"5 reasons to ditch your SLR"

Ukkor

Ukkor

Suspended / Banned
Messages
333
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/five-reasons-you-should-ditch-your-dslr/

Well what do we all think about the above article. It basically states reasons why the new EVIL compacts are better than DSLR's. However, my main worry from this article is the fact that it is pointing out how quickly compacts are catching up with SLR's, and this makes me fear how much longer there will be a need for professional photographers

What are your views on this, and do you think compacts will eventually be as good as SLR's?
 
Think its all rubbish personally. So your telling me that this camera will have the quality of glass, the functionality etc, and DSLRs arent getting better at the same speed..
 
Ukkor said:
. However, my main worry from this article is the fact that it is pointing out how quickly compacts are catching up with SLR's, and this makes me fear how much longer there will be a need for professional photographers
Click to expand...

Can't say that just because cameras have got slightly smaller, that I'm going to worry about my career tbh :)

Slightly sensationalist article, but I do really like the look of these very good but compact cameras - I would've thought that the people that it's making most scared of for their jobs is the canon G12 development team though :P

Anyone wanna buy me one? :P
 
This is why I posted the article up here. On the one hand it is a poor piece of writing, quite possibly over exaggerating how good these EVIL things are, but on the other hand it does make you wonder how long it will be before compacts do catch up...
 
Well, in the case of Micro Four Thirds these cameras really do produce results that rival DSLRs (Amateur Photographer found that the Panasonic G1 marginally out-resolved the Nikon D3 at base ISO). However, just because a small camera can produce good results doesn't mean it will produce good results. There is still the small matter of the photographer to consider!

Also, IQ is only part of the equation. EVILs have still some way to go before they can truely match an optical viewfinder. And, as they are essentially in live view all the time, the frame rate and speed of focus is still way short of a pro DSLR. But they are great when you want to go light and leave the DSLR at home. In this respect my G1 perfectly compliments my E-3.

So no need to worry, they are a benefit not a threat. And the good photographer will always triumph over the bad one whatever gear they are using. :)
 
Interesting article.

I agree that the DSLR is something of an anachronism. Back in the days of film, the SLR was a solution to the problem of not being able to see the exact image that was recorded on the emulsion. Rangefinder cameras, e.g. the Leica M6, have always had the advantage of being smaller, quieter and lighter than SLRs (sound familiar?) with interchangeable lenses, but were handicapped by the image in the viewfinder being an approximation of the final shot. The problem became more pronounced with longer lenses, so rangefinder lenses were typically limited to a focal length of around 135mm.

In the digital age, this restriction no longer applies - anyone with a mobile phone takes it for granted that the image on the screen is exactly what the photo will look like. In fact, you could argue that camera-phones show what is possible when the rule-book is torn up and a camera is designed from scratch to take advantage of digital technology.

The DSLR was an obvious and easy step for the camera manufacturers to take: stick a digital sensor behind the shutter, put a card slot where the film cassette used to go, and an LCD screen on the back. Everything else - including the all-important lens mount system - stayed the same. DSLR manufacturers realised that the sensor didn't have to be as big or the same shape as a frame of 35mm film - an important consideration in the early days of digital technology - which meant bodies could be made smaller and lenses lighter. But the DSLR is, essentially, a hybrid design.

Live View technology perhaps has the potential to be the final nail in the coffin of the traditional SLR. Interestingly, it shows how good the SLR is at certain things - namely very rapid off-sensor AF, and the ability to view transmitted light on a ground-glass screen. Whilst I envisage that on-sensor AF technology will evolve to match or better what we have today, I suspect that many professionals and serious amateurs will prefer to see the actual light, texture and colours entering their lens, rather than an electronic reproduction. This, in my opinion, is what will keep the SLR alive for years to come.

It's also worth noting that the four-thirds system, designed for digital from the ground up with its small sensor and light lenses, loses out in the quality stakes to high-end DSLRs - particularly full-frame models, which owe their design to decidedly ancient 35mm film! A case of new technology trying to emulate old technology, and being all the better for it. (For another example, think of how much money and effort has gone into designing an electric car with the power and range of a combustion engine - and we're still not there yet!)

To answer the other question posed by the OP - there will always be a need for professional photographers. Most of us can turn our hand to DIY, and the likes of B&Q sell expensive power tools, but good electricians and plumbers are never short of business!

