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!

Mirrorless and DSLR again, spot on

fotografz

Well-known member
Sure, I don't think we are talking about different things,

I remember when I first bought the Profoto TTL controller for the Nikon, I'd set up the lights and take a shot and the exposure was right, easy, efficient and so bloody boring! Went back to manual and just preferred the experimentation, it almost always opened up new things. I understand completely that you appreciate evf etc. as a means of experimenting in different conditions, I personally haven't found my creativity restricted by not having it, there's no right or wrong, just different. My opinion would probably change if I owned lenses like the Leica you mention and found it tricky to focus but as I don't, it's not something that factors.
Actually, I sold that Lens, but since the camera offers the feature I use it for manual focus lenses … mainly because, unlike the M or S camera which are more manual oriented OVF, the Sonys are less so.

Ultimately, whenever I see an image that really stands out to me, I have absolutely no thought for what was used to capture it, I just don't care, the "why" I find fascinating but not the "how", I never get anyone asking me what camera I use, I like that!

Same here. Content or "why it was presented that way" is what I'm interested in also. However, if I see an interesting lighting configuration I admit to being curious as to what was used and how it was configured. I love making some of my own modifiers to solve similar lighting challenges. I just made a 14" translucent globe modifier for under $80.

Technology is moving on at such a pace, it's a great time to be a photographer, no matter how you like to work, there is brilliant kit out there to help you produce the results you want, I'm not anti any technology, just not interested in buying it unless it does something for me that what I have doesn't.

I think you are not alone in that thought. These days it is often the little things that make far more difference than swapping out expensive camera systems.

Actually, just to add, the biggest development in my own images has not been from camera equipment but from software, C1 has made a huge difference over LR for me, plus investing more time in learning about post processing has done far more for me than new equipment has, that and taking the time to travel to places I don't often see. I think I would actually prefer spending the money I would use for a new camera on visiting some new places but I appreciate that's a very personal thing.

For me, the biggest change hasn't been related to gear or software … it has been a shift in purpose. I've combined my advertising experience and photography to help small companies build their brand … something they normally couldn't afford . Sometimes I'll do it for barter. That has gotten me involved in developing and expressing ideas I probably wouldn't have experienced previously. I've been doing on-site seminars also.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Nicely written but nothing new in my mind.

Thinking back on some earlier discussions here and on the Luminous Landscape all his points were already covered in spades a long time ago.
There's always something new. There are newer, better cameras of each type being launched every month, and while one can question how useful the new developments are, they do show that nobody is resting on his laurels. If there are any laurels to rest on, for look at this:

According to official CIPA statistics, the number of cameras shipped have gone down in all areas except Asia outside Japan. These are the figures for January to May this year compared to the same period in 2015, number of units shipped.

Japan
Mirrorless: -35.7%
DSLR: -21.3%

Europe
Mirrorless: +1.7%
DSLR: -4.2%

Americas
Mirrorless: -25.8%
DSLR: -9.6%

Asia outside Japan
Mirrorless: +8.6%
DSLR: -23.1%

Total
Mirrorless: -8%
DSLR: -14.7%

Mirrorless seems to lose traction everywhere except in Asia. That is interesting since a huge part of the Asian market consist of people who haven't owned a camera before, the new middle classes. Also, Asia outside Japan now represents 50% of the world's camera market, which is why sales here push the total statistics towards a mirrorless win. Marketing of mirrorless cameras has been very strong in Asia, and since many of the mirrorless brands were well known household names already, much stronger than the traditional camera brands, they've had a relatively easy match.

