them already has a cell phone with a built in camera.  It's just ... bizarre I guess.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Same here, I get a ton of questions when I post on facebook about what DSLR I use, what I recommend, etc, etc.  I also see a lot of posts from people talking about getting their first DSLR, how they are so much happier with it than they were with their cell phone camera, etc.


Yeah, but do you deliver Steaks ?


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 8, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> Yeah, but do you deliver Steaks ?



I used too, but I had to quit the business.  I'd wrap them around hand grenades and pull the pin, toss them in - the shrapnel would tenderize the meat perfectly and the explosion would give it a really tasty charred flavor.

Sadly though apparently at least in the Omaha area there's this really fine line between "catering" and "terrorist attack"... so ya, had to give it up.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but do you deliver Steaks ?
> ...


bummer.  I was going to stop by and see if you can help me with my d810
The film canister keeps falling out the bottom.   
stupid DSLRs


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 8, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> bummer.  I was going to stop by and see if you can help me with my d810
> The film canister keeps falling out the bottom.
> stupid DSLRs



Umm.. ya.  That was a ton of my time wasted trying to be nice to someone that I thought needed help.  Oh well.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > bummer.  I was going to stop by and see if you can help me with my d810
> ...


----------



## DeadEye (Jun 8, 2016)

I got that new iPhone. Its mirrorless and takes the very best pictures ever. ROFL     I do want a good mirrorless though. A good tool for a certain task and sure won't replace a 1D


----------



## chuasam (Jun 8, 2016)

the DSLR is obsolete, you just don't realise it yet.
Seeing a ton of them around doesn't mean much.
For what most of these people are doing, a Mirrorless would be a far sensible choice.
I happen to like the ergonomics of my D810, but if I was able to snap my figures and choose without cost, an A7RII and A7SII duo would make far more sense for what I do.
I don't shoot sports so I don't need super fast autofocusing. 

I have pro friends who've dumped Canon and moved to FujiFilm.

Advantages of mirrorless (for what I do)
Size -smaller
Silent mode


Mirrorless is the future. We just need to wait till more lenses become available.
For the vast majority of photographers and the general public, the DSLR is slowly becoming a less and less viable choice.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 8, 2016)

I guess I should sell my dslr now.


----------



## PaulWog (Jun 8, 2016)

I just want less moving parts. No shutter life to worry about would be nice. Less dust moving around inside also a plus.

I think the only people who actually argue "mirrorless vs. dslr" have way too much time on their hands, regardless of which "side" they are arguing for.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Jun 8, 2016)

Have owned both.
Prefer the big ole outdated useless dslr 
But wait! It's so big and heavy....please
If the mirrorless could only autofocus properly, not run down the battery in 30 minutes and be comfortable to hold with a large lens attached. 
I'll stick with the big, fat and ugly and keep my mirror, thank you.


----------



## beagle100 (Jun 9, 2016)

nerwin said:


> So apparently DSLR cameras are obsolete because of mirrorless cameras. Listen, I have nothing against mirrorless cameras. I think they are fine little cameras but the are not the end-all solution, they are simply just another _different _tool in the bag.
> 
> If DSLRs are "obsolete" why do I see more of them over mirrorless cameras? I'm sorry...but DSLRs are not obsolete, not yet anyways. Maybe they never will. Who knows.
> 
> ...



maybe you see more DSLRs than mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras because the DSLRs have been around a lot longer.    In a few years almost everyone will have a mirrorless camera
 (except you of course!)
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Braineack (Jun 9, 2016)

You guys might like my latest thoughts on my little Sony A6000 after shooting with it exclusively for 2 weeks and ~3000 images:

ciao. Florence, Italy set.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 9, 2016)

I just can't see mirrorless cameras replacing DSLRs or making them go obsolete. I think they are just too different. I don't see why one can't have both though. They might have their work camera which would be their DSLR and the other travel/fun camera would be a mirrorless setup. What is wrong with that? 

That's what my friend Eric Rossi does, he has both a D600 and D750 and also a A6300 and Canon G7X and uses all 4. 

Just depends on what tool you need for the job. You can't use an adjustable wrench for everything.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 9, 2016)

DSLRs have stayed the same since forever because they worked well.  It's hard to tell the difference between a DSLR today and an SLR from 50 years ago.

Mirorrless cameras have awesome technology, but completely ignore the UI/UX.  Mirrorless is definitely the future of photography, but it still needs time to develop [pun intended].

consider these first mirrorless cameras as a portable CD player working their ways towards being an ipod.  They removed the disc (mirror) but also refined the UI.  Released 15 years ago, they still utilize the same damn circular wheel input with 4 buttons -- cause it's simple and works.  Think about how much better the XEN was (BT, solid state drive), but it never caught on cause it wasn't as easy to use-- UI/UX matters.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 9, 2016)

Braineack said:


> DSLRs have stayed the same since forever because they worked well.  It's hard to tell the difference between a DSLR today and an SLR from 50 years ago.
> 
> Mirorrless cameras have awesome technology, but completely ignore the UI/UX.  Mirrorless is definitely the future of photography, but it still needs time to develop [pun intended].
> 
> consider these first mirrorless cameras as a portable CD player working their ways towards being an ipod.  They removed the disc (mirror) but also refined the UI.  Released 15 years ago, they still utilize the same damn circular wheel input with 4 buttons -- cause it's simple and works.  Think about how much better the XEN was (BT, solid state drive), but it never caught on cause it wasn't as easy to use-- UI/UX matters.



I'm really not a fan of Sony's UI, its a mess. To just format the card, I gotta go to menu 6 then page 4. On my D610, I can just press two buttons and boom done.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 9, 2016)

I agree.  Way too much bumbling to do simple tasks.  the menu system is awful to navigate through.  Somehow--and i cant even belive it--it's worst than Nikon's.  At least the shooting menu has categories and logical groupings.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 9, 2016)

Per the Oxford Dictionary. (Is there really any other)
*obsolete*
Pronunciation: /ˌäbsəˈlēt/  

*ADJECTIVE*
No longer produced or used; out of date:

They are still being used and still being produced so Obsolete?  I think not.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 9, 2016)

Braineack said:


> DSLRs have stayed the same since forever because they worked well.  It's hard to tell the difference between a DSLR today and an SLR from 50 years ago.
> 
> Mirorrless cameras have awesome technology, but completely ignore the UI/UX.  Mirrorless is definitely the future of photography, but it still needs time to develop [pun intended].
> 
> consider these first mirrorless cameras as a portable CD player working their ways towards being an ipod.  They removed the disc (mirror) but also refined the UI.  Released 15 years ago, they still utilize the same damn circular wheel input with 4 buttons -- cause it's simple and works.  Think about how much better the XEN was (BT, solid state drive), but it never caught on cause it wasn't as easy to use-- UI/UX matters.



I would agree with you, eventually once they get some of the issues taken care of and mirrorless can do everything DSLR can do at the same level, then you'll start to see manufacturers move away from DSLR and into mirrorless.  For now they have a way to go before they hit that mark.  Hopefully when they do manufacturers will continue to make cameras that are the same size as current DSLR's for those of us who actually want a larger camera, but we'll see I guess.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 9, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > DSLRs have stayed the same since forever because they worked well.  It's hard to tell the difference between a DSLR today and an SLR from 50 years ago.
> ...



