Mirrorless migration, pro shooters, and other stuff

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I think it's as natural to dump DSLRs as it was to dump 35mm SLRs. Though 'dump' is a bit crude. ;-) Nobody argues that most people should be shooting film anymore (although...).</p>

<p>I think we all still agree that if you're shooting fast moving sports, you really should think a bit before using a mirrorless camera. It's silly to think that an A7r is the best tool for that kind of thing.</p>

<p>But for most subjects, the mirrorless bodies are better choices. How many lenses can you fit on a DSLR system? Multiply that by ten for a mirrorless system. How do you like <em>that</em> choice?<br>

<br />DSLRs have been a niche for some time now, and I think people are realising that they don't need those chunky bodies, any more than they need chunky Dell PCs now that we have iPads, Mac minis and iMacs. Even Mac Pros, which are silent and efficient, are not necessary except for those who edit a lot of video. But I risk going off-topic.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>This post, as I was expecting, went south with the very first response.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It actually went south with the original post and its claims that aren't backed by facts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>DSLRs have been a niche for some time now</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But for most subjects, the mirrorless bodies are better choices. How many lenses can you fit on a DSLR system? Multiply that by ten for a mirrorless system. How do you like <em>that</em> choice?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How many lenses do you actually need? Adapting all kinds of lenses onto a mirrorless body is attractive for some (in the same way that there are still some that cling to using the rangefinder) - but in terms of using native mount lenses, I am quite sure Nikon and Canon have Sony beat.</p>

<p>David - what are your intentions with all these posts? What is it to you if mirrorless is or isn't the future? Why does it matter if some pros switch to mirrorless? Why are you trying so hard to convince us to let go of the DSLR and embrace the wonderful new mirrorless? Why is it important that Canon and Nikon wake up and produce a mirrorless? So far, mirrorless has only been marketed by those companies that have realized they don't have a chance to compete against Canon and Nikon on the DSLR market. Eventually, Canon and Nikon will have to compete with their own offerings - but for them, the stakes are different. </p>

<p>David, you base your arguments on a some assumptions and assertions - and your posts go south when someone doesn't accept those assumptions and assertions at face value but challenges them.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>The thing is I assign <em>worth</em> to peoples accounts and reckonings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That doesn't change anecdotal data.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>And yes, Canon and Nikon need to wake up - not because of mirrorless but because what should have been obvious years ago - there will come the point where people will not see the reason to update a camera every one or two years. Despite that "obvious fact", the model cycles didn't get longer, but the advances shrunk and/or became less important with each new model - so more and more people decided to sit out one or two model cycles - the "old" camera was "good enough". Add to that some rather questionable business and model decisions and the result is a collapsing camera market. </p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Who cares?</p>

<p>Certainly not the people who photograph, whether thay have a plastic Diana, a Sinar Fi, a Hasselblad digital, an Olympus digital, a Leica M240, a Nikon D810, a Sony alpha 7RII or a Yashicatmat 124G. They are thinking of making and looking at pictures, not market statistics or camera business strategies. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>The thing is I assign <em>worth</em> to peoples accounts and reckonings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just not in the accounts and reckonings of worldly and long-time industry observers, working photographers, and experienced people ... such as the voices here? Two guys in a retail store, who have a personal vested interests in promulgating the narrative of professionals willing to take small amounts of money for unloaded professional DSLR rigs and paying brand new full-boat retail money for new equipment for which they'll need new lenses ... the musings of those two guys wouldn't be just a WEE bit biased towards their own marketing efforts? And here you are working for them.</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Dieter at no point, in any of my posts, have I ever tried to get anyone to get rid of their DSLR's. I have been a proponent on this website an others about using the correct tool for the job. Every photographer must find the right gear to help achieve whatever vision they are trying to create.</p>

<p>My interest is, as I have stated over and over and over, is how mirrorless will effect DSLR's and the current market giants that produce them. I hope you read what I posted in the other thread we were discussing this in but if not I will cover it briefly here.</p>

<p>It appears that the success of mirrorless is going to prompt Canon and Nikon to produce a serious mirrorless camera. I hope this is the case because I am very interested in what Canon can produce for this market. But if the big two do field serious and or professional mirrorless models there is what I see as three different ways to go about this.</p>

