1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DSLR diehards.

Discussion in 'AP Magazine Feedback & Suggestions' started by Learning, Sep 8, 2021.

  1. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Angela, I do not consider myself a DSLR diehard. I realise some of the advantages of mirror less. If I live long enough and if my preferred manufacture pulls its finger out, then I might well go mirror less.
    I use a brace of Nikon D500 and a combination of DX and full frame lenses. I don't like fiddling with cameras so only use continuous AF (MF is disabled by a menu selection). AF is started by the back AF button or the front function button. Using the front function button allows me to start AF with a different mode (Group in my standard setting file). Nikon only provide that functionality on three cameras and they are DSLRs. The Z50 comes nowhere near the capability of the D500. I don't mind going to full frame provided I have the same pixel pitch as the D500. The Z7ii should be my choice but the interface is seriously disabled compared to the D6, D850,D500 interface. If I wanted to upgrade then the only place to go is presently the D850.
    Given that I have several very valued Nikon lenses I am not going to buy Sony or Canon. Given that Nikon have crippled the human interface of their mirror less offerings I intend sticking with my present equipment. If I lost a D500 then the replacement would be another D500 or maybe a D850. Please note that the problems of the mirror less are not that they are mirror less but Nikon have messed up the human interface.
    For me, going mirror less, would cost the best part of £10k minus the trade in value of my DSLRs. For that expenditure I would get a worse photographic experience.
    I am not criticising the article which I enjoyed, I'm just giving another perspective on why a photographer might stay with DSLR.
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2021
  2. John Farrell

    John Farrell Well-Known Member

    I see the push to mirrorless cameras as no more than a marketing stunt - sexy new gear for those who must have new. It has a serious downside, though for camera collectors - all these hipsters pushing up the prices of film camera lenses, to use on their mirrorless.
  3. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I have several digital cameras and only one is a dSLR. I also have 5 film cameras, of which 2 are SLRs. I think I must be of the mirrorless tendency...

    Leica IIIc and M3 cameras.jpg
  4. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    There is no push to mirror less except in terms of demand.
    Manufacturers follow the money.

    The advantages to the manufacturer are many fold. And are increasing as the technology approaches solid state. With fewer and fewer moving parts.
    Lenses have needed to be redesigned to accommodate the shorter back register, and most need not be retro focus as was the case with a mirror box. At the same time the correction of residual aberrations now takes place digitally. Which has permitted improved image quality with less complication and compromise.

    It is Extremely unlikely that any major manufacturer will continue to research and design new DSLR products going forward.

    The interface on mirrorless cameras is still going through the phase of optimization. And is still at much of a, suck it and see stage. However all the signs are that it will end up quite different to the one that suited DSLR, cameras. But will take advantage of the many new mirrorless features.

    In terms of image quality, at the top level little has changed. At all levels below that, mirrorless has undoubtedly increased image quality for a majority of people. In terms of portability and convenience and features, the mirrorless has already won hands down.

    For very many users the DSLR is a good and is as useful as it has ever been. And has the major advantages of a plethora of available lenses and accessories and no need to learn new skills.
    The most serious downside is only now becoming apparent, in that spares and repairs are becoming problematic, as stocks run down and repairers re-equip to accommodate new mirrorless models.
    RogerMac likes this.
  5. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    Five of my digital interchangeable lens cameras are mirrorless (3 different mounts & 4 different crop factors) None are less than 5 years old, so I don't think it's a case of 'must have new'. I certainly don't think I'd be described as a hipster, but I do freely admit to buying loads of film camera lenses to use on these bodies - I've brought 5 in the last week (3 coming with the cameras). The only lenses costing over £5 being the d-mount cine ones - so I don't think I can be accused of significantly pushing up the prices either.
    For me mirrorless offers real improvements for many shots, but they've not stopped me using my DSLRs as well.
  6. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    Does anybody consider the possibility that for many people the DSLR/mirrorless debate may be pointless unless they win the lottery or get an unexpected inheritance? Hopefully my 10 year old DSLR, and the various second hand lenses I have acquired for it, will continue working reliably for many more years.
  7. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    The article was a summer filler. It didn't address affordability. Rather it set to tease out why some experts had specific reason(s) to continue using DSLRs in the present. It wasn't written to have a moan at mirrorless. The article could have been pitched in reverse - why I've changed to mirrorless and will never look back. They'll probably all change their [selected individual] minds on DSLRs in a short while, when the second generation from Canon and Nikon appears.
  8. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Absolutely. And DSLR cameras will be around and taking excellent images for many years yet.
    But for someone aiming to start to build up a kit from scratch, they are probably not the way to go. As they will become a dead end.
  9. IvorETower

