Will the prolific expansionism of the MILCs - eventually, kill off the DSLR?
May 17, 2019 16:42:17 #
karno wrote:
If I ever buy a mirrorless camera I at least want to be able to watch the game of thrones on it
In fact this is why I am buying the Fuji gfx 100mp so I can watch the dragon queen breaker of chains burn down kings landing in 16 bit
May 17, 2019 16:43:59 #
karno wrote:
In fact this is why I am buying the Fuji gfx 100mp so I can watch the dragon queen breaker of chains burn down kings landing in 16 bit
All the words in your post seem to be English - but I have no idea what you just said.
May 17, 2019 16:48:04 #
rehess wrote:
All the words in your post seem to be English - but I have no idea what you just said.
Yes I get that a lot
May 17, 2019 16:50:32 #
karno wrote:
Yes I get that a lot
He has probably never watched GOT.
will
May 17, 2019 16:57:09 #
xt2 wrote:
Yes.
Now, that's what I like, XT2 … ask a simple question … get an even simpler answer ….
May 17, 2019 17:06:17 #
If analog 35mm film was free, processing was free, and you could see the results in minutes, would DSLR's have caught on so quickly? See where I'm going? Mirrorless cameras may, ultimately, be superior, but the lure of digital photography is that the user can "develop" his/her results with equipment he/she, most likely, already has (and takes less technical ability). That was the demise IMHO of analog photography. Quality of the image is important to we camera geeks, but a cell phone is satisfactory for 95% (from an informal poll I never got around to taking) of the population. Affordability will be the determining factor (do the lenses in your bag bridge, etc?) as to whether the remaining 5% choose a straight digital or mirrorless.
May 17, 2019 17:07:17 #
rehess wrote:
All the words in your post seem to be English - but I have no idea what you just said.
RE … "dragon queen breaker of chains burn down something or other" is the part I don't get, too - but then, I'm not into Video Games. But, I am into photography, and if it helps Karno win this game of his - by buying the Fuji GFX100S when it at last becomes available .. I'm all for him!!! … damned good choice of a camera - I'd say!
May 17, 2019 17:10:52 #
hoosier500 wrote:
If analog 35mm film was free, processing was free,... (show quote)
I don't THINK the lenses in my bag bridge, Hoosier, but, then, I'm not really sure what that means, either.
Care to elaborate, Hoosier?
May 17, 2019 17:19:31 #
Granted technique is a priority. But isn't what we're seeking also dependent on being cognizant of the latest advances? Isn't that why this site exists? Aren't we peek geeks looking for the best, next step that elevates our images? Otherwise, I'd just snap whatever with my cell phone. . .
May 17, 2019 17:27:46 #
Sure. Doesn't anybody else consider whether the lenses they currently have in their bag are compatible with the next camera they buy? I've invested in Canon lenses, so I'm not going to move to new cameras of another brand, or mirrorless--that make these lenses obsolete.
May 17, 2019 17:28:03 #
Chris T wrote:
RE … "dragon queen breaker of chains burn down something or other" is the part I don't get, too - but then, I'm not into Video Games. But, I am into photography, and if it helps Karno win this game of his - by buying the Fuji GFX100S when it at last becomes available .. I'm all for him!!! … damned good choice of a camera - I'd say!
I find it difficult to fathom that I am the only one watching the Game of thrones but if so, so be it, it is nice to see I am not the only one eyeballing GFX,
My satire of watching HBO on a 100mp mirrorless camera is hilarious to me. For now I will watch it upon a regular so called smart tv ,and take my images on a separate device (dslr)
May 17, 2019 18:02:27 #
May 17, 2019 18:10:03 #
hoosier500 wrote:
Sure. Doesn't anybody else consider whether the lenses they currently have in their bag are compatible with the next camera they buy? I've invested in Canon lenses, so I'm not going to move to new cameras of another brand, or mirrorless--that make these lenses obsolete.