<p>•Make the new mirrorless camera as a stand alone unit with an eye on it eventually replacing DSLR's as your top seller<br /> •Make the new mirrorless camera as a model that will sell along side DSLR's with no serious thought as to it replacing your current bread and butter machines<br /> •Make the new mirrorless camera completely subservient (or inferior) to DSLR's with absolutely no chance of it even coming to market parity with DSLR's (sort of what they have choosen to do up until now, but this could easily be transferred to the new model by giving the mirrorless camera the same old EOS or F mount in which case we would just have bigger, more expensive EOS M10's to choose from...yay)</p>

<p>How Canon and Nikon choose to approach this new camera is probably one of the biggest decisions they will have to make in recent times. The three options above (which are just what is popping up in my mind, there are most likely others) will be determined around decisions made about the mount to be used.</p>

<p>In a nutshell, these 'serious' models from Canikon will have their future decided depending on that very important mount decision. The big two are in a great place currently with a humongous DSLR lens selection which nobody else can really come close to in apsc and FF formats. But a new camera will almost certainly have to have a new mount, unless the third option above is chosen. And if they do go with a new mount then a whole new line of lenses will be called for. Now they are suddenly no longer the market powerhouses, but rather in last place, <em>in regards to mirrorless</em>, when it comes to lens selection. And the first two decisions above will lead to their mirrorless in some form of competition with their own DSLR's.</p>

<p>I find all of this interesting and I am curious as to how each company will react to this scenario. Personally I am of the opinion that MC's will eventually replace DSLR's, for many reasons I have mentioned in many posts on this site. Its not going to happen in the next few years but there is a strong possibility it will eventually happen. And no, I don't have any hard data on this as it is my opinion. It might happen, it might not. But bigger companies than Canon and Nikon have fallen, failed, or been bought by once smaller competitiors. I don't think anyone would fail to disagree that the big two have gotten rather slow in reacting to the market of late. That is never, ever good for a company.</p>

<p>But going deeper down that road, there is also a feeling I have that this whole debate might be superseded entirely because of the gestalt of photography changing in an even more radical way than even I believe will happen. Between the slumping market and the 'well its good enough' mentality of web photo consumption combined with the reduction in photojournalist positions around the world and the acceptance of cell phone imagery along with new techs like 4k image-in-video capture, drones and interesting new powerful cameras like the Light L16.....well, photography as we know it may change in ways that are to dramatic to even imagine right now.</p>

<p>So there you go. I would love to hear any of your thoughts about how Canikons mirrorless decisions could effect their DSLR market share in the near future and which path, if any, you believe their mirrorless development will take.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_smith110]

<p>On the contrary Matt. The guys who do the podcasts I listen to are, in your words, long-time industry observers, working photographers, and experienced people. Same with the videos I watch and the articles I read. They are industry people and working photogs and I assign worth to what they say if I decide they are not full of crap. I don't agree with all of it, but I listen and learn where I can. And these are people from all over the world, including two smart and clever photographers from Calagary who work for The Camera Store. Chris and Jordan consistently put out quality videos and informative reviews that include witty and insightful insights into many aspects of our art.</p>

<p>Should I listen to them any less because they are just two guys in a retail store? Everyone's opinions matter and its foolish of you to think I don't understand how people have a vested interest in promoting their own success and how to recognize when this is the case.</p>

<p>As for the voices on here? I respect everyones opinion on this site, even the ones raised in dissension. If I didn't I wouldn't continue the dialogue. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>Adapting all kinds of lenses onto a mirrorless body is attractive for some (in the same way that there are still some that cling to using the rangefinder) - but in terms of using native mount lenses, I am quite sure Nikon and Canon have Sony beat.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Beat in number but not quality. The ability to use existing Nikon (and Leica) lenses with image stabilization was a major factor in selecting a Sony A7ii. I first turned to Leica (returned is a better word) from Nikon because I grew to like the smaller form factor and wide angle lenses that were actually sharp in the corners. As it turned out, native lenses were better in every regard than either Leica or Nikon, so "adapted" lenses have gradually been set aside. The "adapted" lenses, however, played an important role in bridging the gap.<br>

