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

So was 2020 the last year of dSLR?

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by P_Stoddart, Dec 29, 2020.

  1. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    What so many seem to have forgotten is that replacing a pair of top end bodies and top of the range lenses, 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 with their mirrorless equivalents isn't cheap (2x bodies, grips and the lenses £10,000) trading in my SLR kit might net £2,500. In theory there is a mount adaptor but I am not sure it works well with the grip, certainly the tripod bush on the adaptor is unusable with a grip on the camera. Simply, the advantages of switching don't, for me, amount to £7,500 (there aren't the used lenses around yet to soften that bit).

    I doubt I am alone in finding that I simply cannot afford to move to mirrorless. The only secondhand kit available doesn't meet my requirements and new kit is either too expensive or unavailable (not yet produced). The SLR won't leave the hands of the enthusiast on a budget until the used market in mirrorless gets filled with desirable toys. As I said the Z8/9 (I don't know what the designation will be) hasn't been finalised yet, give it two upgrades and I might be able to buy one at a price I find acceptable.

    OK so I am unusual but the same will be true at other points in the range, simply the mirrorless market in Canon and Nikon kit isn't yet mature enough to allow people to switch.
     
    MJB, RogerMac and Bazarchie like this.
  2. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    I don’t think anyone has forgotten TBH
    But taking snaps is a pastime that takes up less than 5% of my time. Hard to justify squandering £10K on a lighter kit that will give no real improvement with regards to the final image.
    Advertisers have done a fantastic job of making many feel their gear is inadequate and they need to change.
    Some of us are thankfully too cynical to believe the hype.
    The bonus is a glutton of fantastic, mint, boxed, hardly used top or the range gear at prices we can easily afford as someone else has taken the hit...( sniggers)

    So for me personally I welcome mirrorless, that 5Div you have sat in its box is old hat...take my word....you need to go mirrorless...behold, images you could only have dreamt about will suddenly appear in your new EVF.
    Hurry, limited stocks, sale must end soon.
    P.S please don’t queue jump, all lemmings should line up in a orderly fashion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2021
  3. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I don’t think anyone has forgotten, or is unaware of, the cost. It is clear that for Canon and Nikon it is a top down movement not bottom up. Their pricing will either hold or break. We have to see. As I think I said before, this won’t be an overnight transition it’ll take a decade or more and it’ll be new enthusiasts building first time systems they look to.
     
  4. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    I agree with Terry’s answer to the headline of the post. DSLRs are ceasing to be mainstream, but Leica are still making rangefinders decades after they ceased to be mainstream. I guess Pentax will continue making DSLRs as long as they remain in business, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Nikon, or even Canon, continue to offer a model or two for a long time.

    Early in the millennium, when our elder son graduated, he insisted I took a photo of his group throwing their mortar boards in the air with his Fuji bridge camera. The viewfinder was appalling; I think it only showed black and white, I remember that each time I moved the camera, it took some time for the image to re-form, and even at best I couldn’t recognize who in the group was my son. In contrast, I could happily watch events unfold one-eyed through my SLR viewfinder.

    Move on a decade and I replaced my Fuji X-10, an OVF compact for occasional use, with an EVF Panasonic LX100, because of my frustration that the X-10’s viewfinder couldn’t show where the focal point was. Even by the standards of the day the LX100’s greatest weakness was its relatively poor EVF, but I can live with it. And since then the quality of EVFs in interchangeable lens cameras hasimproved by leaps and bounds.

    I like to take shots with high image quality, standards have moved on since my Nikon D800 was made, and a couple of control buttons (not important for me) no longer work. So I’m now in a similar position to Pete Rob; I’ll probably be looking for a replacement in a couple of years. If I was doing that in the very near future, my choice would be between the D850 DSLR and the mirrorless Z7 II. Their sensors are nearly identical. For hand-held shooting I’d probably prefer the OVF view. But on the other hand:

    Mirrorless cameras typically have IBIS, able to stabilize all my lenses (there’s no good reason not to provide this in DSLRs, but Nikon and Canon haven’t).

    An EVF can show far more information about the potential shot than an OVF.

    When using a tripod I switch to live view for a wider choice of where to position the focal point and more precise focus and composition. But the switch is rather disruptive, I need to put on my spectacles to see the monitor, and that’s still very difficult with strong sunshine at the wrong angle. With mirrorless I could continue with the viewfinder or switch seamlessly.

    An EVF will allow me to review shots clearly without specs or interference from the sun.

    Mirrorless will be lighter, which becomes more important as I age.

    To the extent that I replace lenses, rather than using my current ones with an adapter, they’ll be both lighter and optically superior, not just because they’re newer, but because they can be designed with elements much closer to the sensor.

    Overall I think the advantages of mirrorless now seem to outweigh the disadvantages of shorter battery life and the “artificial” view.


    Chris
     
  5. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    There is actually a very good reason for not applying in-body stabilisation to an SLR and it is that the viewfinder image isn't stabilised, as is the case with in-lens stabilisation or an EVF. This may not appear important but with long lenses, of the type made by Canon and Nikon before stabilisation was common, the effect of having an unstabilised finder image with a stabilised sensor image could be significant. Remember that stabilisation is supposed to make hand held shooting easier but if the finder image is waving all over the place how can you be sure of your framing. Please don't suggest using Live View because trying to hand hold a 500mm lens at arms length is going to negate any in-body stabilisation.
     
