Are DSLRs doomed? Tony Northrup says no.

[ruslan]

So for me Canon pictures looks better, difference very subtle but visible.

Canon has and had several 35 mm, several 50 and three 85 mm (1.8, 1.4L and 1.2L).

Sony has many 50mm (native, Zeiss, Samyang, Sigma Art, Voigtlander, Tamron, Russian Zenitar, Chinese Mitakon, to name a few). Sony has top-grade lenses of G-master series.

Canon is in stage of switching.

Old L lenses are dirt-cheap now (used 17-40, used 24-70/2.8 1-st gen...) So lenses are usable but not so valuable over years. :(

[ruslan]

difference very subtle but visible

Some Canon lenses are 'art' and have that magical rendering (like 85/1.2L). But examining 30 Mp shot they are not so good wide open, though being art. Canon has slighly better skin tones for white skin children too, but Sony has much wider DR.

Canon is becoming mirrorless (R, RP). Their top grade lenses are excellent. (The newest RF 50/1.2L). But it is a mirrorless lens! But the company's profit goes down year by year. I don't know why. :(

[ruslan]

When you work with your mirrorless, either in EVF mode or Live View mode, the sensor is continuously powered and exercised, causing the sensor temperature to increase (of course, when you switch the camera off, the heating will stop and the sensor will gradually cool down). It has been reported that power downs and/or noticeable image quality degradation may occur with mirrorless cameras in as little as 12 minutes and up to 1 hour or more and that to me seems like operating times that many photographers would use on a regular basis.

I don't have a mirrorless camera (yet), but my DSLR will expire one of these days and I'm trying to understand if mirrorless is a viable option.

So... what about camcorders which continue the record for 5. 6, 10 hours in a row?

As for mirrorless, many photographers (including Emin Kuliev) switched to MILC (Sony). Kuliev switched to Sony. He is one of the highest-paid NY wedding photographer.

As for me, I use a cool APS Pentax. When it dies or goes too obsolete I think, in 5-7 years, I doubt there will be much DSLR camera offerings on the market. So my future gear will be mirrorless. Time will show.

Edited June 1, 2019 by ruslan

[Ed_Ingold]

So... what about camcorders which continue the record for 5. 6, 10 hours in a row?

Most camcorders have a very small sensor, typically 1/4", which produce disproportionately less heat than larger sensors. Sony resisted using sensors larger than 1/2" in their 3-sensor ENG cameras because of the amount of heat produced in a relatively small chassis, but things are changing and triple-sensor arrays are becoming less common. A few cinematic level cameras now use a single, 1" sensor, while Super-35 (~APS-C) and larger sensors are beginning to proliferate. I would not be surprised if some cameras have elaborate heat-sinks and fans to dissipate heat. Some MF digital cameras use fans or thermoelectric cooling.

 

Most DSLRs and MILCs with video capability limit the continuous clip length to just under 30 minutes. The popular reason, tacitly approved by manufacturers, is based on heat buildup. The actual reason is more mundane. Video cameras have an import duty of 15%, whereas most still cameras are duty-free. The 30 minute clip limit is the basis for the classification.

 

I have moved away from ENG cameras in favor of MILCs (Sony A7xx) for video. I bypass the clip limit by using an external SSD monitor/recorder, and heat buildup by eliminating most of the internal processing and storage. The cameras get only slightly warm to the touch. The recorder gets very hot, despite fan cooling. However that is partly

due to the bright ISP display.

 

The Sony a6000 range of cameras, are small and light, and fit nicely in the original concept of what mirrorless cameras are about. Small, fast, and light. Low light performance, at worse are just a stop and a bit behind the so called full frame A7 range. And a thought they can share the same lenses.

That's one way of looking at it. However my motivation was getting a high quality camera WITHOUT a mirror. Size was only a minor consideration. A MILC is basically a digital Leica on steroids, with all of the benefits and none of the disadvantages - quiet operation, high quality lenses, precise focusing, and no limits on focal length.

