In defence of the DSLR.

[Keith]

With the current avalanche of new cameras and the trend towards mirrorless marvels like the Xpro with its undoubted image quality you could almost be excused for thinking the end for the DSLR may be near. This has been my own thinking recently and as soon as someone produces a full frame version of one of these high end compacts we may see a real shift away from the big chunk of alloy, plastic and glass that is the current DSLR. Yes they are big, heavy and a little unwieldy … attach a decent zoom and they become even more so and carrying one around for a day can really test your endurance and resolve.

However … I have just spent a couple of days photographing a two day vintage motocross meeting for a friend with my D700 and 24-120 Nikkor and I’ve come away with a very different point of view. I cannot imagine what other camera could have done what that Nikon did over those two days and do it so incredibly easily and competently. The auto focus barely missed a shot when tracking objects moving at some speed, the metering was amazingly accurate and the thing never missed a beat. By the end of day one the camera and lens were caked in dust and as I tossed it into the Low Pro I could see it was more than ready for another day’s abuse … though I was personally flagging! Close to four hundred exposures over two days using auto focus and doing a fair amount of chimping used considerably less than a full battery charge!

Two weeks prior to this I was photographing in a dark gallery full of monitors and projection screens at ISO 3200 with a 35mm Zeiss prime, focusing manually in the gloom with the excellent finder and relying on the matrix metering once again … and of course the camera provided me with near perfectly exposed almost noise free images as it invariably does! A month or so before this I was out in a busy main road at night with a tripod in the rain, photographing a billboard and watching the water running off the camera down the tripod legs and marvelling at the camera’s durability in such conditions.

So how do you replace a photographic tool that can do all this? Seriously I’d like to know because I don’t think you can ... suddenly my little OM-D seems like such a useless toy!

Well I’m off … I promised the woman next door I’d help her drive in some tent pegs … and she seems to have lost her hammer!

[maddoc]

Well ... you have to use the right tool for the job. However, I think that a huge majority of all DSLR were sold to photographer without the purpose of getting the job done ...

[Nikon Bob]

Originally Posted by maddoc

Well ... you have to use the right tool for the job. However, I think that a huge majority of all DSLR were sold to photographer without the purpose of getting the job done ...

Virtually the same could be said of Leica Ms.

Bob

[Shac]

Keith have to totally agree. I find it nary impossible to follow moving critters such as birds with the EVF cameras I've tried - with a DSLR - little or no problem - plus of course quicker/more responsive autofocus.
That said I think Gabor has a point

[Keith]

Gabor's point is obviously correct ... an awful lot of high end DSLRs are/have been sold to people who really didn't need them and I guess that's what allows Canikon to keep making them for the people that do.

So what happens then when the wannabees stop their misguided consumer craziness and move onto mirrorless and suddenly Canikon aren't selling them in the same volume they were ... does the DSLR suddenly become more expensive when it's produced in smaller numbers?

[jtm6]

Originally Posted by Keith

So how do you replace a photographic tool that can do all this? Seriously I’d like to know because I don’t think you can ... suddenly my little OM-D seems like such a useless toy!

I don't think it is about "replace" or even "complement" other systems but rather having the right tool for the right job. Your OM-D might seem like a useless toy for that context. For my style and interests, I need a DSLR like an archer needs a gatling gun. I realized for me a DSLR was overkill. It is nice to know I have it if I need it, though.

[moreammo]

Originally Posted by jtm6

I don't think it is about "replace" or even "complement" other systems but rather having the right tool for the right job. Your OM-D might seem like a useless toy for that context. For my style and interests, I need a DSLR like an archer needs a gatling gun. I realized for me a DSLR was overkill. It is nice to know I have it if I need it, though.

I am an Archer; though I only have three long bows at the moment

and I NEED a gatling gun... just throwing that out here

... still point taken

[pvdhaar]

I can only echo what Keith said in his original post. DSLRs are incredibly versatile and tools you can depend on to get a job done, and done effortlessly.

I use my DSLR for astrophotography, and there it really shines. It never ceases to amaze me that I can point my DSLR to a star and have it nail focus. None of the contrast AF based cameras does that.

[Keith]

I realise that a DSLR is a pain in the arse compared to an Xpro/X100/OM-D etc when it comes to weight and managability ... but it does everything these cameras are capable of photographically and more.

My point is that it's the only option if you want one photograpic tool that does everything. I think on that basis it's future is pretty well guaranteed for some time to come.

[ricnak]

if you think if you believe in the perfect camera..

look here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV_Codes

[Keith]

Originally Posted by ricnak

if you think if you believe in the perfect camera..

look here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV_Codes

That was very cheeky!

[ricnak]

yeah!

made you look

[Photon42]

Originally Posted by ricnak

if you think if you believe in the perfect camera..
[...]

