Are DSLRs doomed? Tony Northrup says no.

[Ed_Ingold]

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.

It's the resolution of the focusing system, not the lens. Eye focusing is possible because focusing sites are more numerous (the Z7 has 493), embedded in and distributed over 90% of the sensor. A Nikon D5 has 153 sensors, but located in the prism and covering only in the central 25% of the image area. The lens must resolve enough to make good use of a 45 MP sensor, which is no easy task.

[glen_h]

It's the resolution of the focusing system, not the lens. Eye focusing is possible because focusing sites are more numerous (the Z7 has 493), embedded in and distributed over 90% of the sensor. A Nikon D5 has 153 sensors, but located in the prism and covering only in the central 25% of the image area. The lens must resolve enough to make good use of a 45 MP sensor, which is no easy task.

 

The lens not being able to quite do it means that they don't need a low-pass filter.

[Ed_Ingold]

Eye-AF works in sensors with and without low-pass filters. In order to work, the phase detector cells must be small enough and close enough together to delineate the subject's eyes from other features, and the camera's logic must be able to make that distinction. Not all lenses qualify because the lens must have AF fast enough to track the eye. Any practical lens has many times the resolution needed for Eye-AF.

[ruslan]

It's the resolution of the focusing system, not the lens. Eye focusing is possible because focusing sites are more numerous (the Z7 has 493), embedded in and distributed over 90% of the sensor. A Nikon D5 has 153 sensors, but located in the prism and covering only in the central 25% of the image area. The lens must resolve enough to make good use of a 45 MP sensor, which is no easy task.

Nikon Z 50/1.8 and Canon RF 50/1.2L (and Sony 50/1.4 GM, together with 55/1.8) surpass every SLR 50 mm lens in terms of resolution. They are much, much sharper, better than even Sigma Art. Native 50 mm for DSLR are just cheapo and obsolete. I am 50 mm guy. I do need them. I am saying about the optics specs.

Then MILC lenses don't need AF microadjustment which DSLR need. So pluses of MILC are obvious.

[Ed_Ingold]

Exactly! It's all about the lenses. Furthermore with the precision of MILCs for both auto and manual focus, you can make better use of fast apertures to isolate the subject, or work in dimmer light.

 

Since diffraction begins to degrade performance above about f/8 for digital cameras (f/11-f/16 for film), I am loathe to use smaller aperture settings for landscapes. However with video, mostly inside, with the shutter fixed at 1/30 or 1/60*, the lens is wide open nearly 100% of the time.

 

Complaints are lodged against mirrorless cameras that despite the small bodies the lenses are enormous, negating their size advantage. Consider this, if DSLR prime lenses were made to the same performance specifications, often with 12 to 16 elements, they would be the size of telephoto, or even mid-range zoom lenses. Witness the massive Zeiss Otus lenses, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Sigma ART lenses for DSLRs.

 

* You need a certain amount of blur in video to maintain the illusion of motion. At shutter speeds faster than 1/100, normal body motions incur a stroboscopic effect. A drummer looks like he's holding three sticks in each hand ;)

[Jochen_S]

MILC systems have ultra high resolution 50 mm (Nikon Z and Canon RF) which were not possible earlier

Not sure if SLR lenses were / are impossible. - I rather believe that manufacturers didn't care to make great ones yet, since decent sensors are too new and customers mislead in general. - What is the origin of lens speed obsession for cameras that can't nail focus straight out of the box?

 

As much as I respect the Northrups, I think the sales figures Tony quoted aren't very relevant. The well selling SLRs are the typical candidates to serve as their users' bridge cameras, with a kit or tourist zoom welded upon them. Buying decisions can, just like the corresponding piggy banks, grow quite slowly. Not everybody is able to chase the latest and greatest while looking for a substantial upgrade or replacement.

 

If existing SLRs really trigger new lenses, I guess they will be something we don't really have (anymore) right now: Slow, light, sharp and somewhat affordable. Customer satisfaction matters and spending lots of time with futile AF micro adjustment attempts to still produce a low keeper rate seems unlikely to contribute to it.

[Ed_Ingold]

Not sure if SLR lenses were / are impossible. - I rather believe that manufacturers didn't care to make great ones yet, since decent sensors are too new and customers mislead in general. - What is the origin of lens speed obsession for cameras that can't nail focus straight out of the box?

