Are DSLR's Dead?

[Every Miles A Memory]

We just had some reporters from Al Jazeera TV staying with us. I sat talking with him in length about this

He said they've basically moved strictly to the Sony Mirrorless cameras because of how small they are. Being in war zones, he was telling me it gets dicey if you are carrying a bigger DSLR, especially if you're carrying a Canon with a white lens. You become the target depending on what you're carrying

I asked about image quality, and he was saying that for reporting, its more about content quality, and the consumer/viewer will put up with just about anything these days as long as it's up to date and accurate. Hell, look at major news stations posting iPhone videos and footage!

I would think that the RED Camera's are the major game changer in the industry when it comes to video.

 

[DiploStrat]

Three Factors

Seems that there are at least three elements at play here, and only one concerns a mirror.

-- Lens quality. There is no reason why the lens on a mirror less camera cannot be the same quality as the lens on an SLR. In fact, it could be the same lens.

-- Sensor system quality: Again, the system could be exactly the same, so there is no inherent real for a mirror less camera to produce a lower quality image.

-- Viewfinder quality: This is the real issue. Can the viewfinder be bright enough, have a fast enough refresh rate, etc.?

Get the viewfinder right and suddenly a full frame mirror less camera looks awfully nice. But it won't be much smaller than a comparable SLR.

The fact that the first mirror less cameras used smaller sensors and special lenses doesn't mean that they all have to suffer these restrictions. The viewfinder impacts the ease of use, not the quality of the image.

 

[workerdrone]

^ Agreed. I often use full frame lenses on my mirrorless, but it's like using a Hemi to putt around town. Bunch of extra weight and expense in glass that's not being utilized by the sensor.

I won't mind getting rid of that weight in the near future if these things get good enough. When I'm carrying around a $9,000 wildlife lens it's like carrying a baby - terrified to drop it or bang it into anything, even hold it the wrong way haha

For me the mirrorless image quality is "good enough", and getting better. It's the AF that still disappoints, despite the manufacturer's claims.

I'm guessing the viewfinders on mirrorless will surpass current SLR fare shortly, at least in some higher end models. Even on pro DSLR's the viewfinders of today are markedly inferior to past film cameras for manual focus use.

 

[kojackJKU]

I love the files from my 2 Fuji's. I can print 16x20 prints no issue. Pixel peeping is foolish. Most people use their cameras to capture memories and images to print or view on websites. Only pros need worry about massive pixel count and image size as they may be printing huge prints. For the rest of us, even prosumer cameras like my x-S1 and X10 work great and no lugging around a **** load of glass and extra stuff.

 

[workerdrone]

Pixel peeping for the sake of pixel peeping and declaring your photo 'rig' to be marginally superior to another is foolish, I'd agree.

But I'm also in the camp of, "you can't actually have too many megapixels". The main reason being the ability to crop further and the stunning realism that it enables when you're able to appreciate the images in larger format than web shared jpg's.

Had a toddler guest for the past few days and tried both systems a bit. I dusted off my SLR after spending a few weeks with the mirrorless, and I have to admit it was a revelation. Being able to aim, focus, compose, and shoot while spot metering off the face of my subject, all in under a second, felt like cheating after challenging myself with the controls, focus, and speed of my mirrorless recently. The “keeper rate” of the mirrorless, in terms of accurate metering and focus was probably around 25%. The “keeper rate” of the DSLR (admittedly very high end stuff) was over 90%.

If you're not looking to print big, and you are generally pretty happy with your compositions straight out of camera and do not require the ability to crop much, save your $ and your back and get the smaller system.

Curious how these will look in web quality - can you tell which system is which? (edit) Yeah, it's pretty hard - I'll follow up with larger examples

 

[workerdrone]

And is it any easier to tell the diff as we get a bit larger?

 

[neliconcept]

The difference is not online, it's in prints. That's where sensor size and bit depth gets more shine over smaller cameras and sensors.

 

[Chazz Layne]

...it was a revelation. Being able to aim, focus, compose, and shoot while spot metering off the face of my subject, all in under a second, felt like cheating after challenging myself with the controls, focus, and speed of my mirrorless recently. The “keeper rate” of the mirrorless, in terms of accurate metering and focus was probably around 25%. The “keeper rate” of the DSLR (admittedly very high end stuff) was over 90%.

I had this same epiphany when I went back to Canon. Suddenly having the ability to capture a scene so much quicker, take far fewer photos, but have seemingly twice as many good shots to work with back in the studio was an unexpected benefit. Though it wasn't my motivation for moving back to Canon, it has been my favorite difference between the two platforms (especially when movement comes into play, and you have one or few chances to capture an image).



Here's what I'm seeing from the post-production side of things...

For the consumer who is not a hobbyist, sure: DSLRs are and should be dead. If there's no interest beyond capturing memories to share on the web, view on the TV, or hang on the wall then there's no reason to bother with the bulky, fragile, complexity of a full-size camera and lenses—especially when so many of the mirrorless and high-end fixed lens cameras can capture such good images in the "auto" setting.

