snapsy wrote:
Sure, I understand and can't disagree. And I will take my OM-D over any DSLR when it comes to focusing on anything that doesn't happen to be flying across my FOV at 30mph. In other words, for 95% of general photography.
30 mph?
How about an F16 on afterburner?
How about an Atlas 5 going supersonic?
"Clunky" mirrorless autofocus will never cut it for that. Nor will cellphone cameras but cellphone cameras will be able to do most of those less demanding shots mirror less can do ok. That is exactly the problem for mirror less. Too much camera compared to cellphones, not enough camera compared to dslrs.
sebboh wrote:
um, i'm pretty sure that was a joke.
none of the mirrorless players even have decent birding lenses, doesn't matter that their tracking AF doesn't work for anything. the sony's are probably the best though (better than the e-m1 too) since you can use phase detect AF and a-mount lenses. that would probably be better than the t3i but not the 7d.
Now that you say it I get it. Still the point is valid that mirror less is just not feasible for big, sports, aircraft etc. if it was pros would use it. They generally don't. Check the sidelines of an NCAA or NFL football game or the pits of an F1 or NASCAR race. Almost exclusively Canon & Nikon DSLR's.
My favorite lens is my 400 mm 5.6 L. It would be silly and pointless attach a mirrors less body to it.
Let me just do a quick count of the percentage of my photos featuring rocket launches and fighter jets.
I'm sure DSLRs won't disappear as long as they still have marketable advantages over mirrorless. Recent trends have those advantages decreasing in number every year.
I'm sure the dynamics of the Japanese and Chinese markets are fascinating and all, but I don't think either one is going to set a global standard. The US and Europe have different tastes. I can only speak for the US, and frankly I think the biggest problems mirrorless faces here are price, distribution, and marketing. No wonder Sony is the top seller of mirrorless cameras in the US, they're quite a ways ahead of the others on those metrics.
I think it'd also help if the camera companies could actually figure out something intelligible to call these cameras. Mirrorless just doesn't cut it. 'DSLR', on the other hand, most everyone at least knows that means 'serious camera.' This is an issue I think Sony is qualified to solve if they actually put some effort and dollars into it.
Stpix wrote:
Now that you say it I get it. Still the point is valid that mirror less is just not feasible for big, sports, aircraft etc. if it was pros would use it. They generally don't. Check the sidelines of an NCAA or NFL football game or the pits of an F1 or NASCAR race. Almost exclusively Canon & Nikon DSLR's.
My favorite lens is my 400 mm 5.6 L. It would be silly and pointless attach a mirrors less body to it.
well yeah, that's why the mirrorless producers aren't in any rush to cover those bases, almost all the advantages of mirrorless are gone for super telephoto work. if your serious about getting the best for sports or wildlife your not even using a 400/5.6, your using $5k+ lens that is much bigger. if your spending that kinda money why not just have a separate body for that type of shooting and use mirrorless for where it has an actual advantage.
also, just for the record, rocket launch and airshow shots are super easy on AF (and manual focus). anything that you can pan continuously on and moves in a predictable way is. i'm sure i would have no trouble capturing shots just like those with the olympus e-m1 if they had a comparable lens. but they don't, and it should not be a high priority for them. a real challenge to AF would be shooting something like basketball from the sidelines, where i'm sure the e-m1 would mostly fail.
itai195 wrote:
Let me just do a quick count of the percentage of my photos featuring rocket launches and fighter jets.
I'm sure DSLRs won't disappear as long as they still have marketable advantages over mirrorless. Recent trends have those advantages decreasing in number every year.
I'm sure the dynamics of the Japanese and Chinese markets are fascinating and all, but I don't think either one is going to set a global standard. The US and Europe have different tastes. I can only speak for the US, and frankly I think the biggest problems mirrorless faces here are price, distribution, and marketing. No wonder Sony is the top seller of mirrorless cameras in the US, they're quite a ways ahead of the others on those metrics.
