DSLRs a thing of the past?

It depends on your expectations of quality. Early EVFs were dreadful, and the current EVFs I've seen still are inferior to optical finders for shooting sports. They are getting better, but they aren't there yet.

That's right. Dreadfull, low pixel count, and low pixel density LCD screens. (The same on very expensive digital backs, that could show you that you got a picture, but were useless in showing whether you got it well enough to forget about it and move on to the next capture).

It certainly was not because of the number of lenses avialable: you could have, and still can, put those on viewfinder cameras as well.

The DSLR was needed because reflex viewing still was the best way to go about it then. That it isn't anymore is in part (besides that EVFs show the picture as it will be captured even better) because of the crummy finders they install in modern cameras, usefull only as a framing tool.

LOL, is the true test of a camera is its suitability to shoot sports? That occupies a very small percentage of people who make a living from photography. Even then, it's the understanding of the sport, a keen eye and a good sense of timing that counts, not the flipping mirror. I would argue that a rangefinder is better than an OVF, because you can see outside the frame. I did that for years, under the basket, with a Leica, 15 years before AF became a fixture. Manual focus is now much better than with a ground glass. With magnification, focus reaches scientific precision.

 

Closer to the present, the EVF was as big an improvement, for me, over the OVF as the latter was to the rangefinder, in terms of precision and functionality. The AF sensors are coplanar with the imaging sensor, and the coverage is over 90% instead of the paltry 15-25% of a reflex camera. AVF camera has ample time to track and focus between shots, whereas an SLR uses extrapolation for tracking at high speed. Nor am I limited to the 20 fps of a Sony A9. I can view and shoot video in real time, in UHD at up to 120 fps. 4k is more than enough for a full width spread on the sports page in a newspaper. A short burst of the scrimmage has an 80% chance of producing a keeper, with just the right positions and expressions. At the end of the day, you have a lot of great shots to choose from. That's what will cause the SLR to disappear from the press box, not buttons and gadgets.

Just to add to what Ed said above in favour of an EVF. It's like always viewing the subject in full daylight - even when the ambient light is too dim to see the subject properly with the naked eye.

 

And pixel densities these days are pretty much too fine to see. In fact the texture of a DSLR ground-glass screen is probably coarser and more distracting. I really can't see how anyone could love a half blacked-out splodge split-image circle and not the total clarity and viewing flexibility of a modern EVF.

 

Try squinting at an LF camera's GG under a dark-cloth with a focusing loupe and a maximum aperture of f/5.6, and then tell me how awful an EVF is to use!

Edited May 13, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

Expanding on the practical advantages of EVF vs OVF, I make frequent use of DOF previews, which are totally useless in a ground glass. Stopping down makes the GG to dark to see much beyond vague shapes. DOF is wasted on sports photography, because only the main subject counts. On an EVF, DOF is a useful tool for landscapes, closeups and portraits. The list is endless. Furthermore most MILC's focus and view with the lens stopped down. Most lenses (cinematic lenses excepted) suffer focus shift when stopped down.

 

Most EVF's refresh at 60 fps, and some up to 120 fps, which is well within the integration time of the human eye. The rate slows noticeably under extremely dim conditions, where an OVF may be totally dark. I've focused and composed shots backstage in light too dim to see the numbers on the control dials.

I don't know. We'll see how long DSLRs are offered on the market. There's a huge investment in lenses that I'm not sure Nikon and Canon will be willing to make obsolete. I suspect you will still see many photographers will still rely on what they know even though the development curve is definitely heading towards mirrorless. I imagine it will happen eventually over the next few years. How do mirrorless cameras handle like super long lenses? I don't use my DSLR or SLRs for that matter, any more, though I'm pulling my D700 out of mothballs because I really like the 17-35 lens, but I don't use really long lenses any more. EVF? I've never had a problem with using them, they work fine for me. One thing I've found that's really nice about EVFs is the WYSIWHYG. Set exposure mode on spot meter and you can very easily see how the light and shadows will work on your picture. Set it so the focus function is on a different button then exposure and you can move your camera to get the exposure you want, recompose and then focus. But concur with those who think mirrorless will basically replace them. Edited May 14, 2021 by http://www.photo.net/barryfisher

There's a huge investment in lenses that I'm not sure Nikon and Canon will be willing to make obsolete.

