I came into photography in the mirrorless age. I’ve enjoyed my DSLR experience better. Working in IT I’m screen bound all week and it’s nice to have a optical viewfinder.
It? Perhaps you can shed light on how much damage all these electronic views finders are or are not? I think it's a subject worth discussing. My eyesight for reading got weaker the last few years but I'm 50. Is there a way to set up a electric VF with a blue screen shield? Hope this comment makes Sense.
@@unbroken1010 My left eye is weaker and i believe it's from all those years i looked into the the optical viewfinder. With mirrorles it's a bless, i can look in the main screen, no need to use only one eye
I spent 35 years in prepress, the last 20 or so in digital staring into to large Macs and a PC (jobs were OS determinate) and not, if I spend any length of time looking "through" an EVF, my eyes together get very tired (I assume it's an optic nerve/brain interlacing thing. AMEN!
I started in electronics in the mid 1960s. This was a time when the transistor was moving from novelty to mainstream. There were similar arguments about the transistor vs the thermionic valve, which at the time was the predominant device in electronic systems, particularly those requiring higher power. The joke going around in the military environment in which I worked was that transistors were just a passing phase and we'd soon get back to valves. I think the same joke could be applied here.
I'm old, really old. My first use of a decent camera was in 1968. I stared with a 6x6 camera and later 35mm SLR. When I finally got serious I went to a 6x6 SLR. That was a simply wonderful period of professional photography. I went through several early Sony cameras in the early digital era. I eventually got a DSLR in 2008. I simply loved that camera, I was back shooting the way I always had but with really nice digital results. I eventually quadrupled my pixels to 24.2, and I only did that because I thought it would make a big difference. It was nicer but not as much as I thought it might be. I will still use my mirrorless pocket cameras but the DSLRs will be around in my collection for whatever time I have left. You are right about the batteries that are not OEM, they work just fine. Good video.
DSLR's are never going away. Even if everyone stopped production, there have been so many made we could never burn through them fast enough before DSLRs became cool again and then companies started to make them again. The same way that some people choose to listen to music on vinyl or ride a motorcycle, DSLR's offer a different user experience. Personally I love going back to my DSLR and finding it a refreshingly stripped down and straight forward shooting experience.
But no company makes new film SLR. Something becoming popular again doesnt mean it gonna rule again in the market. Dslr is dead like film cameras@@raymondchan3587
I bought a Nikon D3s last year for 400 bucks. FOUR. HUNDRED. DOLLARS. It had 7500 shutter auctions. That's the car equivalent of buying a very well maintained 10 year old porsche 911 with 10k miles for like 7k. The deals on DSLRs is amazing. Just amazing. And bec people think it's the old crazy shit means people in the know will be able to but flagship models and lenses for basically pennies on the dollar
DSLRs are great to purchase second hand. I have the D3 and DF and both still work incredibly well, and still take great images. I personally love that Pentax is committed to the future of the DSLR.
My reason for going with a full-frame mirrorless over DSLR is that I started out shooting on film, and I wanted a digital body for my film camera glass. The shorter flange distance, making for easier adaptrage, and the focusing assistance features for my manual focus lenses help a lot here. Even putting aside the flange distance issues, unfortunately most DSLRs do not have a split prism and/or microprism focusing assist features in their ground glass, as the DSLRs were built for autofocus. I'd love trying out a DSLR with some optical manual focus assist features though. It would make it feel more like my film SLRs. Although, as much as I loathe to admit it, the digital viewfinder of the mirrorless wins for focusing in low light compared to my film SLRs...
Depending on the DSLR, sometimes there are aftermarket focusing screens that have microprism/split-image available. Definitely seen them for some Nikon and Pentax cameras, ones with interchangeable screens.
Sounds like you picked the wrong brand. If you had picked Nikon you could use their vintage glass on all nikon dslrs and pretty much all mirrorless cameras.
@@SuperbustrI already had Konica glass and Konica SLRs, so the Sony mirrorless (A7II) was a good fit, as the Hexanons won't adapt with intact infinity focus to basically any DSLR out there... Not to mention I got it pretty cheap. Seems to me that Sony full-frame mirrorless are the cheapest in it's category on the used market. Choosing Sony is also kind of poetic in that Minolta bought Konica which in turn was bought by Sony! But that was just by chance. In the end though I wasn't really looking for any particular brand. Any full-frame mirrorless (or DSLR, if flange distance wasn't an issue) that I could fit my lenses to, for as little money as possible, was the goal here. Nikons definitely in the runnings if I ever go looking for specifically a DSLR though. I think they even have models with exchangeable focusing screens, which would be neat for split prism reasons.
Those issues only really surfaced once resolution was pushed up past 16 MP (APS-C) / 36 MP (FF). And that was already a LOT more than the vast majority need. But the manufacturers keep pushing the resolution up because they have to sell new cameras, and brainwash people into thinking they need it through their advertising. And yes, most large corporations keep psychologists on staff in their marketing teams so they can actually, literally brainwash you through their ads.
I would totally use SLR if it wasn't so big. I grew up on Pentax, then I took a long pause from photography, but last year I wanted to get back to it and bought a used mirrorless and it completely transformed the way I shoot and behave. I take the camera everywhere because it's much smaller and lighter, therefore I enjoy shooting with it more.
"It'll keep getting kicked around in secondhand and antique markets and maybe a couple of boutique manufacturers" is a funny definition of "never dying". With that logic, what technology has ever died? You can say the same things about Edison Cylinders.
Loving your thoughts on "old" tech. It's funny to me how frequently people obsessively buy the newest gear, but I think Ben Horne said it best when he mentioned he never has to worry about upgrading and updating his 8x10 view camera. The tech is perfect. He just gets new film and keeps the hardware in good working order, and that's enough. Personally, I think this is a wise sentiment to live by
Not going to lie, I use my phone more and more... I designated my Pentax as my "Noir" camera and only use it in monochrome. Surprisingly... I used it more in that way.
I like DSLRs and still have one. However it's incorrect to say WYSIWYG with reflex cameras, in fact only the top professional models showed 100% of the image. DSLRs are also dependent on the brightness of the lens, especially when manually focusing. That said, in good light an optical viewfinder provides good feedback and is pleasure to use.
@@unbroken1010 Yes, and with any dSLR from the last 10 years, there's plenty of pixels to crop that 5% out if there's something that intrudes. Also, a lot of dSLRs from that same time frame also have the ability to route the image onto the rear LCD screen, so you'd get 100% coverage like that. (Obviously, that's frequently not a great choice)
I hope DSLRs never go! I been using them since I bought my Pentax K10d. Now I have a Pentax KP and love it. Hardly ever use the electronic shutter. Thanks for sharing! Always great content!
I've picked up camera fairly recently, in serious manner, I tried different kinds of brands and ecosystems borrowing my campus, friends' gears alike. There's just something about DSLR that hits me, one of them is the Optical Viewfinder to me being superior and easier to work with for longer periods of time, you may not have the ability to have live exposure of your shoot and have to recompose a lot, but I think that's a fair trade I can live with. And what's best with Mirrorless being in the future, is DSLRs are getting cheaper by then body and lens wise. 😳😳 Great content!
My two rule in this issue: For portability, convenience and ease of use (minus the size and weight) - go with mirrorless. If you want to learn and experience professional photography the way our ma and grandpa did in their time (plus the size/ weight and all those exposure metering test shots and guess work) - go with DSLR. Needless to say, I always see mirrorless cam technology as a cross breed between professional DSLR and point-and-shoot smart phones combined.
My nephew, who is a film camera enthusiast, is using my old Nikon F3 with the old manual focus lenses, while I have been using Olympus mirrorless for 10 years now. The younger generation seems to appreciate old analog technology.
There is so much to experience through the viewfinder. I have a broken Zenit 3M with the helios 44. It's no good to take pictures with, the shutter is all gummed up. But sometimes i just take it with me and walk around and just look through the viewfinder. It just lets me zone out and look at things trough a different perspective.
I just enjoy the process of taking pictures on a DSLR compared to my mirrorless cameras. And as a hobby, it is important to enjoy the process too. To each their own.
This is why I use a canon 5D mk 1 for fun a lot, the clunk of the shutter and the optical viewfinder are just, nice. For work I use my mirrorless sony setup
They practically both take great pictures. So how is a DSLR process much better than a Mirrorless? Let me guess? Since you never used one, you bashed it to justified keeping your DSLR right?
I'm still working with one DSLR (in contrast to several mirrorless cameras), but if you work with them professionally they come with their own set of unique problems and quirks I wan't go in the detail now, so I won't cry when they go away. The sheer fact that you can mount ANY vintage lens on ANY mirrorless camera made me sold instantly...
I live in a tourist area and 99% of the many cameras that I see people using are DSLRs. It's only a tiny sample size but I think that they will be around for a long time yet. Honestly though, i grew up with film and still regularly use film rangefinders, SLRs and mirrorless cameras. My DSLRs are just gathering dust as i don't find a reason to use them over the others. That's just me though. I'm not hating or telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do. I get it that some people prefer them and that's cool. I love your videos and reviews of cameras that I lusted over but couldn't afford back in the day.
I picked up a new 6DM2 during a sale in mid-2020 before I started hiring myself out for basic photography jobs, not just because I wasn't quite sold on the advantages of a mirrorless camera (I still don't do vlogging), but because even before the sale, an equivalent mirrorless (in terms of still photo capabilities) was at least 1 1/2 times the price. Combined with cheaper (significantly older) full-frame lenses, it was kind of a no-brainer. Since then, maybe carrying around a chunkier DSLR over a sleeker mirrorless has convinced potential customers "Oh, this guy knows what he's doing, look at the size of his gear," (same for big old lens hoods), maybe not, but there's not a compelling reason to pay the steep entry price of a broadly equivalent mirrorless body (plus a relatively inexpensive adapter for my EF lenses). They're not going anywhere for me.
A pro with a great but tiny mirrorless could put it in a cage with a wooden focus wheel, extra battery mount, external screen with hdmi cable, and xlr adapter. Then the client would feel they got what they paid for!
@@editingsecretsDidn’t Sony do just that with one of their earlier small “pro” video cameras? They got complaints from videographers doing work at weddings and such, that they looked just like the dad with the Handicam, and they wanted something that looked a little beefier.
Mate, worked newspapers for 10 years. Nothing beats a DSLR. I get downvoted everywhere for the opinion but part of the rush for me was living the moments I saw, not watching them on a tiny TV. I know how an exposure will look before I take it - all I need is to see a scene and control over my ASA, iris and shutter speed. I feel seeing what some grainy sensor thinks I should see takes me away from it - people focus so much on the final product, but forget the experience of capturing it. Perhaps it's an oversimplification but with a mirrorless camera I'm not there anymore. I'm watching it on TV.