I think it'd also help if the camera companies could actually figure out something intelligible to call these cameras. Mirrorless just doesn't cut it. 'DSLR', on the other hand, most everyone at least knows that means 'serious camera.' This is an issue I think Sony is qualified to solve if they actually put some effort and dollars into it. ...Show more →
There is a large group of wildlife, spots, and aviation oriented photographers who need DSLR performance and are willing to pay for it. Cell phones and mirrorless cameras just aren't up to those tasks.
The problem for mirror less, as this article pointed out, is that cellphones can do much if not most of what mirror less cameras can do ( static shots, city scapes, landscapes, people/snapshots) and cell phones are doing more of this for more people more of the time. Mirrorless and P & S cameras are getting squeezed out from cellphones on the bottom and DSLR's on the high end.
sebboh wrote:
well yeah, that's why the mirrorless producers aren't in any rush to cover those bases, almost all the advantages of mirrorless are gone for super telephoto work. if your serious about getting the best for sports or wildlife your not even using a 400/5.6, your using $5k+ lens that is much bigger. if your spending that kinda money why not just have a separate body for that type of shooting and use mirrorless for where it has an actual advantage.
also, just for the record, rocket launch and airshow shots are super easy on AF (and manual focus). anything that you can pan continuously on and moves in a predictable way is. i'm sure i would have no trouble capturing shots just like those with the olympus e-m1 if they had a comparable lens. but they don't, and it should not be a high priority for them. a real challenge to AF would be shooting something like basketball from the sidelines, where i'm sure the e-m1 would mostly fail.
You might be able to do it but it will always be harder with an evf. And try that with big. I see no advantage to mirror less other than that they are small which is really no advantage to me, maybe a disadvantage.
So why should I want a mirror less camera for what I shoot?
That is the point of the author. Mirrorless costs more and is less convenient than the advanced cellphone cameras we are seeing now and are not capable of matching a DSLR for the more difficult shots where people are willing to pay more. I think in time mirror less will be relegated to the place where interesting gadgets that did not make it go. Kind of like 35 mm TLR film cameras.
The vast majority of DSLR consumers don't need most of the performance advantages of DSLRs. They want the superior image quality that has always been the province of larger sensors, not necessarily the ability to shoot pro sports or birds in flight. That's where the opportunity for mirrorless exists. Most of the DSLR owners that I know would frankly be better off with a good mirrorless camera, if only they'd actually known to consider one before buying a Canon or Nikon at Costco.
By the same token, advanced smartphones are still not offering nearly the image quality or flexibility (i.e. lens choices, lighting, etc) you'll get from a large sensor mirrorless camera. Mirrorless may never sell in as large a number as DSLRs did, but DSLRs won't continue to sell anywhere near those numbers either.
Regarding wildlife, how far off is the E-M1 from being a legitimate choice there? A generation or two of improved PDAF and a couple of good telephoto lenses? It otherwise has a lot of advantages over your typical Canon or Nikon APS-C DSLR.
Stpix wrote:
You might be able to do it but it will always be harder with an evf. And try that with big. I see no advantage to mirror less other than that they are small which is really no advantage to me, maybe a disadvantage.
So why should I want a mirror less camera for what I shoot?
obviously you shouldn't if smaller has no advantage. i don't think any of the shots you demonstrated would be noticeably more difficult with an evf though. honestly, i think the evf on a any of the current lineup of mirrorless cameras would be better than the ovf in a t3i for such shooting. if you were using 1dx i think the ovf would give a tangible advantage.