Once they make batteries that are small and can take a 1000 shots, that would be a major improvement.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 9, 2016)

That would help.  I'd rather just see the DSLR improve and evolve.  Take everything cool and neat about mirrorless and apply it to a tried and true format that doesn't need reinventing.

Although I had no issues with battery life on my camera for my 2 week adventure.  I had two spares with me and only swapped them out once when i didnt have time to charge.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 9, 2016)

I think one of the biggest advantages that DSLRs have today are the huge selection of lenses, anything you can think of. With mirrorless there is only a small selection and cheap they are not. Sure you can adapt them to mirrorless cameras but I rather not use an adapter.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 9, 2016)

nerwin said:


> Once they make batteries that are small and can take a 1000 shots, that would be a major improvement.


Once they have smaller and more powerful batteries then DSLRs can get respectively smaller too.
And I want a clear BIG EVF .. sitting in the middle or left.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 9, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > Once they make batteries that are small and can take a 1000 shots, that would be a major improvement.
> ...



I don't know about anyone else, but I really like having a optical viewfinder. EVFs are okay and they will only get better but like you...it needs to be BIG and CLEAR and NO DELAY.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 9, 2016)

nerwin said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > nerwin said:
> ...


Absolutely!!!


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 9, 2016)

nerwin said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I really like having a optical viewfinder. EVFs are okay and they will only get better but like you...it needs to be BIG and CLEAR and NO DELAY.



Once they get that sorted out, EVF could be awesome.  Being able to see the shot as the camera would see it would be a huge advantage, so if they can manage to make an EVF that functions well in low light and doesn't suffer from delay issues I think they'll have a real winner on their hands.  If they can combine that with batteries that won't run out after a few hours of EVF use, yup.. then they'll definitely have something to write home about.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 9, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about anyone else, but I really like having a optical viewfinder. EVFs are okay and they will only get better but like you...it needs to be BIG and CLEAR and NO DELAY.
> ...



That wont be for a while though I'm guessing.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 9, 2016)

nerwin said:


> That wont be for a while though I'm guessing.



Nope, probably not.  The other major issue I see with most mirrorless systems is of course the autofocus, they've made some pretty good improvements of late but still a ways to go before they can match the DSLR.

Will be interesting to see though.  I might eventually get a mirrorless as a supplement to my DSLR, but I would never consider it a replacement.  Not at this stage.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 9, 2016)

I want the DSLR to inherent things like the in body sensor shifting 5-axis stabilization.  or like a firmware package that was written in this decade.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 9, 2016)

Braineack said:


> I want the DSLR to inherent things like the in body sensor shifting 5-axis stabilization.  or like a firmware package that was written in this decade.



I thought there was a DSLR with 5 axis stabilization? I'm probably confusing it with a Sony A7 with battery grip and external battery pack. Haha


----------



## table1349 (Jun 9, 2016)

That's why Canon and Nikon choose to stabilize the image BEFORE it gets to the sensor.  Simple, easy and the most effective.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 9, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> That's why Canon and Nikon choose to stabilize the image BEFORE it gets to the sensor.  Simple, easy and the most effective.



Would you say in-lens stabilization use less battery power than a 5 axis sensor stabilization?


----------



## Braineack (Jun 9, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> That's why Canon and Nikon choose to stabilize the image BEFORE it gets to the sensor.  Simple, easy and the most effective.



most effective?

it's not simple and drives up the cost of lenses.  Put it in the body (like the drive motor) and you don't have to worry about such things, then you can benefit from pixel-shifting tech and get incredible clean Super-MP images.

In body could take advantage of using an internal gyroscope and velocometer like your cell phone has and stabilize based on actual inputs.  proactive instead of reactive.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 9, 2016)

I'm not sure if "simple" is the right word, sensor stabilization is way, way simpler.

---

Anyway. Yes. The DSLR is not going to be around forever. I've said it before and I'll say it again: eventually there will be a push for larger sensors and the DSLR platform is awkward for medium format.

Second, mirroless is less expensive and mechanically simpler. Fewer moving parts means warranty service is going to cost less. Inevitable improvements will eventually permit a fast electronic global (or at least functionally global)  shutter, and cameras will at this point no longer be mechanical at all.

EVFs have improved significantly over the last few years. a 4k display with a frame rate of 120fps (if taking into account latency) will likely be indistinguishable from an optical viewfinder, and a 6K display most certainly would be. These kinds of numbers are certainly rational expectations considering that VR seems to be a technology that people are at least excited about.

EVFs likewise perform better in low light provided that latency can be corrected, and even without latency corrected, I'd rather have a laggy viewfinder that I can actually see than one I cannot see anything at all, while focus assist is *significantly* more useful than a rangefinder or microprism, imo.

Video can also be viewed naturally from the viewfinder without having to add silly eyecups.

I do not think DSLR is dead, but I think it will be in a few years, my guess is in 10 years professional cameras will not be mechanical, and within 5 years Nikon and Canon will be very much on board.

From my experience, my X-E1 I bought on a whim with all it's flaws is a far superior shooting experience than my Sony A700. The a700 is a solid camera, and really does have a very nice viewfinder, too. But overall, the Xe-1 is just "better".


----------



## nerwin (Jun 9, 2016)

So what should we do now? Keep using what we have until mirrorless cameras can fully replace DSLRs or should we sell now while they are still worth something?


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 9, 2016)

unpopular said:


> I'm not sure if "simple" is the right word, sensor stabilization is way, way simpler.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...



I have a feeling your probably right.  Honestly I don't care if there's a little flippy mirror thingy inside or not as long as it works the way I need it to work.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 9, 2016)

By the time dslrs are obsolete, your current gear will be obsolete anyway. Mirrorless cameras have a short film to flange distance, so all your lenses will likely be compatible.

I don't think there is any reason to run out and switch to Fuji.

Unless you value image quality. Then definitely switch to fuji


----------



## nerwin (Jun 9, 2016)

unpopular said:


> By the time dslrs are obsolete, your current gear will be obsolete anyway. Mirrorless cameras have a short film to flange distance, so all your lenses will likely be compatible.
> 
> I don't think there is any reason to run out and switch to Fuji.
> 
> Unless you value image quality. Then definitely switch to fuji



I wont use Fuji until Fuji and Adobe can get along together.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 9, 2016)

nerwin said:


> So what should we do now? Keep using what we have until mirrorless cameras can fully replace DSLRs or should we sell now while they are still worth something?



I'm sticking with DSLR - by the time mirrorless can replace my current DSLR it will either be worn out or practically worthless anyway because it will be 5-10 years old by then.  I bought my used and it was a few years behind the curve when I got it.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 9, 2016)

An electronic shutter wouldn't be a bad thing. I had a yashicamat that would drag on the lower speeds, which wasn't horrible, b/w film is flexible.

Except when it wouldn't close and I had to it it against something more or less guaranteeing that my shot would be 4 stops over.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 9, 2016)

nerwin said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > By the time dslrs are obsolete, your current gear will be obsolete anyway. Mirrorless cameras have a short film to flange distance, so all your lenses will likely be compatible.
> ...



