Jump to content

Is the reign of the DSLR almost over?


pierces
 Share

Recommended Posts

I suspect it's inevitable, and probably should have already happened.

 

Arguably, it was easier for Sony as they didn't have a huge legacy user base (Minolta excepted) and could jump in. Canon and Nikon have huge investments, and user investments, in lenses that can be used on mirrorless, but you're likely limiting your mirrorless architecture to allow that. But, with the quality of EVFs on the market, the need for mirrors and prisms for through the lens viewing is really gone.

 

In some ways this is the same question that's holding up electric vehicles (along, obviously, with battery technology). People still mostly want a car to look like a car, and have the range of a car. That's led to hybrids versus true EVs, but now you need the weight, cube, and form factor of two means of propulsion. Eventually, the internal combustion engine will go away, you won't be confined by that form factor, and people will accept an EV that doesn't look like "a car".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own thoughts from a few weeks ago:

 

http://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/01/23/why-mirrorless-is-the-present/

 

Sometimes there are fits and stops but technology always progresses.

 

Computers won't replace typewriters -- because computers are too bulky, the print quality is too low, etc..

DVDs won't replace VHS because there aren't affordable recordable DVDs and people already have videotape collections!

Cell phones won't disrupt landlines -- people need a central home phone number, and what happens when your cell phone battery dies? You need a landline

Digital SLRs will never replace film cameras because the image are too digital!

E-books won't replace regular books, people want to feel the pages and what happens when the battery dies? (As Kindle gradually puts bookstores out of business)

Online shopping will never succeed....

 

Ultimately, the analog mirror will give way to digital technology. There were a few barriers that had to be overcome -- sufficiently fast and high quality EVFs. Fast accurate on-sensor phase detection AF systems. But once you get over those barriers, the mirror is definitely a negative.

 

Imagine mirrorless came first... and imagine pros were already all shooting the Sony A9. Now take that user, and try to get them to give up the A9, that they are used to, and switch to a dSLR -- "ok, there is a mirror that flips up and down.... so it cant do it fast enough to support 20 fps.. but you can still get 14 fps.... and the flipping mirror can introduce some vibration that degrades the image... and your camera will be noisy now, no more silence. You'll no longer be able to review your images in the viewfinder or access menus via the viewfinder. In fact, you won't be able to use the viewfinder for video anymore. And you no longer will get focus over the entire frame, now just the center 1/3rd. You won't really have eye detect AF anymore. Oh... but your battery life will be improved and you'll get an optical image in the viewfinder instead of digital!"

 

Nobody in their right mind would make that trade.

 

But since dSLRs came first, that's not the way it is viewed. Yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think it’s inevitable. Coincidental, this week, I purchased a beautiful, retro looking, lightweight mirrorless camera. The technology within it is fantastic. Over the past couple of weeks, I have been selling my DSLR equipment. I did feel a wrench on selling my favourite lens, but I know this is a good move for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the focus speed of mirrorless exceed that of the fastest DSLR then the era of mirrored camera will die. EVF must be w/o lag, what you see is what you will get not 100ms later. Speed matters most.

 

framer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the focus speed of mirrorless exceed that of the fastest DSLR then the era of mirrored camera will die. EVF must be w/o lag, what you see is what you will get not 100ms later. Speed matters most.

 

framer

 

In terms of focus speed, mirrorless cameras already match or surpass the speed of dslr.

 

Not sure how you define lag — there is no EVF lag, it’s the same as a tv camera operator following a sports game. It’s a continuous live view.

 

Now, all EVFs —just like watching a movie — is built on frames per second.

So the better EVFs can do 120 fps—so if you want to be super technical, it’s an 8ms delay.

Put in comparison — the shutter lag on the Nikon D5 is 132 ms. So the Nikon D5 shutter lag is 16 times longer than the so-called EVF lag.

 

It’s like comparing digital music to analog. There are purists who claim they can tell the difference — analog is continuous but digital breaks it up.