I see your point and agree for the most part, but where I think it will be hard to compete is autofocus and tracking technology. As camera systems become smarter, integrating algorithms to identify subjects should simply be easier in a purely electronic sensor. So I think it depends on the use case. Slow, methodical photography should be just as - if not more - tailored to SLRs, with a more tangible photo experience. This is also probably the reason a lot of people go back to exclusively shooting on film nowadays. On the other hand, sports photography, movement, wildlife or fashion I would assume are areas where the subtleties of better autofocus tech will really add up over time, especially if you're using photography as a profession and your paycheck is measured in efficiency.
there is something nice about a focused, single experience. i enjoy shooting film on a pentax k1000 even though i take photos other ways too. looking forward to getting into developing and printing too, it's just a satisfying craft
As a Nikon Z9 shooter, I see no advantage to having a mirror. I do a lot of shallow depth of field still life photography and having the ability to punch in and magnify my focal point so I can get it dialed into exactly the right spot is absolute magic and saves me a lot of time over the old method of racking focus through a subject, because the image in a mirrored camera is too small and inexact to give me what I need to see. I also love what Nikon has done with their linear focus options on Z lenses. This offers a level of precision impossible in DSLR land without having to pull out a macro rack. I do not miss my D850, not even a little bit.
That's definitely one of the many advantages mirrorless cameras have. I am personally fond of the shorter flange distances and what that is allowing with modern lens design. That's my favorite part of mirrorless.
The price/performance is not justify at the moment. If money is not a problem, that's fine. For autofocus, I don't care. I enjoy using manual focus and I have good eyesight.
I honestly don't understand why your channel isn't getting more subs. I mean, you're outputting such an interesting content on regular basis and so few people notice it...
I’m still more than happy with my D700 and don’t feel any pressure to upgrade. Literally the only reason I want a mirrorless camera is for lens adaptability. That’s it.
Honestly, the issue I find with DSLRs is that shooting in really low or high light situations can be a pain, cause if you want a fast shutter speed, you need tons of light, and that light, just as a screen would, strains your eyes, but even faster. And shooting in low light with a viewfinder, forget it. With modern mirrorless cameras having high resolution, low latency 120/240Hz OLEDs as viewfinders, lag is imperceptible, but you have the power of control when it comes to lighting and being able to see in really bright or dark situations. Also, you get a live view of your exposure, so even though with DSLR, you see what you get as far as framing, with mirrorless, you see what you get with framing, exposure, contrast, any film simulation or filters you have, just- EVERYTHING. You can also have overlays and live zooms, all in the viewfinder, which makes working with manual focus much easier. As a type of camera, I do agree DSLRs will remain relevant, especially the special ones that can split light between the sensor and your viewfinder for recording video, but I think they're going to become niche and irrelevant. Also, since the flange distance on mirrorless is way less, you can get adapters to use SLR/DSLR lenses on mirrorless cameras for cheap, so the migration can be nearly seamless if you're a SLR/DSLR photographer with many lenses looking to move over to mirrorless.
I think i can agree. For me it's still helpful to take photos trough a good electronic vf because i can see my mistakes immediatly. But after (still) using a number of Sony SLTs and ILCEs (by the way: the A99II wasn't a DSLR - it has EVF. The last Sony DSLR was the A580 in 2010) i recently bought the Pentax K3 III additionally and i'm enjoying this great OVF very much.
@@unbroken1010 Hi. ISO maxes out at 1600 although I think it will extend to 3200 but I’ve not shot in low light yet. Also, I shoot RAW and make my jpgs later but will give it a try :)
Lol, I love reading these comments. Mostly because I'm old and I've been reading the same comments for many years applied to photographic technology. I'm still using medium format film camera with a WLVF (waste level view finder). Furthet, I'm also still committing photography with 35mm film camera. I enjoy using them and the pace of life they represent. I remember when they said the medium format was dead at the hands of the 35mm and the 35mm was dead at the hands of the DSLR. Does technology, once developed, ever really die?
@@snappiness... I started my photography journey in the 1970s with 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 5x4, and 10x8. I was a late adopter of DSLRs and an even later adopter of mirrorless cameras. I now have a huge collection (I'm worse than One Month Two Cameras), and as much as I love using my various mirrorless cameras, I love my DSLRs and SLRs far more ... I love the size, ergonomics, reliability, construction, and tactile controls. Much like the "film is not dead" analogue followers (myself included), I believe there are lots of people who believe in mirrors ... Mirrors are not dead, and my Canon EOS1, 5d, 5d mk2, and 10d are testament too.
the EVF does look through the lens aswell but it represents what the sensor sees rather than the mirror,... in that case the evf is actually more representative..
this is what I think of when he said, “what you see is what you get”. No, what you get is what the sensor sees. so no matter how much the photographer can see, you will be limited by the sensor.
More representative of the output image, but not more representative of reality. Looking through an ovf is just like looking through a monocle where just your eyes are the sensor, and the light does not have to meet the camera’s sensor, then to be displayed onto your eyes
WYSWYG is a term for the old range finder & twin lens user who sometimes only got close to what they wanted because the film image frame was a different path from the viewfinder path or lens used. A mirror less also alters the image you see by the sensor settings and adjust for brightness white balance, and noise. But then yes it will also be the image recorder to.
These markets seem to swing in cycles; I remember when digital was gaining a lot of traction and you could buy high end film cameras really cheap ( Hasselblad, Mamiya 7 ) but then film enthusiasts recaptured some of that market and now look at where prices are. I like mirrorless for some applications, and DSLR for others. Bonus: when a lot of people swing away from DSLR cameras, there are bargains to be had on lenses !
@@snappiness It depends if you're selling your gear to buy mirrorless or not. I personally got kind of screwed selling some used gear, so I decided to use it as a trade in to get a 2nd hand Canon 70-200mm F4L. I had the 70-200mm F2.8L IS and this was just kind of a nice lense to have if I didn't really need the extra light. I was also able to get Tamron's F3.5 180mm macro lens for a little over $200 which was quite the deal as it's in very good condition. But, I do think that the camera manufacturers are premature, I do think that Canon would do well to cut back to 2 or 3 dSLR lines (1 beginner, 1 cropped pro body and 1 full-frame pro body) and to just manufacture their mirrorless bodies similar to how they added the EF-S standard years back where any EF-S body could handle both EF-S and EF lenses, but only the EF-S bodies could handle the EF-S lenses. Since only some lenses even benefit from not having the mirror anyways, it makes little sense to force people to replace their entire lens collection for a body that might be significantly worse than the one they've got. I've got somewhere around $4k worth of lenses, if my options are sticking with the bodies and lenses I've got, or throwing it all out and starting over, I'm sticking what what I've got. It will probably be many years before the bodies I've got are no longer good enough to do a great job of what I'm likely to want to do.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade That's exactly what Canon is doing, with the 1DXIII and 5DIV still available for pros who want to look through a prism, and the EF to RF lens adapter for the investment in lenses to carry over to the new bodies.
I made my first big upgrades in years in 2019 when I went to the local camera shop to buy an EOS 6D Mark II. They tried like hell to sell me on the mirrorless but I just wasn't having it. I still haven't seen a mirrorless camera I actually enjoy using. I understand the "advantages" but if one of the disadvantages is that I just don't enjoy it, I'm not buying it.
Sold my film camera kit about 15 years ago and never got into photography again. But planning to travel extensively over the next few years I started to look at new affordable cameras, all of them mirrorless. I don’t like the viewfinder experience so discovering your site is an absolute breath of fresh air as I don’t know the used DSLR market at all. I may own a Nikon one day, yeah!!
I used both the Nikon D50 and D90. Most fun I’ve ever had with cameras, I have previously used a Sony RX100 ii and I just didn’t quite enjoy it. The old DSLRs are satisfying in a way that modern cameras can’t replicate. Also damm gotta love the CCD in the D50
The D90 was one my first DSLRs and it's till very popular. I sold mine for more than I bought it for new. Same for the Canon 50D. They are some of the best midrange ones every made. My wife does photography and I do professional videography and streaming. I still use a D7100 and wife uses a D7500.
I love my DSLR, I love looking through the viewfinder because I'm looking at the screen all day(Software engineer), and it's nothing like looking at a display. you literally see what the camera sees through the lens. and of course the battery life. and the sound, the feeling of the shutter add another spice to the experience that mirrorless cameras never give you.
i own a 2006 Nikon D80, and despite its age, it's 10 megapixel sensor is so satisfying to shoot on. the sound is unmatched and it still takes great pictures with accurate color science
The Nikon D7200 remains to be my primary Workhorse camera (but I still shoot some older Nikon/other brand older DSLRs on a fairly regular basis too). I have a newer Nikon Z50 mirrorless camera and its great for some very specific situations; but its typically a lot pickier on AF on lenses too. In a situation where I had to pick only one camera to have with it'd still be the D7200. That camera from 2016 just blows me away with how solid of a workhorse it is to this day.
Photography is an industry thrive on feels and nostalgia, so nothing is ever truly die. Your camera can take color? Give monochrome film/filter. Camera move from film to digital? Give film simulation
I completely agree. I was just telling a friend the other day that no matter how many mirrorless cameras I use, I just can't break myself of my old-timey SLR's (Digital and Film). All their various dials and levers. Lets not even start to talk about how perfectly placed all the buttons are on the 5D Mark IV and 1DX line of DSLR's. Yeah...can't let those go.
Working pro for 35+ years. SLRs, then DSLRs, and recently mirrorless. Mirrorless is driving my business now, mostly because of advances in autofocus, but for my studio and landscape work my big FF DSLR (Pentax K-1) will always be my go-to. There is just something astonishing about looking through a beautiful optical viewfinder that the younger crowd (who may never have picked up a top-shelf DSLR) would be blown away by. Keep up the great vids!
What is the benefit of an optical Viewfinder? They don’t show you your actual exposure, you get blinded if you look thru them at a bright light source (shooting into the sun etc), they don’t show a usable image if you are shooting in very low light etc.. why would anyone want that other than nostalgia?
@@RustyShackleford9000 no advantage for me. true the EVF sucks battery, or what I have experienced with Fuji will be some weird dancing lines with frame rates but thats about it. you get better SOOC images out of mirrorless, less editing, more accurate representation of exposure, depth of field, etc.
I love mirrorless and will never go back. EVFs do things that you just cannot do with DSLRs and never could with SLRs. Once in a while I do long exposures with a 10 stop ND filter. When I look through the EVF of my Sony a7ii I can see what the exposed image will look like with my shutter and aperture settings and make adjustments. Previous to this I had an a350, a DSLR and it was always a process of estimate and adjust from exposure to exposure. On top of that the bodies are smaller and lighter. The lenses are smaller and lighter. Even for a full frame mirrorless, like the a7ii.
