Why go DSLR?

<p>I can use my dslr in live view like a mirrorless. Can you use a mirrorless like a dslr?</p>

<p>"Or if you want something higher spec, a Fuji X-E1 kit is $1199. You can't get anything new at that level in a DSLR for that money."</p>

<p>How about this ?</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-DX-Format-Digital-18-105mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B0042X9LCO/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370922129&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+d7000+kit</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That lens is not on the level of the Fuji. You'd need an f/2.8 zoom for the D7000.</p>

<p>The Fuji zoom is not a constant f2.8 either. It's a f2.8-4.0 I could add a 50mm f1.8 and still be under your price.</p>

<p>What I mean is that the Fuji zoom is much better than any of the Nikon zooms that are not the 2.8. You can look it up.</p>

<p>John, you started a thread in another forum to ask about why one would want a mirrorless camera, then would not accept any of the answers and instead repeated your reasons for not wanting one, which included them being more expensive. I pointed out there that that's not true, and you keep saying it. WTH do you want to find out?</p>

<p>I grew up on film SLRs and although I have a G10 and have used a mirrorless camera for a short time, nothing beats being able to look through the viewfinder.<br>

For my commercial applications, I don't think many clients would be that happy to see me pull out the G10 if they are paying for portraits and I know I wouldn't stand a chance if I tried shooting equestrian sport with anything other than the best dSLR I could afford.<br>

In terms of hobby shooting, the G10 is handy to keep in my pocket and produces some nice work, but I've now gone back to shooting film as hobby photography (or "personal projects" as they are called on my web site). I think all down to looking through optics and not at a screen.<br>

My 2p.</p>

<p>These threads would be really useful IF they would just list the strong points and weak points of each system, rather than personal opinions driven by personal needs. Mainly because we all have different needs.... so just a few bullet-lists with pros/cons would do. All the bickering about what person A likes better and what person B finds unacceptably large and heavy.... it's just opinions, people, not facts.</p>

<p>Plus, why can't we just be happy to have a choice? Why do some feel a fanboy-istic need to defend their choice of camera? Get the tool that works for you, shoot. Let's talk photos, rather than what you used to shoot them with. It's endlessly more interesting.</p>

<p>It used to be that you had to shoot with a DSLR to get the image quality or speed you want. Thats changing. And quickly. In the $500-1500 market we are seeing some great technology and certainly the best of the mirrorless cameras rivals the mid range DSLR's.</p>

<p>I spent half my career hauling around heavy film cameras like the F3 and F4. Now the job can be done much easier, but professionals are resisting the move to smaller cameras. I'm not sure why. maybe its a right of passage to carry a couple of D3's.</p>

<p>One group, the paps, are changing. They need reach and light weight. The money goes in the glass. Jamie Fawcett uses Canon 40D's. He can afford whatever he wants, but he sticks with this body because he knows its capability and says it produces the nicest jpegs requiring minimal post processing. He can crop and send off in the minimum timeframe.</p>

<p>Its the same with the Nikon D90 and D300...These bodies are great cameras and are now fetching only $4-500. This makes it practical to own 2-3 depending on your requirements as a pro.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>All cams are great. They take photos.</p>

<p>DSLR Just bigger and badder ...and well....get the photo.</p>

<p>Of course you can sneak around with the others....</p>

<p>But why sneak...you are a Photographer be proud. Nothing to hide.</p>

<p>I don't think it's about resistance to change, but simply that human hands are of certain size, and if anything they've probably been growing over the centuries (as humans have become taller). I find the shape of the D3X / D4 type cameras most ergonomic and reasonably symmetrical in operation between horizontal and vertical formats, whereas when using a camera body without vertical grip, I have to lift my right hand up to shoot verticals and the body weight is hanging from this strange crane like thing, essentially forcing all the weight to be on the left hand (since the right hand cannot sustain the weight of a body + heavy lens indefinitely in this orientation). Now, if I have a vertical grip I can have both of my elbows against my chest and the weight is mostly on my body and only a little bit on my hands, and symmetrically between the two hands, irrespective of whether I'm shooting vertical or horizontal images. I find this a good thing, which is why, given a chance, I will often pick an integral vertical grip camera over a smaller camera when I intend to shoot a lot of vertical orientation images.</p>