If a paycheck rests in any way on the quality of the images captured, then no: 4:3rds and mirrorless are the bare minimum to do a consistently good job, and who wants to do just the bare minimum? Even for straight-to-web stories I've had to toss out photos due to quality issues caused by the limitations of the hardware, not the shooter, from these cameras. The same photos shot from a full frame or even a crop-sensor camera would have been salvageable, and not just because of the increased resolution.

I'd have to agree that there's no reason the lenses and sensors can't be of the same quality. Unfortunately, aside from an absurdly expensive Sony, none of the manufacturers seem interested in using quality sensors or optics. To use the OP's Lumix example: those 16 megapixels are not created with the same quality, I'd have to reduce the image by at least a third to make them look as sharp at actual size (not to mention color accuracy and lighting details). I appreciate the effort to partner with companies like Leica on lens design, but it's moot when they keep using an ancient sensor that can barely keep up with a Canon S100. Will the quality get there? It can and it should have by now, but I'm afraid we're still years away.

 

[Pathfinder]

How many of us only have 1 size wrench or 1 size of screw driver?.....

We use different tools for different purposes, same holds true for cameras, I think.

 

[Honu]

ditto pathfinder

a lot of it depends on what mirrorless you have though a older one is not near as nice as the current gen setups like the Fuji XT! even the EX1 or whatever that model was not near as nice and with Oly the EM1 is nicer than even the EM5 by a good margin or the Sony A series and its MP monster ? its not the gear anymore
and while no camera is the best its like shooting a D4s or a EM1 both have pros cons and having both and using both is the best option

my keeper rate is about the same but full time working pro maybe that helps does not matter what gear I use but I would not use old Mirrorless even though I have some they were just fun toys not working gear

I can say this any working pro who uses/used canon and shot the 24-70 knows about back focus and what a pig/pain that lens was and how many bad focus shots there were with it

 

[kojackJKU]

How many of us only have 1 size wrench or 1 size of screw driver?.....

We use different tools for different purposes, same holds true for cameras, I think.

How true, that's why I have the x10, X-S1 and my 1020. I have all my bases covered in those three tools. I am after getting amazing photo after amazing photo from all three. Since I love the look of Fuji photos, If I do get another DSLR it will be a Fuji S5 pro with some sigma glass.

 

[DiploStrat]

Another way to pose the question?

May work to pose the question this way: "Are the mirror less cameras, on sale TODAY, good enough to replace the best SLR's?"

That way we are talking about available products versus the theoretical limitations of the technology. If you want that, then the question may be: "Can you build a video viewfinder with enough resolution and a fast enough refresh rate and at a low enough cost to replace a pentaprism and mirror mechanism." That, I believe, is the only real limitation on mirror less cameras.

And to this, there may be a contributing factor - even if you could, would the pros believe it and embrace it when they next come to replace their camera bodies. (Because if you ask them to replace their lenses, you are wasting your time.)

 

[Pathfinder]

I think your question can be rephrased as - Would you only own 1, and only 1, hammer or screwdriver?

The answer is obvious.

When we see the guys on the sidelines at the NFL, or the NBA, shooting mirror less - ALL THE TIME - then you will have your answer. At this time, as far as I can tell, almost no one does. This tells you about the viewfinder and the AF speed, and even maybe about the file quality of mirror less systems.

Does this mean that mirror less cameras aren't pretty darn good? No! Many mirror less cameras are absolutely great, I own several, and more than several m4/3 lenses.


But for birds in flight, basket ball games, stars at night, or files of the absolute best quality, I prefer other systems.. For walking around, riding a motorcycle, m4/3s are vastly better than a full size system, to me.

Again, as I said, would you really only own 1 wrench? Unless you had no other choice?

 

[nwoods]

I've never used a 4/3's mirror-less camera, so I find the comments you guys are making about the viewfinder to be quite interesting. I've only ever used Canon DSLR's (20D, 70D, 5D, etc..), so perhaps I am taking the viewfinder for granted. What exactly is the difference between the 4/3's viewfinder and a normal DSLR?

 

[DiploStrat]

Slo Ride

Most (all?) video viewfinders, whether eye level or camera back, have relatively low refresh rates. Photograph landscapes, people posing, etc., and you will never notice. Try to photograph birds, butterflies, or, in my case, aircraft trapping and you notice that fast moving objects pop in and out or simply don't appear at all. Watch some security video or a early digital television and you can see this effect. For example, in a football game, you see the quarterback throw the ball, then it disappears while in flight, only to be seen when caught. Basically, the frame rate is too low to show the object in all of its intermediate positions.

Until that frame or refresh rate gets up there, you won't want to be using a mirror less camera to capture the ball in sports events, running animals, etc.