DSLRs Will Never Die
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 พ.ค. 2023
- Photographers have been signaling DSLRs demise for years now, and in some ways they're right. Sony, Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic and Sigma stopped making DSLRs years ago. Canon and Nikon in the last two years have said they will continue supporting current models, but are shifting development to new mirrorless cameras. But I think DSLRs will never fully go away. Using an optical viewfinder is a unique enough experience to stand the test of time.
Batteries for all your cameras - bit.ly/WasabiPowerBatteries
Use coupon code "snappiness" for 10% off
Best places to buy a used DSLR (to get great prices, warranty, etc)
MPB - bit.ly/MPBUsedCameraDeals
UsedPhotoPro - bit.ly/UsedPhotoPro
KEH - bit.ly/KEHUsedCameraDeals
(The links above are from affiliate programs. Purchasing through these links will provide me compensation.)
Get access to private discord, exclusive videos and more here - www.buymeacoffee.com/snappiness
Come connect with me!
Snappiness forum - www.snappiness.space/forum/
Instagram - / _snappiness_
Flickr - www.flickr.com/photos/1850686...
#photography #dslr - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
@@ashegrey2321Sony afc
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.
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.
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.
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
A huge pro for DSLR is that you don‘t have any „lag“ when you look through the viewfinder instead pf live view
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 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.
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!
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!
"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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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
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 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.
@@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.
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 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...
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'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...
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
That was a smooth segue to a sponsorship spot.
But worth it. Wasabi rocks for hard to find or expensive battery replacements.
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!
Your channel is awesome, keep it up! Im going to power up some of my old digital cameras now. :)
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.
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.
what kind of camera should I use for film scanning? I have a flatbed for 35, 120 and 110 still films, but I want to use a DSLR and a remote to manually scan cinema film. I would be doing it manually but will an SLR with it's mirror locked up be just as fast as a mirrorless? What kind should I get? Should I get an EOS Rebel XTi or should I get something newer? Is APS-C actually preferable thanks to the zoom factor or should I be sure to get a full frame? Kinda stuck on canon since EF-FT adapters are common and I have a LOT of FT lenses ^.^ I was thinking about picking up an EOS rebel film camera or two off the 'bay for it's lens anyways.
Great topic and nice comments so far! Can totally relate to the stress of being tied to a screen for most of the day almost every waking day. Even on my mirrorless, I prefer the rangefinder layout simply for the OVF. When Pentax comes out with a new film camera, I will likely buy one just for the analog experience I enjoyed back in the 80s when I bought my first camera. Maybe I’m just becoming an old fart, although I do tend to be an early adopter of new tech if I can use it to make life easier or more fun.😅
Very interesting approche. I think I relate to that
I have a Nikon D3200 and Sony A6000. I kind of like both equally but do tend to gravitate more towards the former due to some habits I've built over the last 3 years. The Nikon just turns on way faster for one and I can also frame the shot before I even turn the camera on. The last point is more so a habit rather than a downfall of the tech. I do love the focus peaking through viewfinder, as well as seeing the changes to aperture setting and exposure in real time, but it's not something I would necessarily miss if I were to move back to DSLRs exclusively.
I've been looking into an upgrade, either Nikon D610 or something similar from Nikon side, or Sony A7 II. I'm pretty torn between both and a lot of it has to do with pros and cons of both platforms. I don't necessarily see either one of them being expendable.
D610 and sony7 are totally different. I would take Sony just for manual lenses. Otherwise Nikon is better for the price&choice of lenses&convenience
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 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
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.
The optical viewfinder is an intimate experience for me. Even cinematographers peer down the barrel of their 100K$ viewfinder.
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.
Heyy 👋 james love your videos ❤️ it helps me to to learn about photography and diffrent cameras 📸
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
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
just sold my d750 and tamron 24-70 2.8, for a fuji t-x4 its my first mirrorless that i lay my hands on and its awesome!!! even with the kit lens
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.
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...)!!
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.
Im considering getting the new pentax monochrome dslr. I do have a few older pentax dslrs; a kp, k-01, and older. I have to admit i still use a k10d and am happy with the results.
