A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for the DSLR



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 19th 15, 03:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for the DSLR

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 17:45:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

New sensors with high read-out speeds (over 15fps for DX) will mean the end of the DSLR as the premier sports and action cameras. Mirror-less professional cameras are in the offing. Contrary to those who think video cameras will take over, they won't; you can't really capture fast action in single images at 30-120fps.


Well, I mean why not, and who would care? I don't think DSLR owners
have any particular fondness for mirrors flopping around in their
cameras. Once the mirrorless tech catches up to SLR functionality, why
would anyone cry over that? As long as we can use our current lenses,
and can get the same image quality under all conditions, why not?
There are certainly benefits to mirrorless.
  #2  
Old April 19th 15, 04:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for the DSLR

On 2015-04-19 02:14:24 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 17:45:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

New sensors with high read-out speeds (over 15fps for DX) will mean the
end of the DSLR as the premier sports and action cameras. Mirror-less
professional cameras are in the offing. Contrary to those who think
video cameras will take over, they won't; you can't really capture
fast action in single images at 30-120fps.


Well, I mean why not, and who would care? I don't think DSLR owners
have any particular fondness for mirrors flopping around in their
cameras. Once the mirrorless tech catches up to SLR functionality, why
would anyone cry over that? As long as we can use our current lenses,
and can get the same image quality under all conditions, why not?
There are certainly benefits to mirrorless.


I'll be able to tell you next weekend. My new Fuji mirrorless should be
here from B&H by the middle of the week. I will start with the two
major benefits lower weight & lower bulk.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_e2/

I am going to have some photographic exploring to do.

....and by the end of May I should be able to see well enough to
understand just how bad my photography actually is. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #3  
Old April 19th 15, 05:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for the DSLR

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 20:04:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-04-19 02:14:24 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 17:45:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

New sensors with high read-out speeds (over 15fps for DX) will mean the
end of the DSLR as the premier sports and action cameras. Mirror-less
professional cameras are in the offing. Contrary to those who think
video cameras will take over, they won't; you can't really capture
fast action in single images at 30-120fps.


Well, I mean why not, and who would care? I don't think DSLR owners
have any particular fondness for mirrors flopping around in their
cameras. Once the mirrorless tech catches up to SLR functionality, why
would anyone cry over that? As long as we can use our current lenses,
and can get the same image quality under all conditions, why not?
There are certainly benefits to mirrorless.


I'll be able to tell you next weekend. My new Fuji mirrorless should be
here from B&H by the middle of the week. I will start with the two
major benefits lower weight & lower bulk.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_e2/

I am going to have some photographic exploring to do.

...and by the end of May I should be able to see well enough to
understand just how bad my photography actually is. ;-)


APS-C held to 16 MP - nothing else being known, it should have pretty
good low light performance. It looks like it has good AF, and decent
burst rates, although I would have expected better with mirrorless. At
the same time, for 1K with a lens, it looks like a pretty good setup.

To me, the important points are getting rid of the mirror shake, and a
theoretically major increase in burst rates. I don't care so much
about the size and weight, and I'd like to be able to use my current
lenses. I suppose at some point the size and weight might be very
different, and then it might be time to move on completely. I doubt,
though, that it's physically possible to get the same zoom/telephoto
abilities with anything much smaller, and still maintain image
quality.
  #4  
Old April 19th 15, 07:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for the DSLR

On 2015-04-19 05:33:43 +0000, RichA said:

On Saturday, 18 April 2015 23:04:37 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-04-19 02:14:24 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 17:45:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

New sensors with high read-out speeds (over 15fps for DX) will mean the
end of the DSLR as the premier sports and action cameras. Mirror-less
professional cameras are in the offing. Contrary to those who think
video cameras will take over, they won't; you can't really capture
fast action in single images at 30-120fps.

Well, I mean why not, and who would care? I don't think DSLR owners
have any particular fondness for mirrors flopping around in their
cameras. Once the mirrorless tech catches up to SLR functionality, why
would anyone cry over that? As long as we can use our current lenses,
and can get the same image quality under all conditions, why not?
There are certainly benefits to mirrorless.


I'll be able to tell you next weekend. My new Fuji mirrorless should be
here from B&H by the middle of the week. I will start with the two
major benefits lower weight & lower bulk.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_e2/

I am going to have some photographic exploring to do.

