Yes, Sony Killed the DSLR, By Art of Photography. What do you think AFTER watching the video? (Page 3): Cameras that work will always be popular but with a "more select group." For...

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Bill_de wrote:

Actually I did not say that. If you look back Old School added that to my post by failing to properly close the quote.

My post is on page 1 three posts above what Old School posted.
---

Cameras that work will always be popular but with a "more select group." For instance the discontinued line of Sigma FoveonX3 DSLRs has been off the market new for years---yet still fetch $1500 to $2000 and more used in good condition and $1000. in so-so condition. But no more mass production and yearly upgrades and marketing. But "as the stomach churns" there will be more twist and turns. Probably higher markup with the electronic viewing systems---called mirrorless?-----ew

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

OldSchool-WI wrote:

But, then--I don't have to respond.----------

Whoops! Too late!

Dan5000 Loc: New Hampshire

Interesting video

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

gwilliams6 wrote:

Yes, Sony Killed the DSLR, By Art of Photography. What do you think, AFTER watching the video?

(replaced with correct link)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7NZleCVlYs

Cheers

Boy I know this one will raise some ire here in UHH.

Interesting video and I agree with it. If I was starting out now, there is no way that I wouldn't get into mirrorless. It is the future of cameras.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

topcat wrote:

If I was starting out now, there is no way that I wouldn't get into mirrorless. It is the future of cameras.

I think that is the salient point here. It is not that DSLRs have turned bad all of a sudden. They still are great cameras capable of taking amazing pictures. But they represent a poor investment going forward. For a novice there is no reason to get invested into a DSLR system anymore because the innovation has stopped.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

zug55 wrote:

I think that is the salient point here. It is not that DSLRs have turned bad all of a sudden. They still are great cameras capable of taking amazing pictures. But they represent a poor investment going forward. For a novice there is no reason to get invested into a DSLR system anymore because the innovation has stopped.

The innovation never stops. Of course what is innovation? It might be a sturdier shutter or maybe a chceaper shutter. It might be another shape to the body? It might mean moving the buttons onto he lens? It does not mean an improvement by definition. And through the glass lens visually will never stop from being popular. In fact an investment in a DSLR might be a "better investment" if they don't suppercede the camera with a new model every two years? The used prices for the discontinued Sigma DSLR---has been going up not down since they did not come out with a new model.

It all depends on whether you like taking pictures with an electronic display or a glass display. As you say---they both take good pictures---after all the camera is only the mechanical accompaniment of the sensor and lens.-----------

Canisdirus

OldSchool-WI wrote:

The innovation never stops. Of course what is inn... (show quote)

lol...no.
You cannot or will not move into the modern era of photography...fine.
But don't tell anyone else the DSLR is just as good...or somehow more pure of heart to photography.
That's just a made up self delusion.

BebuLamar

OldSchool-WI wrote:

The innovation never stops. Of course what is inn... (show quote)

The sturdiest shutter of all. No shutter needed.

DennisC. Loc: Antelope, CA

BebuLamar wrote:

The sturdiest shutter of all. No shutter needed.

Exactly, so much for the anticipated global shutter, Nikon just eliminated it all together.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Canisdirus wrote:

lol...no.
You cannot or will not move into the modern era of photography...fine.
But don't tell anyone else the DSLR is just as good...or somehow more pure of heart to photography.
That's just a made up self delusion.

_____________________
You can believe what you want. But don't tell the other half what they should think. The SLR reached a point of diminishing returns (reaching a stable perfection in the digital format) with its new gimmicks to paste onto a sound structure of looking through the glass. Your electronic eyes (mirrorless) came out twenty years ago and were rejected then. Now enough hipe and that type of viewing is back. Maybe for old folks with poor vision?-------

Grahame Loc: Fiji

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Your electronic eyes (mirrorless) came out twenty years ago and were rejected then.

Obviously for a reason, 'then'.

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

OldSchool-WI wrote:

_____________________
You can believe what you want. But don't tell the other half what they should think. The SLR reached a point of diminishing returns (reaching a stable perfection in the digital format) with its new gimmicks to paste onto a sound structure of looking through the glass. Your electronic eyes (mirrorless) came out twenty years ago and were rejected then. Now enough hipe and that type of viewing is back. Maybe for old folks with poor vision?-------

The rejection of your DSC-F828 had nothing to do with the fact that it was mirrorless. It's tiny 8mp sensor produced images that were full of noise and chromatic aberrations. Image quality wise it was being outperformed by 6mp cameras from Canon and Nikon, both of which Ken Rockwell recommended over your Sony at the time.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Grahame wrote:

Obviously for a reason, 'then'.

Just last night I bought my second "mirrorless" concept camera from Sony (I call it a "lens with a camera attached) which was introduced at $1000. and does largely what the current craze of mirrorless demands. Plus the body swivels on the lens--up and down! It is the Sony DSC F828---which was panned by the DP critics and became the last on that type. Great Zeiss tele sonnar F:2---digital panel and digital finder---all the bells and whistles---but fell to the wayside 17 years ago to the DSLR market. It also has a revolutionary 4 color CCD! But I like my first one so much I wanted a second for backup. And when out of favor then---moreso now----great price.-----

BebuLamar

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Just last night I bought my second "mirrorles... (show quote)

The DCS F828 isn't a mirrorless. Mirrorless camera isn't simply a camera without the mirror.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

flip1948 wrote:

The rejection of your DSC-F828 had nothing to do with the fact that it was mirrorless. It's tiny 8mp sensor produced images that were full of noise and chromatic aberrations. Image quality wise it was being outperformed by 6mp cameras from Canon and Nikon, both of which Ken Rockwell recommended over your Sony at the time.

________________________________
Do you only quote others? Why don't you speak from your own experience? I speak from experience and as I say have both the Sony DSC F717 and now two DSC F828s I don't have the defects you are confident exist. Maybe they didn't know how to take pictures? And you maybe believe too much in critics? So--who is right---someone who reads old garbage or someone who uses two breakthrough concept mirrorless L shaped Sony cameras????-------ew