I've been waiting for a K-1iii to come out. Been happy with my K-5 and M-series lenses, though!
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.
Absolutely love my D7500. Especially for wildlife photography, which is what i mainly shoot, I just cant get away from my OVF!
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.
I still love shooting on my Olympus E-500 (Dslr) and my Mamiya 645 Pro (Slr). I don't think that will ever change! But also I like my Sony A7 iii. They're just all different tools!
Yep! I have all sorts and love them for different reasons :)
I like the experience of an OVF but I can get my fix for the classic experience with film SLRs. 80s Nikons have some huge and bright viewfinders that are a joy to use.
i still use nikon F50 SLR and Nikon D3300 DSLR. Both lens mount are interchangeable. I got my F50 for about 20 USD if converted from my currency. It shots pretty good analog photo using 35mm film. And what I like the most is the lens option, I don't need to buy a new lens, because it works with my DSLR lens, even though the focus control must be done manually.
I was all for EVF tech back in 2006-2010 and I really wanted to see mirrorless succeed and it did but personally I still prefer TTL OVF over the latest EVF. I’m sure it will get better but it’s not there yet for me.
However I do believe there are many many use cases where an EVF makes a lot more sense or is the only option but for 35mm size and below it’s still SLR for me.
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?
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 find I enjoy using both. My main "serious" camera is my Pentax K5 II but I also have an Olympus EM 5 Mark2.
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
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.
My first EVF camera was a Fuji s7000, and honestly, I wasn't too put off by it. It did what it was meant to do reasonably well.
Since then I've had several optical viewfinder DSLRs and only recently jumped into the m4/3 system with an ancient E-M1 and because the EVF on that is pretty good, I'm not displeased by it.
On other hand, I still like the older optical viewfinders more.
Nice to have the choice.
The Sony A99 II wasn't actually a DSLR, since the mirror does not flip, so there's not "reflex" in the name. It works by having a transluscent mirror for Phase-dectect AF only, but has a more modern style EVF, like most mirrorless cameras that displays a feed from the sensor.
Yes, good point! I missed that.
SLRs are really nice for battery life too! Only need to charge my 10+ year old battery every month or so. Also fantastic backwards compatibility for both Pentax K and Nikon F mounts, tons of options for lenses going back 60+ years.
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.
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.
That's maybe why I still have my first DSLR around (Pentax MX) and can't make myself to sell or dump it. Nostalgia.
But I shoot with a Fuji X-Pro 3, as I like the (near) WYSIWYG aspect of the rangefinder they built in. And the EVFs are so good lately that there's really no need for the bulky and heavy mirror IMHO.
On the contrary: the EVF can show you the effect of the film simulation used, so it's nearer to the actual jpeg picture you get than what you see with a DSLR.
It's a very personal decision in the end what you prefer and what you're most comfortable with.
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.
Maybe TLRs will make a comeback :P
Hey, I'd probably buy into a DTLR just to try out 🤣
I am a working photographer (for a while in journalism with a newspaper, and now with concerts) and I've owned a Canon 7D and 6D as my only two cameras. Soon, i'm looking to upgrade to a 1DX ii, because I don't feel it necessary to switch to mirrorless yet. With the amount of glass available, why would I? The only true advantage I see with mirrorless is the AF. I can still get fantastic AF with a 1dx ii, more than enough accuracy and speed to get the shots I need.
Weight. You are going to lose 1/3 to 1/2 of it if you go full Sony. But that is going to be a huge investment, and of course some people wanted more weight.
Totally enjoying my life being the Pentax dslr weirdo. Hopefully they dont make the new film stuff too enticing, because i really shouldnt atm extend to film too lol
I bet you do art photos 😂 camera conspiracy has his eye on you😂
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.
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.
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 bought a Panasonic G9 a couple of weeks ago to ‘move on’ from DSLR’s.. and I have to say I can’t really get on with the G9.. it just doesn’t inspire me to go out and shoot, it doesn’t really feel like photography (to me at least).. so I think it may have to go and I’ll stick with my old Nikon 😊
There is something about that I feel too. G9 is a great camera though. But there is something to be said for finding a camera that gels with you.
