The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Why did I do that? Back to DSLR.

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
After 5 mostly happy years with a combination of Panasonic and Nikon cameras, mirrorless and DSLR, I've made a sudden move back to 100% Nikon and DSLR. Just in case others are interested in what and why, here are my thoughts around this theme:

Pixels
While I have been living happily with 12-16MP for all these years, a need for more pixels have arisen. An important client flagged this need more than 6 months ago, and now it's becoming reality. I could have moved to Sony, and for a long time, that looked like the most viable option, but the lack of native lenses and the fact that I would need at least two, probably three new bodies if going for that option, made the investment unbearable. Also, I didn't like the ergonomics of the first versions of the A7 bodies. Nor did I like the shutter noise. The A7 II is of course a much better camera, but the others still lag behind.

Samsung was another alternative, but although the NX1 looks amazing on paper, it's untested, as is Samsung as a pro level supplier. Nikon or MF were the most likely candidates.

Image Quality
As happy as I have been with m4/3, there have been situations when I've attempted to pull my hair out. Blown reds in polyester fabrics is one that occurs for sports as well as with industrial settings. Software corrected lenses that don't behave as predicted is another (pocketable lenses are convenient, but there are limitations). Super advanced and very fast AF-S is great too, but when the camera disagrees with me and changing settings are fiddly, I lose shots.

All the electronic wizardry is fine and very helpful, but sometimes, it detaches me from the process, physically as well as mentally. Image quality suffers in situations when that happens.

Technology
When the G1 was launched, it was a little camera revolution. Anything after that in the mirrorless market has been evolution. Fast evolution, but still evolution, like improved AF, improved viewfinders, more and better lenses, larger sensors etc.

In my head, the DSLR bodies have been the dinosaurs, the ones that would become extinct sooner rather than later. And they will. Eventually. But... the DSLR bodies have developed too. Sensors have obviously become better, video capabilities have improved to a degree that they can compete with mirrorless cameras, better than some, worse than some, more and new features have become available in smaller, cheaper bodies. And so on.

When summing up, I've found that the best DSLR cameras have indeed kept the distance to the mirrorless varieties rather constant. There's a huge difference between what one could get for $2-3,000 5 years ago and what one will get for the same amount today.

Cost
Cameras cost money, good cameras cost more money and good lenses too. Staying with Nikon would mean staying with most of my old lenses, lenses that have little monetary value but will still be useful for many years. Good native lenses for mirrorless aren't really much less expensive than their DSLR counterparts, regardless of format. With mirrorless, I can save money using legacy glass, but with zillions of good Nikkor lenses available used, that's the situation with a Nikon camera as well.

While no digital camera is a healthy financial investment, prices of cameras that are replaced more frequently will obviously suffer the most. The D300 that I bought slightly used for $1,000 6 years ago can still be sold for $3-400. The GH1 that I bought for a similar price a year later can hardly be sold at all, and while the D300 still seems to be in top shape, the GH1 has had assorted electronic failures.

Batteries
The GH3 and GH4 have batteries about the same size as what most Nikon cameras have. Still, I can only get 4-500 shots out of one charge, while a typical Nikon DSLR will give me 2-3 times as much. Most other mirrorless cameras have tiny batteries that last even shorter, and although one can always bring spares, I don't need more logistic challenges than I already have. With 2 Nikon bodies, 2 batteries in each, I know that I have power that will last a long day at the race track or an event. Peace of mind :p

Future
Sooner or later, Nikon will launch an FX mirrorless camera. I see the "1" Series as little more than a test bed for mirrorless technology, and expect a camera that is somewhere between a V3 and an F4 within a year or two. I also expect that camera to retain full functionality with all my AF-S and Ai/AiS lenses. I might be wrong, but I doubt it. The people at Nikon know where the market will be heading in the future.

Video
Video quality of the latest Nikon bodies is very, very good. The specialist video websites always find something to pick on, but in reality, Nikon is now up there among most of the good mirrorless cameras, with the exception of A7s, GH4 and NX1. If I need an external viewfinder, one can be attached, as can external monitors, recorders, microphones etc.

What made me make up my mind... fast
When the F5 was Nikon's top model, that was all Nikon users needed. It was used for any kind of photography; sports, landscape, portrait etc. The backup for an F5 was another F5 or an F100 for those who wanted a smaller body as well, but the features were the same and the film was the same.