As someone that doesn't really do much photography as astrophotography, i definitely see it as a far cooler thing to actually look trough a optical viewfinder. This is better because fainter stars are not always picked up by the live view, but trough the optical view finder, you basically have a eyepiece wich means you can enjoy the beauty of space while the camera is attached. Funny enough i am not old either, i am from the rather quick snappy generation, but i so much preffer actual cameras over smartphones to begin with. And i also enjoy old SLR, especially because it is a massive help to correctly focus the image, wich a separate view finder doesn't give you. Something is cool about thinking that film photography is bad but discovering it can be high resolution.
It`s not like you`re focussing on singular stars in the dark, so that`s a nonsense argument. Dslr`s are a thing of the past, they`re obsolete and will never return.
@@brugj03 well infact the orion theta stars are very bright and visible. You do realise that observational astronomy is a thing so as long as a camera offer you a optical viewfinder, you get to see what you normally see with a eyepiece, except you can take a picture. The moon is also very bright, so for lunar and solar photography i still think DSLRs are relevant. And it's not a thing of the past. It's a preference.
@@brugj03 I find the brightest star and focus on that. Once set, just point the camera where you want. The downside of live-view, for me, is the effect of looking at a bright object when working in near total darkness. I do a lot of nighttime timelapse so that means setting the camera up, start the timelapse and leaving well alone. Sometimes, I may even go home for a couple of hours and come back later. Yea, I live out in the sticks and I can do that. The shutter sound helps me find the camera again. Each to his own I guess. Then again, cost is a major factor for me. I get all the bang for my buck I need with my D800. As for obsolete, I'm always skeptical when the people selling the product say that. From them it's little more than a fashion statement. My camera does what I want it to do and I intend keeping it until it dies.
@@PhilJonesIII nice ! You could consider yourself a amateur astrophotographer since you do rather night landscape photography (so constellations and milky way). Time to time, do you also stack your images to get a better wide shot of the milky way ? Anyways, your eyes are far better than any live view and from my experience you can see the alot of stars with your naked eye trough a telescope, so i am pretty sure it's the same for a DSLR. I also tried to photograph the orion nebula (quick snap) and the optical viewfinder was a really big help to focus my Canon lens (it doesn't mark "infinite" so it's not all the way one way).
@@photonik-luminescence I've used Deep Sky Stacker in the past. Managed some half decent shots of Phalades star cluster. My limitations at the time were storage space and a steam-powered computer. My timelapse efforts were eating up disk space like no tomorrow so I eventually treated myself to an 8TB external drive. There seems to be any number of packages for photo-stacking now. Lots of reviews but not quite the same until you try for yourself. And yes, infinity isn't infinity which is a shame. Objects so far away that they are no longer where you are looking should qualify in my books.
I revisited DSLR this year and it was a total joy. My main kit is mirrorless digital and RF film for ease of carry. But chucking one of many super rugged DSLR into a backpack with a prime is a really fun way to go.
having started out on a dslr, i definitely still really miss having an optical viewfinder. so having a high res electronic viewfinder was important for me when I hopped over to mirrorless. I miss dslr cameras every now and then but then i remember the weight of carrying them around and am a little happier with my mirrorless stuff.
I have my pentax spotmatic for when my a7ii gets to be too overwhelming or I just need to dumb down life a little bit. I love that tactile feel and control of old analog film.
I am planning a trip to Sydney, Australia during the 2024 total solar eclipse. While shopping for a telephoto lens to capture the event, I saw articles about the new mirrorless cameras. I was very curious so I ordered one from Canon, the company that made my DSLR and film SLR. I have received my mirrorless and started practicing with it. As impressive as it is, I still like my DSLR. For my needs, I think the mirrorless and DSLR cameras will work together hand in hand.
I find myself getting annoyed at the fact that I have to cover the lens (a mirrorless camera will allow light to fall on the sensor and so you have to put a lens cap back on if you're outside and I grew up hating lens caps)
I recently bought a Canon 5D mark II, 50mm F1.8, and 24-105 F4L, and despite being a $250, 15 year old camera, it takes fantastic pictures. Glass doesn’t go bad if it’s taken care of and the end result is indistinguishable between a DSLR and Mirrorless. You can nail focus with a single AF point. New mirrorless cameras just slightly extend the cameras ability to capture at extreme edge cases.
"At the end of the day it's just another screen to look at" 🎯 Precisely. One of the strongest reasons why I shot DSLRs 90% of the time during my "forest walks" 🌳 when I let my eyes and mind rest.
Started my journey with SLR, people said they'll never go away. Kinda like rangefinders, they're still used by some, quite some fun. Then entered DSLR's, man it was great! Now I'm using Fuji with old manual lenses. . Learned one thing on the way: no matter how you love that previous generation, you'll never win with technological advancement.
I love my DSLR’s because I know how to use them. The problem with many photographers is they rely on the camera rather than skill to take good pictures. These photographers have pushed manufacturers to focus on mirrorless cameras.
I started with an entry dslr that learned everything about photography with and kept for 8 years before outgrowing it, i used many slrs in the meantime and I’m glad that I gave film a try because it helped me learn so much more but now I use Sony a7iii. I’m a hobbyist photographer and I had to find the perfect balance for me between convenience, results and weight/size. Mirrorless is the perfect solution, I Dont care enough about tacktility or vibes or aesthetics, I just care about getting the shot without struggling or putting more effort than I should and carrying around more weight in gear than I weight. For me in the end, cameras are just the tools that we use in order to capture the photos that we want. I don’t feel an attachment to tools, whatever makes my life easier is what I’ll to go for. I’d suggest old dslrs at the prices they’re going to anyone trying out to see if they like photography. There’s no reason to spend thousands in gear when you hardly know if you like the hobby at all.
If you can commit to carry heavy DSLRs along with you, it stands a high chance you are true hobbyist. Otherwise, you'll stop very soon. I would say, even high end mirrorless, you lenses will still be bulky, it is the physics.of opticals
I got rid of my last DSLR years ago and don't see myself going back, but I definitely see the appeal. If I were still shooting professionally and had my eye glued to a viewfinder for hours a day I'd probably be less happy with EVFs. It also seems very likely to me that kids who grew up only knowing mirrorless cameras will discover DSLRs and appreciate them like people now appreciate vinyl.
DSLRs are dying like CDs, but a lot of people are going back further to use film SLRs, much like the vinyl resurgence. The single lens reflex is outdated for digital but when shooting film, it’s the height of technology.
What a great video!! Absolutely agree with you, there’s a significant different feeling in looking through a slr viewfinder compared to a mirrorless that cannot mimic this organic experience. Great comparison also with organic feelings of e-books or dumb phones agains iPads or smartphones!! Thanks for sharing this thought!! Greetings from Spain and happy snappin’!!
I think dslr isn't different enough from Mirrorless to make them that interesting for retro crowd to go to them, they probably will find attaching a hotshoe oVF or using a rangefinder be a more unique experience, thus the existence of hybrid VF on Fuji X100v. That on top of dslr's huge size make them have low staying power. Because minimalism usually isnt compatible with bulk and complicated buttons and features. People just want less Futzing around with their stuff.
When looking for a new camera, I took one look through the viewfinder of a mirror-less camera and I immediately knew it wasn't for me and my old eyes. I went the DSLR route and as a bonus, I can use all my old lenses without adapters.
I really don't think that mirrorless cameras are technically superior, they're just cheaper to build and that's why camera manufactures are moving away from DSLR's. From most sales stats that I've read as of 2023 the DSLR format is still popular and actually had a rise in sales.
interesting. I wonder then why today's mirrorless cameras are commanding double the prices of the dslrs before.. on the contrary I think shrinking down the tech (less moving parts) may actually be more costly on the manufacturing side of things, hence the shift to Thailand, Philippines, etc. take Sony, Nikon and Fuji mirrorless entry level camera pricing as an example
I think you're right. DSLRs will never go away. In fact, I'm guessing there will one day be a resurgence of DSLRs. I for one happen to prefer them over all others. The only preference I have outside of this is a rangefinder camera for medium format film cameras meant for non-studio use.
There's just something incredibly compelling about turning on your DSLR and immediately being able to press the shutter to capture the moment. Only the highest end mirrorless cameras are capable of near instant response and minimal lag, but it still doesn't have that fully real-time feel. DSLRs have a real presence, sometimes a bit of heft is a good thing. They feel like you could bring them into a war zone and maybe even defend yourself with them if needed ;). Batteries that last days... There are satisfying shutter and mirror slap sounds to be heard. Sure, mirrorless is great - I'm into it - and yes, DSLRs have downsides, but I could no more choose one over the other than I could choose a favourite son or daughter.
A great post and very helpful. I think that the main problem with DSLRs is that for wide angle use one has to have retrofocus lenses which are complex , expensive and often poor wide open. Mirrorless allows the use of simpler designs of great image quality. Also you have a choice of adapters allowing you to use great lenses like the old Leitz R series for their reflex Leica and Leicaflex cameras. Me - I will be outlived by my pro-grade Nikons and hopefully huge numbers of Nikon users will go mirrorless and replace their AF and AFD lenses causing a glut of great glass and a price collapse in the used market - my card is ready!
I have a Canon DSLR, and I just bought the r100. It is mirrorless, it weighs almost nothing, it has the full canon menu and I love it. However, I just ordered a new EF lens for my DSLR. 1.8 85 mm with image stabilization and AF, $150. As people are moving away from DSLRs, the EF mount for Canon is dropping in price. I'm never going to let go of my DSLR. But I love my mirrorless. With regard to form factor, I also just bought a Lumix bridge camera, and I'm surprised by how happy I am with the images from that. The bridge cameras do a lot of hand holding, taking care of you, and I think I'm going to have multiple form factors like this for the rest of my life. I really enjoy all of these different cameras because I interact with them differently. I get different shots. My big clunky DSLR gives me gorgeous images, it's just big and clunky.
James, I am the last person who will hate Mirrorless. I see the appeal and why they are so popular... but for me, a little bit like for your, it's about the experience and the fact I stare at a monitor 8 hours /day. When I go out and shoot, it's as much to enjoy the outdoors, to explore and observe; the LAST thing I want to do is stare into another screen. I don't want a screen between me and nature that is out there. I know many won't understand that. For many, it's all about Mirrorless providing you with the image you will get... I just don't care. I don't care if some of my photos don't come out as expected or perfect. I take it as a part of the learning process of the hobby. It's a drive for me to say.. "okay, I should have done this or that" and I make a mental note of conditions, lighting and try to become better. I feel like the whole concept of seeing exactly what you will get when you click, is good mostly for those in the business who don't want to miss the shot, and it's a question of $. I get that.... but I also think it will make many many newer photographers "lazy" and no really 'learn' the principles of photography. They'll simply rely on the camera doing most of it for them. ...but as a hobbyist, the DSLR is NEVER going away! It's integral to the WAY I like to explore and look through an actual lens... just like binoculars.