<br>

There may be things my Nikon can do better, but in the last year I've not found any task beyond the capability of the Sony A7. What started as a backup ended up at the top of the bag.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>It appears that the success of mirrorless is going to prompt Canon and Nikon to produce a serious mirrorless camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's at this time no indication that Canon and Nikon are going to produce a serious mirrorless camera anytime soon. And if/when they do, I sure hope it is not because of any current "success" of mirrorless but because they have developed some viable technology and have a solid business plan in place. And I do hope that they come up with a plan that doesn't put them in last place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would love to hear any of your thoughts about how Canikons mirrorless decisions could effect their DSLR market share in the near future and which path, if any, you believe their mirrorless development will take.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Any thoughts I might have on what their mirrorless development will be mere speculation without the benefit of even the slightest reliable information. My crystal ball is also quite hazy on how those decisions will affect their DSLR market share. Moreover, I do believe that a big driver in their development of mirrorless will be the lower production cost and thus the chance to make a bigger profit. And if indeed an entirely new lens system is needed - then the move can only be gradual - not even Canon and Nikon can turn out more than 6-8 new lenses annually. Just look how long it took Nikon to replace their outdated screwdrive AF 20/24/28/35mm primes. </p>

<p>I don't share your view that DSLR is at the end of it development - there's plenty that can be done to improve upon the concept. Canon hasn't shown much innovative drive lately; Nikon has not been much better in that regard either. In the past, Nikon has surprised a few times with innovative solutions - and I certainly hope they come up with something now that may make the question DSLR or mirrorless a moot one. The one thing I am quite certain of that they should not continue on their current path of minor feature upgrades - that's a sure way to sink the ship. Canon took the risk developing and releasing the 7D MkII (that Nikon didn't take with the D400) - the price development clearly shows that the market for a high-performance crop-sensor camera in the $1.8K range is rather small.</p>

<p>Until Canon and Nikon out their cards on the table, I see no need for the kind of idle speculation that seems so important to you. Do you harbor hopes that anything that's being said in here will actually influence what Canon and Nikon will do? There will be answers to all the questions you pose - time will tell. What I can say is that I am not happy with how Nikon continued from the D300/D700 era - with the D8x0 Series being the only exception (and even those cameras have some handling issues). I had hoped for and expected a rather different model scenario - for me another reason not to speculate as to what their mirrorless development might bring.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I think I agree with Dieter. Who knows how development will proceed, its all speculation. All I can say is as long there is sufficient business reasons to make cameras and the market remains competitive and companies keep spending to develop their tech, that we will see continuing evolving and even new designs. To me, if you are getting down to spending the money on any system camera, you will know what you want and why. </p>

[mike dixon]

<i>Most pro photogs will simply make a decision about what works for them, make the change, and get on with their business of taking photos for money. But they are most definitely making the change.</i><P>

My personal experience: A few photographers I know who are trying to get into professional photography are using mirrorless, but it's something they moved up to, not something for which they traded in their DSLRs. The working pros I know and have seen are still using DSLRs. Of course, that's not evidence that no one is switching, but I've seen no indication that most pros are definitely making the change.

[DickArnold]

Well, we will see. As a former research Director I was continually amazed at how bad we were at times trying to

predict the future of the technology we were working in (aviation GPS). I own a mirrorless system but it is a niche

system. I used it last night to photograph a dinner party. It works well. But as I said earlier I will use a DSLR to shoot

a swim meet this coming weekend. There are always unforeseen problems when pioneering a large technoligical

change such as the logical move to remove the mirror in high end cameras. One major issue is the electronic delay,

however small, to the speed of light in trying to generate a real time electronic image in a view finder. Even with faults

I am a firm believer in peer evaluated research in trying to predict the future of any technology. We make enough

mistakes using scientific rigor as opposed to anecdotal SWAGs. One thing I have learned is that all of this is run by

fallible human beings and the future from a scientific standpoint is never quite meets our overly optimistic prognostications. Such endeavors usually take longer and cost more than predicted. We just have to wait and see what happens.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>As it turned out, native lenses were better in every regard than either Leica or Nikon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I am willing to pay "Leica" prices, then the Zeiss Otusses and - giving up AF - the Milvusses (and some select Leica R-lenses) offer high performance options also for Canon and Nikon DSLR uses. Compactness and light weight aren't their forte though.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>DSLR lenses are shackled, to some extent, by physics. In order to create a long back focus, to clear the mirror box, it is necessary to add strong negative objectives to lenses shorter than 85 mm. Extra elements are needed to correct the aberrations and distortions introduced by this inverted telephoto design. The elements themselves are larger and the supporting structures heavier as a result.</p>

