Last days of the DSLR?

Msmoto

I can imagine Makoto Kimura & Fujio Mitarai out on the golf course…both hit their balls into the rough…..and while they search for the errant golf balls, one says to the other:

"What date should we introduce the full frame sans mirror pro bodies?"
"Let's wait until Sony thinks they have something good going, then drop both our models on the scene with the better pro features."
"OK, maybe in mid 2015, ya' think?"
"Yes, that sounds good. We will shake hands on this on the 18th green."
"But we now must get back out in the fairway where the reporters are so they do not know what we are talking about."

My humor for the day….

donaldejose

Funny, but also a true reflection of the collaboration which exists among many Japanese companies.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

The Sony camera is the hottest camera of the year.

If the lenses keep up, and the camera broadens it capability (flash system and synchronization speed, and remote capability, etc.) and it develops legs, it will be the one to beat.

However, as Msmoto points out, the US perception of Japanese product development and competition might take Sony on a different turn.

I hope not.

My best to all,

Mike

kyoshinikon

h
Maybe its just me but I much prefer the noise of the shutter over no shutter sound.
I picked up the V1 when they first came out. I liked the small package size but the IQ and lack of shutter sound turned me off. I believe it had an option for mechanical shutter or no mechanical. The mechanical was a little better but I returned it.

Why I like the DSLR more is the AF-on, the view finder, the extra buttons for DOF or whatever your set them to. The flash capabilites, sync ports, sb-xxx, etc.
.

I love the sound and the feel too... The only Place it drives me nuts are when I am shooting Jazz musicians preforming. It makes me know that my camera is working. The feel is great under water as I cannot see through my viewfinder...

Paperman

Can anyone tell me why a mirrorless/EVF D4 or D800 will perform better than the current OVF model and Why Nikon should head that way? Is it just the fps or some other advantage I don't know ?

PB_PM

From a mechanical standpoint a mirrorless camera is superior. Fewer moving parts mean that less can go wrong. Due to the complexity DSLRs requires a great deal of hands on work in manufacturing, something mirrorless need less of. Beyond that there are few real advantages. Smaller bodies are possible, but I think we would all agree that smaller is not always better (just as bigger is not always better). Without a mirror faster frame rates are possible, just look at the Nikon 1 cameras that can shoot 60fps. A mirrored camera could never achieve that, it is simply a matter of physics. The Canon 1D x (fastest shooting DSLR today) requires mirror lockup for the 14FPS maximum shooting speed.

Some would argue that more shooting information can be displayed through an EVF, but using translucent LCD displays the same is possible for optical viewfinders as well.

Back to manufacturing, less parts means lower manufacturing costs, so in theory, although not in practice, a mirrorless camera should also be less expensive for consumers. The reality is that mirrorless cameras are more profitable for manufactures, because they are charging DSLR prices for less mechanically sophisticated hardware. Of course some of those cost savings are lost to increased demand on more complex firmware required for contrast based auto focus, and more recently hybrid systems. Why the loss of savings? Software (firmware) programers are often paid more than manufacturing staff.

Paperman

From a mechanical standpoint a mirrorless camera is superior. Fewer moving parts mean that less can go wrong

I would say fewer mechanical parts would mean more electronic parts which are more prone to malfunctions. Regarding manufacturing costs, I doubt that eliminating the mirror mechanism - almost unchanged since the 1960s, produced in millions - can bring much of a savings when compared with an EVF + electronics . It's a system which has almost reached perfection, not creating any mechanical problems.

As you say, many will also agree "lighter" is not an advantage. When one considers the weight of glass we are carrying around, a couple of hundred grams won't make a difference.

So we are basically only gaining extra fps by going mirrorless. I'd understand a D4 sports photographer needing speed but does he REALLY need anything faster than what D4 currently has ?? Will AF keep up with it ( no way ... ) ?. Will the camera be able to process 20 fps data per second ? . And why would a D800 owner - or a regular consumer DSLR owner need that speed anyway? What about power consumption that multiplies with the EVF ?

No real advantage but eventually we will be pushed on to it, it looks like ...

Photobug

Heartyfisher said: Seriously considering getting the Df for my "real" photography.. but will probably stay with getting a conventional D610/D400/D800. will see how it goes when the NAS strikes

Followed your logic until you said D400. Can't stay with it if it doesn't exist. :-*

Have you noticed that there has been no discussion in that D400 forum for so long it's now back to the second page. I really wanted a D400 but said enough is enough and moved forward.

NAS recently struck me and I am digging for money for items without touching my big body money. Unfortunately there is not a cure for NAS except to buy a "must have" accessory or lens.

PB_PM

I would say fewer mechanical parts would mean more electronic parts which are more prone to malfunctions.