We learned, early on, that tiny wide angle lenses from Leica did not work well on MILCs. The cover glass on sensors caused distortion and loss of resolution in the edges of the frame, due to the high angle of incidence of light, which cannot be corrected after the fact. In order to eliminate this effect, two things had to happen. The back focus distance had to be increased, using the same optical "tricks" SLR lenses need to clear the mirror. Secondly, the lens had to be designed as though the cover glass were part of the lens itself. As a result, highly corrected lenses, 35 mm and shorter, tend to be as large or larger than comparable SLR lenses (but better corrected). While wide angle SLR lenses can be easily adapted to an MILC, and don't exhibit "swirling" distortion in the corners, their overall image quality is sub-standard by comparison with native lenses.

 

It is not uncommon for MILC lenses to be as large or larger than SLR lenses. However, if SLR lenses were designed to the same level of image quality, they would be much larger than at present.

 

I agree that the need for really fast lenses (< f/1.4) is illusory. At the height of the f/stop frenzy, late 50's, film speed was a serious limitation. Image quality was compromised at ISO (ASA) 400, so more light was a necessity. At the same time, people were willing to tolerate poor image quality and difficult focusing with these lenses wide open. Even Leica lenses, mostly f/2, were seldom used wide open. I stayed mainly in the f/5.6 to f/11 range when possible. (I didn't own an AF camera until 2001).

 

Now, with accurate auto and manual focus available in MILC's, coupled with better lens design, I am not afraid to shoot wide open, and rarely stop down beyond f/8, the new, post-film diffraction limit. It is rare to find an MILC with less than 24 MP resolution, while the flagship DSLRs hover around 20 MP (after years at 12 MP, or film at the equivalent of 6 MP or less).

[Jochen_S]

if SLR lenses were designed to the same level of image quality, they would be much larger than at present.

Agreed. - But who does really care? - I don't mind carrying my 135mm Elmar, which isn't a telephoto. Couldn't Canikon or even Yongnuo make something like that from plastic and toss in an AF motor & IS at the same weight?

Whats wrong about a sharp retro focus 50/2.8 or even 3.5?

An entry level APS SLR has 24MP these days and kit zooms might feed only a third of these with resolution.

[Ed_Ingold]

Whats wrong about a sharp retro focus 50/2.8 or even 3.5?

They're not all that sharp when you look closely. For sports and family picnics, they're just fine. For landscapes and nature, not so great.

 

My tele-Elmar 135/4 has a very long back focus. I have no sharpness issues with that lens not found with film too. Like all Elmar lenses, it is soft in the corners when wide open, and the color and contrast is lacking compared to Zeiss and Sony. While the Nikon 50/1.8 (haven't seen an f/2.8 other than the 55/2.8) is supposed to be sharp, the f/1.4 actually has better specs. I have one and used it once on the Sony, but not since. I tested it from f/1.4 to f/8, center, edge and corners, and found it wanting. A Summicron 50/2 does better, but still soft in the corners and has low micro-contrast. The Sony FE 50/1.4 is probably the sharpest lens available in that focal length from any manufacturer, but is the size of a flower pot.

 

APS-C is okay if your priority is small size. I'll take FF any day for dynamic range, resolution and lens choice.

[Nick D.]

LOL, just google large format camera. B&H have bunch of brand new large formats. Nothing is doomed.

Linhof 4x5 Master Technika 3000 cost more than SonyA9:)

[dcstep]

.... Drawbacks galore: harder to track fast moving subjects, limited lens choices if you don't want to use adapters, and - in my opinion the major issue - sensor heating resulting in increased noise, dynamic range degradation and color inaccuracies, not to mention forced camera shutdowns. Image quality degradation caused by sensor heating is largely ignored by the industry...

 

This thread is so long, I might have missed some of the responses to this erroneous post.

 

• With Sony a9, a7RIII and a6400, it's easier to track moving subjects than with Canon 5D MkVI, 7D2 or 1DXIII (The AF is far more advanced also).
  
• Lens choice with Sony is excellent and getting even better. (FE 12mm to 800mm in my bag, with 600/840/1200mm on order).
  
• Having shot over 500,000 clicks with various Sony mirrorless bodies, I've never experienced a sensor heat issue and DxO PhotoLab does an excellent job of converting my RAW files.
  

Cost is the reason that I recommend that some newbies start with a DSLR, to explore their photography bug. If they can afford mirrorless, I start them there.

[ruslan]

Yesterday I was shooting all day at 50C (122F) in the direct sun (33C in the shade, (91.4F)) on the beach (was using a Pentax DSLR), the photos went out clean - no temperature issues. So would be MILC.