But in reality, nobody can tell the difference unless they have super human powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how you define lag — there is no EVF lag, it’s the same as a tv camera operator following a sports game. It’s a continuous live view.

 

Now, all EVFs —just like watching a movie — is built on frames per second.

So the better EVFs can do 120 fps—so if you want to be super technical, it’s an 8ms delay.

Put in comparison — the shutter lag on the Nikon D5 is 132 ms. So the Nikon D5 shutter lag is 16 times longer than the so-called EVF lag.

 

It’s like comparing digital music to analog. There are purists who claim they can tell the difference — analog is continuous but digital breaks it up.

But in reality, nobody can tell the difference unless they have super human powers.

Except live view is not the same as a video camera. I don't know how to measure it, but I've seen lag in EVFs before, most of the time. And since the shutter lag on my Canon 1Dx is 55ms, with an option to trade consistency (i.e. shutter lag is always 55ms regardless of aperture needed) for speed (i.e. shutter lag could be shorter if the electronic aperture servo responds quicker) down to 40ms, that's about on par with 30fps true video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your wrong on that D5 shutter lag. That figure includes focusing from infinity. If you pre-focusing, holding the shutter button 1/2 way, before you release the shutter which is the way I shoot the lag is 39ms.

 

framer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except live view is not the same as a video camera. I don't know how to measure it, but I've seen lag in EVFs before, most of the time. And since the shutter lag on my Canon 1Dx is 55ms, with an option to trade consistency (i.e. shutter lag is always 55ms regardless of aperture needed) for speed (i.e. shutter lag could be shorter if the electronic aperture servo responds quicker) down to 40ms, that's about on par with 30fps true video.

 

It works the exact same as a video camera EVF. Except at frame rates even faster than typical video cameras. Talking today’s Sony A7 and a9 series EVF’s.

 

And the a9 takes thinks even further — blackout free VF. Thus, an even better continuous live image than any OVF.

Eventually this tech will filter down to cheaper mirrorless. (If it’s in a $4000 camera now, it will be in $2000 cameras within 2-3 years and $500 cameras within 5 years).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It works the exact same as a video camera EVF. Except at frame rates even faster than typical video cameras. Talking today’s Sony A7 and a9 series EVF’s.

 

And the a9 takes thinks even further — blackout free VF. Thus, an even better continuous live image than any OVF.

Eventually this tech will filter down to cheaper mirrorless. (If it’s in a $4000 camera now, it will be in $2000 cameras within 2-3 years and $500 cameras within 5 years).

We're apparently going to agree to disagree. Video cameras have as many pixels as they're going to use in the final image, so the scanning is aligned with the end result. Still cameras are way over-resolutioned for video, so there's down-sampling involved. Regardless, a video camera does not need to output the frame before the next frame is captured; as long as the processing pipeline can keep up, a little lag is not a bad thing. Sure, professional live-event cameras need to have near-instant response for the monitor, but we're talking a different price point there. Even "live" events end up lagged by a tiny bit; fact is just about anyone watching the "live" broadcast isn't also there, so they don't know if it's a few seconds or milliseconds behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For still image capture, the Sony A9 is an interesting development - it has a burst shooting mode that captures up to 241 full resolution 24MP 'raw' fames at 20 frames per second - without viewfinder blackout.

This is not downsampled from full still camera resolution [24MP] to 4k video resolution [about 8MPl] - video is a separate mode on the A9.

 

The slightly older Olympus EM1.2 has a 'Pro Capture' mode that captures at 60 frames per second [buffer holds 99 20MP raw frames] - fixed focus for 60 fps, moving targets slows to 18 fps to allow for auto focus. Again, this is without viewfinder blackout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're apparently going to agree to disagree. Video cameras have as many pixels as they're going to use in the final image, so the scanning is aligned with the end result. Still cameras are way over-resolutioned for video, so there's down-sampling involved. Regardless, a video camera does not need to output the frame before the next frame is captured; as long as the processing pipeline can keep up, a little lag is not a bad thing. Sure, professional live-event cameras need to have near-instant response for the monitor, but we're talking a different price point there. Even "live" events end up lagged by a tiny bit; fact is just about anyone watching the "live" broadcast isn't also there, so they don't know if it's a few seconds or milliseconds behind.

