In defence of the DSLR.

[Bobbo]

I like when amateurs buy SLRs. It keeps the R&D money rolling in so the next generation after my D90 is faster, tougher, and better in every optical sense -- unlike the string of 12mp 4/3 and M4/3 cameras Olympus has been cranking out for the past 5 years with the same crappy high ISO noise.

@Nikon Bob: Better sensor tech only comes from those who can afford it. That's why Olympus has been plodding along with (now two) a single sensor for five friggin' years. Doesn't help they have a menu system written by an engineer, not a photographer.

Nikon and Canon are just putting out "me, too" products in the EVF field because they're doing fine with their SLRs, which work faster, have a viewfinder that actually works, have better image and build quality and have bigger systems of accessories.

I'm not too worried about the end of the DSLR. It's going to be a long time until you stop seeing rows of 1d's and D4's at football games, as there's nothing else in the forseeable future that can do the job.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Keith

'Huge great tub of lard' ... is one description that comes to mind not that long ago. That's hardly complimentary!

Hardly inaccurate, either. Sometimes a huge great tub of lard is the best tool for the job, though I find it odd that no-one seems able or willing to make 'em smaller. The tendency to lardiness set in well before digital: look at late Canon and Niko 'pro' fim SLRs.

Cheers,

R.

[giellaleafapmu]

Originally Posted by Archlich

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

That translates into, buy a F6!

If you have ever been into covering a sport event with film cameras I doubt you want to go back to the old days. You really needed somebody helping you with reloading film and if you didn't have two identical sets, including the uberexpensive telephoto, this implied also changing a lens every 36 shots and missing some more on the way. Also with a long telephoto and the need to freeze action you need short shutter time, hence high iso, and here digital camera shine in comparison to film. Sorry but with all the love one might have for the rangefinder film camera there is no doubt that the right tool for sport is a digital SLR camera. In fact I am not ever sure if wouldn't had even better a APC-S camera such as the EOS7d, or D300 or Sony A77 which have the ability to take more frames per second and have a bit longer reach with the same lens (some say not claiming that the ability of cropping more than balance this but I am not convinced).

GLF

[Nikon Bob]

Originally Posted by Bobbo

I like when amateurs buy SLRs. It keeps the R&D money rolling in so the next generation after my D90 is faster, tougher, and better in every optical sense -- unlike the string of 12mp 4/3 and M4/3 cameras Olympus has been cranking out for the past 5 years with the same crappy high ISO noise.

@Nikon Bob: Better sensor tech only comes from those who can afford it. That's why Olympus has been plodding along with (now two) a single sensor for five friggin' years. Doesn't help they have a menu system written by an engineer, not a photographer.

Nikon and Canon are just putting out "me, too" products in the EVF field because they're doing fine with their SLRs, which work faster, have a viewfinder that actually works, have better image and build quality and have bigger systems of accessories.

I'm not too worried about the end of the DSLR. It's going to be a long time until you stop seeing rows of 1d's and D4's at football games, as there's nothing else in the foreseeable future that can do the job.

I did not say that a transition will happen over night nor that it will completely eliminate DSLRs but I think it will happen. Just as film has had a long slow decline but has not died out completely. You could look at the transition from prop to jet which was not over night and in certain areas the prop still has a place. At my age you may not see it but wait 10 years. OTH nobody's crystal ball is all that clear on what the future will bring.

Bob

[willie_901]

The AF system on the D300 and D700 is amazing. It is also complex and initial selection of the best parameters is tedious. Fortunately there are informative guides available from numerous sources.

The first time I used a D300 was during a gymnastics meet. A pro lent me his brand new D300 for a day (he was shooting a D3). The AF was set up for shooting sports. I used a 50/1.8 AFS lens. Strobes were banned so I had to shoot at f 2 and ISO 1600 The AF performance was stunning. It would track and focus on a moving gymnast on a balance beam during shutter bursts.

I have no experience with other DSLR's so I can only assume other makes perform similarly. But the D700 can do everything I can imagine needing. I was not the least bit tempted to upgrade even though it would be a business expennse (tax write-off).

[sojournerphoto]

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.

I've concluded that it's either third or equal second for carrying on a run, bike ride or whan sailing. That's the space for properly small m4/3 stuff

MIke

[Pherdinand]

that's an excellent shot, menthel!

[jtm6]

The D700 is no longer available in Japan because of a new law which makes it illegal* to sell batteries with exposed contacts. The last I heard was that it was still available in other markets. But the writing is on the wall.

*IANAJL

[Godfrey]

I don't think the high end SLR needs any defense. It's quite capable of taking care of itself.

I've had, and have, a bunch of lovely SLR cameras over the years. Nikon F, F2, F3, FM, FM2, FE2, Olympus OM-1, OM-2, Contax RTS II, 169ma, Canon 10D, Pentax *ist DS, K10D, Panasonic L1, Olympus E-1, E-5 ... All were very good, very solid, remarkable performers. They returned the goods as desired.

I still have the Olympus E-1 and Nikon F. Two of my absolute favorites. I hate to let them go, even if I only rarely use them anymore. At that moment when I need them, nothing else will do the number.