  6. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Never seemed to be a problem with my Oly E5 even when using a 600mm equivalent lens. There were other reasons I changed to Canon FF but that was not one of them
     
  7. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    i would suggest the main reason a DSLR does not have in body stabilisation, is to do with the mirror and the movement of it just prior to exposure. it would be virtually impossible to dampen.
     
  8. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I suspect that Olympus decided to accept technical and/or practical limitations that Canon and Nikon did not. They never produced an SLR with stabilisation and they are unlikely to reveal their thinking.
    Olympus did it, I assume with some success, so clearly it is possible but Canon and Nikon chose not to do it. There must be a reason and it may be that my suggestion is correct or it may be that they couldn't make it work for their entire lens ranges. That would be a significant consideration as they had far more lenses than Olympus did for the E5. We'll probably never know for sure.

    Of course there is also the fact that both Nikon and Canon have extensive ranges of stabilised lenses and possibly didn't see the point in adding complexity with in-body stabilisation as well. It is a fact that in-lens stabilisation can be better optimised to the characteristics of a specific lens and in-body is a generalist design. Both companies have said that in-lens stabilisation was their preference prior to making mirrorless cameras.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2021
  9. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Pentax did I think. I’m fairly sure I’ve seen claims of long hand-held exposures.
     
  10. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    Pentax DSLRs have IBIS, and I’m not aware of any problems resulting from that.

    That’s a very good reason for including lens-based stabilization in telephoto lenses. Anyway, stabilizing a large focal length needs large movements of the sensor, which may not be feasible. And so long as Nikon continue making F-mount lenses for existing and legacy bodies, which all lack IBIS, it will be beneficial to include lens-based stabilization whenever practical.

    But it’s not a good reason for omitting IBIS from any new DSLRs they may introduce. It doesn’t seem to be practical to include stabilization in the largest-aperture lenses (although there has been progress over the years). Optically, the best lens I have is my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art. But I hardly ever carry it unless I also take a tripod, because neither my D800 or the lens include stabilization. I’d make much better use of it with a Z body and adapter (although I’d probably be wishing I could swap it for the much lighter and reputedly similarly excellent Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.8 S). IBIS would bring the same benefits to all unstabilized lenses.

    There’s no risk of me suggesting that. Except when using a tripod, I only ever use live view as a last resort, such as trying to shoot over a high fence. If my mobile phone had a viewfinder, I’d probably take photographs with it regularly; as it is, I’ve probably taken less than one a year.


    Chris
     
    RogerMac likes this.
  11. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Let us consider Nikon’s position on image stabilisation for a minute:
    Nikon does not believe that short lenses benefit from stabilisation
    Nikon believes that the most effective way to incorporate image stabilisation for long lenses is to build it into the lens

    Taking these two statements we can determine that Nikon thinks(thought) the benefit of in-body stabilisation isn’t worthy of consideration. However at some point the view on shorter lenses changed and stabilisation started to appear in short zoom lenses. With stabilisation in many, then, current production lenses the very conservative body designers saw no value in putting stabilisation into their designs. The user wouldn’t perceive the difference anyway as the finder image wouldn’t show the effect.

    Later, probably around 2015, a new generation of designers is gathered to work on mirrorless cameras that are every bit as good as Nikon DSLRs. They aren’t as conservative as their predecessors and can also see that in-body stabilisation will present a stabilised finder image in a mirrorless camera. They see no reason not to incorporate stabilisation into the Z series bodies (but not all of them).

    Nikon may have an enviable reputation for backward compatibility, even if it isn’t totally justified, but in truth the designers aren’t really concerned with people who use older lenses. The current SLR lenses incorporate stabilisation so there is no reason to add in-body stabilisation as well is there? It is a valid argument, even if you don’t agree with it.

    At some stage the conservative designers will be promoted or retire and young, more innovative designers will reconsider the decision on in-body stabilisation. Nikon has the capability to incorporate stabilisation into SLR bodies now that it is in the Z6 and Z7 so it is possible that it could happen but it is also possible that the availability of stabilised lenses will again be seen as a reason not to bother. They might also reason that the relatively short production life remaining for the entry level DSLR doesn’t justify the expense.
     
  12. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    If that’s the case, I disagree with Nikon; I want to be able to keep the ISO low and avoid camera shake even in low light. But I notice that the AF-P DX Nikkor 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G and AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED incorporate VR, so I don’t think that statement is accurate.
    It’s true that the current SLR telephoto lenses incorporate stabilization, but I’ve just looked on the Nikon UK website, and found no wide or normal primes with stabilization. I, and I think many others, would find stabilization useful with such lenses, but I think there are technical difficulties in producing in-lens stabilizers for wide apertures, although other manufacturers have made more progress in that direction than Nikon. Meanwhile all three of the Z lenses exceeding 85 mm incorporate VR. It’s not a matter of either IBIS or VR; IBIS brings a measure of stabilization whatever the lens, but in-lens stabilization is better than IBIS alone for telephoto lenses, while stabilizing some axes with IBIS and others in-lens brings still further improvement.