Stpix wrote:
That is the point of the author. Mirrorless costs more and is less convenient than the advanced cellphone cameras we are seeing now and are not capable of matching a DSLR for the more difficult shots where people are willing to pay more. I think in time mirror less will be relegated to the place where interesting gadgets that did not make it go. Kind of like 35 mm TLR film cameras.
mirrorless is definitely less convenient than phone cameras, but it's also much more capable of shooting in low light, fast focusing, and catching the critical moment. the high end mirrorless cameras are now as good or better for these than low and midrange dslrs. what they can't do is mount a fast focusing super telephoto, track as well as a dslr, offer a full line of fast pro grade lenses (µ4/3 might be getting there), or do a complete job of supporting off camera lighting for a pro.
for shooting people at an event with AF and no flash, i think i would prefer mirrorless now to a dslr. i'd still prefer shooting manual focus with a mirrorless at such events though.
itai195 wrote:
Regarding wildlife, how far off is the E-M1 from being a legitimate choice there? A generation or two of improved PDAF and a couple of good telephoto lenses? It otherwise has a lot of advantages over your typical Canon or Nikon APS-C DSLR.
the biggest impediment right now is the lenses. a competitively priced 300/4 (actual focal length) with a lightning quick AF motor could certainly be compelling for some of the budget minded wildlife folk.
Stpix wrote:
There is a large group of wildlife, spots, and aviation oriented photographers who need DSLR performance and are willing to pay for it. Cell phones and mirrorless cameras just aren't up to those tasks.
I think the real issue/problem for the whole industry, both mirrorless/dslr/compact is that there is NOT a large group of wildlife/sports and aviation oriented photographers out there.
I'm not knocking wildlife or aviation shooting, certainly enjoy viewing it as much as the next guy, but, its a very, very niche market who enjoys that sort of thing enough to want to invest a good chunk of money into doing it.
Like a lot of hobbies, its just sort of faded out a bit in interest since when I was young, same with HAM radio, astronomy and telescopes, model trains etc
Just don't really see any younger photographers really out doing it. At the good wildlife areas around me, its basically all older photogs, median age probably 55 or 60.
Spots market is a bit bigger of course, and its how I still earn my primary livelihood, but really don't see quite as many serious entrants into that market either. I think everyone has started to realize that buying a $10k 400mm lens so you can get a few bucks for a web image is bad business. Maybe some parents buying gear, but the days of people all making a big investment to go become sports shooters has sort of fallen off.
I think photography is become less of a hobby, and more of just a daily part of life.
Used to be something you specifically wanted to do, learned, bought dedicated gear for, like any other hobby
These days, most people snap a roll of films worth of images on their phones every single day. Its taken for granted.
Time is a changing and I think in the larger sense, its all going to be downhill or most brands.
The camera as a specialized tool is just going to become more and more rare, and various photograph areas of interest more and more niche
Ironic really because I think in the future people will have more videos and images than ever. They just aren't going to be taken with dedicated cameras, but rather phones, Google glasses etc
We are going to become so inundated with images every moment of the day few are going to really feel a want/need to buy some expensive photo toys and take even more images
sebboh wrote:
also, just for the record, rocket launch and airshow shots are super easy on AF (and manual focus). anything that you can pan continuously on and moves in a predictable way is. i'm sure i would have no trouble capturing shots just like those with the olympus e-m1 if they had a comparable lens. but they don't, and it should not be a high priority for them. a real challenge to AF would be shooting something like basketball from the sidelines, where i'm sure the e-m1 would mostly fail.
It really comes down to the relative distances involved, more so than speed
Shooting a 600mph plane thousands of yards away, vs shooting a car going 60mph 100 yards away, vs shooting a person running past you 10 yards away are very different things.
If its farther away its easier to track, even if its going quite fast
itai195 wrote:
The vast majority of DSLR consumers don't need most of the performance advantages of DSLRs. They want the superior image quality that has always been the province of larger sensors, not necessarily the ability to shoot pro sports or birds in flight. That's where the opportunity for mirrorless exists. Most of the DSLR owners that I know would frankly be better off with a good mirrorless camera, if only they'd actually known to consider one before buying a Canon or Nikon at Costco.
By the same token, advanced smartphones are still not offering nearly the image quality or flexibility (i.e. lens choices, lighting, etc) you'll get from a large sensor mirrorless camera. Mirrorless may never sell in as large a number as DSLRs did, but DSLRs won't continue to sell anywhere near those numbers either.