Silky is WAY better than Lightroom.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 9, 2016)

unpopular said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



Maybe so, but I certainly don't like the fact you need to process the raw images before you import them into Lightroom. I like what Lightroom does to my raw files from the D610, it just works wonderfully and I finally figured out a organization system that works perfect for me, still tweaking as we speak actually! Haha.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 9, 2016)

No. I get you. I just really dislike Lightroom. Feels like a toy to me and lacks the kind of technical precision I'd expect.

But then again, my favorite processor was Raw Photo Processor, which is very technical. I'm seriously thinking about getting a mac mini or something specificly for that. Not sure how well it handles xtrans


----------



## nerwin (Jun 9, 2016)

unpopular said:


> No. I get you. I just really dislike Lightroom. Feels like a toy to me and lacks the kind of technical precision I'd expect.
> 
> But then again, my favorite processor was Raw Photo Processor, which is very technical. I'm seriously thinking about getting a mac mini or something specificly for that. Not sure how well it handles xtrans



You have to use whatever works best for you. For me its Lightroom. I know some that will process 500+ photos individually in Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop. Thats something I don't have the patience for, hahaha.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 9, 2016)

Its also got to work with your budget. That's why I recommend it, but don't actually use it


----------



## DarkShadow (Jun 9, 2016)

By the time DSLR are Dead so will I,so I don't give a rats behind.


----------



## beagle100 (Jun 9, 2016)

nerwin said:


> I think one of the biggest advantages that DSLRs have today are the huge selection of lenses, anything you can think of. With mirrorless there is only a small selection and cheap they are not. Sure you can adapt them to mirrorless cameras but I rather not use an adapter.



*Newsflash*: 
lens adapters are inexpensive and some mirrorless lens are cheap !
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## unpopular (Jun 9, 2016)

Yep. You can adapt just about anything to m4/3 and a very wide selection to mirrorless APS-C/35mm.

lens options was a pretty substantial reason I went mirrorless.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 9, 2016)

Guess I might as well switch to mirrorless.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 9, 2016)

Well. If you do a lot with AF there are a few AF adapters for NEX, otherwise it's full manual.

Though, stop down metering isn't as big of a deal with an EVF.

Another cool thing you have are these "speed boosters" that are designed to maintain the crop equivalent of a 35mm lens by compressing the image circle, this has the added benefit of giving you another stop or so. They're popular with cinematographers. Don't know how they'd perform for stills.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 10, 2016)

I honestly don't know what I'm going to do. I feel so lost. People are telling me I should switch to mirrorless and others saying I should stick with what I have, but I don't know what *I* want. I'm happy with my DSLR, it works for me and I know exactly how to use it. But something is missing and I don't know what it is. 

I loved the Fuji X100, the orginal one, that camera was awesome and fun to us. Some of my favorite shots came from that camera, it was just the way it handle and felt. It was fun. Liked the fixed 23 /2 lens, I put a red shutter button on it and had custom made leather strap for it and the paint was wearing off, I loved that camera. The high ISO performance wasn't that great, no image stabilization and the video was garbage, but I loved it. I think it made me a better photographer in a way. Maybe because it had a fixed lens? But after selling it, just kind of been feeling I've been going down hill. 

I like the RX100 M3 that I have now, but no way does it compare to the X100. Sure the RX100 M3 blows it out of the water in terms of video and picture quality is very simular though X100 has the edge because its APS-C. But for as expensive as the RX100 M3 is, its just chinsy point and shoot that I feel if I squeeze too hard, its going to break. One little bump to that extended lens will surely cause issues. 

Don't tempt me to get that old X100 again. Why would I even want the old X100 when the newer X100s is affordable now? Because the X100 had a finepix sensor and not a X-trans sensor and Adobe seems to process the finepix raw files similar to the NEF files I get from my Nikon. If I was to get the X100s, I'd have to process them in a separate program before importing into Lightroom...its just something I don't really want to do.


----------



## fmw (Jun 10, 2016)

unpopular said:


> I'm not sure if "simple" is the right word, sensor stabilization is way, way simpler.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...


----------



## fmw (Jun 10, 2016)

I would assume that everything we have will become obsolete at some point.  I started photography with a Speed Graphic, an old 4X5 hand held press camera.  No one would have imagined a digital SLR in those days.  A battery operated cell phone with a camera would have been considered science fiction.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 10, 2016)

beagle100 said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > I think one of the biggest advantages that DSLRs have today are the huge selection of lenses, anything you can think of. With mirrorless there is only a small selection and cheap they are not. Sure you can adapt them to mirrorless cameras but I rather not use an adapter.
> ...


*
Help:*
Find me an inexpensive Nikon F to Sony E *AF-S* lens adapter !  and some cheap f/2.8 or f/4 zoom lenses !
*The Braineack’s albums | Flickr - Photo Sharing!*

good luck.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 10, 2016)

beagle100 said:


> *Newsflash*:
> lens adapters are inexpensive and some mirrorless lens are cheap !
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*



Lens adapters are "inexpensive" only if you want a lens adapter that will require you to manually focus a lens.  That makes them pretty undesirable for a lot of us who shoot stuff that doesn't tend to stay in one spot for very long.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 10, 2016)

I dont see the problem with manually focusing and using the EVF for this lens:


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 10, 2016)

Braineack said:


> I dont see the problem with manually focusing and using the EVF for this lens:



A lot would depend on what you shoot, and how good your eyesight is - some of us have trouble manually focusing even stationary objects, myself included, due to poor eyesight.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 10, 2016)

Braineack said:


> I dont see the problem with manually focusing and using the EVF for this lens:



I don't think that will fit in my pocket.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 10, 2016)

until either edge detection improves or sensor-side phase contrast af makes its way into mirrorless, af and action photography will be lacking. But being that both canon and fuji have image sensors with hase detection, its only a matter of time, and frankly im suprised it isnt avaialable yet.

a as for low light and poor eyesight, that isnt a problem provided that lag can be addressed since the image in an evf is reflectve of the exposure. Focus assist and viewfinder zoom likewise help tremendously.

if avalanch photodiode arrays canmake their way into photography, then the dslr is done. Already the technology is used in scientific imaging, such as spectrometry. I suspect that in 10 to 20 years color avalanch diode sensors will replace cmos. At that point we can expect pmt performance on a chip. The SNR would be so high that, along with signal processing and display improvements, the optical finder would be vastly inferior.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 10, 2016)

unpopular said:


> until either edge detection improves or sensor-side phase contrast af makes its way into mirrorless, af and action photography will be lacking. But being that both canon and fuji have image sensors with hase detection, its only a matter of time, and frankly im suprised it isnt avaialable yet.
> 
> a as for low light and poor eyesight, that isnt a problem provided that lag can be addressed since the image in an evf is reflectve of the exposure. Focus assist and viewfinder zoom likewise help tremendously.
> 
> if avalanch photodiode arrays canmake their way into photography, then the dslr is done. Already the technology is used in scientific imaging, such as spectrometry. I suspect that in 10 to 20 years color avalanch diode sensors will replace cmos. At that point we can expect pmt performance on a chip. The SNR would be so high that, along with signal processing and display improvements, the optical finder would be vastly inferior.