The amount of electronics also decreases with a mirrorless camera. You no longer need the electronics required to sync the mirror and shutter. Modern DSLR's are a far reach from the all mechanical cameras of the 1950s-1990s. They rely heavily on electronics, don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. The only think Nikon has left fully mechanical on their DSLR's is the aperture lever, which in an of itself is likely controlled by, electronics. Even the need for that lever is gone on the "E" lenses which have an electronic aperture.

Also removed are the associated sub mirror needed for the phase detect auto focus system, and the AF modal itself. No longer is there a need all the electronics related to the optical viewfinder display information. Nor are the electronics for the top panel LCD required. It goes both ways, some things are removed and some things are added.

The fact that a DSLR's phase detect auto focus system can be off simply because the AF adjustment system wasn't screwed in perfectly is just an example of the issues that come from the system. It is a system that works very well, but time has shown that the manufactures have far from perfected it to the point that it is faultless. The fact that cameras still use a physical, breakable, shutter in itself is a recipe for mechanical failure.

Paperman

Let them remove the shutter as well as then ... We all know it is not needed.

PB_PM

Yes, because electronic shutters don't exist... oh wait they do. In fact Nikon used them in pervious DSLRs, albeit in a hybrid fashion. The D50, D70, and D40 used that system to achieve a 1/500s flash sync.

henrik1963

A lot of talk about how a mirror less camera can perform as well as a DSLR. But what do we want on top of that? What needs to be better? What real world problem do we want a solution for? That is the real question.

As of now a mirror less camera is a little lighter. What do we want on the list of things we want for a future camera - mirror or no mirror?

WestEndBoy

Don't forget that the flange to focal plane distance can be greatly reduced if you remove the mirror. I think this is what will be the "killer ap" of mirrorless cameras. No more retrofocus issues. The 14-24 2.8G would be less than half the size and either twice as good or half the price.

Larger than 35-50 mm though, this difference disappears.

PB_PM

Dealing with retrofocus issue is a big plus for mirrorless designs. I doubt we as end users would see a price difference though, simply because the camera makers know the market is willing to pay top dollar. All that will happen is that margins will increase to make up for falling sales.

PB_PM

A lot of talk about how a mirror less camera can perform as well as a DSLR. But what do we want on top of that? What needs to be better? What real world problem do we want a solution for?

Indeed. From a practical end result viewpoint there is no difference. If you can take a great photo with a DSLR you should be able to do so with a mirrorless camera, and the other way around. In my experience, with current technology, achieving the same thing for still subjects is equal in almost all circumstances. The only areas where DSLR's are superior are moving subjects. Maybe we need to stop looking at mirrorless as a solution to a problem and more as an alternative way to reach the same goal? It's like the rangefinder vs SLR all over again, different people like shooting different ways.

Paperman

The viewfinder cameras never took over the SLRs in the film times. Just hoping the same with mirrorless & DSLRs ( though I know the comparasion is flawed :-) )

Yes, because electronic shutters don't exist... oh wait they do. In fact Nikon used them in pervious DSLRs, albeit in a hybrid fashion. The D50, D70, and D40 used that system to achieve a 1/500s flash sync.

That's what I'm saying ... The shutter survived one blow ; maybe the mirror mechanisms will as well.

PB_PM

The difference is that, other than providing an optical viewfinder (something I prefer myself) the mirror has no purpose. On the other hand, a shutter of some kind is required.

Msmoto

The best sound of a camera was an old Hassleblad 500c. And the snap of winding the film, which when one did not use a crank involved snapping the camera body up and toward the photographer and winding the knob forward all in one motion. This was just so sweet.

And, this will never be reproduced in any modern camera.

Paperman

The difference is that, other than providing an optical viewfinder (something I prefer myself) the mirror has no purpose. On the other hand, a shutter of some kind is required.

Why is a shutter of some kind required ? An "electronic shutter" physically is not/does not have a shutter and does the same job by circuitry .... I see no difference from a mirror in terms of being necessary.

kyoshinikon

It is confirmation the camera made the photo.... It is really helpful during timelapses or situations you cannot look through he viewfinder.

Paperman

Don't get what exactly is helpful, Kyoshinikon :-?

kyoshinikon

The sound of your shutter... When you are not looking through your viewfinder or chimping it is conformation the camera took the photo. One of the biggest flags for many shooters when a camera is off is that the shutter didn't go off esp if you dont pay much attention to viewfinder data. While for many it is not an issue for much of us the shutter sound is a check that says "my camera is working"...

Paperman

I see but I wasn't talking about the shutter "sound" when I said " why is a shutter needed " .... I was actually talking about the shutter mechanism.

PB_PM

An electronic shutter is not a physical thing, it simply is the amount of time the sensor is active to achieve the needed exposure. It is referred to as a shutter merely to make it easier for people to relate to what is happening.

As for the sound, that's just something people rely on out of tradition. In any case, even the electronic shutter on the V1 makes noise. The memory card activity light gives more than enough feedback in any case.

Paperman

I'm not the one addressed by your post, am I PB_PM :-)