The point is nearly all of the legacy lenses can be used on a Z camera with the Nikon adapter with AF, AE, and metadata transfer.

 

Really long lenses are supported by the lens, not the camera. Even a 70-200/2.8 lens is not comfortable carrying on a strap, much less by the camera body.

 

Nikon made a tactical decision to use a 16 mm flange distance, rather than 18 mm for Sony and 22 mm for Leica. That means none of the Z lenses can be used with competing FF cameras. This ignores a longstanding marketing strategy - give away the razors (bodies) and sell the blades (lenses).

"Even a 70-200/2.8 lens is not comfortable carrying on a strap, much less by the camera body."

Tell me about it. I remember I had to carry 1 body with the 70-200 and another with a 24-70 all day at a parade once. Yes, quite uncomfortable.

 

Now I use a fuji and I got an adopter to be able to put my Nikon lenses on it. But I don't really like the way it works. But the Nikon Mirrorless might be a good idea if I really wanted to use the Nikon lenses I have. 24-70, 17-35 and 70-200. I should probably just sell them, but you never know what might come up, so I hang on to them.

 

So now I'm pretty happy just using the Fuji lenses and a couple of Leica lenses I have that work well.

The point is nearly all of the legacy lenses can be used on a Z camera with the Nikon adapter with AF, AE, and metadata transfer.

None of the screw-driven AF lenses will AF on the FTZ adapter (or any currently available Z-mount adapter).

LOL, is the true test of a camera is its suitability to shoot sports? That occupies a very small percentage of people who make a living from photography. Even then, it's the understanding of the sport, a keen eye and a good sense of timing that counts, not the flipping mirror. I would argue that a rangefinder is better than an OVF, because you can see outside the frame. I did that for years, under the basket, with a Leica, 15 years before AF became a fixture. Manual focus is now much better than with a ground glass. With magnification, focus reaches scientific precision.

 

Closer to the present, the EVF was as big an improvement, for me, over the OVF as the latter was to the rangefinder, in terms of precision and functionality. The AF sensors are coplanar with the imaging sensor, and the coverage is over 90% instead of the paltry 15-25% of a reflex camera. AVF camera has ample time to track and focus between shots, whereas an SLR uses extrapolation for tracking at high speed. Nor am I limited to the 20 fps of a Sony A9. I can view and shoot video in real time, in UHD at up to 120 fps. 4k is more than enough for a full width spread on the sports page in a newspaper. A short burst of the scrimmage has an 80% chance of producing a keeper, with just the right positions and expressions. At the end of the day, you have a lot of great shots to choose from. That's what will cause the SLR to disappear from the press box, not buttons and gadgets.

 

I shoot sports. That is my use case. Is that so difficult to understand? Not everyone shoots what the average shooter shoots. Sheesh!

How do mirrorless cameras handle like super long lenses?

IMHO, much better than a heavy DSLR. You're basically looking at a lens-with-camera-attached, rather than vice versa. With the camera adding not much weight and bulk to the setup. Plus the lack of mirror reduces any chance of vibration, since you're always in 'mirror-up' mode.

 

Not a long-lens case, but for example: I recently shot an oil painting for insurance purposes. Due to space restrictions I had to set the tripod legs closer together than would be ideal, and fully extend the centre column to get the camera level with the picture, all set on a soft carpet. Not ideal! However, with a MILC and self-timer exposure delay, the result was perfectly sharp. I'm pretty sure that a DSLR mirror 'clunk' would have set the whole rig vibrating.

 

OK - I could have used a DSLR with MU, but it's another step that I didn't have to bother with. And the MILC's swivelling LCD screen meant I didn't have to squeeze myself in behind the camera and adjacent wall, or stand on tiptoe to focus and align the camera.

 

I keep finding little advantages like that all the time.

Yeah, the writing has been on the wall for some time now. When you think of it a dslr kind of seems a little like a Rube Goldberg contraption compared with Mirrorless. Overly complex mouse running on a wheel type thing.

What about sensor heating in mirrorless because the EVF and/or the monitor is constantly being fed information, heating up the electronics and battery resulting in more noise, lower dynamic range? Nobody - manufacturers, testhouses, reviewers - that I know have published actual data on this image quality degradation.