So its probably not wise to ditch my DSLR right now.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 10, 2016)

I mucked around with a Sony RX1Rii today. I would ditch my DSLR in an instant to use that as a travel camera.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 10, 2016)

chuasam said:


> I mucked around with a Sony RX1Rii today. I would ditch my DSLR in an instant to use that as a travel camera.


FF sensor?  expensive "little pocket" camera.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 10, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > I mucked around with a Sony RX1Rii today. I would ditch my DSLR in an instant to use that as a travel camera.
> ...


It's soooooo good


----------



## Braineack (Jun 10, 2016)

its too small.  look how rinky dink it is.

I can see the design sessions during devleopment...

CEO: design a camera  kinda like this

Design team:





CEO: approved.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 10, 2016)

Braineack said:


> its too small.  look how rinky dink it is.
> 
> I can see the design sessions during devleopment...
> 
> ...


It's a Platonic ideal of a camera. 
You should see my watch 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Looks exactly like a platonic ideal of a watch


----------



## Braineack (Jun 10, 2016)

reminds me of will ferrel trying to use his phone:


----------



## nerwin (Jun 10, 2016)

Zoo lander phone? Hehe


----------



## unpopular (Jun 10, 2016)

nerwin said:


> So its probably not wise to ditch my DSLR right now.



Well. The a700 is my second favorite camera after the Contax RX (which is vastly superior to any camera I've used). But I haven't touched it since I got the XE-1.

Mind you, any more I shoot full manual under stop-down metering, so AF isn't terribly important. Oddly, though, the XE-1 encourages me to shoot in aperture priority whereas on a DSLR I shot everything full manual.

It's nice to have always-on DOF preview, even if a bit laggy stopped down.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 11, 2016)

nerwin said:


> I think one of the biggest advantages that DSLRs have today are the huge selection of lenses, anything you can think of. With mirrorless there is only a small selection and cheap they are not. Sure you can adapt them to mirrorless cameras but I rather not use an adapter.


I can fit more lenses on my A7 than you can on you Nikon and every Leica lens will work 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary (Jun 11, 2016)

nerwin said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > nerwin said:
> ...


Just like my Leica mirrorless [emoji3] 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## nerwin (Jun 11, 2016)

Not everyone can afford a Lecia gary.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 11, 2016)

gsgary said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...


Yeah but aren't those considered obsolete and too expensive for the common folk?


----------



## Braineack (Jun 11, 2016)

My hotel in Florence was next to a Leica store.  I only ever saw one customer in there over 4 days.




DSC02000 by The Braineack, on Flickr

Maybe people actually prefer LCD displays and AF-modules...


----------



## chuasam (Jun 11, 2016)

nerwin said:


> Not everyone can afford a Lecia gary.


is that the Chinese version of Leica *LOL*
I would hazard to say that fewer people desire a Leica than people who can afford it.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 13, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > This is What the History of Camera Sales Looks Like with Smartphones Included
> ...


i still think it was a phase. DSLRs were more expensive they dropped in prices same time photography picked up as a huge enthusiasts market (film was harder digital helped this).  So for a decade we had a huge upshift in dslr sales and site like this one for example were started. The question is has its run its course. AS the average consumer may nolonger find the novelty of it which is a large portion of camera sales to the average consumers.  In practicality i went down to the lake yesterday with the kids and dog (i live by a lake) and yes i brought my dslr as the light would be getting low along with three lenses but in reality i would dump it in a heartbeat just for the headache of carrying it if the technology was there to replace it. Soon i believe it will be.  You really think i want to throw sticks in the water for the dog to fetch and hang out with the kids by the lake or on the lake carrying a dslr bag? Hell no i avoid it like the plague. And the best shots are the ones that are unexpected you might come across when you arent lugging around your dslr anyway.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 13, 2016)

it almost goes against common sense as well. Since the cameras inception it has been through a evolution of becoming more portable user friendly adaptable, smaller. By the nature of the evolution of the camera i cant see why the dslr would survive.  The goal has always been to make them smaller, more easily capable of carrying and user friendly.. Carrying around a dslr and lenses, not. It's  backwards technology not forward technology.  Forward technology is taking the same quality photo without carrying lenses in a camera a quarter the size that may even make phone calls and double as your organizer.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 13, 2016)

bribrius said:


> if the technology was there to replace it. Soon i believe it will be.



And this is pretty much the crux of the whole thing - at the moment, the technology doesn't exist to replace it.  Will it soon?  Eh, who knows.  But until then the DSLR will remain.

Then of course once you do see units out on the market that can replace a DSLR, well even then you won't necessarily see a huge tidal shift.  I'm quite happy with the size and weight of my current equipment, given the fact that replacements that could match them in the mirrorless realm would be WAY more than I would ever consider spending on my hobby.

Even when they do eventually get to the point where they make replacements in the mirrorless realm that I can afford, I'm probably still not going to be in a rush to switch.  I prefer something larger that I can manipulate easily - smaller for me is not always better, in fact it often becomes a nightmare quickly with repeated use.  

The other point of course will be will whatever new system the come up with use my current lenses?  If not, total deal breaker for me and a lot of other folks out there right from the get go, and no I don't want to spend a small fortune on some kind of adapter to get AF working so that I can mount a dinky little camera on the end of a 70-200 F/2.8 or 400mm/500mm/600mm lens of some sort so the whole system is off balance and terribly unweildy.  So yup, no interest for me there either.  So really what it boils down to for me is I'll consider switching, maybe, at some point, when it can actually replace what I already have.

Until then it makes zero sense for me, and a lot of other folks, and at this stage I don't even recommend people buy them as their primary system other than in very limited circumstances, because lets face it - there's zero guarantee that the stuff available now will even be supported next year, or 3 years from now, etc.

For the folks that really like/want a smaller system and are willing to deal with all of that, great.  But it's not anywhere near the stage where it will replace DSLR for some of us, much less all of us.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 13, 2016)

I'm waiting for the mirrorless camera that is a replacement eyeball.  Then you can take pics just by blinking.

oh wait .... Mission Impossible-style contact lenses that can take pictures and scan data are a step closer to reality as scientists develop LED soft lenses


----------



## Braineack (Jun 13, 2016)

It would be pretty cool to be able to capture the DR of what your eye actually sees one day


----------



## unpopular (Jun 13, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Carrying around a dslr



I think that interchangeable lenses will stay around for a while. The only lens technology that would realistically replace it would be a medium with configurable index of refraction continuously in one axis. This is within the scope of possibility. Imagine someday a "lens" is some kind of medium which changes it's refractive index according to an electric signal. Instead of buying physical lenses, you'd download them. Optical characteristics could be tuned according to working distance and aperture - even aperture shape could be custom taylored to fit the lens design or bokeh quality desired.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 13, 2016)

unpopular said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Carrying around a dslr
> ...


That would be Sweet. NO more lenses yay!!


----------



## unpopular (Jun 13, 2016)

@bribrius  They're already doing it with thin lenses and fresnels.  They're essentially 2D lenses that can change their IOR to bend light at a to different degrees in from the center to edge. If you could somehow stack these one behind another in an array you could get any type of compound lens assembly.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 13, 2016)

Smaller isn't always better...