Regarding wildlife, how far off is the E-M1 from being a legitimate choice there? A generation or two of improved PDAF and a couple of good telephoto lenses? It otherwise has a lot of advantages over your typical Canon or Nikon APS-C DSLR....Show more →
Well, no, the majority of DSLR consumers don't know anything about the camera's performance. They're actually looking for two things. The first is that it has a Canon or Nikon logo. The second is price. When you can get a decent 24mp DSLR with lens for 1/2 price of a comparable but lower megapixel mirrorless, it's a no brainer for most people. With the price, brand, and specs favoring the duopoly, advertising really isn't necessary.
On sensor PDAF are currently not as good as a separate PDAF sensor that Canon and Nikon employs. Those sensors give instantaneous detection. Most on-sensor PDAF are being scanned at 240hz (not instantaneous). If Olympus and Sony knew how to get their AF up to snuff, they would have a bigger marketshare in DSLRs today. Instead, Olympus exited and Sony is struggling at a distant third. It's likely the on-sensor PDAF will get good enough once either Canon or Nikon figures out how to do it.
It's not half the price for the DSLR. All the mirrorless companies have offerings around the entry level prices of DSLRs. The lowest end Nikon and Canon are down to about $500, and there are numerous mirrorless options in the $400-600 range.
Yes, but there is no real advantage in getting a mirrorless or a entry level APS-C DSLR with a kit lens if you don't plan to get more lenses. And the perception is that if you buy a camera it should be a proper camera.
itai195 wrote:
What's a proper camera? How many lenses do most DSLR users buy? I'd guess it's actually not very many...
A DSLR looks like a camera to most people, a 5N rather not. As for lenses I guess most of the large public is still around with the kit lens, not that this is something wrong, but getting a SLR instead of a compact gives a perceived advantage. It is a lot of buyers psychology into this, but I saw someone winning some thousand Euros in a television show and stating that she would buy a car from the money. When asked what car she answered purple, so this is the main criteria for some when buying car.
sflxn wrote:
I wouldn't call it a second class purchase in the US, but I almost never see anyone else using them. When I do see someone using them, it's always a NEX and sometimes a Fuji (among the hipsters). The price difference between DSLR and mirrorless is shocking enough to most consumers here that they don't even explore mirrorless. 6 years back, it was very common to see people with full size DSLRs with L and G lenses where I live. I think that fad wore off. Maybe in time, it will wear off in China. I have to admit it looks kind of douchy walking the street with a giant white lens and 5D with grip. I've done it. Not anymore. I think when digital imaging began, people got excited about the convenience. Once they bought into their first $1.5k + camera, the gateway into the expensive lenses were thrown wide open. After awhile, the size and weight does get on the nerves of some, enough to make them switch. When I'm thinking about the weight and back aches and not enjoying the photo taking experience, it ceases to be fun for me.
I still believe mirrorless has a future. It's not a grand future that fanboys envision. I doubt that any mirrorless will ever match a pro DSLR, but then again, not everyone needs a pro DSLR. If you need a cam that can do almost everything well, then get a DSLR. It's wrong to compare mirrorless to DSLRs. They can never match. Even Leica RF cannot match the all purposeness of DSLRs, but they don't need to. That's the point. Mirrorless, like RF, have limitations, and if you're ok with those limitations, they maybe a better fit than a DSLR....Show more →
I agree with you, once the world went digital, spending went up like crazy. I paid $300 for a film camera and maybe $400 for a lens. That was a HUGE purchase. When digital showed up, I paid $700 for a camera and $1200 or more for a lens.
I also agree (and hope) that mirrorless has a future. I just find it amazing how many rabid fan boys for mirrorless disregard how poorly mirrorless cameras are doing. They are getting roundly trashed in the marketplace and ALL makers are losing crap loads of money on these cameras. Something has gotta give.