[frans_waterlander]

Yesterday I was shooting all day at 50C (122F) in the direct sun (33C in the shade, (91.4F)) on the beach (was using a Pentax DSLR), the photos went out clean - no temperature issues. So would be MILC.

Not so fast, ruslan! DSLRs without Live View or video capability don't have sensor heating issues . DSLRs with Live View and/or video capability only have sensor heating issues if you use Live View or video for extended periods of time. Sensors in mirrorless cameras on the other hand are active all the time and heat up all the time.

If you used your Pentax DSLR without Live View or video mode, then the sensor didn't heat up, period.

If you had used a mirrorless camera all day in those high ambient temperatures then the sensor would have heated up significantly and you might have encountered shut-downs, image quality degradation, excessive noise, irregular colors, etc., the kind of issues that camera manufacturers warn you about in their user manuals (see my post #19 in this thread).

 

DxOmark finally responded after 3 months regarding the issue of dynamic range degradation caused by sensor heating. They agree that sensor heating caused by Live View or video mode and increased ambient temperatures causes image quality and dynamic range degradation, but they don't test for it. I've suggested to them that they also should test the dynamic range at higher than room temperature in modes that cause sensor heating for extended periods of time and publish those results. I'm not holding my breath. While camera manufacturers warn about these issues in user manuals (presumably to legally cover their a$$), the industry appears to be very unwilling to openly acknowledge these issues. And mirrorless users in particular seem to be in denial.

Edited June 22, 2019 by frans_waterlander

[andylynn]

“sensorheating caused by Live View or video mode and increased ambient temperatures causes image quality and dynamic range degradation”

 

Good thing you told us that. A lot of us had been fooled by our eyes into thinking we were getting good photos. Now I know that I might have slightly less DR than I would have thought I did if I spent too much time obsessing over charts instead of just using my camera.

 

Seriously, does anybody here even know anybody who has ever had a shot ruined because a MILC sensor was overheated?

[Nick D.]

Sensor technology is improving, overheating use to be issue, not anymore. But I was shooting my granddaughter on the swing yesterday and viewfinder lag on my Sony A7mark2, had become really noticeable and annoying problem.

[frans_waterlander]

Sensor technology is improving, overheating use to be issue, not anymore.

CMOS uses way less power than CCD, but manufacturers of CMOS cameras still warn about overheating, increased noise, image quality degradation, etc. when using Live View or video recording over time, so it doesn't appear that it isn't a problem anymore.

The lack of readily available measurement results under those conditions makes you wonder what they are trying to hide as much as possible. Like I said before, DxOmark agrees that deterioration occurs, but they don't test for it or don't want us to know.

[Ed_Ingold]

I shot video with a Sony A7iii of a public event Saturday, outside in sunlight, continuously for nearly 4 hours. There was no overheating, and the camera was barely warm to the touch. According to company lawyers, every camera is subject to overheating, and in California, practically everything you touch or consume causes cancer. Both have the ring of monsters hiding under the bed.

[andylynn]

CMOS uses way less power than CCD, but manufacturers of CMOS cameras still warn about overheating, increased noise, image quality degradation, etc. when using Live View or video recording over time, so it doesn't appear that it isn't a problem anymore.

The lack of readily available measurement results under those conditions makes you wonder what they are trying to hide as much as possible. Like I said before, DxOmark agrees that deterioration occurs, but they don't test for it or don't want us to know.

Photography is about imagery, not charts on the internet. If this “degradation” is a real problem and not a myth perpetuated by DSLR fanboys (a frankly bizarre thing - people fanboying over a category of device? - do car forums have to deal with coupe fanboys?) then prove it with examples of images that have suffered from such degradation. If you can’t, I’ll happily call the whaaaaambulance for you.

[andylynn]

How about the warnings in MILC and DSLR manuals? Also myths perpetuated by the manufacturers?

Written by the legal department, not the engineers. Similar to the Tamron lens that has a warning label that says that California thinks it will give you cancer, in the real world the result will not actually occur except in the most bizarre possible circumstances.

 

The last time you wanted to discuss this bit of trollage, you started a thread about it (oddly obsessive behavior here from somebody who doesn't actually seem to be a MILC customer), and when somebody asked you to provide concrete examples you rudely told him to Google it. As if finding the evidence of your dumb theory is the responsibility of others. So I did that. I found examples of both DSLRs and MILCs overheating while shooting extended 4k video - which is not a "mirrorless problem" - and nothing else. I am unable to find a single example of a person whose MILC has ruined photos by overheating. Out of all the millions of people using the things, even Google can't find one of them who has this problem.