<p>I have one modern mirrorless camera, though it is not with interchangeable lenses, the Fuji X100s (with an APS-C size sensor and 23mm f/2 lens). I find its autofocus to be fast and reasonably secure on static subjects, though the number of focus steps is surprisingly small and I'm a little suspicious that peak sharpness might be compromised because of it in some situations. It cannot really be used to track an approaching subject, which is where the limits of mirrorless cameras today seem to set in. There are cameras with even smaller sensors that give substantially less high quality images e.g. Nikon 1 series (2.7x crop) that can autofocus track approaching subjects but this seems to be a feat owing to the very deep depth of field offered; when a fast lens (e.g. 85/1.4) is mounted on an adapter the AF system fails to impress any more. I find this kind of limitations (cannot track focus using extremely thin depth of field) on a small camera acceptable e.g. if it is to be used for specific subjects, e.g. to shoot a quiet event with static subjects in a church etc. to minimize the sound of the camera, but there's no way I'd want to use such a camera as primary camera. Subject tracking with DSLRs is everyday stuff now, and I don't want to give it up. If the cameras that can do tracking and shallow depth of field (i.e. 200/2, 85/1.4) are large, I accept that; my fingers are long and they're not getting any shorter, and a comfortable sized camera is best so that the camera doesn't get lost in the palm of my hand and my fingers don't accidentally obstruct the viewfinder or main lens.</p>

<p>By the way although I like the X100s, and find its image quality good, it's not even near D800 image quality, and the print doesn't have to be large to see it. I think small cameras have their place, but I find the X100s a little too small if anything; I bought it for discrete documentation of people and events in situations where my DSLRs are too loud and the sound from the mirror echoes through the space. However I would prefer it to be full frame so the image quality would be a closer match to the D800. I cannot however justify the cost of an RX1 or Leica M for this specific purpose, at least not now. In most cases the presence of the photographer is a far greater distraction than the sound of the camera, and the size of the camera is almost not an issue at all (prime lens + DSLR is small enough already). Photographing classical music can be one instance where the sound from the camera can cause issues but in many cases these situations also require extremely good low light performance from the camera and fast lenses, which mostly are available for DSLRs, so it's a bit of a paradox (again Leica M is an exception, but it is very, very expensive and not as quiet as e.g. the X100s with its central shutter). I find the best solution is perhaps to take photographs either between pieces, or when the music is loud enough that the camera is not a problem.</p>

<p>I just spent the weekend in Stockholm and carried a backpack with approximately 7kg of photo equipment in it. Yes, walking the streets with this amount of gear does get a little tiring but mostly it's the lack of practice that is the issue, not so much the gear. I'd do whatever it takes to get the shot that I want, and if heavier equipment means greater percentage of success, or a unique look to the image, then I am happy to carry it within the limitations of my carrying capacity. On other days I can just walk and shoot with a DSLR and a single prime lens, and that is also effective, in a different way. I think it is great that there are so many options, and everyone can find what best suits their method of photography. I think it is unfortunate that so many people express such strong opinions against other approaches that make other people happy and yield results that they find good. It's as if a lot of people felt that only their own approach is really valid and other approaches should not be allowed or that their practitioners have some problem with their logic.</p>

<p>I happen to like optical viewfinders, especially prism-based DSLR viewfinders, also the optical viewfinders of some mirrorless cameras such as the Fuji X100s, and the Leica M series cameras. EVFs offer some advantages such as more precise framing information, and new kinds of focus aids for manual focusing, but I don't like viewing the EVF image particularly, and I find the variable delay distracting, and it makes it more difficult to time shots of moving subjects. E.g. in the Nikon 1, when tracking an approaching skater with the 30-100mm tele, I found that it was impossible for me to get shots where the subject was still fully in the frame when the actual shot happened, as the electronic image was so far delayed that the skater had half exited the frame even though the camera itself is very fast. I cannot imagine ever paying a substantial amount of money for a camera which doesn't give a real image view of the subject without distractions. I can accept a hybrid optical / electronic viewfinder, in fact I find such solutions quite elegant.</p>

<p>In the real wold, if it is really important....</p>

<p>No second chances.</p>

<p>We all know what we will use.</p>

Mirror or not, it's got to have some sort of proper viewfinder. I can't hold any camera as stable at arm's length as I can

when it's close to my body.