In the traditional markets, innovation is important to compete with the traditionally strong brand names like Canon and Nikon. Unfortunately, the last time a mirrorless camera represented more innovation than their DSLR competitors was in 2008 with the launch of the Panasonic G1. Take a look at the Fuji X-T2 for instance, a fine camera where Fuji has listened to its customers and presented real progress:

- LCD that can tilt in two directions. My Canon A95 from 2004 could tilt the LCD in all directions.
- Two card slots. Nikon D300s had 2 card slots in 2009, higher end Canon and Nikon models earlier than that.
- 4K video, just like Panasonic GH4 got in 2014 and several DSLR cameras launched lately also have.
- Ability to carry 3 batteries with the grip, so that one can get as many shots as the $500 Nikon D3300 can with one. This is what we call a workaround.
- High quality 24MP sensor. Yup, just like the Nikon D3300.
- Better EVF refresh rate in "Power Mode" with higher energy consumption. Any DSLR has unlimited refresh rate with zero energy consumption.

Again, it's a fine camera, like many other mirrorless cameras. But if I should get the idea of changing to Fuji, it wouldn't be because it's mirrorless. It would be because they make some great lenses and because the image quality is exceptional. But most consumers only buy the kit lens and one $200 telephoto zoom. They couldn't care less about Fuji's fine lenses, and the sensor in the Digital Rebel is just fine too. And they get confused when they look into the viewfinder of a mirrorless camera and it's dark, even if they remembered to remove the lens cap.

Until recently, I've been of the opinion that mirrorless will win the world market. Just give it time. But I'm not so sure anymore. It seems like it's a winning concept in Asia where I live, but when I talk with young people in Europe, they ask me if they should buy Nikon or Canon.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Europe
Mirrorless: +1.7%
DSLR: -4.2%


Until recently, I've been of the opinion that mirrorless will win the world market. Just give it time. But I'm not so sure anymore. It seems like it's a winning concept in Asia where I live, but when I talk with young people in Europe, they ask me if they should buy Nikon or Canon.
You are not talking to the right people?

Is Hogan's article in similar vein?
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
You are not talking to the right people?

Is Hogan's article in similar vein?
You are correct, there's a slight increase for mirrorless in Europe. My mistake. Still, the figures are dramatic for the other two "old" markets, particularly Japan, where mirrorless has had its strongest market until now.

There's another interesting trend:
Mirrorless cameras does better if figures for value are compared rather than figures for number of bodies. This indicates strongly that mirrorless sells better at the higher end of the market. That can be because those who buy higher en models are better informed, and then buy into mirrorless as a better solution, or because people with higher disposable income are more likely to buy "the latest greatest" whatever the technology is, while those with less knowledge and/or money stay with the trusted, old camera brands.

Here's a link to the full market report for May:

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201605_e.pdf
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Agree with that readily. Most youngsters here are seen toting a (cropped sensor) DSLR. I have seen only one leica Q (middle aged wealthy guy?), 2 Sony RX1 (young China or HK tourists?) 3 Sony A7 among about a few hundred cameras in the past year.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
These are the reasons to buy a camera, in no particular order:

- It has good lenses.
- It has the features that you want.
- It works the way you need it to work.
- It produces good images.
- You like it.

Buying or being interested in a camera because it is "mirrorless", "DSLR", or because some market trend indicates that it might or might not be popular somewhere is a complete waste of time and energy.

G
 

Tim

Active member
Japan
Mirrorless: -35.7%
DSLR: -21.3%

Europe
Mirrorless: +1.7%
DSLR: -4.2%

Americas
Mirrorless: -25.8%
DSLR: -9.6%

Asia outside Japan
Mirrorless: +8.6%
DSLR: -23.1%

Total
Mirrorless: -8%
DSLR: -14.7%

Mirrorless seems to lose traction everywhere except in Asia.
the Pentax K1 and Canon 5Dr etc should have pushed up DSLR sales.
Must be the low end models taking a hit from camera phones
 

Tim

Active member
These are the reasons to buy a camera, in no particular order:

- It has good lenses.
- It has the features that you want.
- It works the way you need it to work.
- It produces good images.
- You like it.

Buying or being interested in a camera because it is "mirrorless", "DSLR", or because some market trend indicates that it might or might not be popular somewhere is a complete waste of time and energy.