Thank you for the video. These days TH-camrs seem to be scared of the mirrorless onslaught and abstain from speaking out the unique strengths of DSLRs. You have done just that. So, congrats buddy. Couldn’t agree with you more. DSLR is the reason I reentered the beautiful world of photography as a hobbyist back in 2009. DSLRs facilitate viewing the subject instantly at the speed of light i.e., there is no lag. That’s where it is already a far ahead tech than mirrorless cameras. These toys can never ever catch up with the real cameras in this field, a field that matters most to knowledgeable photographers. Moreover, mirrorless cameras are nothing new; all the point & shoot cameras have been mirrorless since its inception decades ago. Likewise, the smartphone is also a mirrorless camera. No wonder many taunt the mirrorless cameras as just smartphone updates. Therefore, I’m a DSLR user forever. The recent trend of immature photographers to replace their DSLRs with mirrorless cameras has created a huge opportunity for real photographers to get their desired DSLRs cheap. So, I also picked up some of my dream bodies recently, in the process of getting some more. Thanks again.
I owned the first pre-production model of the Fujifilm S2 Pro in the UK. I used to to do training for Fuji and they gave me one. Great little camera for the time and the color science was gorgeous.
@@WhoIsSerafin Historically speaking, yes I think Pentax is commited to SLR (remember the behemoth Pentax 67)? And Nikon's first film camera, the Nikon Model I, wasa rangefinder (mirrorless).
The other thing to consider with the SLR vs mirror-less is, on the high end, overall quality. Light will naturally attenuate causing some slight softness on the image even at the short flange distances of an SLR. Not to mention things like 'Shuttershock'... SLRs will always have some place in the entry level space while mirrorless will dominate the mid and high end video world for obvious reasons, certain aspects of photography will still be best served with mirrorless cameras but those are more specific*... That said, I still have my K3iii and aside from the video side of things, it manages for the photography side.
You couldn't have worded this better. I'll always enjoy shooting with my Canon DSLRs, especially animal photography. If I want to look at an animal on a screen, I can do that on my phone. I want to be able to look at the animals through my zoom lens when taking photos, not a processed video feed.
I've now spent 4mos mirrorless and still find myself going back to my dslr. There is just something real about my viewfinder that the screen just doesn't replicate. I'm going to continue testing mirrorless to see if it grows on me after 6 mos, but right now I am not sold.
A mirrorless camera’s original selling point was its size. By removing the flip-up mirror mechanism of a DSLR, a mirrorless camera body can be made more compact. Not necessarily better. Just smaller. I went from a Canon T2i in 2010, to a Canon T8i in 2023. I thought about a Canon R10 mirrorless, but I would need to purchase an additional adapter to use my current lenses. The back LCD and EVF on a mirrorless both display the same visual information and to see than the EVF actually uses more battery power than the back LCD screen, I didn’t see the benefit in that. I’m accustomed to using the OVF as a power saving function in taking photos and I have no issues with its focusing system. When needed, I just switch to live view for the dual pixel AF, (which is the same focusing system found on a mirrorless) basically turning the DSLR into mirrorless mode. You get the best of both.
i shoot both digital and analog and in both worlds i use mirrorless and slr Type cameras. For shooting in my spare time dslrs and slrs are nice, but when i shoot client work i dislike them and i would choose always an mirrorless camera over others because i can see directly how the resulting image will look like before i press the shutter button especially when shooting concerts or other fast moving events that is a feature i wouldnt wanna miss.
I have 3 mirrorless fuji cameras. XT1, XT2, and the incredible power house GFX100s. The cameras i use for my paid work are STILL my Nikon D800e and D610. I'm never not going to have a DSLR. Today i just finished up a real estate shoot with my D610.
The Sony A99 DON'T have an optical view finder, it's an electronic view finder. It only use the mirror for the focus electronic. Most DSLR from Sony are build with EFV. If you look inside, the mirror is transparent to visible light.
I appreciate what you're saying. And I can't criticise people for their tastes. Some great cameras happen to be DSLRs, such as the Pentax K-3 monochrome, or the Leica S, or the Nikon D500. But, at the end of the day, would you choose a DSLR over mirrorless? They make more noise, they are bulkier, there is no true WYSIWYG, and their lenses are bigger. You tell me. I think Pentax can innovate the DSLR further. But will they?
Also throwing this out there, the Sony a99 was NOT a DSLR (really). It was a weird Hybrid of Mirrorless and "DSLR" that Sony cooked up in its Sony way (Back when Sony actually tried new and different things against the Industry Trends) known as a SLT. SLTs were effectively a Mirrorless camera with a split prism for AutoFocus only. It had an EVF opposed to an OVF and other Mirrorless specific features like Focus Peaking; and there was no way to look through the camera "optically" without hitting the Sensor. Sony's last actual DSLR was the Sony a580 released in 2010. From 2010-2016 Sony made the SLT but everyone incorrectly referred to them as DSLRs (kinda in the same way that people still do the same thing with Mirrorless cameras today) because they still used a SLR mount lens and Phase Detect Autofocus System. As a Sony a99 (and a37) owner the SLT are defiantly "something else" and as much a Sony Unicorn camera as something like the Sony f828 or CD Mavica.
Yes, good note! Others have let me know that too. For some reason I only remembered their entry and mid level SLTs and didn't realize their top of the line ended up slt as well. It really points to their transition to mirrorless as leading up years before.
1:02 No. No. No. What you see is not what you "get" with a DSLR. You only get to see the scene as it is IRL, not what the picture is going to look like. In case of digital photography - DR is much lower than what our eyes see, and any adjustment to the exposure is only shown by metering system.. which is something I completely forgot about ever since using mirrorless, it practically eliminates trial and error associated with exposure adjustments. I have seen so many people "chimping" with DSLR's because the picture mioght come out completely different than what you've seen through the viewfinder, and then some - some even prefer using "live view" mode on their screens to shoot pictures, especially if the shooting angles are extreme...
I know some people are super fond of the ability to see the preview of their exposure in the EVF. Things like focus peaking in the EVF is also super helpful for many.
Agree that DSLRs are a great value used for those who don't mind a dim view through the lens in dim lighting, and the blackout when the mirror swings up to take the shot. There are only two things you can get from an optical viewfinder that are hard to match with an electronic finder. On a bright day you can get a bright image, and there is never any lag for the image. The lack of viewfinder delay is crucial for sports, news, and fashion pros whose living depends on their ability to capture the right instant, or rather anticipate it before the mirror blacks out the finder to take the shot. Canon and Nikon only were willing to invest in top pro DSLRs to serve this top end of the market. With the 120Hz Z9 finder, Nikon has given up on making pro cameras with a mirror. As electronic viewfinders are accepted as good enough by a newer generation of top pros, nobody but maybe a few nostalgia buffs will be willing to pay for and carry around a big, heavy extra chunk of glass, and give up on a finder that's bright and clear shooting in the dark, and doesn't black out when you take a picture. When sales drop off and inventory clears out of Canon's 1DXIII and 5DIV, their pro replacements will be mirrorless. If "tactile, organic and low tech" enthusiasts are suspicious of electronic viewfinders, maybe some company will find enough of a market to support hobbyist enthusiast cameras. I think it will be a very small niche, unless there's some nostalgic resurgence like with vinyl records.
My first Full-Frame was a second hand 5DII. And it has opened up all sorts of venues for me! Homescanning film. Adapting old NIkon Primes to use for literally everything. Event photography, sports, portraits, weddings. And the damn thing just works (even though AF is bad...)!!
Hey, Wasabi hooked us up with a 10% off coupon for their batteries! Use coupon code "snappiness". bit.ly/WasabiPowerBatteries
They’ll have to pry my 5D Classic from my cold dead hands
That's the spirit 😄
Did your mirror fall off😂. I heard many had to glue it back on. 😂
@@linjicakonikon7666 fun fact amen is a reduced version of the Amorah. Sun god. It's all Saturn and planetary worship in disguise 🤔
Same here, but it’s my D700. I’m thinking about getting a backup, but if I do it’s another D700 😂
I have the same sentiment about the Nikon d700
I came into photography in the mirrorless age. I’ve enjoyed my DSLR experience better. Working in IT I’m screen bound all week and it’s nice to have a optical viewfinder.
I feel that
It? Perhaps you can shed light on how much damage all these electronic views finders are or are not? I think it's a subject worth discussing. My eyesight for reading got weaker the last few years but I'm 50. Is there a way to set up a electric VF with a blue screen shield? Hope this comment makes Sense.
@@unbroken1010 IT - information technology
@@unbroken1010 My left eye is weaker and i believe it's from all those years i looked into the the optical viewfinder. With mirrorles it's a bless, i can look in the main screen, no need to use only one eye
I spent 35 years in prepress, the last 20 or so in digital staring into to large Macs and a PC (jobs were OS determinate) and not, if I spend any length of time looking "through" an EVF, my eyes together get very tired (I assume it's an optic nerve/brain interlacing thing. AMEN!
I started in electronics in the mid 1960s. This was a time when the transistor was moving from novelty to mainstream. There were similar arguments about the transistor vs the thermionic valve, which at the time was the predominant device in electronic systems, particularly those requiring higher power. The joke going around in the military environment in which I worked was that transistors were just a passing phase and we'd soon get back to valves. I think the same joke could be applied here.
Like musicians have done :)
I'm old, really old. My first use of a decent camera was in 1968. I stared with a 6x6 camera and later 35mm SLR. When I finally got serious I went to a 6x6 SLR. That was a simply wonderful period of professional photography. I went through several early Sony cameras in the early digital era. I eventually got a DSLR in 2008. I simply loved that camera, I was back shooting the way I always had but with really nice digital results. I eventually quadrupled my pixels to 24.2, and I only did that because I thought it would make a big difference. It was nicer but not as much as I thought it might be. I will still use my mirrorless pocket cameras but the DSLRs will be around in my collection for whatever time I have left. You are right about the batteries that are not OEM, they work just fine. Good video.
I had an Agfa box camera.
The optical viewfinder is an intimate experience for me. Even cinematographers peer down the barrel of their 100K$ viewfinder.
DSLR's are never going away. Even if everyone stopped production, there have been so many made we could never burn through them fast enough before DSLRs became cool again and then companies started to make them again.
