Check out Landscape Photography section of our forum.
Is dslr going away like film?
May 30, 2014 17:09:50 #
May 30, 2014 17:12:57 #
And, in response to JPL, perhaps the really next big thing will be a 4x5 or if we are lucky enough, an 8x10/film camera. I am currently arguing with myself whether I should take my Leica D, a Leica R, a Nikon D, etc, and which lenses I would take. I am camera rich and dollar poor, but I love to have choices. I AM older ! It is a newer world for me-all the younger people out there who grew up with computers, etc. I have "almost" been able to keep up, but I'm trying. Travel kits are the hardest to figure out. Just today, I almost was "there"--a Fuji XT-1, with Zeiss glass (lenses). But alas, even then, though what I read, the color is wonderful, but the images are not super-sharp from ANY of the mirrorless cameras. Perhaps I just won't "go there" at all, and stick to my Leica Digilux 4, and a Leica D, with a lens or three. Nikons are a bit too heavy. Tough choices to make when large prints are one's norm.
May 30, 2014 17:16:39 #
Well, I can understand that. I don't mind either one, but for some critical work, the reflected image can provide a more accurate portrayal of the scene's colors and contrast. Point taken.
TheDman wrote:
Ah ok, I think you're referring to data displayed here. I thought you meant the image was better. Frankly that's the part I struggle with - I want to see the actual light coming through the lens, not a simulation of it.
Check out Drone Video and Photography Forum section of our forum.
May 30, 2014 18:01:58 #
Mark7829
Loc: Calfornia
Alashisan wrote:
OK, br br Power consumption, especially with the ... (show quote)
There is more to it than that. Reducing resolution reduces power consumption. And what are we using for comparison? The New Sony FF has 1/3 the power of a comparable Nikon or Canon. That's the problems with these forums. People use their limited personal one-camera experience to make a gross generalization about a whole class of cameras. That is just wrong. Again latency is an issue. You could include a larger battery but that would negate the weight benefit of the mirrorless.
May 30, 2014 18:15:39 #
Mark7829
Loc: Calfornia
Alashisan wrote:
You cannot read the writing on the wall. That's fi... (show quote)
There is no reason to switch. There is no real advantage. Absolutely none. There is no empirical evidence to make any change. Removing the mirro is insignificant. It's an ounce. The new Sony mirrorless weighs more and also less compared to other FF cameras from Nikon and Canon (body only).
I am glad you speak for "us" as if to suggest you represent a larger contingent of the misinformed. Perhaps you do. No one in here speaks for us. We all speak for ourselves and often that perspective is narrow and limited, no matter how many years you lived in AZ an how many backpacks you have, it's only the path you traveled.
May 30, 2014 19:41:09 #
Mark7829
Loc: Calfornia
Alashisan wrote:
Why so vicious? And why are you so very wrong? You... (show quote)
Okay, so your thoughts are your own. No one as indicated any reliability issues with the mirror. It is proven technology as long as there have been DSLR's. On the others side of the coin, you replaced the see-through prism with and electronic viewfinder that adds another electronic device that could fail, hence greater liability or less reliability. Does any of this make sense? I think you are the clueless.
Several people in today's forums listed Ken Rockwell column, who blasts the mirrorless for power consumption. Your issue is not with me but the Ken and the others who cited him as an authority. It isn't a red-herring.
And then you slam me in a personal way for not keeping up with technology. Where does that come from? I never mentioned any of my technological credentials or lack of. I suspect low self esteem. Time to see a therapist?
May 30, 2014 19:48:42 #
Gene51,
After reading your post to print my pics 24 x 36, I set up a test. I set the 7D and the em-5 on tripods side by side, took s picture of a still life, both cameras at ISO 2500, F13. I adjusted the lens so that both cameras would get the same framing (slightly different due to different formats). I enlarged the pictures on Photoshop to get 24x36, and looked at the at 100%. Sure enough, the Olympus picture at this size was not as good as the one from the 7D.
However, I have never printed anything bigger than 16x20 for my own use, and I doubt that most people ever print anything bigger than 11x14. I did print large format pictures in the past when I did Giclee prints for artists. The artwork was photographed by a professional in a studio. For this type of work, of course a large format camera is best. But for most of us, smaller cameras are easier to handle.
P.S. Micro 4/3 cameras in the more expensive field by all manufacturers all have viewfinders.