But that's not where my photography is for the most part at present. The lighter, less precise, more fluid parts of my photo work are better handled with something smaller, lighter, and perhaps not so "in my way".

Whether the TTL electronic cameras surpass the SLR ultimately is, I think, more a matter of time and money than anything else. There's still a ways to go to achieve that level of functionality in the niches where the pro SLR reigns supreme. But those niches are not important for many many people, who want smaller, lighter, easier to deal with cameras.

Thank the gods for the diversity of cameras in the market today! It's not like all of photography can ever be encompassed with one camera.

[NickTrop]

DSLRs need no defense. The mirrorless cameras offer less for more.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by NickTrop

DSLRs need no defense. The mirrorless cameras offer less for more.

Sometimes less is what is needed though...

[RObert Budding]

Originally Posted by Archlich

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

That translates into, buy a F6!

There isn't a film available that can produce results that are as good as my D700 at ISO 6400.

[jkrumsick]

It's true. The high ISO capabilities of these new sensors is amazing. I don't shoot enough sports or nature photography to warrant the purchase of a good dslr though.

The biggest problem with DSLR's? The resale value goes to zilch the second you buy it. This is why I will rent a dslr when I shoot professionally (which I admit is rare) and I will keep shooting street with film.

[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

[jtm6]

Originally Posted by jkrumsick

The biggest problem with DSLR's? The resale value goes to zilch the second you buy it. This is why I will rent a dslr when I shoot professionally (which I admit is rare) and I will keep shooting street with film.

Like you, this isn't a one vs other argument for me. There are pros and cons to both. I own and use both. After learning from the worthless laptops I have, I'm less concerned about the resale value of my DSLRS and more concerned with being able to simply turn them on in a few years. Even new-old stock batteries will be worthless because they age whether or not they are used. I refuse to buy mysterious box-o'-chocolates Chinese knockoffs.

This affects the digital Ms and mirrorless as much as DSLRs. One of the nice thing about older cameras is they didn't capitalize on proprietary batteries yet. I ran down to the local store and bought a pack of hearing aid batteries for a few dollars for my 22 and 30 year old film cameras (they are high tech because of the meters require electricity). The periods of depleting and resupplying batteries is measured in years, not exposures or hours.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by jkrumsick

The biggest problem with DSLR's? The resale value goes to zilch the second you buy it.

Zilch? Current used DSLRs sell for 70-80% of new price repeatedly.

[jkrumsick]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Zilch? Current used DSLRs sell for 70-80% of new price repeatedly.

Ok so my post was a bit hyperbolic. It doesn't go to zilch the second you buy it. You may be able to sell it for 70-80% of the price a year or two after. But what about 5 years? 10 years? Forget it. I'll be happily shooting with my Nikon FM 20 years from now (crossing my fingers that they still make 35 mm film)

[Thardy]

Ran across this thread and thought " why in the world do these stupid dslr threads keep popping up?". "WHO CARES?"

I even remembered the header of a rah rah dslr thread from a couple of years ago called "let's hear it for the dslr"!

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Thardy

Ran across this thread and thought " why in the world do these stupid dslr threads keep popping up?". "WHO CARES?"

I even remembered the header of a rah rah dslr thread from a couple of years ago called "let's hear it for the dslr"!

Glad you could drop in ... maybe you'd prefer a nice bag thread ... or what M should I choose?

[Thardy]

Originally Posted by Keith

Glad you could drop in ... maybe you'd prefer a nice bag thread ... or what M should I choose?

I can't get the link to work in the body of my previous post but you get the point!

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=90703

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Thardy

I can't get the link to work in the body of my previous post but you get the point!

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=90703

LOL ... and it was your thread!

I don't feel so bad now!

[Thardy]

Originally Posted by Keith

LOL ... and it was your thread!

I don't feel so bad now!

Ain't irony great!

[n5jrn]

Mirrorless (OM-D E-M5) works fine for what's important to me. Given that, I wouldn't want to take a heavy SLR along hiking.

I think that EVIL cameras will probably kill off the consumer-grade crop-sensor DSLR's in the not-so-distant future. They're pretty silly cameras when one thinks about it, having a significantly larger mirror box and lens-mount-to-sensor distance than they actually need, simply for historical and path-dependant reasons. EVIL cameras will continue to improve and erode at the performance difference between them and and such SLR's (I was floored at how much better today's EVF's are than the EVF's of 3 or 4 years ago).

Pro-grade full-frame DSLR's will doubtless last much longer, quite possibly indefinitely, much like rangefinders and medium/large format have.

[back alley]

Originally Posted by Keith

Glad you could drop in ... maybe you'd prefer a nice bag thread ... or what M should I choose?

that line looks like it's aimed directly at me...shall i stir the pot and look for some classic threads from you as well?

[Keith]

Originally Posted by back alley

that line looks like it's aimed directly at me...shall i stir the pot and look for some classic threads from you as well?

It wasn't aimed at you or anyone in particular ... you're now being paranoid about it!