G
Thats pretty good advice. Proof for me being ML or DSLR ambivalent is, I am right now considering either the X-T2 or the Pentax K1 or maybe the Sony A7II. Either DSLR or ML as will do the job I have coming up, but its more what I can justify (afford) AND size as I was hoping to travel light with it also.
With all three I will adapt to the OS inside. My needs are not extensive.
I need to go look at the K1 and handle it. If not too big it will likely get the nod.

"- It has good lenses" is a good starting point


But if I should get the idea of changing to Fuji, it wouldn't be because it's mirrorless. It would be because they make some great lenses and because the image quality is exceptional.
but add to this, size and weight. This is the sticking point with ML.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Tim, what a waste of Hogan's article! :p
(The guy ran blog on mirrorless, what happened to that?)

The only dslr you would consider is the Pentax K1!
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Mirrorless has another challenge too: eBay

If I have a Nikon FX camera and I need a cheapish 300mm prime that will autofocus on my camera, I can go to eBay and buy the Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF, a lens that I have, for around $400, and I get an excellent lens that will last for many years.

If I want the corresponding focal length on any mirrorless camera, if such an AF lens is even available, I have to buy a new or much newer lens and obviously much more expensive lens. I just did that for my E-M1, and the only realistic alternative was a used 40-150mm f/2.8 (80-300mm eqv.) for around $1,200. If I insisted on a prime, it would have been the 4/3 150mm f/2 that can be had used for around the same price. This is exactly one of the points in Thom's article.

Many camera/photography enthusiasts are young people on a budget, and having access to literally tens of millions of native AF lenses for either of the DSLR brands is a huge money-saver. It will take years, or decades even, before a similar selection of lenses is available second hand in native mirrorless mounts.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Sheesh. There are any number of excellent condition, pro-quality Olympus ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5 ED lenses available for prices between $250 and $550 that will work beautifully on your E-M1 or any other Micro-FourThirds camera. With the MMF-3 mount adapter, it will be fully weather sealed too.

You have to work on finding something more realistic to complain about. :banghead:

G

Mirrorless has another challenge too: eBay

If I have a Nikon FX camera and I need a cheapish 300mm prime that will autofocus on my camera, I can go to eBay and buy the Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF, a lens that I have, for around $400, and I get an excellent lens that will last for many years.

If I want the corresponding focal length on any mirrorless camera, if such an AF lens is even available, I have to buy a new or much newer lens and obviously much more expensive lens. I just did that for my E-M1, and the only realistic alternative was a used 40-150mm f/2.8 (80-300mm eqv.) for around $1,200. If I insisted on a prime, it would have been the 4/3 150mm f/2 that can be had used for around the same price. This is exactly one of the points in Thom's article.

Many camera/photography enthusiasts are young people on a budget, and having access to literally tens of millions of native AF lenses for either of the DSLR brands is a huge money-saver. It will take years, or decades even, before a similar selection of lenses is available second hand in native mirrorless mounts.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Sheesh. There are any number of excellent condition, pro-quality Olympus ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5 ED lenses available for prices between $250 and $550 that will work beautifully on your E-M1 or any other Micro-FourThirds camera. With the MMF-3 mount adapter, it will be fully weather sealed too.

You have to work on finding something more realistic to complain about. :banghead:

G
I don't complain, Godfrey. I try to understand what is happening. I've been shooting with 4/3 lenses on m4/3 bodies for 6 years. It only works well on the E-M1. It works on other bodies too, but much to slow to be satisfactory. Sony has a better solution for this with the A-mount adapter.

All these "interesting" solutions work well for you and me and other enthusiasts. But camera factories can't stay alive by selling to enthusiasts. They need to sell in large numbers to Johnny Consumer and his friends. When he buys a camera, he wants something that works out of the box. If it doesn't, he writes long rants on dpreview of useless cameras and threatens to buy another brand in his next life, which seems to be right around the corner anyway, since he'll probably suffer a heart attack from the single fact that Canisony deceived him.

There's a reason why those 4/3 lenses are so cheap.
 

Tim

Active member
Tim, what a waste of Hogan's article! :p
(The guy ran blog on mirrorless, what happened to that?)

