Steve Spencer
Online
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Hogan's article - The DSLR cash cow is alive for how long? | |
T-O Shooter wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
chez wrote:
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
chez wrote:
JadedWriter wrote:
Mirrorless is so small...until you pop on a flash, 2.8 lens and a vertical grip, then it's just slightly skinnier than a DSLR. At some point I'm going to pick up my Nikon's again for some relaxed shooting, just need to find the time...and get some sort of 100-400 for them because I'm starting to realize how much I like shooting nature type stuff.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Sauseschritt wrote:
Ah the good old mirrorless vs SLR debate. I think I'm doing these since at least eight years by now ?
Well theres two actual advantages of mirrorless that, to me, are actually there, and are actually substantial enough to matter, and those are:
- Assuming the manufacturer manages to actually implement that, they can have autofocus that needs no calibration.
- Assuming the manufacturer manages to actually implement that, they can have excellent support for manual focus, with technologies such as magnification, focus peaking, digital split image, and digital micro prism (the later two are only available on Fujifilm).
Then you have the somewhat mixed bag of the OVF vs EVF discussion. EVFs have some advantages, sure, but they have many problems as well. One problem you cannot get rid of with EVF is their need for current. And for example a SLR can actually be manually focused with the camera switched off, unless the lens is focus by wire.
Other potential problems of EVFs include limited dynamic range, caused by the fact that EVFs are actually tiny monitors with an optics in front of them, thus the individual pixel is very small and cannot display much of a range of brightness, lag in low light (and actually all EVFs I've ever tried have it in good light, too), problems/flickering with artificial lighting, and dazzling the user by being too bright in low light.
Also, unlike what some people claim, a good EVF isnt cheap either. Some people claim mirrorless would be cheaper to build, but I cant find any practical example which actually shows that.
All in all I dont really care if its an OVF or an EVF.
Other advantages are mostly in the head of people, but arent substantial or not even real at all:
- Mirrorless aint smaller. Yes, if you compare a specialized APS-C mirrorless, like Fujifilm X, to a crop DSLR, then the mirrorless is smaller. However thats because the crop DSLR is a crop and not a full frame APS-C, so they have to waste a lot of space thats not necessary if it was actually an APS-C system. Also many mirrorless are more or less brutally optimized for small dimensions. The Sony FE mirrorless for example are smaller than Olympus and Panasonic Micro Four Thirds mirrorless. Thats one of the reasons why the Sonys are so uncomfortable to hold. Finally yes, mirrorless dont need a mirrorbox, however what you lose at the camera you gain back with telephoto lenses, which have to be larger.
- The advantage of mirrorless cameras in respect to wide angle lenses is much smaller than many people claim; in fact while in theory its there I cant see it actually be there in reality at all. Mirrorless wide angle lenses often have to be retrofocus, too, because otherwise you cannot support large apertures like f2 or f1.4 on a wide angle lens. Either way I have no trouble finding great SLR wide angle lenses that can, as far as I can see, easily compete with everything offered for mirrorlesss, when ignoring extremely expensive Leica lenses and ignoring medium format.
As a final note - a DSLR which would have an EVF next to the OVF, and would focus with the sensor itself instead of a separate sensor which needs calibration, could offer all the strengths of mirrorless. While Nikon would actually have the patents to do such a camera, it doesnt look like they're planning to do such a beast.
As a mirrorless user for 10 years, there's one factor that makes me want to go back to DSLR as much as possible: with an EVF, there's a constant, high frequency flicker, and it makes my eye "tired". It's similar to when I spend too much time watching a computer screen. It's not visible to me as such, but I'm sure my eye and my brain sense it.
Then there's the subjective, more "natural" feeling to the OVF. It's sometimes convenient that everything is bright and shiny in the EVF, but the image that I'm trying to convey isn't always bright and shiny. I'm quite sure that the visual magnification of colours and luminance influences how I see and compose my images.
DSLR cameras are not perfect, but they give me a more natural experience and they consume much less energy. As for the flicker of the mirror going up and down, it has never bothered me, and since it's something that I can see and relate to, I'm sure it's less problematic than the much faster flicker of the viewfinder LCD.
This will of course not change the development in the market. Mirrorless is new, and heavily marketed. Notice the very low-key promotion at the launch of the D780. No famous phototgraphers telling us about their wonderful experiences at exotic locations with this camera, no stories about how changing to the D780 will make the world a better place, unlike with recent mirrorless launches.
There is a size difference between mirrorless and DSLR, but it's not anywhere as big as we are sometimes lead to believe. When you add all the batteries needed for the mirrorless camera, there's little advantage from a size/weight point of view. A Z6 needs 6 batteries for the same number of exposures as the D780 can do with one. That's around half a kilo or one pound, not to speak about the cost and the time it takes to charge them.
Yeh...you can make mirrorless big by putting big lenses and flash onto it...but the beauty of mirrorless is that you CAN keep it small by using small compact lenses...unlike if you start with a big heavy DSLR...no way of making it small.
I use an A7R with the Sony 35 2.8 lens which combined weigh in at 585gm...much less than most DSLR's weigh by themselves.
That's indeed one of the strong sides of mirrorless, particularly the early A7 models, but only if you can live with one battery and a slowish lens. I do this all the time with my m43 cameras and their fantastic primes. However, if I'm travelling or if I'm doing a commercial shoot, there's no way I will survive with one lens and one battery.
And of course nowadays, the current A7R IV is approaching 700g even without a lens. Its ergonomics have improved, as has the battery life. Still, I would be more than happy to carry the extra 200g of the D780 for the even better ergonomics, much better battery life and the optical viewfinder.
It's all a question of what compromise is easiest to live with for each individual.