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2016)

nerwin said:


> Smaller isn't always better...



thats what she said


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 14, 2016)

chuasam said:


> I mucked around with a Sony RX1Rii today. I would ditch my DSLR in an instant to use that as  travel camera.


 I would much rather pick up a Leica Q. I might even do it, even if its financially inresponsible for me, if they fix those little remaining issues (the rest of the camera is awesome). I want full control of when the electronic shutter is used, I want higher shutter speeds if I close the aperture down, I want to be able to sync at full shutter speed, I want to manually select highest electronic shutter speed when I want to, I want to be able to set all three exposure variables in third stops, and I want to customize the AF-ON and MOVIE buttons to something I would actually use (suppress flash or switch shutter mode for AF-ON and select ISO for MOVIE).

Ah what I'm saying. I'm very, very happy with my Ricoh GR. Sorry, Leica.





gsgary said:


> I can fit more lenses on my A7 than you can on you Nikon and every Leica lens will work


 Yes... technically you can.

Theres just no point to do so, because Leica glas doesnt work that well on Sony A7* cameras. Meaning you spent a ton of money to end up with glas that has just average performance - worse than good original Sony glas, actually.

Theres this fix to replace the sensor glas with a really thin sensor glas, but that still by far doesnt make them work as well as in a real digital Leica M (or the SL), and also then the performance of Sony glas starts breaking down.

See:
A Thinner Sensor Stack

See also:
Sony A7 Series Thin Filter Legacy Lens Upgrade - Kolari Vision
A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
Sony A7 Thin Filter Legacy Lens Upgrade by Kolari Vision

This is NOT compareable with the situation of Canikon DSLRs, which offer a ton of NATIVE glas with automatic aperture, often autofocus, often automatic lens information, and quite a lot image stabilization on them as well.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 14, 2016)

I thought about selling my DSLR and getting a Sony A6300 but its probably a pretty bad idea and I would most likely regret that decision.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 14, 2016)

nerwin said:


> I thought about selling my DSLR and getting a Sony A6300 but its probably a pretty bad idea and I would most likely regret that decision.


You've been mulling about that for months.
==> Sell my Nikon FX gear and go with Fuji X-Pro 2?


----------



## nerwin (Jun 14, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > I thought about selling my DSLR and getting a Sony A6300 but its probably a pretty bad idea and I would most likely regret that decision.
> ...



Hey, that was Fuji. I'm mostly over Fuji.

I would've gone with the X Pro 2, but after playing with the raw files I wasen't that happy. The raw files from my DSLR are so much better. Dynamic range was night and day difference. 

I think...I might be going a little insane. Its just that I feel like I'm missing something and I don't know what it is exactly. 

I don't know...maybe its time to put the camera down and give it up.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 14, 2016)

nerwin said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > nerwin said:
> ...


take a break then.
no one actually gives up taking photos ... look at all the cell phone pics out there.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 14, 2016)

My RAW files from the A6000 to D610 are night and day.  I'd be incredibly unhappy if it was my only body.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 14, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...



I've taken too many breaks to the point I'm forgetting how to take photos.

I'm not afraid to admit, I have gear acquisition syndrome. I just want and want and buying and selling gear isn't going to make me better, just gives me a headache like I have right now actually.

Here is one of the dilemmas I've been having lately. I really miss having a ultra wide angle lens and I want to buy one, but I don't know if its still worth to invest in a lens for my DSLR or if I should ditch it and go mirrorless and be ready for the future. I don't know what to do, but its driving me crazy lately.

Then when I'm out shooting, I get this feeling that I'm being watched and laughed at. "Look at that moron with a 15 pound camera taking pictures of a flower! Haha! I can take the same picture with my phone!". Lol. Okay..I might be over exaggerating, a little.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 14, 2016)

nerwin said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > nerwin said:
> ...



The problem is your mirrorless camera you buy TODAY
will be old news TOMORROW.  And with newer technology you mirrorless WON'T be ready for the future.  Look how many times SONY changes their mount.

Kinda like DSLRs, and about anything else.
What does the D610 NOT do that you want it to do?
Maybe you need to get off the compulsive buying and learn to use what you have.

And if you worry about what other people think, then you changing system won't change that. They'll say look at the moron with the 8 lb mirrorless camera when I can take a pic with my phone.

Photography should be fun, enjoyable and rewarding.


----------



## PaulWog (Jun 14, 2016)

nerwin said:


> I've taken too many breaks to the point I'm forgetting how to take photos.
> 
> I'm not afraid to admit, I have gear acquisition syndrome. I just want and want and buying and selling gear isn't going to make me better, just gives me a headache like I have right now actually.
> 
> ...



"... and be ready for the future." What do you even mean by that?

If the D610 isn't enough, nothing is. 

Maybe purchase a cryogenic freeze tube.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 14, 2016)

PaulWog said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > I've taken too many breaks to the point I'm forgetting how to take photos.
> ...



Hmm, I have a couple of those in my basement.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 14, 2016)

PaulWog said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > I've taken too many breaks to the point I'm forgetting how to take photos.
> ...


He's under the assumption that "mirrorless *is* the future"  ... end of discussion ...
assuming nothing else comes along.  And of course the technology itself will make older models obsolete.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 14, 2016)

So basically you are saying to shoot for the now and not tomorrow.

Actually, what you wrote was really helpful. Maybe I should just buy ultra wide angle lens I want and just enjoy it instead of worrying about the future or mirrorless cameras taking over. 

Though if Nikon comes out with a full frame mirrorless camera, that would be tempting and you'll know they would keep the mounts the same. lol


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 14, 2016)

unless you can photograph the future.  If you can do that, then take some pics of the future lottery PowerBall numbers for me. Thnx.


----------



## PaulWog (Jun 14, 2016)

nerwin said:


> So basically you are saying to shoot for the now and not tomorrow.
> 
> Actually, what you wrote was really helpful. Maybe I should just buy ultra wide angle lens I want and just enjoy it instead of worrying about the future or mirrorless cameras taking over.
> 
> Though if Nikon comes out with a full frame mirrorless camera, that would be tempting and you'll know they would keep the mounts the same. lol



The whole point of going mirrorless right now, at this moment, is to have something that is compact. Plus there's no mirror to worry about.

If Nikon came out with a mirrorless version of the D610 that did the exact same things as your current D610, there'd be no point in switching.

Purchase a camera based on what it does. The focus system. Resolution. Dynamic range. Etc, etc. Whether or not the camera has a mirror isn't the important bit.

I had the D5200 and 16-85 VR lens originally. I wanted shallow DoF. I got the 35mm 1.8G. I wanted more gear, so I got the 50 1.8G, 85 1.8G. I wanted ultrawide, so I got the 10-20 Sigma. I wanted telephoto, I got the 70-300. I wanted a fast zoom, so I got the 18-35 Art. Now I have what I have in my signature. GAS doesn't help you take great photos. I do prefer what I have now, but I would be delusional to say that any of my old gear held me back from taking great photos.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2016)

actually the "no mirror" part is what is so appealing to me. I think the X-mount is currently the closest flange distance in APS-C/35mm. For me this is much more important than compactness.