Don't worry - Keith has a looooooooong track record on that

@Keith: I can't actually peel out any requirement in your description which requires a mirror to flop up and down. I enjoy DSLRs myself, but speaking of me that comes to a certain extend from biased socialisation and inability swap out folklore for reality ...

Cheers
Ivo

[Kent]

If you need to transport thing, you use a station wagon.
If you need to get from A to B quickly, you use a motor bike.
...

Same for photography. Use the right tool for the right task.

[thegman]

I'm in two minds, on one hand, my new D7000 is highly competent, and despite what many say about DSLRs, highly usable, everything important is within one button press and a twiddle of a dial. On the other hand, my brother's NEX 7 gives the same image quality and is about half the size. The EVF means you can focus anything, back focus, front focus, whatever, you can focus it.

I think we will see a continued push from mirrorless into DSLR territory, it may not be a positive thing, but I think it will happen. In many markets, the push from the low end into the high end is inevitable, look at how everyone is buying iPads instead of a vastly more capable small laptop.

There is no reason why DSLR capability cannot be in EVF powered cameras, and they already exist, like the Sony A65 and A77.

[bugmenot]

Originally Posted by thegman

There is no reason why DSLR capability cannot be in EVF powered cameras, and they already exist, like the Sony A65 and A77.

This. I believe despite the negative response Sony's SLT Alpha lineup suffered initially, Sony is actually onto something here ...

[thegman]

Originally Posted by bugmenot

This. I believe despite the negative response Sony's SLT Alpha lineup suffered initially, Sony is actually onto something here ...

Yes, I've played with the A65, the EVF is *a lot* better than any NEX, OM-D, or Panasonic one I've used. I think Sony have something pretty cool there.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by thegman

Yes, I've played with the A65, the EVF is *a lot* better than any NEX, OM-D, or Panasonic one I've used. I think Sony have something pretty cool there.

These are news to me ... I just checked dpreview. They seemed impressed apart from the noise at high ISO.

Why is the EVF so much better than the OM-D ... that's one thing about the OM-D that I was quite impressed with so the Sony must be good!

[bugmenot]

Originally Posted by Keith

Why is the [Sony] EVF so much better than the OM-D ... That's one thing about the OM-D that I was quite impressed with, so the Sony must be good!

The Sony EVFs in the NEX-7 (and optional one for NEX-5N), as well as the EVFs in the A65 and A77 have 2.4 Million Dots, or in other words a XGA resolution (1024x768), and are OLED. The Sony EVFs also have a 0.73x Magnification.

The OM-D EVF has a 1.44 Million Dots, or a 800x600 resolution, and are of the LCD type. It also has a 0.58x Magnification.

Just based on the resolution and contrast alone, I have compared the NEX-5N EVF vs. the OMD EVF, and the NEX-5N's EVF is quite the revelation.
It was as big a difference as the first time I looked through an OM-1n's viewfinder and compared it to my Canon 5DII's viewfinder.

The only downside is apparently on the NEX-7 only. Since the EVF is placed in a "rangefinder-style" position (rather than centre like the other three mentioned Sony cameras), and the magnification is so large, the left or right eye needs to be centred to get the best view, and since the viewfinder is to the side, that is more difficult than it should be. This is only NEX-7's problem when it comes to the EVF.



Magnification comparison images courtesy of Dpreview.com

[Pherdinand]

feel free to send me your little useless toy

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Pherdinand

feel free to send me your little useless toy

I said 'seems' ... purely a comparison and not necesarily a truth. I actually took the OM-D to the motocross meeting with me and was considering taking a few shots with it until I saw what the conditions were like ... it stayed in the safety of the car!

[menthel]

I don't think there is any need to defend the DSLR, it does it's job very well. Mine mostly comes out for wildlife and especially birds. I recently went on a trip to photograph puffins and would not have wanted anything else but my 7D! Using long lenses on anything else is tricky and the AF speed for birds in flight are second to none. One chap whom I went with had an OM-D with him and had to pre focus etc and hope for the best. He did get a few great shots but said it was bloody hard work in comparison to a DSLR.

A different tool for each job!

Oh, and here is a puffin!


TP Skomer Trip July 2012-559.jpg by menthel, on Flickr

[Roger Hicks]

Does it really need defending?

It's the best tool for quite a number of things, and (usually) the second-best tool for the remainder. The only question is whether to go on using it when it's second best. And, of course, the trade-offs you want to make (money, weight, bulk, complexity...)

Cheers,

R.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Does it really need defending?

It's the best tool for quite a number of things, and (usually) the second-best tool for the remainder. The only question is whether to go on using it when it's second best. And, of course, the trade-offs you want to make (money, weight, bulk, complexity...)

Cheers,

R.

Part of my curiosity Roger is as to whether it will remain in it's current form or will the design morph into something different that can do the same job with the same degree of ruggedness and reliability? Sans prism and mirror box of course!

[Archlich]

imho there is nothing wrong with a SLR; digital is the boring part.

That translates into, buy a F6!