 

So, yet again, do you have any actual evidence that this is an actual problem for the real world or is this just one more example of your ignorant trolling?

[Ed_Ingold]

Sony MILC's have a menu choice for thermal cutoff - Standard and High. The only camera which actually shut down for high temperature was a Sony MX0. Thermal overload occurs after about 15 minutes of shooting video at 1080p60. Lower the rate to 30 fps, and the camera will run indefinitely. I use a large, external battery, so the running time can is typically 2 hours or longer.

 

Thermal cutout for an A7/A9 probably requires a combination of unfavorable conditions - fast shooting rate, direct sunlight, and high ambient temperature (including storing in a hot vehicle). The A9 and A7 model 3 cameras use only 40% the power of earlier models. Most of the temperature rise seems to be due to memory activity and self-heating of the battery, and not the sensor. When I shoot video, I use an external battery and recorder, rather than internal. Shooting in this manner, or self-contained at 100-250 frames per hour, results in very little temperature rise. The rear LCD is barely warm to the touch.

 

The MX0 can get hot enough to cause contact burns, if you put it away in a shirt pocket, for example.

[Nick D.]

, like dynamic range numbers under extended Live View or video operation at various ambient temperatures

Shoudn't be any different with DSLR, because in live view or video operation they act the same, no mirror used.

[frans_waterlander]

Shoudn't be any different with DSLR, because in live view or video operation they act the same, no mirror used.

The difference is that with a DSLR you can shoot images (not video) without using Live View and not heat up the sensor. With MILCs you don't have a choice; the sensor is working constantly and heating up.

[Nick D.]

The difference is that with a DSLR you can shoot images (not video) without using Live View and not heat up the sensor. With MILCs you don't have a choice; the sensor is working constantly and heating up.

You asked specifically for data in live view and video.

As for photo I have both, don't see any heating issues.

[Ed_Ingold]

I pixel-peep every image, but do not notice any temperature-related increase in noise. In the order of things to worry about, heat buildup ranks well below plastic straws in the ocean and used contact lenses clogging sewage treatment plants.

 

Heating would increase the amount of thermal (random) noise in a sensor, raising the noise floor, consequently reducing the dynamic range. It is random, and follows a Poisson distribution. In general, it is only noticeable if it affects more than 2% of the pixels, and is more likely to occur in long exposures or at high ISO settings. It is distinguished from hot or stuck pixels, which do not change positions, even though they may be more prominent with longer exposures and high ISO settings.

 

In practice, there is little difference between the active sensor time in an MILC or DSLR. If the camera is awake (not sleeping), the sensor is on and ready to go. In either camera, the camera wakes up when you turn it on or press the shutter release half-way or more, and stays away until you turn it off or the inactive time limit elapses. I use a 1-2 minute timeout to conserve the battery. A DSLR wakes up almost instantly, but an MILC is ready to go in the time it takes to raise it from waist level to your eye. Consequently, there is no practical difference.

 

I've only spoken to one photographer who experienced high temperature cutoff. That was with a Nikon D5, in Namibia (for National Geographic).

[frans_waterlander]

In practice, there is little difference between the active sensor time in an MILC or DSLR. If the camera is awake (not sleeping), the sensor is on and ready to go. In either camera, the camera wakes up when you turn it on or press the shutter release half-way or more, and stays away until you turn it off or the inactive time limit elapses. I use a 1-2 minute timeout to conserve the battery. A DSLR wakes up almost instantly, but an MILC is ready to go in the time it takes to raise it from waist level to your eye. Consequently, there is no practical difference.

So let's talk about what happens when you shoot images (not video) for extended periods of time, like in sports, events, weddings, wild life, etc. Your camera is on for hours. With a DSLR you can use your optical viewfinder (you either don't have Live View or you can choose not to use it). The sensor and other electronics are only active when you take the shot and there is virtually no sensor heating. With a MILC, the sensor and other electronic are continuously working to drive the EVF or backpanel monitor and continue to heat up for hours.

 

With a MILC, image quality degradation will start right away and get worse over time as the sensor heats up, before a possible cut-off to protect the sensor and electronics.

 

So again, is anyone aware of credible, real-world test results under those conditions, with MILCs in any mode, or with DSLRs in Live View or video mode?