The same way that some people choose to listen to music on vinyl or ride a motorcycle, DSLR's offer a different user experience. Personally I love going back to my DSLR and finding it a refreshingly stripped down and straight forward shooting experience.
I believe one day it will awaken and reborn like film camera nowadays.
Yeah Smal lCompanies will start producing them in 20 years like some are making modern Film cameras that feel oldschool right now@@raymondchan3587
But no company makes new film SLR. Something becoming popular again doesnt mean it gonna rule again in the market. Dslr is dead like film cameras@@raymondchan3587
I bought a Nikon D3s last year for 400 bucks. FOUR. HUNDRED. DOLLARS. It had 7500 shutter auctions. That's the car equivalent of buying a very well maintained 10 year old porsche 911 with 10k miles for like 7k. The deals on DSLRs is amazing. Just amazing. And bec people think it's the old crazy shit means people in the know will be able to but flagship models and lenses for basically pennies on the dollar
Love my D4. Switched from mirrorless and picked it up for $450. And there’s so many great lenses available for cheap!
Nice, i have the ‘little’ brother of the d3: the d700
DSLRs are great to purchase second hand. I have the D3 and DF and both still work incredibly well, and still take great images. I personally love that Pentax is committed to the future of the DSLR.
Pentax was the first market mover to produce DSLR in history back in the days. D3 is definitely a tank.
My reason for going with a full-frame mirrorless over DSLR is that I started out shooting on film, and I wanted a digital body for my film camera glass. The shorter flange distance, making for easier adaptrage, and the focusing assistance features for my manual focus lenses help a lot here.
Even putting aside the flange distance issues, unfortunately most DSLRs do not have a split prism and/or microprism focusing assist features in their ground glass, as the DSLRs were built for autofocus. I'd love trying out a DSLR with some optical manual focus assist features though. It would make it feel more like my film SLRs.
Although, as much as I loathe to admit it, the digital viewfinder of the mirrorless wins for focusing in low light compared to my film SLRs...
Depending on the DSLR, sometimes there are aftermarket focusing screens that have microprism/split-image available. Definitely seen them for some Nikon and Pentax cameras, ones with interchangeable screens.
Canon 1d bodies too. I think even the 5d bodies could swap focusing screens!!
Yeah, after my switch from canon dslr to mirorless fujifilm, i was shocked how easier it is to shot with vintage lenses on mirorless
Sounds like you picked the wrong brand. If you had picked Nikon you could use their vintage glass on all nikon dslrs and pretty much all mirrorless cameras.
@@SuperbustrI already had Konica glass and Konica SLRs, so the Sony mirrorless (A7II) was a good fit, as the Hexanons won't adapt with intact infinity focus to basically any DSLR out there...
Not to mention I got it pretty cheap. Seems to me that Sony full-frame mirrorless are the cheapest in it's category on the used market. Choosing Sony is also kind of poetic in that Minolta bought Konica which in turn was bought by Sony! But that was just by chance.
In the end though I wasn't really looking for any particular brand. Any full-frame mirrorless (or DSLR, if flange distance wasn't an issue) that I could fit my lenses to, for as little money as possible, was the goal here.
Nikons definitely in the runnings if I ever go looking for specifically a DSLR though. I think they even have models with exchangeable focusing screens, which would be neat for split prism reasons.
While I can understand where you're coming from, my main issue with DSLRs are the front/back focus issues (non-existent on mirrorless).
It’s fairly simple to calibrate, especially with prime lenses, but I get where you’re coming from.
Those issues only really surfaced once resolution was pushed up past 16 MP (APS-C) / 36 MP (FF). And that was already a LOT more than the vast majority need. But the manufacturers keep pushing the resolution up because they have to sell new cameras, and brainwash people into thinking they need it through their advertising. And yes, most large corporations keep psychologists on staff in their marketing teams so they can actually, literally brainwash you through their ads.
I wouldn't say non existant.
I would totally use SLR if it wasn't so big. I grew up on Pentax, then I took a long pause from photography, but last year I wanted to get back to it and bought a used mirrorless and it completely transformed the way I shoot and behave. I take the camera everywhere because it's much smaller and lighter, therefore I enjoy shooting with it more.
If I could get a full frame DSLR the same shape and size as an OM-1 I'd do it in a heartbeat
The best camera is the one you bring with you!
@@mxnevermindSony afc
"It'll keep getting kicked around in secondhand and antique markets and maybe a couple of boutique manufacturers" is a funny definition of "never dying". With that logic, what technology has ever died? You can say the same things about Edison Cylinders.
Loving your thoughts on "old" tech. It's funny to me how frequently people obsessively buy the newest gear, but I think Ben Horne said it best when he mentioned he never has to worry about upgrading and updating his 8x10 view camera. The tech is perfect. He just gets new film and keeps the hardware in good working order, and that's enough. Personally, I think this is a wise sentiment to live by
The basic of love to photography is to love our environment, so he choose to produce less waste.
Another advantage of old tech is that it is not connected to the internet/WiFi/cloud and it can't spy on you.
@@raymondchan3587film isn’t exactly eco-friendly
Ahhhh…Wasabi batteries, the batteries that never stop bloating 3:44
Not going to lie, I use my phone more and more... I designated my Pentax as my "Noir" camera and only use it in monochrome. Surprisingly... I used it more in that way.
I like DSLRs and still have one. However it's incorrect to say WYSIWYG with reflex cameras, in fact only the top professional models showed 100% of the image. DSLRs are also dependent on the brightness of the lens, especially when manually focusing. That said, in good light an optical viewfinder provides good feedback and is pleasure to use.
95 percent is close enough. Step back a foot.
@@unbroken1010 Yes, and with any dSLR from the last 10 years, there's plenty of pixels to crop that 5% out if there's something that intrudes. Also, a lot of dSLRs from that same time frame also have the ability to route the image onto the rear LCD screen, so you'd get 100% coverage like that. (Obviously, that's frequently not a great choice)
@@SmallSpoonBrigade it don't bother me, I know what. I want in my frame.
My D850 will stay alive for decades..
The only reason for me, cameras are too expensive. So I can't switch.
A huge pro for DSLR is that you don‘t have any „lag“ when you look through the viewfinder instead pf live view
I hope DSLRs never go! I been using them since I bought my Pentax K10d. Now I have a Pentax KP and love it. Hardly ever use the electronic shutter. Thanks for sharing! Always great content!
I've picked up camera fairly recently, in serious manner, I tried different kinds of brands and ecosystems borrowing my campus, friends' gears alike. There's just something about DSLR that hits me, one of them is the Optical Viewfinder to me being superior and easier to work with for longer periods of time, you may not have the ability to have live exposure of your shoot and have to recompose a lot, but I think that's a fair trade I can live with. And what's best with Mirrorless being in the future, is DSLRs are getting cheaper by then body and lens wise. 😳😳
Great content!
My two rule in this issue: For portability, convenience and ease of use (minus the size and weight) - go with mirrorless. If you want to learn and experience professional photography the way our ma and grandpa did in their time (plus the size/ weight and all those exposure metering test shots and guess work) - go with DSLR. Needless to say, I always see mirrorless cam technology as a cross breed between professional DSLR and point-and-shoot smart phones combined.
My nephew, who is a film camera enthusiast, is using my old Nikon F3 with the old manual focus lenses, while I have been using Olympus mirrorless for 10 years now. The younger generation seems to appreciate old analog technology.
And are going broke using it. I think the hype won`t stick.
agree - the middle ground is the marriage of both, ergo the Z6 cameras or those of Fujis
There is so much to experience through the viewfinder.
I have a broken Zenit 3M with the helios 44. It's no good to take pictures with, the shutter is all gummed up. But sometimes i just take it with me and walk around and just look through the viewfinder. It just lets me zone out and look at things trough a different perspective.
"All I have is a piece of hard rock candy. But it's not for eatin'. It's just for lookin' through" TOJW :)
I just enjoy the process of taking pictures on a DSLR compared to my mirrorless cameras. And as a hobby, it is important to enjoy the process too. To each their own.
One has a mirror and one doesnt. Same difference Not like we are talking digital vs film here.
film.
Exactly, we are taking photo instead of caputring frame in video shooting.
This is why I use a canon 5D mk 1 for fun a lot, the clunk of the shutter and the optical viewfinder are just, nice.
For work I use my mirrorless sony setup
They practically both take great pictures. So how is a DSLR process much better than a Mirrorless? Let me guess? Since you never used one, you bashed it to justified keeping your DSLR right?
I'm still working with one DSLR (in contrast to several mirrorless cameras), but if you work with them professionally they come with their own set of unique problems and quirks I wan't go in the detail now, so I won't cry when they go away. The sheer fact that you can mount ANY vintage lens on ANY mirrorless camera made me sold instantly...
I live in a tourist area and 99% of the many cameras that I see people using are DSLRs. It's only a tiny sample size but I think that they will be around for a long time yet. Honestly though, i grew up with film and still regularly use film rangefinders, SLRs and mirrorless cameras. My DSLRs are just gathering dust as i don't find a reason to use them over the others. That's just me though. I'm not hating or telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do. I get it that some people prefer them and that's cool. I love your videos and reviews of cameras that I lusted over but couldn't afford back in the day.
I picked up a new 6DM2 during a sale in mid-2020 before I started hiring myself out for basic photography jobs, not just because I wasn't quite sold on the advantages of a mirrorless camera (I still don't do vlogging), but because even before the sale, an equivalent mirrorless (in terms of still photo capabilities) was at least 1 1/2 times the price. Combined with cheaper (significantly older) full-frame lenses, it was kind of a no-brainer. Since then, maybe carrying around a chunkier DSLR over a sleeker mirrorless has convinced potential customers "Oh, this guy knows what he's doing, look at the size of his gear," (same for big old lens hoods), maybe not, but there's not a compelling reason to pay the steep entry price of a broadly equivalent mirrorless body (plus a relatively inexpensive adapter for my EF lenses). They're not going anywhere for me.
A pro with a great but tiny mirrorless could put it in a cage with a wooden focus wheel, extra battery mount, external screen with hdmi cable, and xlr adapter. Then the client would feel they got what they paid for!
@@editingsecretsDidn’t Sony do just that with one of their earlier small “pro” video cameras? They got complaints from videographers doing work at weddings and such, that they looked just like the dad with the Handicam, and they wanted something that looked a little beefier.
Mate, worked newspapers for 10 years. Nothing beats a DSLR. I get downvoted everywhere for the opinion but part of the rush for me was living the moments I saw, not watching them on a tiny TV. I know how an exposure will look before I take it - all I need is to see a scene and control over my ASA, iris and shutter speed. I feel seeing what some grainy sensor thinks I should see takes me away from it - people focus so much on the final product, but forget the experience of capturing it.