 

Talking about 2 different things -- yes, the final image capture is larger- But that doesn't add any lag. If anything, there is less lag in the EVF -- which is doing a live feed at 60-120 fps, depending on the setting. Where a video camera may only be at 24 or 30 fps. Yes, the final image capture is a larger image. But until you actually click that shutter, you are simply seeing a live video feed, no different than any video camera. It's not a question of agreeing to disagree... not talking a matter of opinion here. It's a live feed.

 

As to the delay in a broadcast -- also a different issue, entirely. The question is whether the camera operator is seeing a live feed -- or a lag that is so minimal that they can still get instant response. The question isn't whether there is then later on a delay in the final image. You get that lag with EVERY camera. Click any shutter on any camera, and there is a lag before the final high resolution processed image is ready for viewing.

 

Here is effectively the difference-- a dSLR will blackout for about 30ms between frames, going from total blackness to being able to view the viewfinder. Meanwhile, the best mirrorless will have zero blackout, but a 8ms "delay."

 

If you've tested the Sony A9 shooting an erratic sporting event. you may surprise yourself that is it much easier to follow the action with the A9 than with a dSLR. Even a major league fastball at 100 miles per hour... being shot from the press photography box, isn't going to meaningfully move much in the frame in 8ms.

 

An erratic bird flying through the sky -- You're more likely to lose the bird in the 20-30ms of viewfinder blackout, then you are to miss the focus point with it's angle of movement in 8ms.

 

A falcon flies an average of 50 miles per hour. Let's say you are shooting a falcon from 100 feet away. In 8 ms, that eagle will move about 7 inches.

So if you are shooting that falcon, from 100 feet away, your EVF "lag" will be about 7 inches of movement. If the falcon is flying left to right or right to leg.... Thus, changing the angle of the view.... the total change in the viewing angle would be about 0.5 degrees. Handholding a camera, you probably couldn't even make such a fine tuned shift -- It's negligible and irrelevant.

Tightly zoomed in with a 500 mm lens... you get a field of view of about 4 degrees. So at most, the position of the falcon would shift by 1/8th of the frame.

On the other hand, if you have traditional dSLR shutter blackout -- the falcon may have entirely left the frame during the blackout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With average human sight to reaction time at around 200ms-250ms, a modern EVF or an optical viewfinder will provide what amounts to a real-time view.

 

A difference in lag time totaling a very few milliseconds is meaningless in practice. Regardless of the viewfinder type, an action shot is not a see-react process but a track and estimate process. Before ludicrous burst rates, (and barring dumb luck) great action shots were made by photographers that were knowledgeable about the subject and had experience following the action and estimating the peak moment. Even with today's AF tracking and machine-gun shooting rates, tracking and capturing action with either type of viewfinder still requires some skill and at least a basic understanding of the behavior of the moving thing you are pointing your camera at.

 

It is also worth noting that unless you are a dedicated sports photographer or BIFer, viewfinder lag is totally irrelevant and in the latter case, I would say that Justin's (zackiedawg) examples shot with the A6300 would make an argument that the lag on paper doesn't translate to a major problem in the real world. In my real world, having a real-time preview of exposure, a horizon level and bonuses like Eye-AF and silent shooting through the viewfinder make the EVF/OVF choice an easy one for me.

 

Since I'm not King of The World, the choice is left to the individual. At least until my coronation... ;)

 

My 2¢...

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With average human sight to reaction time at around 200ms-250ms, a modern EVF or an optical viewfinder will provide what amounts to a real-time view.