    IvorETower Little Buttercup

    This is a very interesting point; as an "oldie" with a few DSLRs and quite a bit of money tied up in lenses, would I go for a DSLR if I were setting out today? I'm also "into" micro four thirds, largely because of the size/weight advantages it
    that system brings. But if I were setting out today, I would probably go straight into just one system, and that would be mirrorless.... not because I believe that it offers significant advantages over traditional DLSRs (and my experience so far is that DSLRs still hold a significant edge when it comes to focusing on fast moving objects such as planes, racing cars) but because the manufacturers seem to have given up on developing "consumer" DSLRs. If you look at reviews of the Nikon Z lenses, they also seem to have taken a significant leap forward in image quality compared to F-mount offerings, so it looks like the writing is on the wall. How much of this is consumer driven and how much has been led by the manufacturers themselves, I don't know, but it definitely looks as if mirrorless is the way ahead. However there is still plenty of DSLR "stuff" out there in the world, so the cameras and lenses will be around for a good while yet
  10. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    Using this argument, whatever someone building up a kit chooses to buy now, they will find that it too becomes a dead end when the next 'big thing' arrives (in the opinion of the manufacturers and probably AP).

    I examined this issue carefully, I counted the number of advertisement pages (including 'in association with MPB' as a half page) devoted to used equipment and compared it with the number of advertisement pages devoted to new hardware. Interesting result...

    I abandoned the article about spending a year with a recent Canon mirrorless when the author listed all the Canon camera bodies he has owned (or at least all those he could remember). Lists can be so boring...
  11. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    They can be very interesting if you're on a boat

    ...as in "May you list in interesting times" :p
  12. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    My most recent mirrorless camera was around £150 with a lens, most photographers can afford sums like that occasionally. There is no need to buy the latest models :)
    peterba likes this.
  13. Mark101

    Mark101 Well-Known Member

    Well, it comes down to the old chestnut that the best camera is the one you have with you. The latest state of the art camera is hardly going to make you a better photographer, this is even more true since just about any camera over 16 mp is going to produce very printable results these days, in fact my phone produces very printable results.
    zx9r, peterba and Andrew Flannigan like this.
  14. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    spinno likes this.
  15. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    If the latest state of the art camera has a very different interface to learn then it might make one a worse photographer for the time it takes to learn and then get the 'muscle memory' needed to exploit the new beast. There has to be sound reason to change.
    Yes, and not only expert specialists. I am neither, but might well change my mind; it depends very much on what the manufacturers provide.
    I think what really encouraged me to comment on the article was not the content but the title. I do not think that people continuing to use DSLRs are diehards. People (including those who earn a living through photography) continue to use DSLRs for very good reasons such as the performance/cost assessment. I would expect that the second hand market for upmarket DSLRs will be strong for many years.
  16. IvorETower

    IvorETower Little Buttercup

    To make an audio comparison, some of us bought into minidiscs....
    spinno likes this.
  17. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    Confession time...I did
  18. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I have a Nikon mirrorless camera (1 V5) under the right circumstances it does a good job. The same can be said of the MiniDisc but neither supplanted it’s bigger, older stable mates. The latest generation of mirrorless cameras may indeed match the SLR in terms of image quality and performance but I already have three DSLR bodies and a range of lenses. I have no good reason to replace lenses or bodies, and my policy of having two identical bodies makes that expensive anyway, so why would I consider any different equipment? If I am not considering replacement equipment I am certainly not even contemplating mirrorless, what, or why, Angela or the other professionals do or think as they do is irrelevant.
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2021
  19. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I'm no diehard. I use both DSLRs and mirrorless cameras for both paid and personal work. Mirrorless has some unique benefits for conference work and some personal shooting, prime being a genuinely silent electronic shutter option. For most uses, I don't really care if my camera has a mirror or not, though. My crop format mirrorless camera has the advantage of being extremely portable and light, so that's great for travel. One of my DSLRs has 50MP, and that's great for landscape and product photography. Horses for courses. For most things, makes no odds which camera I use.
    Petrochemist and EightBitTony like this.
  20. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    I never 'buy into' new technology until it's been is use for long enough to have finished being tested by all the early adopters, and until the price has dropped to an 'acceptable' figure. So for me, for CD this was 1986 and £200, for DVD it was 1999 and £200, and for a DSLR it was 2007 and £400. I have never tempted by minidiscs, Blue-ray, streaming, etc. Eventually one reaches a level of quality (picture and sound) that is more than adequate, and where further spending won't improve the perceived quality unless there is a purpose-build room for it and nobody else living in the house. I suppose it comes down to buying carefully rather than always being excited by the latest stuff.

    The CD and DVD players and the DSLR have been upgraded since the original purchases, but always with models that have been on sale for a couple of years (and better still if being sold off because new models have replaced them). However, my turntable for LPs dates from 1994 and my loudspeakers from 1996, perhaps because these are items that don't depend of electronics or software that is continually being 'improved'.

Share This Page