Perhaps it's an oversimplification but with a mirrorless camera I'm not there anymore. I'm watching it on TV.
I see your point and agree for the most part, but where I think it will be hard to compete is autofocus and tracking technology. As camera systems become smarter, integrating algorithms to identify subjects should simply be easier in a purely electronic sensor.
So I think it depends on the use case. Slow, methodical photography should be just as - if not more - tailored to SLRs, with a more tangible photo experience. This is also probably the reason a lot of people go back to exclusively shooting on film nowadays.
On the other hand, sports photography, movement, wildlife or fashion I would assume are areas where the subtleties of better autofocus tech will really add up over time, especially if you're using photography as a profession and your paycheck is measured in efficiency.
there is something nice about a focused, single experience. i enjoy shooting film on a pentax k1000 even though i take photos other ways too. looking forward to getting into developing and printing too, it's just a satisfying craft
As a Nikon Z9 shooter, I see no advantage to having a mirror. I do a lot of shallow depth of field still life photography and having the ability to punch in and magnify my focal point so I can get it dialed into exactly the right spot is absolute magic and saves me a lot of time over the old method of racking focus through a subject, because the image in a mirrored camera is too small and inexact to give me what I need to see. I also love what Nikon has done with their linear focus options on Z lenses. This offers a level of precision impossible in DSLR land without having to pull out a macro rack. I do not miss my D850, not even a little bit.
That's definitely one of the many advantages mirrorless cameras have. I am personally fond of the shorter flange distances and what that is allowing with modern lens design. That's my favorite part of mirrorless.
The price/performance is not justify at the moment. If money is not a problem, that's fine. For autofocus, I don't care. I enjoy using manual focus and I have good eyesight.
I honestly don't understand why your channel isn't getting more subs. I mean, you're outputting such an interesting content on regular basis and so few people notice it...
I’m still more than happy with my D700 and don’t feel any pressure to upgrade. Literally the only reason I want a mirrorless camera is for lens adaptability. That’s it.
Honestly, the issue I find with DSLRs is that shooting in really low or high light situations can be a pain, cause if you want a fast shutter speed, you need tons of light, and that light, just as a screen would, strains your eyes, but even faster. And shooting in low light with a viewfinder, forget it. With modern mirrorless cameras having high resolution, low latency 120/240Hz OLEDs as viewfinders, lag is imperceptible, but you have the power of control when it comes to lighting and being able to see in really bright or dark situations. Also, you get a live view of your exposure, so even though with DSLR, you see what you get as far as framing, with mirrorless, you see what you get with framing, exposure, contrast, any film simulation or filters you have, just- EVERYTHING. You can also have overlays and live zooms, all in the viewfinder, which makes working with manual focus much easier.
As a type of camera, I do agree DSLRs will remain relevant, especially the special ones that can split light between the sensor and your viewfinder for recording video, but I think they're going to become niche and irrelevant.
Also, since the flange distance on mirrorless is way less, you can get adapters to use SLR/DSLR lenses on mirrorless cameras for cheap, so the migration can be nearly seamless if you're a SLR/DSLR photographer with many lenses looking to move over to mirrorless.
I think i can agree. For me it's still helpful to take photos trough a good electronic vf because i can see my mistakes immediatly. But after (still) using a number of Sony SLTs and ILCEs (by the way: the A99II wasn't a DSLR - it has EVF. The last Sony DSLR was the A580 in 2010) i recently bought the Pentax K3 III additionally and i'm enjoying this great OVF very much.
Came to the comments for this. Love my a99II and Minolta a7 combo.
Ain’t nobody taking my 6D
Recently took a 40D for a spin and it was such fun to use. Big, heavy but solid and comfortable to hold. 10MP RAW images that look 👌
That's a great solid camera.
They cheap now m how are jpg?! What your max on iso?
Yooo, I feel that. My brother wants a Nikon D300s and I know a D700.
@@unbroken1010 Hi. ISO maxes out at 1600 although I think it will extend to 3200 but I’ve not shot in low light yet. Also, I shoot RAW and make my jpgs later but will give it a try :)
40D is one of my favorite DSLR in my collection
Lol, I love reading these comments. Mostly because I'm old and I've been reading the same comments for many years applied to photographic technology. I'm still using medium format film camera with a WLVF (waste level view finder). Furthet, I'm also still committing photography with 35mm film camera. I enjoy using them and the pace of life they represent. I remember when they said the medium format was dead at the hands of the 35mm and the 35mm was dead at the hands of the DSLR. Does technology, once developed, ever really die?
@@snappiness... I started my photography journey in the 1970s with 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 5x4, and 10x8. I was a late adopter of DSLRs and an even later adopter of mirrorless cameras. I now have a huge collection (I'm worse than One Month Two Cameras), and as much as I love using my various mirrorless cameras, I love my DSLRs and SLRs far more ... I love the size, ergonomics, reliability, construction, and tactile controls.
Much like the "film is not dead" analogue followers (myself included), I believe there are lots of people who believe in mirrors ... Mirrors are not dead, and my Canon EOS1, 5d, 5d mk2, and 10d are testament too.
the EVF does look through the lens aswell but it represents what the sensor sees rather than the mirror,... in that case the evf is actually more representative..
this is what I think of when he said, “what you see is what you get”. No, what you get is what the sensor sees. so no matter how much the photographer can see, you will be limited by the sensor.
More representative of the output image, but not more representative of reality. Looking through an ovf is just like looking through a monocle where just your eyes are the sensor, and the light does not have to meet the camera’s sensor, then to be displayed onto your eyes
WYSWYG is a term for the old range finder & twin lens user who sometimes only got close to what they wanted because the film image frame was a different path from the viewfinder path or lens used. A mirror less also alters the image you see by the sensor settings and adjust for brightness white balance, and noise. But then yes it will also be the image recorder to.
These markets seem to swing in cycles; I remember when digital was gaining a lot of traction and you could buy high end film cameras really cheap ( Hasselblad, Mamiya 7 ) but then film enthusiasts recaptured some of that market and now look at where prices are. I like mirrorless for some applications, and DSLR for others. Bonus: when a lot of people swing away from DSLR cameras, there are bargains to be had on lenses !
That's a good comparison. And I agree. I love the cheap old DSLR stage we're in right now :D
Lenses are soooo cheap if you know what you need. Just look at Nikon E-Series glass, for example.
@@snappiness It depends if you're selling your gear to buy mirrorless or not. I personally got kind of screwed selling some used gear, so I decided to use it as a trade in to get a 2nd hand Canon 70-200mm F4L. I had the 70-200mm F2.8L IS and this was just kind of a nice lense to have if I didn't really need the extra light. I was also able to get Tamron's F3.5 180mm macro lens for a little over $200 which was quite the deal as it's in very good condition.
But, I do think that the camera manufacturers are premature, I do think that Canon would do well to cut back to 2 or 3 dSLR lines (1 beginner, 1 cropped pro body and 1 full-frame pro body) and to just manufacture their mirrorless bodies similar to how they added the EF-S standard years back where any EF-S body could handle both EF-S and EF lenses, but only the EF-S bodies could handle the EF-S lenses. Since only some lenses even benefit from not having the mirror anyways, it makes little sense to force people to replace their entire lens collection for a body that might be significantly worse than the one they've got. I've got somewhere around $4k worth of lenses, if my options are sticking with the bodies and lenses I've got, or throwing it all out and starting over, I'm sticking what what I've got. It will probably be many years before the bodies I've got are no longer good enough to do a great job of what I'm likely to want to do.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade That's exactly what Canon is doing, with the 1DXIII and 5DIV still available for pros who want to look through a prism, and the EF to RF lens adapter for the investment in lenses to carry over to the new bodies.
I made my first big upgrades in years in 2019 when I went to the local camera shop to buy an EOS 6D Mark II. They tried like hell to sell me on the mirrorless but I just wasn't having it. I still haven't seen a mirrorless camera I actually enjoy using. I understand the "advantages" but if one of the disadvantages is that I just don't enjoy it, I'm not buying it.
Sold my film camera kit about 15 years ago and never got into photography again. But planning to travel extensively over the next few years I started to look at new affordable cameras, all of them mirrorless. I don’t like the viewfinder experience so discovering your site is an absolute breath of fresh air as I don’t know the used DSLR market at all.
I may own a Nikon one day, yeah!!
Just look up camera reviews from five years ago about the latest and greatest DSLRs. You'll soon have your shopping list!
I used both the Nikon D50 and D90. Most fun I’ve ever had with cameras, I have previously used a Sony RX100 ii and I just didn’t quite enjoy it. The old DSLRs are satisfying in a way that modern cameras can’t replicate. Also damm gotta love the CCD in the D50
The D90 was one my first DSLRs and it's till very popular. I sold mine for more than I bought it for new. Same for the Canon 50D. They are some of the best midrange ones every made. My wife does photography and I do professional videography and streaming. I still use a D7100 and wife uses a D7500.
I love my DSLR, I love looking through the viewfinder because I'm looking at the screen all day(Software engineer), and it's nothing like looking at a display. you literally see what the camera sees through the lens. and of course the battery life. and the sound, the feeling of the shutter add another spice to the experience that mirrorless cameras never give you.
i own a 2006 Nikon D80, and despite its age, it's 10 megapixel sensor is so satisfying to shoot on. the sound is unmatched and it still takes great pictures with accurate color science
The Nikon D7200 remains to be my primary Workhorse camera (but I still shoot some older Nikon/other brand older DSLRs on a fairly regular basis too). I have a newer Nikon Z50 mirrorless camera and its great for some very specific situations; but its typically a lot pickier on AF on lenses too. In a situation where I had to pick only one camera to have with it'd still be the D7200. That camera from 2016 just blows me away with how solid of a workhorse it is to this day.
I can say the same for the nearly identical 7100, which is often still my go-to for vacation stuff.
Photography is an industry thrive on feels and nostalgia, so nothing is ever truly die.
Your camera can take color? Give monochrome film/filter. Camera move from film to digital? Give film simulation
I would love to see an affordable digital range finder. Similar to Fuji xpro series, but with a real analogue range finder, something like Epson RD1.
Pixii seems nice. Not affordable though sadly.
Get and on x pro. Probably the best choice. :)
@@ad_fletch Small batch and made in France… it’s a niche product, considering those constraints it’s not that expensive.
I completely agree. I was just telling a friend the other day that no matter how many mirrorless cameras I use, I just can't break myself of my old-timey SLR's (Digital and Film). All their various dials and levers. Lets not even start to talk about how perfectly placed all the buttons are on the 5D Mark IV and 1DX line of DSLR's. Yeah...can't let those go.