 

A difference in lag time totaling a very few milliseconds is meaningless in practice. Regardless of the viewfinder type, an action shot is not a see-react process but a track and estimate process. Before ludicrous burst rates, (and barring dumb luck) great action shots were made by photographers that were knowledgeable about the subject and had experience following the action and estimating the peak moment. Even with today's AF tracking and machine-gun shooting rates, tracking and capturing action with either type of viewfinder still requires some skill and at least a basic understanding of the behavior of the moving thing you are pointing your camera at.

 

It is also worth noting that unless you are a dedicated sports photographer or BIFer, viewfinder lag is totally irrelevant and in the latter case, I would say that Justin's (zackiedawg) examples shot with the A6300 would make an argument that the lag on paper doesn't translate to a major problem in the real world. In my real world, having a real-time preview of exposure, a horizon level and bonuses like Eye-AF and silent shooting through the viewfinder make the EVF/OVF choice an easy one for me.

 

Since I'm not King of The World, the choice is left to the individual. At least until my coronation... ;)

 

My 2¢...

 

Dave

 

There are plenty of objective reasons to prefer OVF vs EVF, or vice versa. Everyone is entirely to their final subjective choices as well. But EVF lag is simply not a real issue anymore.

There are those who refused to move from film to digital -- because digital is individual pixels and they don't want a pixelated image. But considering the resolution of digital these days, it's similarly a non issue. Yes, even the best sensors -- they are still digital, the images are "pixelated." But from the perspective of the human eye, it makes no difference. Just like the EVF lag.

 

Some of the objective reasons to prefer OVF -- instantaneously ready camera -- No 1-2 seconds for the OVF to wake up. OVF is better at viewing some high contrast scenes. Less battery drain. Even with improved Sony batteries, an OVF camera still is more battery efficient.

And subjectively, some people just don't like the more electronic-ish image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a frequent and heavy bird-in-flight photographer, I certainly will push the limits of a viewfinder's ability to refresh fast enough for tracking some very erratic and fast subjects...those in the OVF world who dislike EVFs for the most part based their dislike on the earlier iterations of EVFs, and not so much on the newer ones...though there will always be people who just dislike OVFs or EVFs no matter what.

I've been shooting birds in flight with OVF DSLR cameras since 2009...and with EVF P&S cameras from 2003 to 2009, then with interchangeable lens EVF cameras from 2012 to present. I've seen the evolution of EVFs, and comments about lag and slow refresh were absolutely correct on earlier EVFs.

While I could still shoot birds in flight with the slow EVFs, I did so more based on my skill or experience with tracking and predicting movement - the EVF was often significantly behind the target's actual position, so after a few frames, any erratic or unexpected movement meant I'd eventually lose the subject in the frame. With OVFs, though there was a shutter blackout, when the OVF was showing an image, it was live, real-time...so it was always easy to train your mind and your eyes to see through the blackout and create an uninterrupted view - just as we do when we blink our eyes. Shooting an OVF next to an EVF camera in 2014, I might see 1/3 the hit rate with the EVF camera...I could still get some good shots, but I also missed more than a few, mostly because of the 'slideshow' effect in the EVF, which was always showing you the last frame taken rather than a live current view.

New EVFs, starting with the A6300 about 2 years ago, started to offer 120fps frame rates in the finder, and depending on burst speed, could even show 'live' views between the blackouts...rather than showing a slideshow of last frame taken, the screens flicker or black-out similarly to a DSLR, and then each image displayed between the blackouts is a live still - with minimal delay or lag - certainly shorter than the eye-brain signal path and therefore imperceptible. That means with these types of cameras (Fuji and Olympus both also offer a live view EVF at certain burst rates), I can track and pan with fast, erratic birds just as well as I can with an OVF. Not close, but exactly as well. There's no perceptible difference to the eye, or the position of the bird, while firing up to 8fps.