With digital, "horses for courses" suddenly became the important buzzword. One body couldn't do it all anymore. A D1X for slow work, a D1H for speed. Canon did the same, and even used a smaller sensor for their sports camera. There were exceptions. The D2X was a nice attempt to do all, but couldn't do high ISO. The D700 was a better attempt, but only had 12MP. There was always a but.

I hadn't give these things much thought lately, and when the D810 was launched, it looked like just another incremental upgrade to me. Maybe that is what it is, but for the first time (5D/II/III owners might disagree), when I finally bothered to try it out, I had a feeling of holding a "complete" digital camera in my hands.

Image quality is great, low ISO, high ISO, any ISO, frame rate is high enough, buffer is huge, video quality is top notch and with practical features to match, the shutter is almost as silent as on the Contax RX, it's heavy, but lighter than the D700. I can use this camera for anything.

When I was offered a hardly used copy $600 under the local street price, there wasn't much to consider any longer. It's all I need in an acceptably sized package. It's a camera that I'll use for many years.

I'll miss the weight and size of the GH3 and lenses, and I'll miss the incredible Zuiko 75mm that lived on my camera. But I've found that the operation of the D810 is as fluent as with any Nikon in the past. And the files are to die for, which is what counts anyway. I'm still strong enough to carry a few extra kilograms. And when I'm not, there will be a mirrorless Nikon, a camera that I'm sure will be up there with the best... or above them.

For there will be a mirrorless camera in my future as well. But right now, I'm very happy to look through an optical viewfinder. It doesn't feature a histogram and it can't be used for video, but it's the real, undistorted world I see in there. That's a value too :)
 

Tim

Active member
But right now, I'm very happy to look through an optical viewfinder. It doesn't feature a histogram and it can't be used for video, but it's the real, undistorted world I see in there. That's a value too :)
My aging eyes have made me consider DSLR again, so I can understand.
I might give the new EVFs another look though.
Enjoy your new tool.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
My aging eyes have made me consider DSLR again, so I can understand.
I might give the new EVFs another look though.
Enjoy your new tool.
Most of the time, I don't think about what kind of viewfinder I use, but I do appreciate the very clear and orderly layout of the optical variety and the clear view to reality. From a technical point of view, an EVF is far superior with all its information and all its options, but in the real world...

It's like comparing a good blended whisky to an outstanding single malt. In theory, the blended variety should be superior, being optimised through selection of the best ingredients. But the malt still offers the superior experience :p
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member

+ 1

nothing beats the view through a good old Single Malt Reflex :lecture:
 
V

Vivek

Guest
DSLRs, Digital RF and such all are hybrid (old with new) cameras.

A real digital camera comes with an EVF. :)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Finding whatever works for you best, Jorgen, is all you need to be concerned about. No explanations are needed.

Nikon cameras and lenses have been a consistently great choice since I started doing photography in the 1960s. Enjoy the D810!

G

Equipment is transitory. Photography endures.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Often an experienced photographer's reasoning to use/purchase/abandon a certain camera can be useful for someone else that is considering the pros and cons of a certain type of camera.

While one person's needs might be different, there could be certain common requirements that might be useful.

Jorgen has put forward his personal, and I might add, a very sound reasoning for his purchase. His reasoning, with which I concur, might not fit another person's need. That is why we have choices. But one is more/better informed.

For me the overriding concern with mirrorless systems is the lag. I need a fast
responding camera..not for sports, but to react quickly to something I want to capture. A dslr is still the one to beat in such situations; for static subjects, anything would do for me.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
You come up with such off color quotes from time to time. :poke:

So, is the D750 better than the A7? ;) :watch:
No camera is "better", at least not in a universal sense of the world. Most people who take a lot of photos have a list in the back of their head, a list that one might not even be able to write down on the spot, with priorities, likes and dislikes that make up the basis for choice of camera.

For me, when I picked up the D810, after having read the specs and a few user's comments earlier in the day, it was very easy and very fast. My initial thought was "This camera can do anything I need a camera to do". "... anything I need a camera to do". At the moment.

Then I left behind at the shop what was, and in many ways still is, my favourite camera/lens combo (GH3/75mm/7-14mm), gear that had followed me on countless travels and that has hardly left me wanting ever. But needs change, people change and sometimes, gear change in a way that reminds me of when a toddler finds the correct shape and drops it into the correct hole of the shape sorter on first attempt.

