Shutterbug57

There have been several posts asking about the “demise” of the DSLR. Last night was our monthly model night at the club. I took the opportunity to see what camera everybody brought. Our club is made up of pros, enthusiasts and the occasional noob. Last night we had 10 shooters - the Bengals were playing, so a light turnout. Cameras used were:

Mirrorless - 1 (2 if you count the iPhone a noob brought, but he used a D70s offered by a member)
DSLR - 9

DSLR - 9 (6 Nikon, 2 Canon & 1 Pentax)
micro 4:3 - 1 (Olympus IIRC)
FF/APSC MLIC - 0

At least 1 of the DSLR shooters also has a Fuji X-T2 (APSC mirrorless). Several also have film SLR bodies that occasionally show up on studio night. A couple have, and use film medium format cameras too.

There has been some interest in the mirrorless options and a few of the members have purchased a MILC. Only 1 member that I am aware of has made the switch to fully MILC. I am sure MILCs will continue to make inroads, but I doubt most of the members will dump DSLR for MILC in the near future.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I have a DSLR, a mirrorless camera, a point and shoot and an iPhone 8+, and I use all of them at different times. All different means of achieving basically the same thing. I don't think any are going away anytime soon, nor do I think any are going to dominate the market yet. At least not in my time.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

To restate the OP’s post for the sake of clarity:
Full Frame - 0
Smartphone - 1
Mirrorless APS-C - 1 (Fuji)
Micro 4/3 - 1? (the Olympus OM2 is a 35mm SLR film camera or were you referring to the Oly IIRC binoculars?)
DSLR - 9
..Nikon - 6
..Canon - 2
..Ricoh/Pentax - 1

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

There are many reasons for this.

Demographics is one... If most of your club members are over 40, chances are, they are heavily invested in Nikon or Canon or other SLR/dSLR lenses. Most would not consider a change yet, because of their considerable inventory of expensive glass.

"Bragging rights" is another. "Mine's bigger than yours" keeps lots of guys in the heavy camera/long lens crowd.

I'm 63, and one of the rare people in my age group who gave up dSLRs for mirrorless. After studying mirrorless gear for a couple of years, I got rid of all my Nikon and Canon stuff in favor of Panasonic's Lumix Micro 4/3 system. It was a radical change, but it was absolutely the best thing I ever did with cameras. Here's why:

I RECORD EQUAL AMOUNTS OF STILLS AND VIDEO. The Lumix GH4 lets me get great results with one system.

GH4 still photos are perfectly fine for the training materials I create, and for the occasional event work I do. I have made a few 40" by 30" prints from full, uncropped images. They look great at 50", the recommended minimum viewing distance for a 40x30 (i.e.; the print diagonal dimension). 20x16/16x20 prints are great at any viewing distance! And, of course, smaller prints and images in a letter size document or on the web or any screen look fine.

GH4 Full HD 1080P and 4K video is good enough for documentaries, training, independent short films, TV commercials, Friday night football... AND, as a bonus, the audio quality is fantastic. No, I don't use the internal microphones. That would be ignorant of the inverse/square law with any video or stills camera that also records video. The GH4 has stereo mic in and headphone out jacks, plus peak level meters, level control, switchable peak limiters, and 76db signal-to-noise ratio pre-amps. That's adequate for many tasks and accommodates two mics with the proper external equipment. For anything REALLY important, I'll add an external audio recorder and feed the camera with "pass through" audio from it.

Low light work is fine down to ISO 2500 to 3200. In an emergency, 6400 is usable, especially for video. That's roughly two stops slower than a full frame dSLR, but for my needs, that's okay! If I'm working on anything important (film project, training, documentary...) I'm going to light it gently, anyway. I worked for 35 years with 400 speed films with much worse results for stills, and NO results for video. Besides, all my lenses are image stabilized, and give me about three f/stops of extra hand-holdability.

If I need shallow depth of field, I'll rent a fast lens such as the Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 Nocticron, or one of the Voigtlander Noktons (f/0.95). But my style is to use long lenses for shallow DOF anyway, so that's seldom an issue.

What really sealed the deal for me was that I can do everything I need to do with one system. I don't have to "switch mental gears" to go back and forth from a classic camcorder form factor to a dSLR form factor. I don't have to carry or check two cases. I don't have to have one set of lenses for stills and one for video. I can work COMPLETELY silently in a dark theatre, recording either stills or video, without disturbing anyone with shutter noise, or mirror slap, or light from an LCD screen. I can fit a very capable kit — camera or two, three lenses, flash, wireless mic system, shotgun mic, batteries, charger, cables, etc. — under an airline seat.

I learned a long time ago not to "Major on the minor." For example, I don't own a truck or a van... I need one only a couple of times a year. So I don't pay for a $40,000 vehicle that's hard to park, expensive to insure, requires massive tires, costs tons of money for gas, or causes me to worry about my stuff getting wet or my passengers being cramped. So if I need a full frame dSLR or mirrorless setup, I can rent it for a day or a week or a month from borrowlenses.com or lensrentals.com.

In short, I don't care what the crowd owns or uses. It simply does not matter to me, for my needs. I'm going to use the right tools for my jobs, and so should you. If that's a film camera, or a full frame dSLR, or a high end camcorder, or an antique porcelain foot (!), so be it. Do your homework and get what you need.

In the end, what matters is what you did with it!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

He was probably referring to the OM-D E-M1 Mark II, which is the flagship Olympus Micro 4/3 camera.

IIRC = "if I recall"

Shutterbug57

A few notes below - in caps to set them apart from the quoted post.

Shutterbug57

I too am in the over 60 crowd. I have the X-T2 along with a D500. I agree that it is what you do with it that counts.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

As a social media troglodyte, I thank you. The OP could have taken the time to ID the OM-D E-M1 Mk II better. And Olympus should get off its high horse about using dumb names with letters, numbers and multiple hyphens - just call the next camera “Fred”. 🤓

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I'm with you on that! Many camera and electronics manufacturers really do need to use better nomenclature for their models.

Troglodyte? Great word! It was the original name of a mid-1960's rock band. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troggs ("Wild Thing" was one of their few hits.)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

BebuLamar

They did the Pen F as Pen F. Nice name but confusing with their Pen F half frame 35mm SLR.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yeah. I put one roll through a Pen F just to try it. It was okay, so long as you didn't expect more than a 5x7 print. The 4/3 and Micro 4/3 sensors can make MUCH larger prints.

User ID

Well, they coulda clarified it by calling
the newer digital "Pen F" the "Pen dF"
if they wanted to get sued by Nikon ;-)

Now, just to stay on-topic ... obviously
the SLR is doomed. It started out as a
5x7 inch format and gradually shrank
to sub-16mm format ... on its way to
just shrinking toadally out of sight.

Note that the Pen-F was once an SLR
and is now a live view camera without
any change in model name. Live view
replaces SLR, same as Homo Sapiens
replaces Neanderthal. They look kinda
similar and fill a similar niche, but one
thrives as the other fades away.


`

User ID

According to third grade level arithmetic, you would
then have found normal 35mm format limited to no
larger than 8x10 prints, a limitation not experienced
by anyone I've ever met ... 50 years in the bidnez.

Can't blame the old lenses cuz those are still sought
after today, for use on m43 and APSC digital bodies.
So, you are blaming the film size. Makes no sense.


`

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

If you relied on Tri-X or HP5 at an Exposure Index of 1600 to 2400, 8x10 was all you dared. Sure, you could make a 16x20, but it wouldn’t pass close inspection. m43 does.