The g9 has been my favorite camera in the mirrorless space
I had a couple of G9s a few years ago, and though they are capable of great results, I felt I was fighting the camera a lot of the time because it was so complex. I do miss some of the truly excellent Olympus and Panasonic Leica lenses though.
You can send to me for free 👃😁
I think I felt the same when my agency switch to Sony. Yes, it had more features that were useful in the field but it was tiny and we were using 24 to 70mm 2.8 lenses. And they were like 150 different menus and so I just deal with the default settings even though it was a pain to freaking use.
The fantastic Fujifilm S2 Pro, what an enjoyable experience to shoot
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 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.
It all depends on the ability of marketers to instill in the consumer what is now fashionable and relevant. And to tie to this, it would seem a logical conclusion about new technologies. I recently purchased an Olympus camera on a 2/3 matrix of 2004 for fun. And there I found a rotary screen and an electronic viewfinder. Yes, this is all limited by the quality of that time, but it is quite functional. Plus two memory cards. A bunch of quick control buttons. Here is such a mirrorless camera from the early 2000s
I used the Fujifilm X-T200 mirrorless and took pictures through the EVF. I don't feel the sensation of actually taking pictures like using a DSLR. I think the EVF just shifts the large screen LCD into the small screen in the box
Clearly you have never used great EVF like the A1, A9ii, A7RV and A7iii. EVF is more than just looking at a mirror now as it gives me faster shooting.
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.
The only thing that would truly improve my mirrorless is a bit more custom ability with the focusing aids. I really grew to enjoy split screen and Fresnel lens focusing. I can trust my mirrorless to focus about 95% of the time on what I want but when I'm doing fine adjustments it is a little bit frustrating at times with the systems they try to use. But that also is me slowly adapting to and new system as well. Though I still frequently use 35 and 120 film to slow down.
I hope you're right 😊 we need to support Pentax in order to keep them in business and keep their prices affordable
Interesting, i have and keep both
"Never die" is a matter of perspective. In terms of utility, its already dead, since their development is dead. 10 years from now on, I can't imagine one single professional photographer going for a 2nd hand D850 as an alternative to Z8 mark III with 300fps viewfinder and a sensor with 10 stops of IBIS, 100fps continuous shots at 100MP, compatible with next gen optics.
If you are describing DSLRs as the next fun little toys, then this whole point is moot, no camera ever dies. I own 3 times more SLRs and Rangefinders than digital cameras I have. I enjoy using my 1937 Super Ikonta B above ANY other camera I own. Easier to carry than a A7, with an Ektar100 (Portra160 or most lower ISO films) and a stopped down lens, it can quite outresolve an A7M4, yet still retaining that vintage "mood". But I wouldn't say foldable medium format cameras with bellows "will never die" based on enjoyment and some technical benefits on very limited situations.
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?
I've been using DSLR's for about 15 years -- since 2007. And I love them! But I'm in no way stuck to them because of any sentimental type reasons.. I still use DSLR's (alongside my Mirrorless, with adapted lenses) but use DSLRs (and mirrorless) in liveview mode, not through a viewfinder. With all the issues associated with the optical viewfinder (shooting wide open at f1.4), I'd rather not use that and get a more accurate focus through the electronic views.
Rather, for me the reason I'm still hanging onto my DSLR's is because of the size/weight of them! I know a lot of people shy away from the heavier lenses, but to me I'm always willing to take that "hassle" if it results in a better lens/image.. And shooting with mostly prime lenses (Sigma Art line), some of those longer lenses like the 85 1.4/105 1.4 get quite heavy.. and they just feel very "off" when attached to a mirrorless! It keeps me shooting them using my DSLRs and sticking to shorter lenses on my Mirrorless as the heavy weight and long focal length doesn't seem to balance as well as a heavy DSLR with a battery grip.
Battery life is another issue with mirrorless, but solvable with extra batteries.. but being able to easily hold and focus a heavy lens is so much easier on something like a Canon 6D with battery grip compared to an EOS RP where a lens can be 5-6 times as heavy as the camera itself