I travel with an assortment of lenses all made for the mirrorless mount and lighter than the DSLR counterparts. I also carry 2 spare batteries...but I did that with mirrorless.
To me the weight that really counts is the one I carry in my hands...camera and lens. I can carry much more weight on my back...but my overall kit has gone down in weight by at least 60% compared to my DSLR outfit...and I believe the image quality has gone up at the same time.
I also have a very nice A6000 as a backup which weighs nothing, takes the same batteries and lenses as the A7R and takes up no room in my pack. I traveled enough with a DSLR based system to know how much lighter and smaller a mirrorless system can be. Weight is really key as many foreign airlines are now starting to enforce their 7kg carry on limits. I've been checked in India and Vietnam...was just under both times.
I don't understand what your point is. You are comparing a 7 year old Sony model with all its known limitations with the latest Nikon models. I wouldn't even dream of buying the original A7R.
The Nikon Z6 with one battery and the 85mm f/1.8 S is 1,145 grams
The Nikon D780 with one battery and the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S is 1,190 grams
For Sony fanboiz:
The Sony A7 III with one battery and the FE 85mm f/1.8 is 1,021 grams
The D780 is rated for 2,260 shots per charge, the Z6 is rated for 310 shots. (The Sony is rated for 710 shots). The Z6 is a fine camera, and I'm sure that the new lens is even better than the AF-S lens. But the older lens is very good, and few if any non-photographers will see the difference between images taken with the two.
As for airline limitations, I travel internationaly twice per month on average, mostly in Asia. So far, I have never had problems bringing my camera gear as hand-carry. If they check the weight and I'm over (I mostly am), I show them the content of the bag (which mostly is well within size limits), and they always say "please, go ahead". Few if any airlines in this part of the world want valuable camera gear with the checked in luggage. The risks are high, and they don't want to deal with possible claims. Some airlines in Southeast Asia have even raised their weight limits lately, Vietnam Airlines to as much as 12 kg if I remember correctly.
I would consider a mirrorless backup for a D780 though, like the Z6 or even the tiny Z50, since the lenses from the DSLR work fine, and the Z6 uses the same battery. The EVF of those camera are also great for video.
To add to this post if we compare the D780 to Z6 the D780 weighs 165g more, but all the f/1.8S lens are heavier than their f/1.8G counterparts. At 24mm it is 450g vs. 355g; at 35mm it is 370g vs. 200g; at 50mm it is 415g vs. 185g; and at 85mm it is 470g vs. 350g. This means that even with one lens the weight difference is minimal and goes back and forth. With 24mm and 85mm the Z6 with a lens is slightly lighter and at 35mm and 50mm the D780 with one lens is slightly lighter. If you put together any kit with even two lenses the D780 kit will be lighter (and I don't think this will change with the 20mm as the f/1.8G lens is at 355g is almost certainly going to be lighter than the f/1.8S lens).
So getting a Z6 kit to save weight (or even size) for travel doesn't really make much sense. Now, personally I use a Z7 kit for travel, so I am not saying there aren't other reasons to get a Z kit for travel but weight and size really aren't sensible reasons over the D780 and the small f/1.8G lenses. For me I can have a better set of lenses with my Z kit and I can have a high resolution camera and those things matter to me (I also really like IBIS for travel), but if one is happy with the f/1.8G lenses and 24 MP the D780 kit could be pretty compelling.
A lot of the "argument" of this only applies based on what Nikon decided to make and what they currently make. The Z7 kit looks good to you because Nikon made a small body, 46mp piece of gear. If Nikon had taken the Df or D750 as their model to design from and made a 46 mp "small" DSLR, added IBIS, and updated their 1.8 lenses to 2020 technology standards, it's very likely that would have been just as desirable a travel kit as the Z7. The D780 as it is, for those that are satisfied at 24mp, may very well be as desirable as the Z6.
I've went through about 20 pages of the Zee image thread, and it's a variety of what I'd call snaps, and then some very nice images. Give the same fellows equal mp DSLRs with IBIS (or without) and you'd still have the same fellows putting out snaps and the same fellows putting out images. The kit will not change that.
Same would hold true if Nikon built a Z9 that had the AF of the D6, but never made a D5 or D6. Then I might look at it and say I'd be buying a Z9. But that wound be a forced decision based on what Nikon decided to sell, the same as it would be now if I wanted a 46mp small body for travel.
Funny how you think you know exactly why the Z7 looks good to me and what sort of DSLR kit would look as good to me. You are actually wrong about that. For me a DSLR kit would never work for travel because I want small manual focus lenses with excellent performance in addition to an AF lens or two and that is something that just can't be done well with DSLRs. There are two problems for this type of lens with DSLRs that are inherent to the design. First, DSLRs can't magnify the viewfinder and although I like an optical viewfinder for some types of shooting, I don't like an optical viewfinder for shooting manual focus and especially wide angle manual focus. The EVF is just tons better for manual focus glass. Second there is the issue of flange distance. A DSLR has to have a long flange distance and that means large wide angle lenses, whereas there is some phenomenal and small wide angle manual focus glass available for mirrorless that just could never be built for a DSLR because it requires a short flange distance. For example, the Zeiss Loxia 21 f/2.8, the Voigtlander 21 f/3.4, the Voigtlander 21 f/1.4, and the Zeiss Loxia 25 f/2.4 are all phenomenal lenses and just could not be built for a DSLR. These sort of lenses are an integral part of any travel kit I put together. I am certainly not saying my way of designing a travel kit should set the agenda for what Nikon should do or even that my way of building a travel kit is common, but I am saying for me a DSLR would just never work for travel, and I do very much appreciate my high resolution Z7 with IBIS and I also very much appreciate that it is a mirrorless camera with a very short flange distance so I can use exactly the lenses I want to use with it.
|