...and by the end of May I should be able to see well enough to
understand just how bad my photography actually is. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck


It'll be a sea-change if you come from a FF DSLR or even a decent DX body.


D300S+battery grip+lenses.

The fun part comes when you use the Fuji for a few weeks then try to
haul around the DSLR after that.


There have been days I have gone out to shoot for several hours and I
have felt like a worn out pack mule.
Once I have the wrinkles in the X-E2 ironed out I will probably only go
to the DSLR if there is a specific need. I have no doubt there are
going to be days when I will be less than enthused at that prospect.

For now I will be going with the 18-55mm f/2.8-4, + the 35mm f/1.4 and
add a few additional lenses as things progress, perhaps the XF55-200mm
or the XF 50-140mm f/2.8, and maybe another wide prime like the 14mm
f/2.8. I understand that there is a (?)-400mm zoom in the offing.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #5  
Old April 19th 15, 09:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for the DSLR

On 2015-04-19 13:26:25 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article ,
says...
There have been days I have gone out to shoot for several hours and I
have felt like a worn out pack mule.


The weight benefit doesn't come so much from the mirror removal.


Who said it did?

Removing the mirror only makes the body a bit smaller and lighter. But
you still have to lug around those lenses.


....and the Fuji lenses are considerably more compact and lighter than
my Nikkor lenses, or my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.

The major impact on weight comes from a smaller sensor with related
smaller image circle. The smaller the sensor, the smaller and lighter
your entire camera system.


There is more to camera design than letting the sensor size dictate the
dimensions of a camera. There are some M4/3 cameras which appear to be
a similar size to some of the entry level APS-C DSLRs. The is an
exception when it comes to FF mirrorless such as the Sony 7A II which
is larger than a D750.

Therefore, unless you need a large sensor, you should switch to a m4/3
camera system.


APS-C is my comfort zone, if I wanted small and light I would have just
stuck with my G-11. The X-E2 is tiny when compared with a D300S +
battery grip + any of the lenses I use. I will be more than happy with
the weight saving I will get.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #6  
Old April 19th 15, 09:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for the DSLR

On 19/04/2015 05:24, Bill W wrote:
[]
APS-C held to 16 MP - nothing else being known, it should have pretty
good low light performance. It looks like it has good AF, and decent
burst rates, although I would have expected better with mirrorless. At
the same time, for 1K with a lens, it looks like a pretty good setup.

To me, the important points are getting rid of the mirror shake, and a
theoretically major increase in burst rates. I don't care so much
about the size and weight, and I'd like to be able to use my current
lenses. I suppose at some point the size and weight might be very
different, and then it might be time to move on completely. I doubt,
though, that it's physically possible to get the same zoom/telephoto
abilities with anything much smaller, and still maintain image
quality.


For me, the Panasonic GX-7 has been very successful. I don't print
ultra-large images (16 x 20 inches or whatever) and the advantage of
micro-four-thirds has been the lens range available, combined with size
and weight reduction. In my gadget bag which previously held one APS-C
DSLR and 10:1 zoom lens, I now have a MFT camera, 28-280 eq zoom, 18-36
eq. zoom, and 16 eq. fish-eye. Although I don't take it round all the
time, I also have a 40 eq f/1.7 lens for lower light conditions. Image
quality is quite adequate for my needs, and I am appreciating the size
reduction from mirrored APS-C to mirrorless micro-four-thirds. It's
certainly worth a look.

I accept that folks who need to print very large images, or who shoot
under very dark conditions, may need full-frame and f/1.4 lenses.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
  #7  
Old April 19th 15, 10:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for the DSLR

In article , Bill W
wrote:

New sensors with high read-out speeds (over 15fps for DX) will mean the end
of the DSLR as the premier sports and action cameras. Mirror-less
professional cameras are in the offing. Contrary to those who think video
cameras will take over, they won't; you can't really capture fast action in
single images at 30-120fps.