@nerwin I agree with others. Just shoot with what you have and save up to buy a used mirrorless at some point. Mirrorless depreciate pretty quickly so it's pretty easy to get into a system for a few hundred bucks. Whatever system is gathering dust, whatever system you stop getting excited for whenever new exclusive glass is announced - that's the system to abandon; the one you don't use.

But I don't think you need to worry about either technology going anywhere any time soon, and for the foreseeable future either will be a fine investment.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 14, 2016)

unpopular said:


> actually the "no mirror" part is what is so appealing to me. I think the X-mount is currently the closest flange distance in APS-C/35mm. For me this is much more important than compactness.
> 
> @nerwin I agree with others. Just shoot with what you have and save up to buy a used mirrorless at some point. Mirrorless depreciate pretty quickly so it's pretty easy to get into a system for a few hundred bucks. Whatever system is gathering dust, whatever system you stop getting excited for whenever new exclusive glass is announced - that's the system to abandon; the one you don't use.
> 
> But I don't think you need to worry about either technology going anywhere any time soon, and for the foreseeable future either will be a fine investment.



I have my Sony RX100 M3 when I need compactness, but its almost too small sometimes haha. But man I just miss having my Fuji X100 with the fixed 23 f/2 lens. I really thought about getting a A6000 and the 20 2.8 prime. It really forced me to think.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 14, 2016)

If you are looking for an investment buy bonds.  If you are looking to take pictures, grab a camera and go shoot.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Jun 14, 2016)

I think it's also possible that we will eventually have the technology to "apply" a focal length, aperture, etc to a photo after it's been taken. So you'd only


nerwin said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > actually the "no mirror" part is what is so appealing to me. I think the X-mount is currently the closest flange distance in APS-C/35mm. For me this is much more important than compactness.
> ...




I'm about the biggest Sony fangirl out there, but the a6000 with 20 2.8 isn't a good idea. That lens is just "meh." Now, the a6000 with 24 1.8, on the other hand...

As far as the discussion, I think that mirrorless is just a bridge technology. We're eventually going to get a full frame camera that can fit in your pocket. And with the way that technology is moving, some will probably be able to hold on to their DSLR until they can switch to that  future camera. Mirrorless will be leapfrogged, sort of like A-track tapes. 

However, in the meantime, mirrorless fits my needs better than DSLRs. So I'm glad it's available for me, and I support it because I want it to continue to receive research and development. In just a few short years, they have done incredible things with this technology and broken tons of barriers that naysayers swore they never could. 

Everything will be obsolete eventually. Use what helps you take the best pictures.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 14, 2016)

Let's see now, the wheel is  stone age technology that has been refined over millennia.  It is yet to be obsolete.  I think that the current SLR variants are good for oh a few more years or so.


----------



## hdrbyspencer (Jun 14, 2016)

nerwin said:


> So apparently DSLR cameras are obsolete because of mirrorless cameras. Listen, I have nothing against mirrorless cameras. I think they are fine little cameras but the are not the end-all solution, they are simply just another _different _tool in the bag.
> 
> I have a little story to tell you from my experiences this past weekend. I attended this HUGE car show in Carlisle, PA which almost had 4,000 cars (by the way, we placed second!). Saturday was a really long humid gloomy day but it was packed full of people like it always is every year.
> 
> ...




Rant accepted!!

I have heard and been intrigued by mirrorless and that is as far as it goes. Currently, I am invested in my Nikon D600, plus several lenses, tripod, flashes, filters, etc. To decide to switch from my DLSR to Mirrorless seem like a large investment. And quite frankly I am happy with met equipment. 

Even my D600 has been awesome, even with all those sensor troubles. I just keep it clean and have had no troubles. 

So I hear you about "who cares about mirrorless." I agree. Just go out and use your current equipment to create beautiful photographs and practice daily getting better. 

Thanks for an awesome post.


----------



## hdrbyspencer (Jun 14, 2016)

BrightByNature said:


> So I had a large DSLR with grip and many lenses. I thought Mirrorless were compact, the future, the next best thing - so I got one - the OMD-EM1 from Olympus - I had 5 lenses for it. It was a great little setup. However, the images were limited in terms of size, and the colors weren't that great. The auto focus was sluggish compared to a DSLR, and the noise was pretty apparent.
> 
> So I switched BACK to a DSLR.  I carry a few lbs extra, but at least I know that I now don't have to worry about any limitations outside of myself.
> 
> ...



The only way I might consider a mirrorless and give up quality would be if I were going on vacation and needed to pack light. And really I would not even do that because I have captured some awesome images while on vacation and actually sold some of those images. Sounds like the mirrorless camera has some image color issues. Thanks for a great post.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 14, 2016)

I do not think color is a general issue with mirrorless. The A7 and Fuji mirrorless cameras are held in high regard in this area.

There can be some issues with some rangefinder lenses producing weirdly-colored vignette due to shallow retrofocus.

---

The sub-APS-C sensors in my opinion have their calling, but there are drawbacks, relative noise being one; this is sort of inevitable, as is the case when comparing APS-C to 35mm or 35mm to medium format within similar resolutions and technologies.

I have to admit though, the Pentax Q looks like a ton of fun.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 14, 2016)

Come now people.  Of course the new generation thinks that the mirrorless is the next god in photography.  Remember they are the same generation that gave us the Suitsy.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jun 14, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Come now people.  Of course the new generation thinks that the mirrorless is the next god in photography.  Remember they are the same generation that gave us the Suitsy.


I clicked that link. I have no idea why.

I'll weigh in. Mirrorless is probably the way of the future, just like Betamax.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 14, 2016)

Don't you just love the idea of getting dressed with a onesie for a board meeting.   That's the trend in thinking with the current generation.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 14, 2016)

unpopular said:


> I have to admit though, the Pentax Q looks like a ton of fun.



It is a cute little camera. If it had been a 1" sensor, i would buy one...but the sensor is pretty small for a ILC in my opinon....But it would be fun and totally different.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 15, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Don't you just love the idea of getting dress with a onesie for a board meeting.   That's the trend in thinking with the current generation.


Hey! I would love to wear my kigurumi when travelling by air.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 15, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Come now people.  Of course the new generation thinks that the mirrorless is the next god in photography.  Remember they are the same generation that gave us the Suitsy.


yeah, spend more money on a fake suit-thing than a real suit, shirt and tie.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 15, 2016)

chuasam said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you just love the idea of getting dress with a onesie for a board meeting.   That's the trend in thinking with the current generation.
> ...


Why is it that from anyone else I would think they are joking but in this case I'm not sure?


----------



## chuasam (Jun 15, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


I'm not joking. It would be supremely comfy but I was flying to Singapore and a kigurumi would prove highly impractical upon landing.

Here's my friend wearing my Kigurumi.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 15, 2016)




----------



## astroNikon (Jun 15, 2016)

we really didn't want a picture of any kind.