After reading your post to print my pics 24 x 36, I set up a test. I set the 7D and the em-5 on tripods side by side, took s picture of a still life, both cameras at ISO 2500, F13. I adjusted the lens so that both cameras would get the same framing (slightly different due to different formats). I enlarged the pictures on Photoshop to get 24x36, and looked at the at 100%. Sure enough, the Olympus picture at this size was not as good as the one from the 7D.
However, I have never printed anything bigger than 16x20 for my own use, and I doubt that most people ever print anything bigger than 11x14. I did print large format pictures in the past when I did Giclee prints for artists. The artwork was photographed by a professional in a studio. For this type of work, of course a large format camera is best. But for most of us, smaller cameras are easier to handle.
P.S. Micro 4/3 cameras in the more expensive field by all manufacturers all have viewfinders.
Check out Black and White Photography section of our forum.
May 30, 2014 19:54:23 #
dirty dave wrote:
I don't think film is ever to go away, it is actually growing quite fast. Film beats digital in resolution hands down and will do so for quite some time. SLR's and DSLR's are not going away either for a long time, I think.Lately we have all seen the new technology of the high end point and shoot as well as the new mirror less cameras. The photos I have seen from these cameras has been outstanding. I have been defending my canon dslr 's for the past few years.(due to the thousands of dollars I have invested). I would like to here your opinions and experience with the dslr's and the new high end point and shoots. (I hope I didn't open up a can of worms)intelligent discussion not arguments.
May 30, 2014 20:09:16 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
speters wrote:
I don't think film is ever to go away, it is actually growing quite fast. Film beats digital in resolution hands down and will do so for quite some time. SLR's and DSLR's are not going away either for a long time, I think.
I keep reading that, but it just doesn't hold up in practice. My digital files beat the tar out of my velvia and provia slides.
May 30, 2014 20:46:26 #
TheDman wrote:
I do shoot quite a bit of Velvia myself and my digital (5DM III) can't hold a candle against that.I keep reading that, but it just doesn't hold up in practice. My digital files beat the tar out of my velvia and provia slides.
May 30, 2014 21:44:40 #
lukan
Loc: Chicago, IL
Alashisan wrote:
Wrong. I did it professionally for a long time. I no longer needed the weight, lens expense and size, and currently do events and weddings with crop sensor cameras (X100S) and MFT's (Oly EM1). It was stupid of me to get the best at the time, but I wanted the best results.
It's no longer an issue for me, and I don't really agonize the loss--but it sure makes me more careful and aware now. My point is, say farewell to the DSLR!
I get no complaints from what I produce.
It's no longer an issue for me, and I don't really agonize the loss--but it sure makes me more careful and aware now. My point is, say farewell to the DSLR!
I get no complaints from what I produce.
As long as there's an EM-1 in the mix, you'll never have a complaint about IQ unless it's sports. Oly has the DSLR alternative figured out. ;)
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.
May 30, 2014 21:46:37 #
lukan
Loc: Chicago, IL
speters wrote:
I do shoot quite a bit of Velvia myself and my digital (5DM III) can't hold a candle against that.
With Velvia, you've got to shoot great glass... That's the key. :D
But put saturation to +2, and sharpness to +4, and it's darn close. VERY close.
May 30, 2014 22:17:50 #
Mark7829
Loc: Calfornia
lukan wrote:
As long as there's an EM-1 in the mix, you'll never have a complaint about IQ unless it's sports. Oly has the DSLR alternative figured out. ;)
The EM-1 is not impressive - 16 mpx? Issues with noise at higher ISO? Hot- pixels? etc. etc.
May 30, 2014 23:19:08 #
lukan
Loc: Chicago, IL
Mark7829 wrote:
The EM-1 is not impressive - 16 mpx? Issues with noise at higher ISO? Hot- pixels? etc. etc.
Keep in mind it's 16 mp in a 4/3 format, and also keep in mind the D4 is 16 mp. The 1DX is 18 mp, so your reference is meaningless regarding numbers of mp. You might want to read Ming Thein's review of the EM-1, and also read his equipment roster. Go ahead, Google it. Become enlightened. The EM-1 is quite a system, and you can light your subject adequately enough to negate most of the critique you'll read about on line.
May 30, 2014 23:25:27 #
lukan wrote:
I shoot the same glass in digital as I do shooting film, it's all L glass or something better, so I think I shoot good glass!With Velvia, you've got to shoot great glass... That's the key. :D
But put saturation to +2, and sharpness to +4, and it's darn close. VERY close.
But put saturation to +2, and sharpness to +4, and it's darn close. VERY close.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Digital Artistry section of our forum.