A.
 
Anorakus said:
Interesting article...

<snip>

A.
Click to expand...

^^^ Interesting post :thumbs:

In my opinion there is no doubt that these cameras are the future. Can we call them ILCs - interchangeable lens compacts?

They have a way to go yet though, but it won't take long. Their viewfinders are not good enough and they can't focus or shoot as quickly, yet, but the Pano GF1 is very good already and is pretty much a first attempt.

We will see a whole swathe of these cameras from all the major manufacturers very soon, like in the next few months. The second and third generations are just going to be so good, and when they finally get rid of the mechanical shutter, the transition will be complete. A solid state camera, that is smaller, lighter, cheaper and better than any DSLR with all its clunky innards.

I don't think an optical viewfinder is enough to keep DSLRs in business, especially as they're not a strictly accurate view of the final image anyway, due to depth of field. More importantly, we will need an electronic viewfinder to show what is happening to the final image after the digital processing has corrected lens aberrations and tweaked the image in all sorts of different ways that are otherwise impossible.

For example, lenses will not be corrected for distortion and vignetting - that will be done digitally, as it already is with many compacts. Likewise CA will be banished in the same way etc etc. This will make lens design easier, and they will be smaller, cheaper and sharper, with greater range, as a result.

The ILC design is the way digital cameras should be - not just an old style film camera with a digital sensor stuck inside. It offers nothing but advantages, some very big and fundamental advantages. They will meet resistance from traditionalists, and I can understand that, especially as these new creatures are relatively under-developed as yet, and the DSLR has decades of sophisticated refinement behind it. But it won't take long.

Meanwhile, I don't think professional photographers need worry. Every technological development has consistently proved that rubbish photographers always take rubbish pictures, no matter how good their cameras are.
 
HoppyUK said:
We will see a whole swathe of these cameras from all the major manufacturers very soon, like in the next few months.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see whether the likes of Nikon and Canon bring out interchangeable lens compacts based on their existing lens mounts - basically a DSLR without the pentaprism and mirror, and without the extra depth and height that goes with them.

A.
 
I was very surprised by the Electronic View Finder in the Panasonic GH1 when I actually tried one for myself, as it was almost like night and day compared with my first digital camera, the Fuji S602Z Pro. :eek: It is not as good as an optical viewfinder though and I think the will always be a place for that no matter how far the technology advances imho. At the moment most DSLRs have the perfect compromise, an optical viewfinder and live view.

Cameras may well be altering the image for all kind of optical effects in the future, but I don't need to see the effect in real time. Nikon cameras apparently correct for Chromatic Aberration, should there be any, when you take the pic. Do I need to see it happening? I don't think so.

Compact cameras have to make adjustments to the final image, but then they are working on poor lenses or lenses being asked to cover a huge zoom range. Doing all kinds of adjustments in camera to compensate for poor lens design is not a step forward for me. Yes, adjust for lens problems, but start with a good quality lens. Relying on the technology too much will only will lead to poorer lenses. There is a reason lenses are expensive, and that is quality.

You generally get what you pay for with lenses. That hasn't been the case with the four thirds format up to now, and it will be the same with the micro four thirds system too. They are overpriced for what they are, and there is little choice, at least at the moment. Obviously that could change, but they have a lot of different types of lenses to release to try and replace what is available now for the ASP-C and Full Frame cameras.

The main reason for these micro four third cameras have appeared is size it seems. Now while I don't want to carry round something the size of a D3 or a 1DIV, my D300 fits into my hand just fine. :) The GH1 on the other hand felt way too small for me, and I'm of average size and (slightly over) weight.

Cost is another reason they have appeared of course. No costly mechanical shutters or prisms. The DSLR companies must be making a profit at the moment, now they just have to decide whether to continue with DSLRs or start working towards the EVIL/ILC design. A wise company would try to do both, but then do Canon, Nikon et al want to go micro four thirds? The big boys seem to be going Full Frame for quality, not a sensor half the size. Maybe an APS-C or Full Frame EVIL/ILC design then? Well then they would probably need to re-design lenses or make adapters for all the current lenses. Nikon can't currently make the lenses people want (and I'm sure other brands have similar holes in their lens line up) so I doubt they could/would design a whole new range. A 300mm lens attached to something the size of an Olympus Pen would be amusing though, and the lens would be slightly bigger still because of the need for an adapter. ;) :lol:

There are pros and cons to each type of camera, but for now the history, and range of lenses and accessories coming from that history, may make the DSLR design stay around for a long while yet.