[Nick D.]

I just grab whatever next to me, this time it was D750 with 80-200/2.8.

[ruslan]

Most camcorders have a very small sensor, typically 1/4", which produce disproportionately less heat than larger sensors.

Well, 1'' sensor in prosumer camcorders is a norm nowadays. Look at Canon XC10 and many others.

Most DSLRs and MILCs with video capability limit the continuous clip length to just under 30 minutes. The popular reason, tacitly approved by manufacturers, is based on heat buildup.

I think this is due to some taxes policy.

Look here

[ruslan]

As for DSLR debate, I think, good DSLR were, and are pleasant to use and I will have some nostalgia feel for them. Slightly off-topic - would it be a nice idea to buy DSLR when prices start to fall down and many become discontinued (in 4 yrs from now) to buy it out of unsold stocks? Pentax K-1, Canon EOS 5D MkIV, Nikon D850 will still be capable pieces of gear! Why I ask this - just because I like an optical VF!

I wonder what will be with RF Leica line and Pentax in 4-5 years!

[glen_h]

This is uninformed at best, misleading at worst, perhaps projection in between. How many SLRs (film) still exist, and what are they worth today? Mine aren't going to a landfill any time soon, but they don't see much daylight either.

 

 

(snip)

 

People will always cling to obsolete technology. Vinyl discs are still around, thirty years into the digital age, as is film. People subscribe to boutique technology not for it's quality and accuracy, rather its lack thereof. They distort in a manner some people find pleasing - vinyl with a 30 db S/N ratio (I'm being generous) and abundant 3rd harmonic distortion, film with exaggerated (or non existent) colors, grain, and high cost.

 

I thought I used to know 50dB for vinyl, but that means keeping it clean, and using high quality phono cartridges.

 

GREAT SOUNDING RECORDS

 

says 75db. But it depends a lot on how you measure it. CDs measure quantization noise as how far it is below the

full scale (clipping) level. LP noise has some frequency dependence, and that is after the RIAA equalization in the

phono amplifier. LPs are recorded with treble boost, to keep it enough above high frequency surface noise.

Also, magnetic tape has high frequency noise, again reduced through appropriate equalization.

 

But if LPs really had only 30dB S/N, then music with 30dB dynamic range would be down to 0dB S/N at

the quieter spots.

 

As to cameras, when I first remember knowing about SLRs, my father used a rangefinder Canon VI, but borrowed

a Nikon F for a weekend trip. I suspect in the earlier years, SLRs were mostly used by pros.

 

Later on, by high-end amateurs, and as prices came down, by just about anyone.

 

I will guess that DSLRs stay popular at the high-end, and other technologies for the lower end.

[Nick D.]

would it be a nice idea to buy DSLR when prices start to fall down

Not sure about DSLR, but Sony keep dropping prices on 7 series cameras, lens prices coming down too, which is nice,

[Ed_Ingold]

But if LPs really had only 30dB S/N, then music with 30dB dynamic range would be down to 0dB S/N at

the quieter spots.

The noise floor rises and falls with the recorded signal. For vinyl discs, the margin is between 20 and 30 db. For the tape used to master most of those discs, the margin is about 40 db. Once you learn to "hear" it, the changing noise level becomes very annoying. It is most intrusive for relatively pure sounds, like french horn or flute. A combination of noise and 3rd harmonic distortion makes recordings sound fatter and louder, which delayed acceptance of digital recordings which do neither to a noticeable degree.

 

Acceptance through accommodation is not limited to acoustics. Over the years, Canon and Nikon have developed fast zoom lenses while mostly neglecting prime lenses. We accepted lenses fuzzy in the corners, particularly when used at maximum aperture. Perhaps to some extent, this served to "isolate" the subject of interest. With mirrorless cameras, starting with Leica, we learned to expect sharp corners, notably with wide angle lenses. This is even more true with modern MILC cameras, which is why there's no going back.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

[glen_h]

The noise floor rises and falls with the recorded signal. For vinyl discs, the margin is between 20 and 30 db. For the tape used to master most of those discs, the margin is about 40 db. Once you learn to "hear" it, the changing noise level becomes very annoying. It is most intrusive for relatively pure sounds, like french horn or flute. A combination of noise and 3rd harmonic distortion makes recordings sound fatter and louder, which delayed acceptance of digital recordings which do neither to a noticeable degree.