Working pro for 35+ years. SLRs, then DSLRs, and recently mirrorless. Mirrorless is driving my business now, mostly because of advances in autofocus, but for my studio and landscape work my big FF DSLR (Pentax K-1) will always be my go-to. There is just something astonishing about looking through a beautiful optical viewfinder that the younger crowd (who may never have picked up a top-shelf DSLR) would be blown away by. Keep up the great vids!
Right, most have never touched a Canon 1dx or equivalent Nikon... They destroy almost everything out here today under 3.5k to this day.
What is the benefit of an optical Viewfinder? They don’t show you your actual exposure, you get blinded if you look thru them at a bright light source (shooting into the sun etc), they don’t show a usable image if you are shooting in very low light etc.. why would anyone want that other than nostalgia?
@@amirleon996 you can get a Sony a7iii or canon eos-r for like $1500 that blows that out of the water
@@RustyShackleford9000 no advantage for me. true the EVF sucks battery, or what I have experienced with Fuji will be some weird dancing lines with frame rates but thats about it. you get better SOOC images out of mirrorless, less editing, more accurate representation of exposure, depth of field, etc.
I love mirrorless and will never go back. EVFs do things that you just cannot do with DSLRs and never could with SLRs. Once in a while I do long exposures with a 10 stop ND filter. When I look through the EVF of my Sony a7ii I can see what the exposed image will look like with my shutter and aperture settings and make adjustments. Previous to this I had an a350, a DSLR and it was always a process of estimate and adjust from exposure to exposure. On top of that the bodies are smaller and lighter. The lenses are smaller and lighter. Even for a full frame mirrorless, like the a7ii.
As someone that doesn't really do much photography as astrophotography, i definitely see it as a far cooler thing to actually look trough a optical viewfinder. This is better because fainter stars are not always picked up by the live view, but trough the optical view finder, you basically have a eyepiece wich means you can enjoy the beauty of space while the camera is attached. Funny enough i am not old either, i am from the rather quick snappy generation, but i so much preffer actual cameras over smartphones to begin with. And i also enjoy old SLR, especially because it is a massive help to correctly focus the image, wich a separate view finder doesn't give you. Something is cool about thinking that film photography is bad but discovering it can be high resolution.
It`s not like you`re focussing on singular stars in the dark, so that`s a nonsense argument.
Dslr`s are a thing of the past, they`re obsolete and will never return.
@@brugj03 well infact the orion theta stars are very bright and visible. You do realise that observational astronomy is a thing so as long as a camera offer you a optical viewfinder, you get to see what you normally see with a eyepiece, except you can take a picture. The moon is also very bright, so for lunar and solar photography i still think DSLRs are relevant. And it's not a thing of the past. It's a preference.
@@brugj03 I find the brightest star and focus on that. Once set, just point the camera where you want. The downside of live-view, for me, is the effect of looking at a bright object when working in near total darkness.
I do a lot of nighttime timelapse so that means setting the camera up, start the timelapse and leaving well alone. Sometimes, I may even go home for a couple of hours and come back later. Yea, I live out in the sticks and I can do that. The shutter sound helps me find the camera again.
Each to his own I guess. Then again, cost is a major factor for me. I get all the bang for my buck I need with my D800.
As for obsolete, I'm always skeptical when the people selling the product say that. From them it's little more than a fashion statement. My camera does what I want it to do and I intend keeping it until it dies.
@@PhilJonesIII nice ! You could consider yourself a amateur astrophotographer since you do rather night landscape photography (so constellations and milky way). Time to time, do you also stack your images to get a better wide shot of the milky way ?
Anyways, your eyes are far better than any live view and from my experience you can see the alot of stars with your naked eye trough a telescope, so i am pretty sure it's the same for a DSLR. I also tried to photograph the orion nebula (quick snap) and the optical viewfinder was a really big help to focus my Canon lens (it doesn't mark "infinite" so it's not all the way one way).
@@photonik-luminescence I've used Deep Sky Stacker in the past. Managed some half decent shots of Phalades star cluster. My limitations at the time were storage space and a steam-powered computer. My timelapse efforts were eating up disk space like no tomorrow so I eventually treated myself to an 8TB external drive.
There seems to be any number of packages for photo-stacking now. Lots of reviews but not quite the same until you try for yourself.
And yes, infinity isn't infinity which is a shame. Objects so far away that they are no longer where you are looking should qualify in my books.
I revisited DSLR this year and it was a total joy. My main kit is mirrorless digital and RF film for ease of carry. But chucking one of many super rugged DSLR into a backpack with a prime is a really fun way to go.
having started out on a dslr, i definitely still really miss having an optical viewfinder. so having a high res electronic viewfinder was important for me when I hopped over to mirrorless. I miss dslr cameras every now and then but then i remember the weight of carrying them around and am a little happier with my mirrorless stuff.
I have my pentax spotmatic for when my a7ii gets to be too overwhelming or I just need to dumb down life a little bit. I love that tactile feel and control of old analog film.
Weight ? D850 and Z8 same weight , same size, more or less, and ... lenses heavier and bigger !!! Not speaking tha added adaptor.
They may never die but like film cameras they will be on life support.
I am planning a trip to Sydney, Australia during the 2024 total solar eclipse. While shopping for a telephoto lens to capture the event, I saw articles about the new mirrorless cameras. I was very curious so I ordered one from Canon, the company that made my DSLR and film SLR. I have received my mirrorless and started practicing with it. As impressive as it is, I still like my DSLR. For my needs, I think the mirrorless and DSLR cameras will work together hand in hand.
I find myself getting annoyed at the fact that I have to cover the lens (a mirrorless camera will allow light to fall on the sensor and so you have to put a lens cap back on if you're outside and I grew up hating lens caps)
I recently bought a Canon 5D mark II, 50mm F1.8, and 24-105 F4L, and despite being a $250, 15 year old camera, it takes fantastic pictures. Glass doesn’t go bad if it’s taken care of and the end result is indistinguishable between a DSLR and Mirrorless. You can nail focus with a single AF point. New mirrorless cameras just slightly extend the cameras ability to capture at extreme edge cases.
"At the end of the day it's just another screen to look at" 🎯 Precisely. One of the strongest reasons why I shot DSLRs 90% of the time during my "forest walks" 🌳 when I let my eyes and mind rest.
Started my journey with SLR, people said they'll never go away. Kinda like rangefinders, they're still used by some, quite some fun. Then entered DSLR's, man it was great! Now I'm using Fuji with old manual lenses. .
Learned one thing on the way: no matter how you love that previous generation, you'll never win with technological advancement.
That was a smooth segue to a sponsorship spot.
But worth it. Wasabi rocks for hard to find or expensive battery replacements.
I love my DSLR’s because I know how to use them. The problem with many photographers is they rely on the camera rather than skill to take good pictures. These photographers have pushed manufacturers to focus on mirrorless cameras.
I started with an entry dslr that learned everything about photography with and kept for 8 years before outgrowing it, i used many slrs in the meantime and I’m glad that I gave film a try because it helped me learn so much more but now I use Sony a7iii.
I’m a hobbyist photographer and I had to find the perfect balance for me between convenience, results and weight/size.
Mirrorless is the perfect solution, I Dont care enough about tacktility or vibes or aesthetics, I just care about getting the shot without struggling or putting more effort than I should and carrying around more weight in gear than I weight.
For me in the end, cameras are just the tools that we use in order to capture the photos that we want. I don’t feel an attachment to tools, whatever makes my life easier is what I’ll to go for.
I’d suggest old dslrs at the prices they’re going to anyone trying out to see if they like photography. There’s no reason to spend thousands in gear when you hardly know if you like the hobby at all.
If you can commit to carry heavy DSLRs along with you, it stands a high chance you are true hobbyist. Otherwise, you'll stop very soon. I would say, even high end mirrorless, you lenses will still be bulky, it is the physics.of opticals
I hope you're right 😊 we need to support Pentax in order to keep them in business and keep their prices affordable
I got rid of my last DSLR years ago and don't see myself going back, but I definitely see the appeal. If I were still shooting professionally and had my eye glued to a viewfinder for hours a day I'd probably be less happy with EVFs. It also seems very likely to me that kids who grew up only knowing mirrorless cameras will discover DSLRs and appreciate them like people now appreciate vinyl.
DSLRs are dying like CDs, but a lot of people are going back further to use film SLRs, much like the vinyl resurgence. The single lens reflex is outdated for digital but when shooting film, it’s the height of technology.
Don't forget Leica still makes the medium format S3 - that's also a DSLR.
Hey that's a good catch! I did not even check into medium format doh
What a great video!! Absolutely agree with you, there’s a significant different feeling in looking through a slr viewfinder compared to a mirrorless that cannot mimic this organic experience. Great comparison also with organic feelings of e-books or dumb phones agains iPads or smartphones!! Thanks for sharing this thought!! Greetings from Spain and happy snappin’!!
I think dslr isn't different enough from Mirrorless to make them that interesting for retro crowd to go to them, they probably will find attaching a hotshoe oVF or using a rangefinder be a more unique experience, thus the existence of hybrid VF on Fuji X100v.
That on top of dslr's huge size make them have low staying power.
Because minimalism usually isnt compatible with bulk and complicated buttons and features.
People just want less Futzing around with their stuff.
Give it time. DSLRs will those hipsters hard
When looking for a new camera, I took one look through the viewfinder of a mirror-less camera and I immediately knew it wasn't for me and my old eyes. I went the DSLR route and as a bonus, I can use all my old lenses without adapters.
I really don't think that mirrorless cameras are technically superior, they're just cheaper to build and that's why camera manufactures are moving away from DSLR's. From most sales stats that I've read as of 2023 the DSLR format is still popular and actually had a rise in sales.
interesting. I wonder then why today's mirrorless cameras are commanding double the prices of the dslrs before.. on the contrary I think shrinking down the tech (less moving parts) may actually be more costly on the manufacturing side of things, hence the shift to Thailand, Philippines, etc. take Sony, Nikon and Fuji mirrorless entry level camera pricing as an example
I think you're right. DSLRs will never go away.
In fact, I'm guessing there will one day be a resurgence of DSLRs.
I for one happen to prefer them over all others.
The only preference I have outside of this is a rangefinder camera for medium format film cameras meant for non-studio use.
There's just something incredibly compelling about turning on your DSLR and immediately being able to press the shutter to capture the moment. Only the highest end mirrorless cameras are capable of near instant response and minimal lag, but it still doesn't have that fully real-time feel.
DSLRs have a real presence, sometimes a bit of heft is a good thing. They feel like you could bring them into a war zone and maybe even defend yourself with them if needed ;). Batteries that last days... There are satisfying shutter and mirror slap sounds to be heard.
Sure, mirrorless is great - I'm into it - and yes, DSLRs have downsides, but I could no more choose one over the other than I could choose a favourite son or daughter.