Had I lived a different kind of life, that camera might have been an A7-something or a GH4 or a Hasselblad or another one of the great cameras available to photographers these times. But now, it's the D810, and it really only boils down to one thing: It slot right into the shape sorter, without any resistance whatsoever :)

---

... and a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everybody on this great forum. Later today, I will go out and by Christmas Gifts to three kids who don't even know it's Christmas, but who love getting gifts. That will be an experience that beats any camera purchase. I would go back to my OM-1 rather than miss that :)
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Often an experienced photographer's reasoning to use/purchase/abandon a certain camera can be useful for someone else that is considering the pros and cons of a certain type of camera.

While one person's needs might be different, there could be certain common requirements that might be useful.

Jorgen has put forward his personal, and I might add, a very sound reasoning for his purchase. His reasoning, with which I concur, might not fit another person's need. That is why we have choices. But one is more/better informed.

For me the overriding concern with mirrorless systems is the lag. I need a fast
responding camera..not for sports, but to react quickly to something I want to capture. A dslr is still the one to beat in such situations; for static subjects, anything would do for me.
Same here.

While I would LOVE to jettison all my DSLR type gear (in my case actually an A99 SLT with EVF), I can't let it go yet because I have more faith in it over all the other forms of camera … be it the A7R, a Leica rangefinder, or even my much favored Leica S. The A99 has dual card capture, very quick reflexes, and its highly useful articulated LCD. Extremely reliable system for shooting things like weddings, where there are no second chances.

In truth, for the above applications, my dream camera isn't some dinky mirror-less, or exotica … it's a Canon 1DX work horse with a basic zoom and a few fast primes. If I had plans to continue shooting weddings I'd dump all the Sony stuff and return to that sort of basic pro set-up. Fortunately, I'm not :)

- Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
For me the overriding concern with mirrorless systems is the lag. I need a fast
responding camera..not for sports, but to react quickly to something I want to capture. A dslr is still the one to beat in such situations; for static subjects, anything would do for me.
HI Ray
Whilst the autofocus on mirrorless cameras really doesn't match a dSLR (especially for tracking) - I don't think it's true of lag . . . At Least - with SOME cameras - The Fuji X-T1 almost certainly has less lag than anything else available, the Sony A7 doesn't seem quite as good.

Sure - there's an inevitable lag between what's happening and what you see in the viewfinder on an EVF (although it can be very tiny) . . . but there is also an inevitable lag whilst a mirror flips up and a shutter opens on a dSLR. In the end it's going to be easier to minimise the lag of the former than the lag of the latter.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Hi Jono.

Season's greetings to you and all at GetDPI.

Let me post an image..


The monk is walking down a slope. I was photographing..looking away. I saw this monk ( more the wardrobe colors ), turned, focused and shot. I would have loved this image. By the time I had acquired focus, the evf ( or whatever had refreshed ) and the shot was taken, the monk had gone down the slope.

For me a missed opportunity. But here is a 100% crop..


Many things went wrong in the few milliseconds. I know with my Nikon I would have got the shot I wanted.

Another example. I am standing in the departure lounge looking at planes. I notice the little girl. I turn and shoot...


No, my friend, mirrorless have still some way to catch up.

Take care.


HI Ray
Whilst the autofocus on mirrorless cameras really doesn't match a dSLR (especially for tracking) - I don't think it's true of lag . . . At Least - with SOME cameras - The Fuji X-T1 almost certainly has less lag than anything else available, the Sony A7 doesn't seem quite as good.

Sure - there's an inevitable lag between what's happening and what you see in the viewfinder on an EVF (although it can be very tiny) . . . but there is also an inevitable lag whilst a mirror flips up and a shutter opens on a dSLR. In the end it's going to be easier to minimise the lag of the former than the lag of the latter.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
HI Ray
Whilst the autofocus on mirrorless cameras really doesn't match a dSLR (especially for tracking) - I don't think it's true of lag . . . At Least - with SOME cameras - The Fuji X-T1 almost certainly has less lag than anything else available, the Sony A7 doesn't seem quite as good.