 

(snip)

 

Noise also changes from the beginning to the end of the disk. One that I hadn't thought about, it seems that in some cases, such as for movie sound tracks (before optical sound track) were on disk, they alternated between starting on the outer edge and inner edge. That way, there isn't a sharp discontinuity in the noise. Accommodation, again.

 

I always liked wide angle primes, but also have gotten used to zooms.

[frans_waterlander]

So... what about camcorders which continue the record for 5. 6, 10 hours in a row?

Camcorders that can record for such long times have extensive sensor cooling provisions.

[Ed_Ingold]

I will guess that DSLRs stay popular at the high-end, and other technologies for the lower end.

Camcorders that can record for such long times have extensive sensor cooling provisions.

I am not aware of anything of this sort in my pro camcorders. Perhaps it's not needed for 3x1/3" sensors in a chassis several times the size of a still camera. My Hasselblad digital back has a small fan inside, and sports a CCD sensor.

[ruslan]

with Leica, we learned to expect sharp corners, notably with wide angle lenses. This is even more true with modern MILC cameras, which is why there's no going back.

For a price (Leica's case). I guess Leica would be impossible, helpless and not capable of making such specs for 200-300 US dollars (as Japanese was able to do in 1980s-1990s). . As for sharp cornes, just one thing: Canon 35/1.4 L ii. It has a slight edge over Sony GM. Canon 24-70/2.8 L ii too. So Canon can make it. But I agree no going back.

Camcorders that can record for such long times have extensive sensor cooling provisions.

I would like to know which makes of them and how (provide the link, please). :confused:

[ruslan]

Hi-end cameras are mirrorless now.:rolleyes:

Let's face it - 100 Mp Fujifilm GFX 100 and Hasselblads.

[Nick D.]

"Overall, Sony says the entire camera market size contracted 7%",- last fiscal year.

[frans_waterlander]

I would like to know which makes of them and how (provide the link, please)

You can google it.:D

[Dave Luttmann]

The noise floor rises and falls with the recorded signal. For vinyl discs, the margin is between 20 and 30 db. For the tape used to master most of those discs, the margin is about 40 db. Once you learn to "hear" it, the changing noise level becomes very annoying. It is most intrusive for relatively pure sounds, like french horn or flute. A combination of noise and 3rd harmonic distortion makes recordings sound fatter and louder, which delayed acceptance of digital recordings which do neither to a noticeable degree.

 

Acceptance through accommodation is not limited to acoustics. Over the years, Canon and Nikon have developed fast zoom lenses while mostly neglecting prime lenses. We accepted lenses fuzzy in the corners, particularly when used at maximum aperture. Perhaps to some extent, this served to "isolate" the subject of interest. With mirrorless cameras, starting with Leica, we learned to expect sharp corners, notably with wide angle lenses. This is even more true with modern MILC cameras, which is why there's no going back.

A good vinyl pressing is between 60 and 70 db of dynamic range....not 30. Reel to reel even from the 60's was around 50 to 55db. With modern noise reduction, they achieved over 90. Dbx encoded LPs were over 100db of range.

Edited June 3, 2019 by Dave Luttmann

[glen_h]

A good vinyl pressing is between 60 and 70 db of dynamic range....not 30. Reel to reel even from the 60's was around 50 to 55db. With modern noise reduction, they achieved over 90. Dbx encoded LPs were over 100db of range.

 

I have (and it might still work) a cassette deck with Dolby B, C, and dbx.

dbx is a 2:1 compression over the whole audio spectrum.