The only dslr you would consider is the Pentax K1!
I like the K1 IQ, something nice about the files. Maybe also its that sexy swivel LCD
The K1 looks one of the smallest in FF - here is the mandatory Camera size link - Compact Camera Meter , hmm, maybe too close.

I am also thinking about becoming a Pentax fanboi, I hear they are recruiting. :salute:


 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
There's always something new. There are newer, better cameras of each type being launched every month, and while one can question how useful the new developments are, they do show that nobody is resting on his laurels. If there are any laurels to rest on, for look at this:

According to official CIPA statistics, the number of cameras shipped have gone down in all areas except Asia outside Japan. These are the figures for January to May this year compared to the same period in 2015, number of units shipped.

Japan
Mirrorless: -35.7%
DSLR: -21.3%

Europe
Mirrorless: +1.7%
DSLR: -4.2%

Americas
Mirrorless: -25.8%
DSLR: -9.6%

Asia outside Japan
Mirrorless: +8.6%
DSLR: -23.1%

Total
Mirrorless: -8%
DSLR: -14.7%

Mirrorless seems to lose traction everywhere except in Asia. That is interesting since a huge part of the Asian market consist of people who haven't owned a camera before, the new middle classes. Also, Asia outside Japan now represents 50% of the world's camera market, which is why sales here push the total statistics towards a mirrorless win. Marketing of mirrorless cameras has been very strong in Asia, and since many of the mirrorless brands were well known household names already, much stronger than the traditional camera brands, they've had a relatively easy match.

In the traditional markets, innovation is important to compete with the traditionally strong brand names like Canon and Nikon. Unfortunately, the last time a mirrorless camera represented more innovation than their DSLR competitors was in 2008 with the launch of the Panasonic G1. Take a look at the Fuji X-T2 for instance, a fine camera where Fuji has listened to its customers and presented real progress:

- LCD that can tilt in two directions. My Canon A95 from 2004 could tilt the LCD in all directions.
- Two card slots. Nikon D300s had 2 card slots in 2009, higher end Canon and Nikon models earlier than that.
- 4K video, just like Panasonic GH4 got in 2014 and several DSLR cameras launched lately also have.
- Ability to carry 3 batteries with the grip, so that one can get as many shots as the $500 Nikon D3300 can with one. This is what we call a workaround.
- High quality 24MP sensor. Yup, just like the Nikon D3300.
- Better EVF refresh rate in "Power Mode" with higher energy consumption. Any DSLR has unlimited refresh rate with zero energy consumption.

Again, it's a fine camera, like many other mirrorless cameras. But if I should get the idea of changing to Fuji, it wouldn't be because it's mirrorless. It would be because they make some great lenses and because the image quality is exceptional. But most consumers only buy the kit lens and one $200 telephoto zoom. They couldn't care less about Fuji's fine lenses, and the sensor in the Digital Rebel is just fine too. And they get confused when they look into the viewfinder of a mirrorless camera and it's dark, even if they remembered to remove the lens cap.

Until recently, I've been of the opinion that mirrorless will win the world market. Just give it time. But I'm not so sure anymore. It seems like it's a winning concept in Asia where I live, but when I talk with young people in Europe, they ask me if they should buy Nikon or Canon.
Those are some scary statistics Jorgen … especially because it is a continuation of decline, and nothing promises to alter it in future. Innovation is being used to battle for a larger slice of a shrinking pie. That rarely ends well in the marketing world when nothing is done to halt the shrinkage.

The 500lb Gorilla in the room that no one acknowledges is how people engage in photography, and how they share pictures. Most of the innovation there favors anything other than cameras as we define them.

What is seriously missing is innovation in image preservation and presentation that showcases what we practice as "Photography".

While we can argue that we make prints, or share via publishing or posting on sites that support higher resolution, well-crafted images … our anecdotal experiences pale in comparison with the rest of the planet.