<p>To the OP:</p>

<p>(1) The introspective appraisal of what you see on a prism as opposed to a direct view and the ability to preview the result (if you use the DOF lever...);</p>

<p>(2) Versatility - can be used easily with a variety of lens focal lengths not so easily accomplished by mirrorless bodies;</p>

<p>(3) An older and proven (or "accepted") technology;</p>

<p>(4) Its redefinition of what a "real" camera is (after the successive TLR and Leica RF periods that defined the camera before SLR);</p>

<p>(5) "Size" vanity of the photographer.</p>

<p>(6) Success of Nikon and Canon ads in popular media, and omnipresent news/magazine photographer use</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sarah, EVF lag is neglectable in most situations unless you are dealing with fast action sport. I have used more p&s than you, no? I do mostly street photography. And Canon p&s are the worst of the bunch in AF/shutter lag. Really, Sarah, what modern p&s have you used extensively?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Leslie, I understand you are trying to back out from this discussion, but I'll just answer your questions:</p>

<p>I assume you've probably used more P&S than I have. My current P&S is a Canon G11, which you say (and I accept) might have more EVF lag than a Sony. Still, I can tell you I use the G11's crappy little OVF, not the ordinarily better EVF, when I'm shooting action or anything in bright light. I also often use the EVF capabilities of my DSLR cameras (liveview), but only if I'm not shooting action. I've also had occasion to use all variety of EVF cameras when asked to take a picture for someone with their camera (which happens quite a lot). I've never seen an EVF I've really liked, mostly because of resolution and lag. However, most shots I'm asked by others to take (usually poses in front of something) are not fleeting in nature.</p>

<p>Note here that "action" doesn't mean race cars or Olympic athletes. Action can simply mean catching that fleeting expression on a subject's face or that quick moment that the mama bird passes off a piece of meat to the baby -- anything that requires precise timing. In my experience, with my level of coordination and my speed of reflexes -- my ability to anticipate shots that might be anticipated -- I can catch those moments with an OVF and usually not with an EVF. (I have extremely fast reflexes, BTW.) It's not attributable to any other lag than the EVF lag, because I expose manually, seldom use flash (and then only manual), and prefocus.</p>

<p>Finally, you say that a P&S is fine in MOST situations, and I can respect that. However, I would have to say that I prefer a DSLR because it is fine in ALMOST ALL situations. It is a better generalist camera. But I do have the G11 for situations where it is better:</p>

<ul>

<li>extreme macro</li>

<li>compactness</li>

<li>silent operation</li>

<li>very high flash sync speed (1/2000)</li>

</ul>

<p>My DSLR cameras get easily 90% of the use, but the G11 is a good choice for that remaining 10%. I have both for a reason. If I had to give up one or the other, I'd give up the G11, even if you offered me the fastest/best P&S/mirrorless instead. That's because maybe 1/4 of what I do with the DSLR can't be done with the P&S, and maybe 1/4 of what I do with the P&S can't be done with the DSLR. I'd rather lose out on 1/4 of the 10% than 1/4 of the 90%.</p>

<p>'Coz I own a DSLR and related bits, and its all paid for!</p>

Ergonomics.