At least there is choice for everyone at the moment, and long may it last. I've found my niche. ;)

Anorakus said:
It would be interesting to see whether the likes of Nikon and Canon bring out interchangeable lens compacts based on their existing lens mounts - basically a DSLR without the pentaprism and mirror, and without the extra depth and height that goes with them.

A.
Click to expand...

Olympus tried it with the E300 and I don't think it went down well at all. Maybe the timing/technology was wrong, or people wanted the DSLR design. :shrug:
 
The problem with compacts and even the smaller DSLRs is the instability when you hang serious glass on them. You need something bulky to counterbalance the lens. I find it a lot easier to hold my gripped 50D steady than I did my old 300D.
 
One of the reasons given for getting an EVIL compact is one of the reasons why I don't think I will be. They're smaller. My hands are large. I got the camera I did because it was comfortable in my hands, all the others were too small and felt cramped. Technology being smaller isn't always a good thing, IMO.

But hey, if it floats your boat, why not?
 
I would think your job will be safe, as they say it's the photographer not the kit.

Having recently bought a G1 I have to say I am gobsmacked by the IQ from the thing, the reason for buying it was from the extensive research I done it's comparible with low to mid range DSLR's and the size of the lenses and weight, I can pop lenses into my pocket instead of carrying a rucsack full of kit. I can fit my G1, 14-45, 45-200 and still got room for a 7-14 in he same bag that my 5D and 24-70 just about fitted into and I am not really seeing anything to jutify keeping the 5D any longer, but that's only because of the type of shooting I do (mainly landscape), however if I wanted something with really fast focus tracking for sport or something for low light the it would be a high end DSLR.

Panasonic are struggling to keep up with producion on some of the MFT products, and I doubt canon & nikon are going to want to be left out on something that appears to have huge potential and if they don't get involved now they will be too far behind if/when MFT really takes off. Sure it' not for everyone but i'm sure it will suit a lot of people.

There is a function being held by panasonic the end of this month which is rumoured to be when they are gong to announce the replacement for the GH1 along with some more lenses, they need to get faster glass out for it and I am looking forward to seeing what the spec of it's replacement are going to be, I saw the advertising for the event and it's certainly to announce something new in MFT.

Regarding the price of lenses, I don't find the focal equivelent of a 100-400L on a FF body (panasonic 45-200) for £200 to be overpriced especially considering it's virtually as sharp and has IS, but some are rather pricey, for example the 7-14 f4 is nearly £900, but is that really expensive compared to canon or nikon ?

The one thing I do like about MFT is I found myself wanting to go out less and less with my 5D and all it's lenses because I hated lugging it all about. Sunday just gone I went for a cracking walk along the Orwell at Pin Mill with my family and was still able to take pictures as good as the quality from my 5D but without the burden of the weight. And sure there will be some shots I can't get because it ain't up to the standard of a good DSLR, but then there will be some I will get just because I don't find it a burden to carry around in situations where the 5D would have stayed at home.

And all that said I still find it increadibly hard to part with my 5D and lenses :D
 
Cameras are long overdue a change in design, and I rather fancy a rangefinder type to lose the mirror slap (noise) & vibration, perhaps actually designing a sensor & function controls around a lens rather than designing a lens to fit a camera

I think it'll be a long time before we lose a viewfinder of sorts though as this focusses (no pun intended) one's mind on the image to hand much better than viewing a screen does with current liveview

As for the comment about Pros not being needed, well for record type shots that may be true-ish (and by this I mean recording action in such as sports), whereas any area needing more 'art' will always mean those arty types will be in demand more

We see this already as digital has commoditised Wedding Photography at the lower cost level, where the premium (or Signature) togs are still making lots of money for being them rather than being just a tog

DD
 
Interesting article, does that mean I've just wasted my money on a 7D which certainly doesn't fit in the pocket of any clothes that I own :lol:
 
One thing that compacts cant do is a narrow depth of field to produce a nice blurred background
I think thats due to the small sensor size
Pete
 
It's not about the equipment though is it?
My word processor is at least as good as JK Rowlings but I can't write stories like she can!
 