There are a lot of adapters on the market that will let you use just about any lens on most cameras.
May 17, 2019 18:28:04 #
karno wrote:
I find it difficult to fathom that I am the only one watching the Game of thrones but if so, so be it, it is nice to see I am not the only one eyeballing GFX,
My satire of watching HBO on a 100mp mirrorless camera is hilarious to me. For now I will watch it upon a regular so called smart tv ,and take my images on a separate device (dslr)
My satire of watching HBO on a 100mp mirrorless camera is hilarious to me. For now I will watch it upon a regular so called smart tv ,and take my images on a separate device (dslr)
I'm assuming Game of Thrones is some sort of computer/video game? Since we don't have access to television I'm not too sure if it might be something on it or not?
As for hobo, I can only assume you live by a railway track and watch them jumping trains...
bwa
May 17, 2019 18:36:23 #
General Douglas MacArthur, at his farewell address, said: "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away"! Camera types fade away too, but like zombies the came back to haunt us. I have a feeling there is a niche market for everything. If you look far enough, I'm certain you'll find a "cult" somewhere making Daguerreotypes with the original equipment.
The first SLR in professional and advanced amateur use were the Graflex reflex models. They had a noisy vibrating focal plane shutter, mirrors the size of the ones on a medicine cabinet, and mirror slap that registered on the seismograph in New Zealand every time someone made a shot. Yet- they were used to successfully shoot split second spots action with 1000mm
Big Bertha Lenses" right into the 197Os- there were some amazing iconic images. Now there is a subculture collecting, restoring and still using these cameras for portraiture, landscape work and more. Compared to theses old workhorses, a Nikon F, let alone a modern DSLR is a rocket ship! Hig technology!
Camera models die, nowadays, when manufacture and marketing folks conspire to obsolete perfectly good systems and bring out new stuff for everyone to buy. So...maybe someday, the big makers will kinda discontinu mainstream DSLRs and only supply them in limited quantities at outrageous prices.
I am not living in the past or wanting to retrogress to using outdated gear but my point is; if able photographs of yore could use 30 pound wooden cameras, with a painfully slow mechanical action, manually, focusing on a comparatively dark ground glass screen, with no internal metering or automatic exposure control, having to manually change film holders, etc.- how many shots per second does the average photographer, who frequents this forum need to shot landscapes, birds, and portraits- even sports action. Y'all are talking about human reflex lag, which was found to be 1/7sec on an old Nikon SLRs- whatever happened to anticipating the action and shooting at the precise moment! Why not use a video camera already?
How much operational speed do you need- most of the folks here are shooting flowers and mountains, none of which move too fast.
I can see the advantages of a mirrorless camera- lighter weight perhaps faster operation. The non-retrofocus optics can be smaller and faster- OK! I get it!
Perhaps someday DSLRs will no longer be manufactured but why worry about it. The way some folks are spending money on gear, why no operate two parallel systems and have the advantages of both- if you can afford it. If you are presently using a DSLR based system, are well invested in glass and are satisfied with the results you are getting and do not feel restricted- why change? If anyone can cite a logical reason- I'll agree!
I would worry about matters like this if I was in the camera retail business or perhaps if all my present gear was becoming seriously obsolete, no longer addressing my requirements, or beyond repair, and I was contemplating investing in a completely new system. As a photographer, I'll use whatever the market has available, within reason, and get used to it.
I prefer to spend more time thinking about actually making images.
PS- Cellphone cameras have already replaced the regular camera in the casual snapshooter markets. Average folks are taking more and better pictures and having a lot of fun on social media- why not? It's not realistic to believe that these devices will replace all camera for serious users. They are fun though- and some of the advancements in compact optics and circuitry will work the way into mainstream cameras.
I don't know what else the makers can put into there cameras- they are already extremely overengineered! Too many systems to breakdown, malfunction and where components become incompatible.