Of course, a camera like the A9 takes it a step further, by presenting not a flickered live still, but an actual real-time, continuous video feed without blackouts, uninterrupted while firing frames at any burst speed...this makes following moving targets essentially effortless...just as easily as you move your head or eye to follow a moving bird, you can move the lens and camera and see the real-time image in the finder. While there's surely some small measurable lag in there somewhere, it's not perceptible, and the uninterrupted feed with no blackouts allows your eye and brain to stay completely in sync. I have shot the A9 for BIF a few times, and while I have no complaints on the abilities of my current camera in that regard, already as good as DSLRs for me, the A9 does indeed take it to a new level...almost too easy in fact...it feels a bit like cheating!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, even the best sensors -- they are still digital, the images are "pixelated." But from the perspective of the human eye, it makes no difference.

 

 

I have an old 24x36 print of a dolphin shot on Ektar 1000 and at normal viewing distances, it looks great. When I get real close, it is "crystalated" due to the size of the T-crystals in the emulsion. I imagine if I blew up my Kodachrome 100 slides to 60" x 90" like the peepers do with digital, there would be the same issue.

 

The human mind is amazing in it's ability to find fault in something it finds disagreeable or contrary to its beliefs. :)

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a frequent and heavy bird-in-flight photographer, I certainly will push the limits of a viewfinder's ability to refresh fast enough for tracking some very erratic and fast subjects...those in the OVF world who dislike EVFs for the most part based their dislike on the earlier iterations of EVFs, and not so much on the newer ones...though there will always be people who just dislike OVFs or EVFs no matter what.

I've been shooting birds in flight with OVF DSLR cameras since 2009...and with EVF P&S cameras from 2003 to 2009, then with interchangeable lens EVF cameras from 2012 to present. I've seen the evolution of EVFs, and comments about lag and slow refresh were absolutely correct on earlier EVFs.

While I could still shoot birds in flight with the slow EVFs, I did so more based on my skill or experience with tracking and predicting movement - the EVF was often significantly behind the target's actual position, so after a few frames, any erratic or unexpected movement meant I'd eventually lose the subject in the frame. With OVFs, though there was a shutter blackout, when the OVF was showing an image, it was live, real-time...so it was always easy to train your mind and your eyes to see through the blackout and create an uninterrupted view - just as we do when we blink our eyes. Shooting an OVF next to an EVF camera in 2014, I might see 1/3 the hit rate with the EVF camera...I could still get some good shots, but I also missed more than a few, mostly because of the 'slideshow' effect in the EVF, which was always showing you the last frame taken rather than a live current view.

New EVFs, starting with the A6300 about 2 years ago, started to offer 120fps frame rates in the finder, and depending on burst speed, could even show 'live' views between the blackouts...rather than showing a slideshow of last frame taken, the screens flicker or black-out similarly to a DSLR, and then each image displayed between the blackouts is a live still - with minimal delay or lag - certainly shorter than the eye-brain signal path and therefore imperceptible. That means with these types of cameras (Fuji and Olympus both also offer a live view EVF at certain burst rates), I can track and pan with fast, erratic birds just as well as I can with an OVF. Not close, but exactly as well. There's no perceptible difference to the eye, or the position of the bird, while firing up to 8fps.

Of course, a camera like the A9 takes it a step further, by presenting not a flickered live still, but an actual real-time, continuous video feed without blackouts, uninterrupted while firing frames at any burst speed...this makes following moving targets essentially effortless...just as easily as you move your head or eye to follow a moving bird, you can move the lens and camera and see the real-time image in the finder. While there's surely some small measurable lag in there somewhere, it's not perceptible, and the uninterrupted feed with no blackouts allows your eye and brain to stay completely in sync. I have shot the A9 for BIF a few times, and while I have no complaints on the abilities of my current camera in that regard, already as good as DSLRs for me, the A9 does indeed take it to a new level...almost too easy in fact...it feels a bit like cheating!

 

Well said. I'm loving my Sony A7riii... and if Sony continues to iterate full frame every 2-3 years, it means that an A7riv will come out in 2020. Though it's a long time away, I have asked myself if I would upgrade at that time...because it's hard to image it being a big upgrade. But then I realize, there is a good chance we would see the blackout free EVF filter down to lower models by then. That would indeed be something I'd consider upgrading for.