A few more comments. First thing is, I don't think we should judge these new cameras by what is on the market now. Compare the latest DSLRs to the first Nikon F!

The elimination of the optical viewfinder is absolutely fundamental. What can possibly be wrong with an electronic viewfinder if it is as clear as an optical one? Which it will be before long. I'm talking about a separate electronic viewfinder, slotted on top of the camera, in addition to the regular LCD on the back - like the Pano GF1.

The electronic viewfinder has lots of advantages, such as it can display the digitally corrected and enhanced image without distortion, vignetting, and other optical shortcomings, it can show real depth of field, it will be much better in low light, and so on. If the resolution is high enough, it will be better than optical in every way, and can be stuffed with all kinds of additional information, user selectable, at the flick of a switch.

Getting rid of the optical viewfinder and reflex mirror etc is also key to the lens advantages. There is no need for retro-focus wide angle designs which are currently necessary just to physically clear the mirror. As such, a lot of the optical design goes into sorting this out, which not only makes the lenses bigger and more costly, but bigger, heavier and less sharp.

I think traditionalist will naturally be opposed to this, where a lens does only half the job of forming a well corrected image and the rest is done with software. While I can understand that, it's actually only prejudice. Newcomers will have no such misgivings.

The contrast-detect AF systems that these camera use has fundamental advantges over DSLR's phase-detect, eg they can track a subject and follow it anywhere around the screen once locked on, and they are not affected by f/number (phase detect usually packs up completely higher than f/5.6). Unfortunately, currect contrast-detect AF systems are not as fast as they need to be and struggle in lower light, but that's only a question of short-term development.

This style of camera is not restricted to 4/3rds format. It can be any format. The new Samsung NX10 is regular APS-C 1.5x crop format (same as Nikon, Sony, Pentax). I doubt that we will see a full-frame version as one of the major appeals is smaller cameras and full frame, in particular the lenses, would be much bigger.
 
Crazy Dino said:
Think its all rubbish personally. So your telling me that this camera will have the quality of glass, the functionality etc, and DSLRs arent getting better at the same speed..
Click to expand...

You've missed the entire point of the article. It's not saying the EVIL cameras will replace DSLRs, it's saying that for many they will be a better option than a low end DSLR, and it's right on all counts.
 
So your telling me that I spent £400 on a new camera for nothing? lol
 
MagicMynx said:
Meh, I'll not be buying one, can't hold the damn things for a start!
Click to expand...

It's easy to make a small camera bigger with an accessory grip, not so easy the other way around ;)

NorthernNikon said:
You've missed the entire point of the article. It's not saying the EVIL cameras will replace DSLRs, it's saying that for many they will be a better option than a low end DSLR, and it's right on all counts.
Click to expand...

In five years, I believe they will have wiped out DSLRs pretty much completely.

The ultimate stage will be when they get rid of the mechanical shutter - a solid state camera! Sounds brill to me :D

DJMorgan said:
So your telling me that I spent £400 on a new camera for nothing? lol
Click to expand...

Haha! Yes ;) The only difference is that the camera you'll be replacing it with is not quite the one you were maybe expecting.

On the other hand, new cameras don't actually make your existing camera any worse. They just make you think it is.
 
Personally, I can't wait...
For me it's either take all my kit out with me or none...

I'd really like a Leica-style camera that doesn't suffer from parallax error...though for me the clincher is in the lens design - as someone else has pointed out a lot of the expense and compromise in current SLR lens-design is to ensure that the rear element doen't foul the mirror...we could have better lenses manufactured for less - and that's got to be a good thing.
 
i dont think they will replace DSLRs, but it might replace the entry level dslrs and the bridge cameras
 
Thanks in advance for sharing your info with me and all over friend. In my advice There&#8217;s a new camera category in town. It&#8217;s EVIL, and it&#8217;s going to kick your DSLR&#8217;s ass they spent the past few years convincing us how great DSLRs were compared to lowly point-and-shoots. EVIL stands for Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens, and is our favorite acronym for cameras like the Olympus Pen, the Lumix GF1 and the Samsung NX10. Now that everyone owns a DSLR, they&#8217;ve given point-and-click cameras a fancy new name and are pushing us to buy them instead,these small, mirror less, finder less cameras can fit in a pocket and outperform bulky DSLRs. Here&#8217;s why your next camera will probably be EVIL.
 