<p>This constraint is largely avoided in the design of lenses for MILCs. We have found that compact symmetrical lenses, which worked well on film, don't do so well with digital sensors, which need a thick cover glass to remove IR and protect the delicate sensor. The backfocus length of a 35 mm Biogon (or Summicron) lens is less than 15 mm. To correct this problem you only need a back focus length of 25 mm or so, rather than 65 mm for a typical DSLR. Recent MILC lenses have as many or more elements than similar lenses for a DSLR, but these elements are used to perfect the image, rather than correct for a highly asymmetric design. For camera-specific lenses (e.g., Sony/Zeiss), the thick cover glass is calculated as part of the lens design, with spectacular results.</p>

<p>Zeiss Otus lenses are nearly a "cost is no object" project. All aberrations and distortions are eliminated, down to the faint color fringes you see in OOF highlights. They differ from really expensive cine lenses only in compromises to facilitate production (cine lenses are hand-assembled and adjusted), and to make them lighter and more robust for field use. Zeiss Batis and Milvus lenses are more cost conscious (Otus/3), but compromise on linear distortion and leave a slight color fringe in OOF highlights. Linear distortion is easily corrected in firmware or software.</p>

<p>So who is doing the switching? Most likely those in pursuit of image quality over speed of use, such as Leica and Medium format users, who tend to be more circumspect in their choices, especially for landscape and architectural photography. Others will follow when it comes time to upgrade. Who wouldn't appreciate shaving many pounds from a run-and-gun kit, even if it means changing batteries more often? I've done time carrying a 25# shoulder bag. Now I get the same capability in 15# or less (a 3 lens kit weighs about 9#, including the bag).</p>

[david_smith110]

<p><strong>Dieter</strong>, thanks for giving me some actual insights into how you see things as they stand. And no, I have no illusions about anyone at Canon or Nikon being even remotely aware of this thread. That would be ridiculous. Apparently you and some others on here feel there is no need for idle speculation. I'm sorry you see it that way, because I don't. I enjoy talking about trends in gear and how they can effect the future. I find it fascinating actually. So where better to discuss such things then a forum dedicated to the very topic one wants to discuss? This is the Mirrorless camera forum and I enjoy discussing changing trends in mirrorless cameras and how this may impact both the users and the companies who manufacture them.</p>

<p>And while we may disagree on the future of the DSLR's potential for development we at least agree that Canon has been moving very slowly recently when it comes to innovation. Could this possibly be tied to my view that there just isn't much left to innovate with their star product? Eh, maybe, maybe not. I'm curious tho....you say Nikon has been much more innovative lately. Why is this? I don't follow Nikon much and I would be curious to hear of some examples on how they have made any significant changes to DSLR dna that resulted in an innovative feature. I'm genuinely curious.</p>

<p><strong>Mike</strong>, just to clarify, but my position has never been that 'most' pro photogs are changing, only some pro shooters. Albiet that ranks are most likely growing all the time as more and more people consider that a smaller sized camera is a good thing. And before anyone quips up with 'but do you have any proof' just realize that there isn't a metric in place to track which photgrahers have changed camera types. CIPA numbers don't have anything to do with that. But let me quote what I said here just so what you quoted me on wont be taken out of context. (emphasis added)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You wont see every pro <strong>who is making the switch</strong> advertise the fact. As a matter of fact you will only see a small percentage advertise that they have switched. Most pro photogs will simply make a decision about what works for them, make the change, and get on with their business of taking photos for money. But they are most definitely making the change.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The '<em>most</em> that begins with what you quoted referred back to only thos pros who have decided that mirrorless is good for them and actually change over. If the way I wrote that was unclear then my apologies for the confusion.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>As mentioned, the image quality requirements for many professional photographic activities, other than portraiture, studio or industrial photography, are not as high as small camera technology is capable of. My impression is that many pros often do not need a high resolution camera like the Nikon D810 or the 50+ MP new Canon DSLR, but rather a highly responsive DSLR. Accordingly, why should that section of professional photography (say the sports and news photographers, perhaps even wedding photographers) need or want the high IQ performance of a Sony alpha 7RII? They more likely need fast very long lenses, highly responsive autofocus, convenient white balance adjustment or flash compatability, in DSLR camera bodies the size and weight of which are not a prime consideration given the overall weight of the system employed by sports photographers (and tripod mounting), or they require the shorter fast zooms or primes used by events photographers. The question is more apples and oranges. As a landscape, architectural and environmental (man and his surroundings) photographer a mirrorless system is compatible with my approach and I would expect that professional photographers and artists working in those same areas as well as studio and industrial photography would consider mirrorless as well as medium format digital systems as compatible with their needs</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Raw images from an A7Rii are 82 MB. Even JPEG renderings are 26 MP at full resolution and 100% quality. Uploading 50 JPEGs to Dropbox requires a transfer of over 1 GB, taking about half an hour at U-Verse speed. That's not likely to appeal to a sports editor, and total overkill for a 4 column spread. "Architectural Digest", okay. I cut mine down to 3600 x 2400 pixels (unless someone is building a 48" poster), but even that takes a fair amount of time to prepare and upload.</p>

[andylynn]

Really, who cares? Does any of this actually matter to anybody here? You're arguing about what kind of cameras people

who aren't here are using on projects nobody here is involved with.