 

So that we don't get too far off, this is pretty similar to the low gamma of color negative films,

allowing a large dynamic range to squeeze into the range of film. The complication of film, is that

there is no good way to restore it. Prints can't display the full dynamic range that color negatives

can store. It might be that some digital projectors can come close enough, though.

 

I never had any dbx LPs, though, but if I did, my tape deck could decompress them.

[BeBu Lamar]

I have (and it might still work) a cassette deck with Dolby B, C, and dbx.

dbx is a 2:1 compression over the whole audio spectrum.

 

So that we don't get too far off, this is pretty similar to the low gamma of color negative films,

allowing a large dynamic range to squeeze into the range of film. The complication of film, is that

there is no good way to restore it. Prints can't display the full dynamic range that color negatives

can store. It might be that some digital projectors can come close enough, though.

 

I never had any dbx LPs, though, but if I did, my tape deck could decompress them.

 

I still have 4 cassette decks that still work. 2 of them only have Dolby B and the other 2 only have Dolby C and C.

[Ed_Ingold]

A good vinyl pressing is between 60 and 70 db of dynamic range....not 30. Reel to reel even from the 60's was around 50 to 55db. With modern noise reduction, they achieved over 90. Dbx encoded LPs were over 100db of range.

I am referring to the relative noise level, which rises and falls with the recorded signal level. This can be measured using Fourier analysis, and heard when listening to relativel pure tones. Published S/N ratios are based on the noise level of the blank medium relative to the maximum recorded level. Furthermore noise levels are measured using B weighting which de-emphasizes low frequency (rumble) and high frequency (hiss) sound levels.

 

DBX processing codifies this effect by compression during recording and dynamic expansion during playback, typically with a 2:1 ratio, distributed across several frequency bands. As the recorded signal falls, DBX reduces the gain so that the perceived noise level drops, and vice versa. If you listen carefully you can hear the noise level pumping with the music.

 

The film analogy is very appropriate.

 

How do I know this? I have a studio Ampex tape recorder, a DBX processor, and the laboratory equipment needed to maintain these devices. I have been recording professionally for over 45 years, read all the manuals, and twiddled all the dials.

[Dave Luttmann]

I am referring to the relative noise level, which rises and falls with the recorded signal level. This can be measured using Fourier analysis, and heard when listening to relativel pure tones. Published S/N ratios are based on the noise level of the blank medium relative to the maximum recorded level. Furthermore noise levels are measured using B weighting which de-emphasizes low frequency (rumble) and high frequency (hiss) sound levels.

 

DBX processing codifies this effect by compression during recording and dynamic expansion during playback, typically with a 2:1 ratio, distributed across several frequency bands. As the recorded signal falls, DBX reduces the gain so that the perceived noise level drops, and vice versa. If you listen carefully you can hear the noise level pumping with the music.

 

The film analogy is very appropriate.

 

How do I know this? I have a studio Ampex tape recorder, a DBX processor, and the laboratory equipment needed to maintain these devices. I have been recording professionally for over 45 years, read all the manuals, and twiddled all the dials.

 

Ah...misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant 30 total. I have to admit that I was never a dbx fan. I preferred straight 15ips on good chrome tape with no NR. I was using Technics and Teac R2R a lot in the 80's and 90's. Now finding tape is so problematic, I have up. Even my old Dual CS846 finally died....it sounded fantastic at 3.75 ips per second with chrome or metal tape....double regular speed....with Dolby C

[Sandy Vongries]

Interesting, but Off topic?

[ruslan]

You can google it

I worked with 2001 year D8 Sony TR8000 camcorder and it did not heat. In my region in summer the temperature may be + 35C.

I shot 2-3 hours in a row in extreme heat. Sony Z1 did not have that "cooling provosions".

People who used early 2000's camcorders like VX2100 were happy too and did not know issues. So if you say A, then say B.

[ruslan]

The matter of fact than MILC systems have ultra high resolution 50 mm (Nikon Z and Canon RF) which were not possible earlier and eye focus.