Are we advancing regressing? Think about this- on an old Speed Graphic, lenses of different focal length could not be changed quickly. When you changed a lens you had to remove the rangefinder cam and replace if with the one for the replacement lens. You have to readjust the infinity stops on the focusing rail and the setting on the optical viewfinder. On press assignments, we sometimes had to carry 2 big bulky preset cameras. So... when we went to medium and 35mm formats all we had to do is pop one lens off and pop on another- SPEED AND CONVENIENCE! Nowadays, on some of today's latest digital cameras, we can have lenses that are "poor copies" and become incompatible with the autofocus system of the cameras they are intended for. Sometimes things just get t too complicated!
The first SLR in professional and advanced amateur use were the Graflex reflex models. They had a noisy vibrating focal plane shutter, mirrors the size of the ones on a medicine cabinet, and mirror slap that registered on the seismograph in New Zealand every time someone made a shot. Yet- they were used to successfully shoot split second spots action with 1000mm
Big Bertha Lenses" right into the 197Os- there were some amazing iconic images. Now there is a subculture collecting, restoring and still using these cameras for portraiture, landscape work and more. Compared to theses old workhorses, a Nikon F, let alone a modern DSLR is a rocket ship! Hig technology!
Camera models die, nowadays, when manufacture and marketing folks conspire to obsolete perfectly good systems and bring out new stuff for everyone to buy. So...maybe someday, the big makers will kinda discontinu mainstream DSLRs and only supply them in limited quantities at outrageous prices.
I am not living in the past or wanting to retrogress to using outdated gear but my point is; if able photographs of yore could use 30 pound wooden cameras, with a painfully slow mechanical action, manually, focusing on a comparatively dark ground glass screen, with no internal metering or automatic exposure control, having to manually change film holders, etc.- how many shots per second does the average photographer, who frequents this forum need to shot landscapes, birds, and portraits- even sports action. Y'all are talking about human reflex lag, which was found to be 1/7sec on an old Nikon SLRs- whatever happened to anticipating the action and shooting at the precise moment! Why not use a video camera already?
How much operational speed do you need- most of the folks here are shooting flowers and mountains, none of which move too fast.
I can see the advantages of a mirrorless camera- lighter weight perhaps faster operation. The non-retrofocus optics can be smaller and faster- OK! I get it!
Perhaps someday DSLRs will no longer be manufactured but why worry about it. The way some folks are spending money on gear, why no operate two parallel systems and have the advantages of both- if you can afford it. If you are presently using a DSLR based system, are well invested in glass and are satisfied with the results you are getting and do not feel restricted- why change? If anyone can cite a logical reason- I'll agree!
I would worry about matters like this if I was in the camera retail business or perhaps if all my present gear was becoming seriously obsolete, no longer addressing my requirements, or beyond repair, and I was contemplating investing in a completely new system. As a photographer, I'll use whatever the market has available, within reason, and get used to it.
I prefer to spend more time thinking about actually making images.
PS- Cellphone cameras have already replaced the regular camera in the casual snapshooter markets. Average folks are taking more and better pictures and having a lot of fun on social media- why not? It's not realistic to believe that these devices will replace all camera for serious users. They are fun though- and some of the advancements in compact optics and circuitry will work the way into mainstream cameras.
I don't know what else the makers can put into there cameras- they are already extremely overengineered! Too many systems to breakdown, malfunction and where components become incompatible.
Are we advancing regressing? Think about this- on an old Speed Graphic, lenses of different focal length could not be changed quickly. When you changed a lens you had to remove the rangefinder cam and replace if with the one for the replacement lens. You have to readjust the infinity stops on the focusing rail and the setting on the optical viewfinder. On press assignments, we sometimes had to carry 2 big bulky preset cameras. So... when we went to medium and 35mm formats all we had to do is pop one lens off and pop on another- SPEED AND CONVENIENCE! Nowadays, on some of today's latest digital cameras, we can have lenses that are "poor copies" and become incompatible with the autofocus system of the cameras they are intended for. Sometimes things just get t too complicated!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.