Basically, we are a small global cadre of like minded folks which gets smaller each year. A group that sends picture memos to each other, and discusses minutia with great passion and prejudice.

Of note is Apples' recent TV campaign showing :10 second video snips expertly paired with music and signed by an apparent "novice" photographer … supported by multi-million$ worth of exposure none of us will probably ever enjoy.

"F/8 and be there." has morphed to … "Cell Phone, and someone is ALWAYS there".

Guy recently devolved to a rant about how cell phones have ruined photography. From my perspective, I'd agree with him not because they replaced good photography, but because they highlighted how people actually view images. I've watched as commercial photography was gutted by the web (who needs MFD quality for 5" pics @ 72 PPI?). Weddings have become a difficult business to sustain because good work takes time, and no one has the patience … I'd get home after a wedding and questionable guest images are already on the clients Facebook page with a hundred "likes". And so on.

I'd argue that it is the lack of consolidation by those who make and use better tools in an effort to promote and showcase better imagery in a more organic and ubiquitous way. Currently, companies compete with the objective of grabbing a bigger slice of the shrinking pie, and are doing do little to keep it from shrinking. Meanwhile, the real competition is eating them alive.

- Marc
 

PeterA

Well-known member
A mate of mine is an Oscar winning composer - he own a 500K grand piano for his own pleasure but composes movie music on a dumb keyboard linked to a few tens of thousands of dollars of software - less $'s invested in his work gear than many on here have in camera gear. His son is part of a successful band now resident mainly in US and he tells me they dont even ho to recording studios anymore- what the point if the can do it all in a room at home? Another mate has put out a few albums into the jazz world- in collaboration with a japanese guitarist based in Japan and a Ukrainian pianist - yeah based in Ukraine - they have NEVER met in real life ( yet).

Photogrpahy is just copping what has revolutionised many other industries already - no biggie. Ther eis a huge difference between instagram and galleries - different markets - but yeah digital world sorts out the pretenders and fakers from those with talent dont you think?
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I don't complain, Godfrey. I try to understand what is happening. I've been shooting with 4/3 lenses on m4/3 bodies for 6 years. It only works well on the E-M1. It works on other bodies too, but much to slow to be satisfactory. Sony has a better solution for this with the A-mount adapter.

All these "interesting" solutions work well for you and me and other enthusiasts. But camera factories can't stay alive by selling to enthusiasts. They need to sell in large numbers to Johnny Consumer and his friends. When he buys a camera, he wants something that works out of the box. If it doesn't, he writes long rants on dpreview of useless cameras and threatens to buy another brand in his next life, which seems to be right around the corner anyway, since he'll probably suffer a heart attack from the single fact that Canisony deceived him.

There's a reason why those 4/3 lenses are so cheap.
Your example was a used, ebayed Nikon 300mm AF lens. No camera factory makes a dime from a used lens sale. The ZD 50-200mm works fine on my E-M1, my E-PL7, my E-PL1, as well as the oldest Panasonic G1 and G7 sans AF.

And the teensy little M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/3.5-5.6 cost me less than $125 new and performs nearly as well, AFs perfectly on all, although it's a stop and a half slower.

You're just complaining needlessly.

G
 

pegelli

Well-known member
There's always something new. There are newer, better cameras of each type being launched every month, and while one can question how useful the new developments are, they do show that nobody is resting on his laurels. If there are any laurels to rest on, for look at this:
Agree, but the high level comparisons (complaints ?) of DSLR's vs. mirrorless all remain the same. Everything is getting better but for some it's never enough while for others it's already plenty for some time.

Btw thanks for the shipping numbers, pretty grim picture so we better hold on to what we use today since there might soon not be any more new cameras to buy once all the brands went belly-up. :lecture:
 

Tim

Active member
so we better hold on to what we use today since there might soon not be any more new cameras to buy once all the brands went belly-up. :lecture:
That is an interesting point. If sales drop, then staff get laid off. What we may see is a new model every two to three years rather than 6 months with even smaller improvement increments but also more likely prices could rise, dramatically.
 
Top