A great post and very helpful. I think that the main problem with DSLRs is that for wide angle use one has to have retrofocus lenses which are complex , expensive and often poor wide open. Mirrorless allows the use of simpler designs of great image quality. Also you have a choice of adapters allowing you to use great lenses like the old Leitz R series for their reflex Leica and Leicaflex cameras. Me - I will be outlived by my pro-grade Nikons and hopefully huge numbers of Nikon users will go mirrorless and replace their AF and AFD lenses causing a glut of great glass and a price collapse in the used market - my card is ready!
I have a Canon DSLR, and I just bought the r100. It is mirrorless, it weighs almost nothing, it has the full canon menu and I love it.
However, I just ordered a new EF lens for my DSLR. 1.8 85 mm with image stabilization and AF, $150. As people are moving away from DSLRs, the EF mount for Canon is dropping in price. I'm never going to let go of my DSLR. But I love my mirrorless.
With regard to form factor, I also just bought a Lumix bridge camera, and I'm surprised by how happy I am with the images from that. The bridge cameras do a lot of hand holding, taking care of you, and I think I'm going to have multiple form factors like this for the rest of my life. I really enjoy all of these different cameras because I interact with them differently. I get different shots. My big clunky DSLR gives me gorgeous images, it's just big and clunky.
James,
I am the last person who will hate Mirrorless. I see the appeal and why they are so popular... but for me, a little bit like for your, it's about the experience and the fact I stare at a monitor 8 hours /day.
When I go out and shoot, it's as much to enjoy the outdoors, to explore and observe; the LAST thing I want to do is stare into another screen. I don't want a screen between me and nature that is out there.
I know many won't understand that. For many, it's all about Mirrorless providing you with the image you will get... I just don't care. I don't care if some of my photos don't come out as expected or perfect. I take it as a part of the learning process of the hobby. It's a drive for me to say.. "okay, I should have done this or that" and I make a mental note of conditions, lighting and try to become better.
I feel like the whole concept of seeing exactly what you will get when you click, is good mostly for those in the business who don't want to miss the shot, and it's a question of $. I get that.... but I also think it will make many many newer photographers "lazy" and no really 'learn' the principles of photography. They'll simply rely on the camera doing most of it for them.
...but as a hobbyist, the DSLR is NEVER going away! It's integral to the WAY I like to explore and look through an actual lens... just like binoculars.
Thank you for the video. These days TH-camrs seem to be scared of the mirrorless onslaught and abstain from speaking out the unique strengths of DSLRs. You have done just that. So, congrats buddy.
Couldn’t agree with you more. DSLR is the reason I reentered the beautiful world of photography as a hobbyist back in 2009.
DSLRs facilitate viewing the subject instantly at the speed of light i.e., there is no lag. That’s where it is already a far ahead tech than mirrorless cameras. These toys can never ever catch up with the real cameras in this field, a field that matters most to knowledgeable photographers. Moreover, mirrorless cameras are nothing new; all the point & shoot cameras have been mirrorless since its inception decades ago. Likewise, the smartphone is also a mirrorless camera. No wonder many taunt the mirrorless cameras as just smartphone updates.
Therefore, I’m a DSLR user forever. The recent trend of immature photographers to replace their DSLRs with mirrorless cameras has created a huge opportunity for real photographers to get their desired DSLRs cheap. So, I also picked up some of my dream bodies recently, in the process of getting some more.
Thanks again.
I owned the first pre-production model of the Fujifilm S2 Pro in the UK. I used to to do training for Fuji and they gave me one. Great little camera for the time and the color science was gorgeous.
Fantastic. I am loving mine. I will share more on just this camera in the future :)
Is S3 pro better than s2pro? They have almost the same appearence
.
I consider Pentax the king of DSLR
Nikon wants a word with you. Bring A bag lunch
@@unbroken1010 just my opinion because they are dedicated to that format forever
@@unbroken1010 Nikon is happy to have a word, but their development is now focused on Z and not their DSLR past. It wouldn't be a long conversation.
@@WhoIsSerafin Historically speaking, yes I think Pentax is commited to SLR (remember the behemoth Pentax 67)? And Nikon's first film camera, the Nikon Model I, wasa rangefinder (mirrorless).
The other thing to consider with the SLR vs mirror-less is, on the high end, overall quality. Light will naturally attenuate causing some slight softness on the image even at the short flange distances of an SLR. Not to mention things like 'Shuttershock'...
SLRs will always have some place in the entry level space while mirrorless will dominate the mid and high end video world for obvious reasons, certain aspects of photography will still be best served with mirrorless cameras but those are more specific*...
That said, I still have my K3iii and aside from the video side of things, it manages for the photography side.
I love my 90D and fits me for everything I do .
“DSLR will die”
Me, who still uses film camera: 👀
You couldn't have worded this better. I'll always enjoy shooting with my Canon DSLRs, especially animal photography. If I want to look at an animal on a screen, I can do that on my phone. I want to be able to look at the animals through my zoom lens when taking photos, not a processed video feed.
You have a voice that is perfect to host your own radio show
I've now spent 4mos mirrorless and still find myself going back to my dslr. There is just something real about my viewfinder that the screen just doesn't replicate.
I'm going to continue testing mirrorless to see if it grows on me after 6 mos, but right now I am not sold.
A mirrorless camera’s original selling point was its size. By removing the flip-up mirror mechanism of a DSLR, a mirrorless camera body can be made more compact. Not necessarily better. Just smaller.
I went from a Canon T2i in 2010, to a Canon T8i in 2023. I thought about a Canon R10 mirrorless, but I would need to purchase an additional adapter to use my current lenses.
The back LCD and EVF on a mirrorless both display the same visual information and to see than the EVF actually uses more battery power than the back LCD screen, I didn’t see the benefit in that. I’m accustomed to using the OVF as a power saving function in taking photos and I have no issues with its focusing system. When needed, I just switch to live view for the dual pixel AF, (which is the same focusing system found on a mirrorless) basically turning the DSLR into mirrorless mode. You get the best of both.
i shoot both digital and analog and in both worlds i use mirrorless and slr Type cameras. For shooting in my spare time dslrs and slrs are nice, but when i shoot client work i dislike them and i would choose always an mirrorless camera over others because i can see directly how the resulting image will look like before i press the shutter button especially when shooting concerts or other fast moving events that is a feature i wouldnt wanna miss.
I’ve had amazing luck with the quality of wasabi. Also the e300 in Nikon D200 are quickly becoming my favorite two cameras.
I have 3 mirrorless fuji cameras. XT1, XT2, and the incredible power house GFX100s. The cameras i use for my paid work are STILL my Nikon D800e and D610. I'm never not going to have a DSLR. Today i just finished up a real estate shoot with my D610.
The Sony A99 DON'T have an optical view finder, it's an electronic view finder. It only use the mirror for the focus electronic.
Most DSLR from Sony are build with EFV.
If you look inside, the mirror is transparent to visible light.
I appreciate what you're saying. And I can't criticise people for their tastes. Some great cameras happen to be DSLRs, such as the Pentax K-3 monochrome, or the Leica S, or the Nikon D500.
But, at the end of the day, would you choose a DSLR over mirrorless? They make more noise, they are bulkier, there is no true WYSIWYG, and their lenses are bigger. You tell me.
I think Pentax can innovate the DSLR further. But will they?
laughs in 1dx view finder
Also throwing this out there, the Sony a99 was NOT a DSLR (really). It was a weird Hybrid of Mirrorless and "DSLR" that Sony cooked up in its Sony way (Back when Sony actually tried new and different things against the Industry Trends) known as a SLT. SLTs were effectively a Mirrorless camera with a split prism for AutoFocus only. It had an EVF opposed to an OVF and other Mirrorless specific features like Focus Peaking; and there was no way to look through the camera "optically" without hitting the Sensor. Sony's last actual DSLR was the Sony a580 released in 2010. From 2010-2016 Sony made the SLT but everyone incorrectly referred to them as DSLRs (kinda in the same way that people still do the same thing with Mirrorless cameras today) because they still used a SLR mount lens and Phase Detect Autofocus System. As a Sony a99 (and a37) owner the SLT are defiantly "something else" and as much a Sony Unicorn camera as something like the Sony f828 or CD Mavica.
Yes, good note! Others have let me know that too. For some reason I only remembered their entry and mid level SLTs and didn't realize their top of the line ended up slt as well. It really points to their transition to mirrorless as leading up years before.
DSLR will never die because of the OVF experience
1:02 No. No. No. What you see is not what you "get" with a DSLR. You only get to see the scene as it is IRL, not what the picture is going to look like. In case of digital photography - DR is much lower than what our eyes see, and any adjustment to the exposure is only shown by metering system.. which is something I completely forgot about ever since using mirrorless, it practically eliminates trial and error associated with exposure adjustments. I have seen so many people "chimping" with DSLR's because the picture mioght come out completely different than what you've seen through the viewfinder, and then some - some even prefer using "live view" mode on their screens to shoot pictures, especially if the shooting angles are extreme...
I know some people are super fond of the ability to see the preview of their exposure in the EVF. Things like focus peaking in the EVF is also super helpful for many.
Agree that DSLRs are a great value used for those who don't mind a dim view through the lens in dim lighting, and the blackout when the mirror swings up to take the shot. There are only two things you can get from an optical viewfinder that are hard to match with an electronic finder. On a bright day you can get a bright image, and there is never any lag for the image. The lack of viewfinder delay is crucial for sports, news, and fashion pros whose living depends on their ability to capture the right instant, or rather anticipate it before the mirror blacks out the finder to take the shot. Canon and Nikon only were willing to invest in top pro DSLRs to serve this top end of the market.
With the 120Hz Z9 finder, Nikon has given up on making pro cameras with a mirror. As electronic viewfinders are accepted as good enough by a newer generation of top pros, nobody but maybe a few nostalgia buffs will be willing to pay for and carry around a big, heavy extra chunk of glass, and give up on a finder that's bright and clear shooting in the dark, and doesn't black out when you take a picture. When sales drop off and inventory clears out of Canon's 1DXIII and 5DIV, their pro replacements will be mirrorless.
If "tactile, organic and low tech" enthusiasts are suspicious of electronic viewfinders, maybe some company will find enough of a market to support hobbyist enthusiast cameras. I think it will be a very small niche, unless there's some nostalgic resurgence like with vinyl records.
My first Full-Frame was a second hand 5DII. And it has opened up all sorts of venues for me! Homescanning film. Adapting old NIkon Primes to use for literally everything. Event photography, sports, portraits, weddings. And the damn thing just works (even though AF is bad...)!!
The fantastic Fujifilm S2 Pro, what an enjoyable experience to shoot