Sure - there's an inevitable lag between what's happening and what you see in the viewfinder on an EVF (although it can be very tiny) . . . but there is also an inevitable lag whilst a mirror flips up and a shutter opens on a dSLR. In the end it's going to be easier to minimise the lag of the former than the lag of the latter.
What happens while the mirror is flipping isn't a lag, Jono, it's a blackout. Big difference, and the blackout on the best modern cameras is so short, it's hardly noticeable. When there's little light, an EVF gets even slower. An OVF gets very dark, but it's still real-time. None of these solutions are perfect, and they are both good, but also very different when challenged.

Comment to Rayyan's shots:
Yes, I've experienced this countless times. I've tried to shoot a moving subject, even a slow moving one, "on impulse", only to discover that the subject wasn't where I saw it in the viewfinder when I took the photo. When following a moving subject, particularly with slow shutter speeds, one has to follow the subject exactly to get a sharp images. If the viewfinder is ever so little "out of sync", the image becomes blurry. Another side of this is that the blackout time of an SLR camera is constant, and one learns to calculate it on instinct. The blur of an EVF is not constant, and is impossible to calculate exactly, at least for my somewhat slow brain :)
 

jonoslack

Active member
No, my friend, mirrorless have still some way to catch up.
But one example doesn't make a rule Ray, and you haven't mentioned which camera you took this with. Some are really slow - but the speed is usually related to getting focus and NOT shutter lag. I suspect your problem here was the AF and not lag relating to the EVF.

. . . the way to test for shutter lag - or at least, a good way - is to sit in a bar with a nice glass of wine and a door out to a little frequented road. Focus on a specific point manually (to remove AF vagueries). Wait with your eye to the viewfinder . . . . .. . when someone passes outside the doorway take your shot - do it several times, get another glass of wine (coffee if you prefer). Try it with a few cameras. In most instances the person will have gone before you actually get the shot . . . but not with all cameras, and not all EVF cameras either.

All the best
Merry December 25th
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Coffee, Jono, never wine for me.:)

I am not a technical person. My car breaks down, I walk away from it. Call an expert to fix it.

Lights don't work in my bedroom, I shout for Ayesha.

My camera cannot get a shot?
I pick up my Nikon.

In over 35 years of photography, I have missed very few shots I aimed for by my Nikon. Crap shot composition wise, yes. Wrong color balance yes. Wrong speed setting, yes...produced art.

But lost the subject...never, that I can remember..in a pub or anywhere else.
One example does not prove anything..true. Except a missed opportunity, and for me that is a loss.

To minimise missed opportunities is why I use a Nikon dslr. Opportunities don't come often...having the right equipment gives me a more than fair chance of capturing them.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
AF is also a part of it of course. For some situations with stationary subject or subjects moving slowly towards me, I find the mirrorless cameras I have used, Panasonic and Olympus, superior, sometimes vastly superior. But I also find the AF systems of those cameras to complicated with too many options that sometimes work counterintuitive. That's one of the problems with technology; sometimes a kitchen knife works better than a laser cutter.

Very often on an SLR camera, I simply use one AF sensor and AF-S. That gives me full manual control. With mirrorless cameras, there isn't really any such thing as full manual control, at least not in my experience. When the technology works, it works great. When it misses, I miss too, just like Rayyan.
 

jonoslack

Active member
To minimise missed opportunities is why I use a Nikon dslr. Opportunities don't come often...having the right equipment gives me a more than fair chance of capturing them.
AF is also a part of it of course. For some situations with stationary subject or subjects moving slowly towards me, I find the mirrorless cameras I have used, Panasonic and Olympus, superior, sometimes vastly superior. But I also find the AF systems of those cameras to complicated with too many options that sometimes work counterintuitive. That's one of the problems with technology; sometimes a kitchen knife works better than a laser cutter.

Very often on an SLR camera, I simply use one AF sensor and AF-S. That gives me full manual control. With mirrorless cameras, there isn't really any such thing as full manual control, at least not in my experience. When the technology works, it works great. When it misses, I miss too, just like Rayyan.
Hey - don't get me wrong - Me? I prefer a rangefinder (no AF lag, no Mirror lag, no Mirror slap). . . . . . But I think that 'lag' is something that doesn't exist IF you have release priority enabled - and you can do that on a mirrorless as well (although it probably isn't enabled by default).

Try the cafe door trick one day though - it can be very enlightening. . . . and it only costs you for the glass of wine :)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Mirrorless (manual focus, no AF) does not bother me with shutter lag nor am I perturbed by exposure compensation. It has nothing to do with the camera. :)
 
Top