Heating? Ha, just not an issue for most cameras, other than certain people keep dredging it up. Nobody publishes data because it's not an issue and nobody gives a crap, save for one or two models with video issues that we all know about.

DSLRs a thing of the past?

PN geezers ... things of the past? :)

Now I use a fuji and I got an adopter to be able to put my Nikon lenses on it. But I don't really like the way it works. But the Nikon Mirrorless might be a good idea if I really wanted to use the Nikon lenses I have. 24-70, 17-35 and 70-200. I should probably just sell them, but you never know what might come up, so I hang on to them.

I wouldn't get rid of these lenses until I had something to replace them. The three overlapping zooms constitute the core kit for serious photography. I used them, along with Leica lenses, for several months following acquisition of a Sony A7ii (with game-changing IBIS). It's just too expensive to replace everything from scratch. I used a Novoflex adapter, which was made well but had no markings on its aperture control ring.

 

Adapters have come a long way since 2014. I bought a Fotodiox adapter before giving a camera to my son, which enables AF for an AF-S lens, has automatic diaphragm control, and passes metadata.

Heating? Ha, just not an issue for most cameras, other than certain people keep dredging it up. Nobody publishes data because it's not an issue and nobody gives a crap, save for one or two models with video issues that we all know about.

Certain people (a certain person) keeps dredging it up but can't test this themselves or accept such facts so this will again fall on one person's deaf ears here. ;)

 

Are DSLRs doomed? Tony Northrup says no.

Any real measurement data on mirrorless sensor heating?

Thanks Ed, I'll keep that in mind. The overlapping range coverage is why I bought them in the first place. Truth is, I tend to keep it all anyways. I might have to try a Sony one of these days, but right now I'm more contemplating a Fuji Med Fmt. I do like the Fujis.

Hyperbole alert! The way most of you talk you'd think that DSLRs cannot take a good shot. Such nonsense.

Hyperbole alert! The way most of you talk you'd think that DSLRs cannot take a good shot. Such nonsense.

Who said that?

At some point it will make sense to get serious about mirrorless, but I haven't noticed any decline in what my collection of Canon DSLRs and lenses provide, and I suspect that will be true for some years to come. Until then the only thing I'm looking for is an upgrade to a couple of lenses, and as long as Canon keeps telling me I'll be able to use the new ones on mirrorless in the future (yes, with adapters, I'm sure) it will be fine (and as long as software allows me to use it, I suppose). Cameras, like so much of our tech, have way more capability than I'm able to deploy so I'm obviously not a great market for the next fabulous picture-taking-device.

I agree with David. In fact, I just ordered an EF 70-200 II, which surprisingly was on the list of lenses Canon is going to stop making. I wanted to get one while they're available. If a truck runs over my 5D IV and I and end up replacing it with an R5, I'll keep the lens and buy an adapter. But in the meantime, I'll enjoy it on the 5D IV, which is every bit as good a camera now as it was when I bought it.

I finally read through all of this and it’s kind of funny. I don’t think there has ever been a practical need for mirrorless but people finally quit buying the latest dslr every time it came out so the manufacturers had to come up with something new to talk us into buying it. The question around here at one time was what do you need/want to do that you can’t do with what you have? For me the answer is nothing. I can and have shot sports, news, weddings, reunions and more with the same camera body. Gone are the days when I needed medium format to make bigger prints but the D4 and D8XX bodies do everything. Mirrorless? Why bother unless you just want to but if I’m ever forced to go mirrorless I expect I’ll just walk away.

 

Rick H

if I’m ever forced to go mirrorless I expect I’ll just walk away.

I've heard the same arguments regarding 35 mm (Leica, 1956), SLR (Nikon F, 1960), digital (Nikon D1h, 2001). Now it's mirrorless (Sony A7, 2014).

 

The epiphany for pros is when your competition is producing work you can't match. For dilettantes it's what your friends don't have yet. For enthusiasts it's when you can combine he optical quality and handling of Leica, the precision of a reflex, and resolution unmatched by film.

 

Don't let the door slam on your way out ;)

Edited May 19, 2021 by Ed_Ingold

for pros ... for dilettantes ... for enthusiasts

And for artists, it's more of a vision thing ...

Not sure what category I fit in but I'm producing far better results under more difficult lighting conditions with the Z6 than I ever did before. It's the EVF that makes that possible, because I can see what I couldn't see before.