<p>No, it will be a long time before we get that list of pros and cons, Wouter, because it is not like comparable or even close to reviewing an auto for its gas mileage, braking distance and so on. Sure we can try, but it would fill a book or two...<br>

Mainly I would argue because with digital cameras the metrics themselves are not that straightforward and we are dealing with a moving set of metrics. Just,for instance, as we have thrown the megapixel metric business overboard (even as so many absolutely refuse to give up on that one because it feels like it must be important) <br>

Iilka, your human hands and ergonomics discussion is interesting because I kind of agree. That one triips us up however. We got to add the caloric price of human carrying capacity for a long journey or a day's work or air travel limits or that kind of stuff. <br>

Then there is always the must fit in a pocket for impromptu shooting argument which is vital to some and trivial to me personally.<br>

And a whole lot of same and on and on but the discussion is going to continue as it probably does in the engineering department of the manufacturers as we speak... The visual lag part is going to be real and relevant, at least for a while, but I am betting that will be solved soon, just as the microsecond shutter lag thing in DSLRs got solved ten years ago. Computing power will win out, no limit to that power. <br>

A link that relates to the psychology part. Using small mirrorless in a money making professional environment, one person's take on that aspect:<br>

http://www.smallcamerabigpicture.com/how-to-overcome-fears-using-micro-43rds-cameras-in-a-professional-environment/</p>

<p>No reason other than price. Already have an E-410 bought in 2009, can't afford OM-D body or I'd have one, I'd like it because, with adapters, could fit my ancient Pen F lenses (the Pen F is a 35mm half-frame SLR designed by Maitani and introduced in 1963). In fact with adapters you can fit a huge range of weird and exotic lenses to the M4:3 mount.</p>

<p>Why DSLR? Because I invested in a system 8 years ago, and its still working with occasional upgrades and add-ons. I've no reason to consider starting over. Call it inertia, or call it common sense - after all, its still working.</p>

<p>Andy,</p>

<p>"John, you started a thread in another <a id="itxthook3" href="/casual-conversations-forum/00bj8Y?start=50" rel="nofollow">forum<img id="itxthook3icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> to ask about why one would want a mirrorless camera, then would not accept any of the answers and instead repeated your reasons for not wanting one, which included them being more expensive. I pointed out there that that's not true, and you keep saying it. WTH do you want to find out?"</p>

<p>There is a big difference between " would not accept any of the answers " and not AGREEING with the responses. Here is an example:</p>

<p>Isn't it great, they are all SMALLER than a DSLR !<br /> No, that's not always great. In fact in for some people, it's a negative. I find the grip on my D7000 less comfortable to hold than the grip on my older F4. The grips on all the even smaller mirrorless bodies would fit my hand even worse than my D7000.</p>

<p>Here is another example:</p>

<p>The Mirrorless cameras don't cost more than DSLRs, like you are proposing.</p>

<p>Your example was the Fuji XE-1 with lens for $1200. I countered with the D7000 with lens. You say that Sony lens is better than ANY Nikon lens that is slower than a FIXED f2.8 lens. Even letting that statement go , I could easily put a less costly DSLR body, say a D3200 on the table and put a more costly lens on it and beat your price and equal the lens quality. The X-Mount lenses are selling for $500 - $900. The 60mm f2.4 is $650. That seems quite a LOT for a 60mm f2.4, in my mind. So, I don't agree that a comparable mirrorless camera kit costs less than a DSLR kit.</p>

<p>Perhaps a 3rd example ?</p>

<p>The EVF is better than an optical one, like some are suggesting, because of the WYSIWYG feature.</p>

<p>For some types of shooting, that may be, but based on what I've read in this thread, that does not seem to be the universal response. Some don't like it for a few reasons. So, should I accept these answers I have been given as reasons to buy a mirrorless camera, or may I choose to disagree with them ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John, you don't have to accept the answers as reasons you should buy a mirrorless camera. You should accept them as reasons some other people would buy mirrorless cameras. Some people want small cameras with small high quality lenses and EVFs. You don't. Difference of opinion.</p>

<p>None of this matters to me, except in the context that I'm trying to supply you information that you asked for, because that's something that people do on a forum. For example, that sometimes cost can be a factor in favor of buying a mirrorless, "sometimes" being a key word, and provided two examples. Do you want that information, or do you want to argue with people?</p>

