|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/21/2014 02:57:49 PM · #1 |
RIP DSLR
Message edited by author 2014-02-21 15:21:09. |
|
|
|
02/21/2014 03:08:05 PM · #2 |
| I think you should post something about what the link leads to. |
|
|
|
02/21/2014 03:09:01 PM · #3 |
I really love looking through a viewfinder. There is something about the thought of taking pictures without looking through the viewfinder that I don't like.
I'll always use DSLR |
|
|
|
02/21/2014 04:31:30 PM · #4 |
Thanks ΓΆ€” I'll have to look at it later with a more up-to-date browser ... |
|
|
|
02/21/2014 04:49:03 PM · #5 |
I must be totally honest and say that this article is hogwash. Sorry. But there are reasons why DSLRs will not go extinct. The biggest reason is simply the demand for quality photographs. Sure you get full frame range finder like cameras, but I don't think most people will go with them because a large SLR is easier to wield ergonomically. Size and weight are actually desirable to many. Besides that, the focus systems in SLRs is unmatched. And let's be honest, more glass = better photo in general. As you move up in focal length and aperture, the size of the lens very quickly dwarfs the size of the camera. Now imagine carrying a 1.3kg 80-200mm f2.8 lens with a cigarette box sized camera on the other side.
I remember old film SLRs which were actually quite small and smaller than a range finder I have. |
|
|
|
02/21/2014 05:23:48 PM · #6 |
Well... First, look to the left.
Yeah, I'm sporting a Fuji. :D
..
Now, if I could only afford a proper medium format I could possibly ditch these DSLR's. ;)
--
Seriously though, I do think that we have already moved away from DSLR's being needed to capture quality images - however, it'll still be a good long while before the DSLR isn't superior in the balance between cost/capabilities/size - just about everyone can handle a DSLR, it takes great pictures and performs great across the board, and they're not terribly expensive for the midrange stuff.
Sadly physics says that there are certain limitations on the minimum size stuff can be to get a certain 'look' - and frankly, at some point tiny little bodies with huge lenses just don't really help much. Sure you can reduce the size of it, but does it really help anything? Not really IMO - mostly it just ruins the ergonomics somewhat by unbalancing the combo..
The day will come however, when a mirrorless system performs so well that it'll be put into a DSLR size body with huge amounts of battery and storage, and will exceed the performance of today's best DSLR available. Physics again is the problem, and slamming a mirror around at 10-14fps is realistically about the limit of where this can go, and of course all that mass slamming around doesn't really help sharpness, as it causes vibration, which is why we use mirror lockup when we can...
--
Basically, the DSLR isn't dead, not yet, and won't be dead until the performance of mirrorless systems exceed the capabilities of DSLR type cameras. The day that line is crossed, you can bet that the new market for DSLRs will almost certainly die, and probably fairly fast in fact - but given the large number of these systems out there, you can bet that there will be a secondary market for many years to come, probably for years to come - after all, good photos are good photos, and the results from modern DSLR's are absolutely acceptable by all reasonable standards- that won't change radically I suspect.
Aside from that, top end Canon or Nikon glass will still be great in a decade or three. That sort of quality will always be desired and usable, and there's little doubt that they will be compatible with mirrorless systems for a long time yet to come, so even if the DSLR does 'die', great glass will live on. |
|
|
|
02/21/2014 05:59:19 PM · #7 |
I don't believe for a second, that all things being equal, anyone actually prefers a larger, heavier camera. It's just that all things are not equal, at least not yet. All that miniaturization is expensive, and as things stand now, your $1000 will buy more DSLR than mirrorless. For most people, at least most Americans, a DSLR and a couple of lenses meets the criteria for "small enough."
The mirrorless cameras are quickly catching up in both image quality and functionality, and a lot of them have become plenty good enough for some types of professional work. There are a lot of interesting products coming out now, and people who are size and/or weight sensitive will be likely to consider them. But Nikon/Canon control about 75% of the US market, and more than 75% of the advertising budgets, and they sell DSLRs, not mirrorless. There's also the issue of legacy equipment. If you already have several Canon lenses, for example, are you more likely to buy another Canon, or something where you'll have to replace all of your expensive lenses?
Anyway, there's a lot of buzz in the mirrorless market, and a lot of predictions of doom for DSLRs. This poorly written article is just more jumping on the bandwagon. I'm as excited about the new products as anyone, because I am one of those people who's weight sensitive, but I don't expect DSLRs to be going anywhere anytime soon.
So, pretty much...what Cory said. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 11:41:16 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 11:41:16 AM EDT.
|