Well, I mean why not, and who would care? I don't think DSLR owners
have any particular fondness for mirrors flopping around in their
cameras. Once the mirrorless tech catches up to SLR functionality, why
would anyone cry over that? As long as we can use our current lenses,
and can get the same image quality under all conditions, why not?
There are certainly benefits to mirrorless.


and drawbacks. nothing is perfect.
  #8  
Old April 19th 15, 11:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 470
Default Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for the DSLR

On 19/04/2015 5:33 p.m., RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 18 April 2015 23:04:37 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-04-19 02:14:24 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 17:45:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

New sensors with high read-out speeds (over 15fps for DX) will mean the
end of the DSLR as the premier sports and action cameras. Mirror-less
professional cameras are in the offing. Contrary to those who think
video cameras will take over, they won't; you can't really capture
fast action in single images at 30-120fps.

Well, I mean why not, and who would care? I don't think DSLR owners
have any particular fondness for mirrors flopping around in their
cameras. Once the mirrorless tech catches up to SLR functionality, why
would anyone cry over that? As long as we can use our current lenses,
and can get the same image quality under all conditions, why not?
There are certainly benefits to mirrorless.


I'll be able to tell you next weekend. My new Fuji mirrorless should be
here from B&H by the middle of the week. I will start with the two
major benefits lower weight & lower bulk.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_e2/

I am going to have some photographic exploring to do.

...and by the end of May I should be able to see well enough to
understand just how bad my photography actually is. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck


It'll be a sea-change if you come from a FF DSLR or even a decent DX body. The fun part comes when you use the Fuji for a few weeks then try to haul around the DSLR after that.

RichA, in these troll threads, will extoll the virtues of u4/3, and
mirrorless APS-C compacts, but you'll also see him try to dismiss any
rebuttal based on image quality by arguing that a (crop sensor) MF
digital like the Pentax 645z beats 35mm dslrs in that regard, which is
true, but also true that the disadvantages he's so keen on arguing apply
as format size increases.
I'm not sure what his particular problem is - perhaps he choked on a
35mm film canister he was suckling in his crib.

Not criticizing the Fuji (apart from their nasty habit of applying heavy
irreversible noise reduction to raw files - for which they should be
flayed). It is what it is, and if that's good enough that's fine.

Perhaps it's analogous to making a decent coffee. I have an espresso
machine and grinder capable of making rather good espresso coffee (in
the right hands). It cost a lot more than my cameras. I've been told
many times that a Nespresso machine is smaller, more convenient, easier
to use, and makes coffee just as well. On that last point - it doesn't.
Simple as that.
  #10  
Old April 19th 15, 09:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for the DSLR

On 2015-04-19 19:34:34 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 23:09:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

There have been days I have gone out to shoot for several hours and I
have felt like a worn out pack mule.


I guess I must be in better shape than I should be at my age. I've
never felt that my Nikon D300 is much of a burden after several hours.
With youth baseball - which is currently 99% of what I'm shooting - I
don't carry an extra lens. I stick the 55/300 on it and use that
exclusively. Come youth football season, it'll be the same.


To start with the MB-D10 grip + EN-EL4 battery adds some weight over
the naked D300S. None of that is too bad in casual walk-around mode
with my usual 18-200mm. However, when I find myself at a race track
such as Laguna Seca, or an airshow where I am also carrying a bag with
two, sometimes three additional lenses, spare batteries, and some other
stuff, then I feel my age and that load.

If I'm out street shooting, I'll put on the Tamron 18/270. It's a bit
awkward because the lens extends to the 270 by gravity when I carry it
lens-down on my Black Rapid strap. The lens has "slipped" since the
day I purchased it. It can be locked at 18, but I generally don't.


The Black Rapid Strap was for me, probably the one thing which took the
pain out of carrying the Nikon by the standard strap around my neck,
and made those days tolerable. I highly recommed it to all DSLR
shooters.

Not being a landscape shooter, I've never had interest in a wide angle
lens. And, not being a nature shooter I don't usually trek long
distances from my car where I do have other lenses, flash, and tripod.


There was a time I did trek some distance from my car loaded down, not
these days. Most times I will fit the lens I want to use in the car and
then head to my shooting site.

BTW: Consider a fast wide lens for street, or portraits. You might have
to get a tad closer than with your long lens, but the results will be
different. Those wide lenses aren't just for landscape photography.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the bell tolls for..." Alfred Molon[_4_] Digital Photography 24 October 20th 13 02:22 PM
Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the bell tolls for..." J. Clarke[_2_] Digital Photography 0 October 18th 13 04:42 PM
Sony did it. Nikon, Canon should have. "Ask not whom the bell tolls for..." Eric Stevens Digital Photography 0 October 17th 13 11:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.