<p>Sarah, just for you:)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My current P&S is a Canon G11, which you say (and I accept) might have more EVF lag than a Sony.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never said anything about EVF lag, I said AF and shutter lag. The sony RX100 I have isn't just faster, it is ***<em><strong>much (see data below)</strong></em>*** faster (than the G11/12) according to my source. The Canon may very well has a slower LCD refresh rate but I don't have any substantial fact if they are or not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've also had occasion to use all variety of EVF cameras when asked to take a picture for someone with their camera (which happens quite a lot).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most p&s are indeed slower, especially if they are of older generations. What specific brand/models were they? We have to be specific here because they vary all over the place. Again, 98.9% of them are indeed slower with regard to AF and lag, <em><strong>especially Canon p&s.</strong></em> But some are indeed quick...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've never seen an EVF I've really liked, mostly because of resolution and lag.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, I don't argue preferences/opinion. You are welcome to like RF viewing, OVF or, say, scale focusing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In my experience, with my level of coordination and my speed of reflexes -- my ability to anticipate shots that might be anticipated -- I can catch those moments with an OVF and usually not with an EVF. (I have extremely fast reflexes, BTW.) It's not attributable to any other lag than the EVF lag, because I expose manually, seldom use flash (and then only manual), and prefocus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Manual focusing is slower than pre-focus in general. Many people use mirrorless and p&s cameras for street photography and are successful, I'm not sure why you are not and won't speculate Again, my compacts AF/shutter lag is quicker or very similar to my dslr concerning AF/shutter lag in most lighting condition. If you want the absolute minimum shutter lag, shoot an older leica M film camera...Most dslrs are still quite slow with their mirrorbox flop. Mirrorless cam such as the Ricoh grd, the RX100 and the Nikon V1 beat most dslrs in most situations.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would have to say that I prefer a DSLR because it is fine in ALMOST ALL situations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, again, you can <em><strong>prefer</strong> </em>whatever camera. John can prefer mirrorless and Jane can prefer 4x5, Doe can prefer polaroid, or a lomo etc...But yes, dslr are pretty versatile but they do have weaknesses, just like any other tools.<br /> <br /> Here are a few examples of AF || prefocus || manual focus shutter lag:</p>

<ul>

<li>Sony Nex 7: 0.223 || 0.022 || 0.073</li>

<li>Olympus OMD: 0.277 || 0.056 || 0.102</li>

<li>Panasonic GF5: 0.180 || 0.066 || 0.074</li>

<li>Nikon V1: 0.097 || 0.073 || 0.075</li>

<li>--------------------<strong>Mirrorless</strong>----------------------------------</li>

<li>Canon 60d: 0.253 || 0.063 || 0.083</li>

<li>Nikon d7000: 0.238 || 0.053 || 0.054</li>

<li>Canon 6d: 0.290 || 0.059 || 0.074</li>

<li>Nikon d600: 0.260 || 0.054 || 0.054</li>

<li>--------------------<strong>DSLR</strong>---------------------------------------</li>

<li>Panasonic LX7: 0.241 || 0.010 || 0.255</li>

<li>Sony RX100: 0.153 || 0.013 || 0.032</li>

<li>Canon S110: 0.484 || 0.078 || 0.326</li>

<li>Canon G11: 0.54 || 0.072 || <strong>0.47</strong></li>

<li>-------------------<strong>-Point and Shoot</strong>-----------------------</li>

</ul>

<p>Sarah, please do note your generally snail g11 is extremely slooow w/ shutter lags even with manual focus set! <strong>Over 10x slower</strong> than the RX100! Data speak for themselves...</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sarah, please do note your generally snail g11 is extremely slooow w/ shutter lags even with manual focus set! <strong>Over 10x slower</strong> than the RX100! Data speak for themselves...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wowza! Point well made, Leslie! Your time here wasn't wasted after all. ;-)</p>

<p>As for which specific models of EVF cameras I've tried -- I honestly have no idea. I would say 99% of them have been P&S models that you hold at arm's length. I'll have a look sometime at the RX100 and see whether I can snap a "decisive moment" photo of an animated salesperson. But for now, my DSLR cameras are doing just fine, and I don't see my personal budget making much room for anything besides a 6D in my intermediate future. Anyway, thanks for sharing the data with me. ;-)</p>

<p>I have nothing to do with the data gathering. Data is via imaging-resource.com, a pretty damn good site imo. The RX100 Mk2 is rumored to be coming shortly, they say. Best w/ the 6d...</p>