 

Meanwhile.... the A9.... 20fps with blackout free viewfinder practically is a video camera. Films are shot at 24fps, so just barely faster.

Now, when shooting video on today's cameras, you can take a single 4k frame... even 8k frame potentially.

But shooting the A9 is basically like shooting a video, but every frame is a full resolution 24mp RAW image.

 

That's where photography is going -- You just shoot a short video clip, and then you pick the best frame as the perfect image. (The downside is the amount of images to cull!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've enjoyed reading the posts and replies here since I joined in 2002. My short answer is yes. Longer answer is maybe.

This week I sold the 70-200 L-Series, the 24-105 L-Series and Canon 70d. Prior I went through a 7d and 50d shooting my daughters high school and college track careers. Most, if not all of us get recruited to uploading all the images from sporting events for school use, as anyone with a monopod and grey lens can attest.

 

Two years ago I bought the Olympus OMD. Last year I bought a Fuji 100 series and carried it all over Rome with amazing results from a fixed focal length lens. I've "rediscovered" the Olympus and it's either in my car or travel bag 24/7 now.

 

The maybe part of my answer is due to no longer having a need for the things a DSLR offered. I found a friend that had the same need as me and made him a super deal.

 

Sorry for the simplicity of my answer, you guys responses has me looking at my Nikon F2 Photomic complete with the 43-86 zoom. That beast of a light meter fork still holds a special place in my heart. The serial number shows it to be a 76 model. It's aged better than me with my 58 serial number...

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at the high end or for specialised photography, photographers will select what they feel most comfortable with. Which, for old hands, will be DSLR unless there is a very good reason for change.

 

But for most photographers and new entrants to specialised and high end fields, why on earth would they change from mirrorless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It takes some getting used to, but so far I love it.

 

Hoping the same goes for Luminar. It's "quirks" are fairly annoying right now. Particularly only being able to "open" one photo at a time. I like to star the good photos out of a trip and just work on those. In LR, I can see the group of starred photos and work from there, being able to see similar shots so I can just copy and paste a set of changes from one photo to the similar ones. Hopefully, when Luminar gets DAM, that will allow it to do the same. Otherwise, Luminar seems more like a program applying filters than making changes so that takes getting used to too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It takes some getting used to, but so far I love it.

 

Hoping the same goes for Luminar. It's "quirks" are fairly annoying right now. Particularly only being able to "open" one photo at a time. I like to star the good photos out of a trip and just work on those. In LR, I can see the group of starred photos and work from there, being able to see similar shots so I can just copy and paste a set of changes from one photo to the similar ones. Hopefully, when Luminar gets DAM, that will allow it to do the same. Otherwise, Luminar seems more like a program applying filters than making changes so that takes getting used to too.

 

I am still working on a long term review of Luminar and have to agree that without an organizer component a la Lightroom, it is really just a sophisticated plugin like Topaz Studio. It shows a lot of promise, so I will keep my fingers crossed that they won't just let it drift off to the side.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Interesting article on DPReview based on interviews at the 2018 CP+ show.

 

"At a certain point, the mirror and prism will become barriers to further innovation... "

 

https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/5014039475/cp-2018-interviews-the-reign-of-the-dslr-is-almost-over

 

Comments?

 

 

Dave

 

My wife and I purchased a Huawei P20 Pro Phone/Camera each on its UK launch at the start of April - selfie camera + 3 x Leica cameras incl. a 40 meg and 24 meg 'twinning' that combines with the new AI Unit to perform all kinds of wizardry to produce a composite final shot - and some of the pictures of glaciers (esp. in mist/rain in Alaska) were better than the DSLR could manage! There again, the Huawei cost only $40 less than my first 'proper' car, and was a wee bit more expensive than my Nikon D5300 was in 2015 ... The Huawei is limited by a 5 x optical zoom (10 x digital) but the quality of shots in poor/low light is astonishingly good and crisp, and way better than the phone cameras of less than 3 years ago!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...