----------



## beagle100 (Jun 15, 2016)

unpopular said:


> actually the "no mirror" part is what is so appealing to me. I think the X-mount is currently the closest flange distance in APS-C/35mm. For me this is much more important than compactness.
> 
> @nerwin I agree with others. Just shoot with what you have and save up to buy a used mirrorless at some point. Mirrorless depreciate pretty quickly so it's pretty easy to get into a system for a few hundred bucks. Whatever system is gathering dust, whatever system you stop getting excited for whenever new exclusive glass is announced - that's the system to abandon; the one you don't use.
> 
> But I don't think you need to worry about either technology going anywhere any time soon, and for the foreseeable future either will be a fine investment.



true, when you realize the reflex mirror is unnecessary and "pancake" lens are lighter, smaller and easier to carry around the future is obvious
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## chuasam (Jun 16, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> View attachment 123359


y'all a bunch of old farts


----------



## TheLibrarian (Jun 16, 2016)

This will anger you to no end then, they're making miniature lenses (microscopic) I forget the name that will put high quality lenses on smart phones. Otherwise smartphones are approaching 20MP and I just bought a DSLR!


----------



## nerwin (Jun 16, 2016)

TheLibrarian said:


> This will anger you to no end then, they're making miniature lenses (microscopic) I forget the name that will put high quality lenses on smart phones. Otherwise smartphones are approaching 20MP and I just bought a DSLR!



I would still rather have less megapixels and a big sensor. Bigger pixels = better image quality, especially in low light.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 16, 2016)

TheLibrarian said:


> This will anger you to no end then, they're making miniature lenses (microscopic) I forget the name that will put high quality lenses on smart phones. Otherwise smartphones are approaching 20MP and I just bought a DSLR!


The Lumina 1020 was 41 megapixel released in 2013


----------



## table1349 (Jun 16, 2016)

Let see, which will inherently produce better quality photos a 36X24mm sensor or a 4.54X3.42mm sensor.   Think I will keep my DSLR's a little while longer


----------



## nerwin (Jun 16, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> TheLibrarian said:
> 
> 
> > This will anger you to no end then, they're making miniature lenses (microscopic) I forget the name that will put high quality lenses on smart phones. Otherwise smartphones are approaching 20MP and I just bought a DSLR!
> ...



Yup, I remember that. I think 41 megapixels was a big extreme for a phone. Even phones with 20mp will look okay when zoom out but when you zoom in, you can see the effects of small sensor. My dad just bought the Galaxy S7 which has 12 megapixels which is less than the S6 which had 16mp but on the S7 they kept the same sensor size but decreased the pixels and made them bigger. Bigger pixels will always win in my opinion.

That's why the D700 is still pretty good today! and that came out what? 8 years ago?


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 17, 2016)

nerwin said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > TheLibrarian said:
> ...


Yes, I was just replying to TheLibrarian as cell phones have eclipsed the 20mp a few years ago, not just "approaching it today".


----------



## nerwin (Jun 17, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...



I remember getting a phone many years ago with 3mp sensor and I thought that was awesome! A 3mp camera in a phone?! haha.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 17, 2016)

nerwin said:


> I remember getting a phone many years ago with 3mp sensor and I thought that was awesome! A 3mp camera in a phone?! haha.


..

The Nikon D1 camera was 2.7 mp


----------



## nerwin (Jun 17, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > I remember getting a phone many years ago with 3mp sensor and I thought that was awesome! A 3mp camera in a phone?! haha.
> ...



I remember reading stories of people getting billboard size prints from the D1.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 17, 2016)

nerwin said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > nerwin said:
> ...


I used to have a Kodak DC50 .. ages ago. I can't even remember what the MP was for that.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 17, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...




Christophe Jacquet — Retro-digital photography: using the Kodak DC50

Bring back memories? Haha


----------



## Braineack (Jun 17, 2016)

I need to go dust off my Coolpix 5000.  Sensor doesn't matter; all you need is manual controls.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 17, 2016)

That's no compact camera. Lol


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 17, 2016)

nerwin said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > nerwin said:
> ...


Ahh. I actually had the DC120 now that I see the information about them. which was 1 mp
==> Kodak DC Series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
at work we bought the dc50  0.38 mp and the dc120.  When the project was completed we were going to just through them away but I kept the dc120.  Used compactflash.
I actually threw it away probably 8 years ago as I found it in a box.


----------



## manny212 (Jun 17, 2016)

Pentax 6x7 by manny herreria, on Flickr

Hell I'm going backwards HAHA!


----------



## nerwin (Jun 17, 2016)

That's awesome! That's when Honeywell imported Pentax cameras to the US! So cool.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 17, 2016)

nerwin said:


> That's no compact camera. Lol
> 
> View attachment 123427



omg, that's lol.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 17, 2016)

Braineack said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > That's no compact camera. Lol
> ...



I'm glad DSLRS didn't end up looking like that lol.


----------



## MikeBcos (Jun 17, 2016)

nerwin said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > The Nikon D1 camera was 2.7 mp
> ...



Quite possible, billboards are printed at 12-15 dpi. Of course, you have to be about 200 feet from it for it to look good.


----------



## waday (Jun 17, 2016)

nerwin said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > nerwin said:
> ...


I don't know what DSLR you have, but mine looks fairly similar to that? DSLRs with grips look exactly like that.. just not as tall.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 17, 2016)

waday said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



Exactly?

Mine didn't. Man I kind of miss the feeling of the grip on my D7000. But didn't feel I needed it on the D610.




Nikon MB-D11 by Nicholas Erwin, on Flickr


----------



## waday (Jun 17, 2016)

nerwin said:


> Exactly?


They look pretty darn similar to me.

Yeah, they changed the logo location, and made the flash pop up. They brought the ring to the top of the body instead of in the side. The battery grip got a little shorter and the shutter button moved slightly. They added a little red thing.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 17, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...


I stil have my DC280.  2.1MP.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 17, 2016)

MikeBcos said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...


I've done billboard ads with a D700. And the image was cropped too!
The D700 was a great camera. However, the quality isn't even on par with a current crop sensor like a mirrorless Fuji.


----------



## ClickAddict (Jun 17, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...




I worked for a newspaper (IT, not photographer) and we had 4-5 DC120.  I remember burrowing one when my son was born in 97 and brought my laptop so I took a photo of him at the hospital, uploaded  (using a Dial up external modem) it to a website I had created for my grandmother to see from another city.  Took a few hours to setup the website and about 30 minutes to upload the photos (Can't recall how many). The doctor came in and was totally mesmerised by the possibility to share photos this "fast".  And today kids can all do this with the click of 1-2 buttons from their cell phones.