    I’m sure Nikon could, fairly easily, add IBIS to new DSLR models, although I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t bother, given the shrinking market. But I’ve always though the greatest weakness of my D800 is the lack of IBIS.


    Chris
     
  13. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    That statement should probably have been “Nikon did not believe that short lenses benefit from stabilisation”. The comment from Nikon was some years ago. As I said the attitude obviously changed at some point because there are short zooms with VR. However the initial “we don’t believe short lenses need stabilisation” clearly directed development for a number of years. If I remember correctly it was a good few years before Olympus and Panasonic managed to combine lens and body stabilisation to work together. It may be that the limitation is the F mount of course.
     
    RogerMac likes this.
  14. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    As you saiid, those are position statements which reflect a point in time. They are not immutable.

    I would guess that IBIS originated because compact/compact system cameras were/are largely held at arms length using live-view on the LCD, rather than a viewfinder, making sharp results a challenge. Perhaps also that Sony hit the more serious market without a lens system, making use of third-party lenses in mirrorless popular, and needed to offer stabilisation independent of the lens.

    If a camera is held properly to the eye and within the normal constraint of exposure time < 1/f (which isn’t limiting for non-telephotos in daylight) then there is no need for stabilisation but from what I see many folk like still to wave cameras around, shooting one-handed whilst looking at tilted, pulled-out LCD screens.

    Most IBIS systems defer to lens-stabilisation when a stabilised lens is fitted because this is superior for telephotos but the combination can be extra-ordinary in effect. It can also mess up too. I have the first generation Fuji IBIS in the XH-1, used with image stabilised zooms. Occasionally I get a badly shake-affected result when there is no obvious reason for it and I put this down to IBIS activating when it shouldn’t.
     
  15. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I am sure Nikon, and Canon for that matter, could put stabilisation into a DSLR body and clearly Nikon no longer believes that short lenses don't need stabilisation. Which brings us back to the question "why hasn't it been done?". There must be a limitation somewhere; it could be physical, financial, practical or philosophical. I suspect the answer is a combination of those. Remember too that Nikon have only recently ceased production of the F6 and you can't put IBIS into a film camera. Both Nikon and Canon top of the range bodies are derived from film bodies and that may have restricted the space for the sensor to move, for example. I still feel uncomfortable about a stabilised sensor image with an unstabilised finder image. It might be that because the whole range can't be equipped none of it will be. If there is a physical limitation it is likely that only a clean sheet design will resolve the problem, what are the chances of a new, clean sheet DSLR design?
     
  16. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    The first DSLR with IBIS was the Konica/Minolta 7D back in 2005 https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminolta7d
     
  17. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    Didn’t Contax do something too?
    I vaguely remember something to do with the focal plane? Can’t remember if it’s was early attempts of stabilisation or something completely different??
    It seems like a life time away since I drooled over film cameras.
     
  18. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    Unfortunately I’ve never been very steady, when younger being the opposite of a marksman with a rifle or bow and arrow, and steadiness is inevitably something that deteriorates with age. I’d get an awful lot of unsharp shots if I tried to use an unstabilized high-resolution camera and lens at 1/f. I usually set my Auto-ISO to deliver 1/f, when image stabilization can generally compensate for my unsteady hands.

    As my D800 doesn’t offer IBIS, I bought it with Tamron’s stabilized 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom rather than Nikkor’s pre-stabilization version. I usually bracket exposure over three shots, but with the Tamron I’d often find one of the three was spoiled by movement. (After damaging my Tamron when my camera bag fell, I’ve replaced it with the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 VR, and it’s stabilization is much more reliable.)


    Chris
     
  19. ChrisNewman

    ChrisNewman Well-Known Member

    The back of a mirror box mounting a digital sensor must be very different from the back of one designed to keep film flat, and I read periodically that new designs of shutter are introduced in Nikon DSLRs. Also, at some stage, they introduced sensor shaking for dust removal (presumably a half-way house to IBIS), although that might have been while they were still limited to APS-C sensors. So I think it highly unlikely that their designs have been constrained by throwbacks to film bodies. Also I doubt whether the F mount is any restriction to including IBIS in DSLRs. I suspect both Nikon and Canon wanted to avoid the cost and complication of developing IBIS, and also didn’t want to dilute their claims that lens-based stabilization was superior to IBIS. (Yet IBIS has now evolved to the position where, except for telephoto lenses, it outperforms lens-based stabilization, while avoiding constrains on the lens design, and with an additional economic advantage for most keen photographers, who will buy far fewer bodies than lenses.)

    Interestingly, a review I read not long ago described the system as offering the option of continuous stabilization, assisting viewfinding, or setting stabilization to cut in only when the shutter button was pressed, which was said to provide optimized stabilization for the shot, and also allows you to judge how stably you are holding the camera. Unfortunately I can’t remember what the products were. I suppose, given that choice, I’d choose optimum stabilization unless I was struggling to follow my subject through a long telephoto.

    Chris
     
  20. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

Share This Page