I have only had limited experience of cameras with EVF but the main problem from my viewpoint has been when shooting sport and action where the EVF is just not on the same planet as an optical SLR viewfinder so until that problem is sorted its an SLR for me
 
OK... heres a question and probably will bring out the answers I expect but Joe Blogs wont find out....

If I see say like my P&S has a lens of 28-280mm and costs £129 and I see a 500D with two lenses which give me 18-300 ( Jesops ) at £739 why would I by the more expensive one as it does the same near enough....

^^^Imagine you dont know any thing then imagine you do and you will see why I think that article was written^^^

Terran
 
NorthernNikon said:
Not a chance. Too many people have too much invested in the DSLR formats for that to happen.
Click to expand...

All it would take is a quality alternative that accepts pre-existing Nikon and Canon lenses.

Can't see the technology being good enough for sports/wildlife/action in that time however.

Plenty of formats have risen and fallen over the years - no risen for the DSLR to be sacrosanct.
 
Ukkor said:
on the other hand it does make you wonder how long it will be before compacts do catch up...
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Compacts will not catch up with DSLRs in my life time (and I'm not old or ill).

Quote from the article:
"Let’s be honest. If you’re not a pro, you probably bought your fancy DSLR, fixed on the kit zoom lens, and that was it."
Does anyone here ever change the lens on their DSLR?

Wouldn't you need to at least be a keen SLR photographer to qualify you to write an article on the replacement of SLRs?
 
gingerjon said:
All it would take is a quality alternative that accepts pre-existing Nikon and Canon lenses.
Click to expand...

Quite.

Also, newcomers have no investement in existing kit. They will make a free choice on what they think is best. I don't think it will be that big and clunky old DSLR.

Can't see the technology being good enough for sports/wildlife/action in that time however.
Click to expand...

That will be tough, but the speed of development these days will sort it in no time I think. Nobody gave digital much of a chance when it was launched, only a few years ago. It was mega expensive and rubbish image quality. Now there are only about two new film SLRs actually made.

Bigger problem is getting rid of the mechanical shutter, but that's not essential - it's more a development than a fundamental need.

Plenty of formats have risen and fallen over the years - no risen for the DSLR to be sacrosanct.
Click to expand...

It's not a new format. The basic design can be any format you like. It's a new design of camera.
 
Hi David

I don't agree best compact I have played with is a G9 and IMHO doesn't even get near the quality of my old Canon D60 the glass just doesn't compeate.

Regards
 
Triggaaar said:
No it doesn't. Compacts will not catch up with DSLRs in my life time (and I'm not old or ill).

Quote from the article:
"Let’s be honest. If you’re not a pro, you probably bought your fancy DSLR, fixed on the kit zoom lens, and that was it."
Does anyone here ever change the lens on their DSLR?

Wouldn't you need to at least be a keen SLR photographer to qualify you to write an article on the replacement of SLRs?
Click to expand...

Very good point made, plus I will add my 5 reasons why I will not replace my dslr
  1. I don't want to
  2. I don't want to
  3. I don't want to
  4. I don't want to
  5. I don't want too
 
If you look at who the products are aimed at, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with what they're saying.

They're saying those EVIL cameras are aimed at the people who'd go out and buy a D3000, D5000, D300s or whatever, then shoot everything in "A". Auto aperture, auto shutter, auto ISO, no post-production, "you decide for me" AF system, red-eye reduction (because they just have to use their SB-600 on the hotshoe blasted right at the subject - or popup flash), Don't need a 24-70 f/2.8 for £1200 because their crappy plastic kit lens is "just as good".

For some people they are better than DSLRs.

For people who actually want to learn what they're doing, and want to have the greatest degree of control possible over each image they shoot, no, I don't agree with a word he said. :)
 
gingerjon said:
All it would take is a quality alternative that accepts pre-existing Nikon and Canon lenses.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. Sure they can take the lenses now, but on a 2x crop sensor. Who's going to offer a full frame EVIL sensor?

Can't see the technology being good enough for sports/wildlife/action in that time however.
Click to expand...

So, DLSR will still be alive and well then.

Plenty of formats have risen and fallen over the years - no risen for the DSLR to be sacrosanct.
Click to expand...

Nobody said there is, butthey'll certainly bearound for far longer than five years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top