 

I don't know if I've ever seen a good photo from a good photographer where I could tell what brand of digital camera was

used or thought, wow, it's a good thing he had a Brand A camera, because he couldn't have done that with Brand B!

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't follow Nikon much and I would be curious to hear of some examples on how they have made any significant changes to DSLR dna that resulted in an innovative feature. I'm genuinely curious.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For one, they introduced, for better or worse, video into the DSLR field (Nikon D90). Their follow-up was less than stellar though. Color matrix metering was already implemented in the F5 - but upgraded to include distance information in the DSLRs. Whether or not you call the use of a 36MP sensor in the D800 and the cancelling AA filter of the D800E innovative - in both cases they jumped ahead of the curve for sure.<br /> <br /> And to dig deep back into history (1999) - it was the Nikon's D1 that started the mass migration towards DSLRs. Still took quite a few more years before production of most film SLRs ceased. There are probably a few parallels that can be drawn to the current DSLR vs mirrorless scenario - even though its not nearly as disruptive as the transition from film to digital.</p>

<p>I don't really follow Canon - the last time they surprised my with a DSLR was 10 years ago - and it was the full-frame 5D. Their "latest" surprises for me: the 200-400/4 with built-in 1.4x extender (has already been a while) and - more recent - the 11-24/4.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know if I've ever seen a good photo from a good photographer where I could tell what brand of digital camera was used or thought, wow, it's a good thing he had a Brand A camera, because he couldn't have done that with Brand B!<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the web, all cameras are equal - about 3 to 5 KP. The difference is clear even in a modest sized print. A lot more detail is preserved in down sizing than you might imagine.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> The difference is clear even in a modest sized print. A lot more detail is preserved in down sizing than you might imagine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I've shown images from an 11MP camera printed at 20x30 for years and nobody has noticed any issues even when next to plenty of photos from much newer cameras. "Detail" isn't the most important thing in a photo except for technical uses anyway.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>A hint of things to come: digital movie cameras (i.e. the RED Epic and Weapon) have been able to achieve at least 96fps at full resolution for some time now. Needless to say, no 'blackout' of the viewfinder. They're expensive, but they're a glimpse as to what is coming. DSLRs will not achieve anywhere near 96fps (not that they need to) and they will never achieve totally silent operation.</p>

<p>That's why the DSLR paradigm (no matter the brand) is on its way down for almost all applications. That's not a prescription for anyone, it's just an observation.</p>

<p>I'd like to think these things can be discussed without people getting antsy. Lots of apologetics here - and it's the mirrorless forum, after all, so of course most of us who post here are pro mirrorless and occasionally contra DSLR (which is our business, whether you like it or not, as long as we don't make it personal).</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

IBIS notwithstanding, it takes extraordinary care and great lenses to take advantage of a modern high resolution camera

like the 42MP A7Rii, or even a 24 MP A7ii. Without IS, hand held, neither would be distinguishable from an 11 MP

camera.

 

By extraordinary, I mean an heavy tripod, IS off, careful focusing, electronic front shutter, and a cable release. It's the

same care required with medium and large format photography. It's a far cry from shooting rock concerts or street

candids.

[apdx]

<p><em><strong>Mr Arnold: "You remind me of people who claim climate change is a hoax, or religious fanatics who despise science and refuse to acknowledge its existence"</strong></em><br>

<em><strong><br /></strong></em>Oy, vey.. I wouldn't go there. As a trained scientist, at least. Clean and pure science can be very dirty. Just look at Perelman's saga with Poincare Conjecture. As with any politicised debate, if you promote evidence for case A and suppress evidence for case B, you get what we get. And somebody else will have to deal with consequences.<br>

Luckily, this debate is not like that. And to top it off, all the equipment debates are boring and unproductive. I cannot imagine a meeting of Carvaggio with Rembrandt being devoted to brushes and paints</p>