----------



## beagle100 (Jun 23, 2016)

ClickAddict said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


I used to have a Kodak DC50 .. ages ago. I can't even remember what the MP was for that.[/QUOTE]


Christophe Jacquet — Retro-digital photography: using the Kodak DC50

Bring back memories? Haha[/QUOTE]
Ahh. I actually had the DC120 now that I see the information about them. which was 1 mp
==> Kodak DC Series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
at work we bought the dc50  0.38 mp and the dc120.  When the project was completed we were going to just through them away but I kept the dc120.  Used compactflash.
I actually threw it away probably 8 years ago as I found it in a box.[/QUOTE]


I worked for a newspaper (IT, not photographer) and we had 4-5 DC120.  I remember burrowing one when my son was born in 97 and brought my laptop so I took a photo of him at the hospital, uploaded  (using a Dial up external modem) it to a website I had created for my grandmother to see from another city.  Took a few hours to setup the website and about 30 minutes to upload the photos (Can't recall how many). The doctor came in and was totally mesmerised by the possibility to share photos this "fast".  And today kids can all do this with the click of 1-2 buttons from their cell phones.  [/QUOTE]

yep, cell phones are the new DSLR


----------



## nerwin (Jun 23, 2016)

I still prefer physical buttons and dials over a touch screen.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 24, 2016)

nerwin said:


> I still prefer physical buttons and dials over a touch screen.



What does that have to do with the DSLR?.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 24, 2016)

chuasam said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > I still prefer physical buttons and dials over a touch screen.
> ...



Because phones are not the new dslr.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 24, 2016)

chuasam said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > I still prefer physical buttons and dials over a touch screen.
> ...


Some DSLRs have touchscreens.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 24, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > nerwin said:
> ...



True. But they still have plenty of physical controls. I could not deal with a camera that the touch screen is the only means of adjusting settings...like a phone for example.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 24, 2016)

I thought we were comparing DSLR to Mirrorless cameras


----------



## nerwin (Jun 24, 2016)

chuasam said:


> I thought we were comparing DSLR to Mirrorless cameras



Well now phones are the new DSLR as someone said earlier, which I don't understand exactly. Haha. How can phones be the new DSLR? Makes no sense to me.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 24, 2016)

nerwin said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > I thought we were comparing DSLR to Mirrorless cameras
> ...


Now that's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long while, and I know some really stupid people.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 24, 2016)

I'm still trying to figure out the logic from the story about taking a photo of a baby, to making that dumb statement.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 24, 2016)

Braineack said:


> I'm still trying to figure out the logic from the story about taking a photo of a baby, to making that dumb statement.



I was probably sleep writing again. I shouldn't write when I'm that tired. My mistake.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 24, 2016)

you didnt say it, beagle said it.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 24, 2016)

Braineack said:


> you didnt say it, beagle said it.



Oh, haha. I have no idea what is going on anymore.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 24, 2016)

I hate to post this because I know @coastalconn  is going to have to sell his new gear and buy this stuff.  It's going to save him a ton and, according to the article, improve every aspect of his photography.
I'll be selling all my gear for it too .. well, maybe, I think I'll wait a bit. Looking at the article it makes Leica look like junk (well, we knew that anyways), Zeiss not far behind Leica, and Canon and Nikon just doesn't compare.   So get your snake oil, I mean your new system now  ==> Want To Take Better Pictures With Your Phone?


----------



## nerwin (Jun 24, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> I hate to post this because I know @coastalconn  is going to have to sell his new gear and buy this stuff.  It's going to save him a ton and, according to the article, improve every aspect of his photography.
> I'll be selling all my gear for it too .. well, maybe, I think I'll wait a bit. Looking at the article it makes Leica look like junk (well, we knew that anyways), Zeiss not far behind Leica, and Canon and Nikon just doesn't compare.   So get your snake oil, I mean your new system now  ==> Want To Take Better Pictures With Your Phone?



Oh man...if you attach that to the Lumia 1020, you'll have a medium format replacement!


----------



## coastalconn (Jun 24, 2016)

@astroNikon Bummer, now I have to sell my Nikon stuff after all that Canon stuff?  Oh well, guess it's worth it, if it makes me a better photographer  Is it compatible with my LG V10. Probably works best in auto mode instead of manual?


----------



## nerwin (Jun 25, 2016)

Just wondering though. Could Nikon or Canon possibly make camera tech for phones someday in the future?


----------



## table1349 (Jun 25, 2016)

nerwin said:


> Just wondering though. Could Nikon or Canon possibly make camera tech for phones someday in the future?


"Would you like the L version with a red ringed white body or the consumer grade phone sir?"


----------



## Braineack (Jun 25, 2016)

nerwin said:


> Just wondering though. Could Nikon or Canon possibly make camera tech for phones someday in the future?


it'll be the other way around here...  Canon and Nikon have more to learn from cell phones.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 25, 2016)

Braineack said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering though. Could Nikon or Canon possibly make camera tech for phones someday in the future?
> ...


Yeah, every time I try to make a phone call with my d600 I get dead silence!!


----------



## chuasam (Jun 25, 2016)

nerwin said:


> Just wondering though. Could Nikon or Canon possibly make camera tech for phones someday in the future?


Nope, they don't have to. Nikon makes more money building steppers and optical instruments. Canon too.
Olympus makes like 90% of their income from Medical imaging.

Only the has-been brands need to make tech for camera phones.
Zeiss, Leica, Hasselblad *LOL* see a trend?


----------



## unpopular (Jun 25, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Only the has-been brands need to make tech for camera phones.
> Zeiss, Leica, Hasselblad *LOL* see a trend?



These brands are *so* prestigious that marketing companies license their name so that rich people can carry around a $20,000 camera phone as a status symbol.

Did you really think that Zeiss makes those wet wipes at WalMart?

BTW, Leica also makes scientific and surveying instruments, as does Zeiss. Zeiss actually makes all sorts of stuff, like planetarium projectors. They're a huge company, if not larger than Nikon (don't quote me on that). Hasselblad is just obnoxious.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 25, 2016)

unpopular said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Only the has-been brands need to make tech for camera phones.
> ...



You're confusing Leica Geosystems, Leica Biosystems, Leica Microsystems with Leica Cameras AG which is owned by Hermés. 
They're 4 separate companies sharing the same name.


----------



## beagle100 (Jun 25, 2016)

nerwin said:


> Just wondering though. Could Nikon or Canon possibly make camera tech for phones someday in the future?




The future is *now ....  *




Untitled by c w, on Flickr


----------



## unpopular (Jun 25, 2016)

chuasam said:


> They're 4 separate companies sharing the same name.



Interesting. So it's not like Zeiss, but actually different companies?


----------



## chuasam (Jun 25, 2016)

unpopular said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > They're 4 separate companies sharing the same name.
> ...


Leica - Four Independent Companies Share the Leica Brand


----------



## bribrius (Jun 25, 2016)

Why you guys still arguing this? Everyone already takes more photos with their phones now even when they have a camera it is usually at home. Think everyone is just going to keep buying cameras that they need or use less and less?


----------



## nerwin (Jun 26, 2016)

bribrius said:


> Why you guys still arguing this? Everyone already takes more photos with their phones now even when they have a camera it is usually at home. Think everyone is just going to keep buying cameras that they need or use less and less?



I hardly take any photos with my phone. If I do, its just snap shot of something.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 26, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering though. Could Nikon or Canon possibly make camera tech for phones someday in the future?
> ...



Red and Gold ring!


----------



## table1349 (Jun 26, 2016)

bribrius said:


> Why you guys still arguing this? Everyone already takes more photos with their phones now even when they have a camera it is usually at home. Think everyone is just going to keep buying cameras that they need or use less and less?


This is discussing.   



*THIS IS #$&%#€@ ARGUING!!!!!!!*


----------

