"5 reasons to ditch your SLR"

NorthernNikon said:
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?
Click to expand...

Is there a reason why it can't be done?



So, DLSR will still be alive and well then.
Click to expand...

Potentially. I understand that EVF focusing speed is improving but I'm not holding my breath.


Nobody said there is, butthey'll certainly bearound for far longer than five years.
Click to expand...

I think the probability is 'yes they will be'.

After all there are still some folk out there taking most of their pics with film-based rangefinders.
 
I think we could all rant on for hours and hours about the pro's and con's of the m4/3rds system vs aps-c or full frame but for me all i see is a different type of camera thats up and coming and will be an amazing camera for P&S users upgrading to one and a great small but more versatile compact camera as a compliment to the DSLR users gear,
i certainly dont see it as a market killer!
The main problem i see at the moment is the speed of the EVF and focus, not the best for action, sports photography but fine for still life.
When the price comes down i think id consider one as a second more portable camera, that said though i doubt it will be so portable with a 300mm lens lol and i dont fancy holding a compact with a long lens at arms length! but if i wanted to shoot at 300mm id take a DSLR lol
So thats my 2 cents lol i think theres definatly a market for this new system as a compliment to the current market.
 
gingerjon said:
Is there a reason why it can't be done?
Click to expand...

No reason why it can't be done, but there are plenty reasons why it's not going to happen in five years.

Primarily, what's the advantage over an optical finder? Well, you don't need a mirror, but seeing as lenses are designed for bodies with mirrors you'd have to come up with a whole new range of lenses if you wanted to make DSLR bodies smaller. Can you see all the DLSR manufacturers replacing their entire lens line up within five years? Not a hope in hell, so we'd be stuck with the same sized camera, but with an EVF over an optical finder. Now, the chances of EVF's being able to match a full frame optical finder within five years, and then have the paying public, not to mention pros, accept that as the best and only option? Even less chance.
 
This is ridiculous. Obviously the lumix and others will be great cameras, that's not the question - the question is will DSLRs be discontinued. Well maybe technology will change so that we don't need single lens reflex, and cameras operate more like Live view, but that's not the point.

The point is, will some of us need big cameras with interchangeable cameras, or will they be replaced by small cute little cameras (with or without replaceable lenses). Ans - some of us will still choose big cameras. To change the settings on your body you want a combination of custom banks, and physical buttons, and smaller bodies won't be able to fit all the buttons that some of us want. Some people prefer the size of the massive D3 compared to the large D700, so it's not like we only want small cameras. And obviously we want changeable lenses, can't even bring myself to discuss that.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Now, the chances of EVF's being able to match a full frame optical finder within five years, and then have the paying public, not to mention pros, accept that as the best and only option? Even less chance.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify - as I said above I can't see the technology getting there in five years from today.

However I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen and I also wouldn't be surprised to see the DSLR format quickly become niche.

It's surprising how quickly people jump to 'the new' and leave 'the old' behind and pros change systems all the time.

I am also a bit surprised by how het up this suggestion is making people.
 
The only time DSLRs will get discontinued is when people stop buying them and it becomes uneconomic. Just as has happended with film SLRs. But you can still buy a Hasselblad today if you really want one. For now. At a ridiculous price.

So all the doubters just keep buying new DSLRs and the future can be kept on hold for ever.
 
gingerjon said:
I am also a bit surprised by how het up this suggestion is making people.

I think looking over it it was other people who were being more definite in that regard.
Click to expand...

Me, me!
It's surprising how quickly people jump to 'the new' and leave 'the old' behind and pros change systems all the time.
Click to expand...
I feel no nostalgia towards any particular type of camera, if something better comes out I think we should all adopt it as and when finance allows. I get het up about it (well, not really) because so many ill informed (and I'm certainly not putting you lot into that category) people have been saying technology improvements have meant we don't need SLRs for decades. I remember a friend with a pentax 35-250 ish compact zoom about 18 years ago suggesting that technology meant we didn't need SLRs any more.

So with this new whatever it is, what's the replacement for a 300mm f2.8 lens? Or do we keep the lens and stick an ipod sized camera on the end of it, and set up the shot on a touch screen display? Of course many people who choose entry level DSLRs at the moment will find that new cameras mean they don't actually need an SLR any more, but to think that many pros and serious amateur photographers won't need large cameras with changeable lenses in 20 years time is daft (imo).
 
It'll only be 7 years and 3 months before we pop a chip in our ear and use ours eyes as the lens and our thoughts as the controls. The French will have an alternative slot for their chip.
 
slr
single lens reflex
single lens you can change
reflex so you can look through the lens

dslr..digital the above

object to take a photo...and see what you are getting...and change lenses..even if its a zoom..;)

bodies and lenses to be robust to endure the rough life of the war correspondent..this includes the saturday match

quality of results at a technical maximum on capture...for further processing

size....well if you like big bags and are quite young..ie your joints..ok

the sensor...here we have it...the big sensor full frame is going to make your shots better

as a great photographer said...fill the frame, you can crop later

for me i think they are beyond my needs...
 
Ukkor said:
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?
Click to expand...

As has been said many times: the most important part of the camera is the 10-12" behind the viewfinder. Now matter how good compact or bridge or DSLR cameras get there will still be a need for the professional - someone who can make a snap into a photograph :clap:

Personally, I think that eventually smaller dslr's will make compacts redundant rather than the other way around. Technology will eventually evolve so that the mirror box can be made smaller/done away with without reducing the physical size of the FX or APS-C sensor. Dunno when, but it'll happen as sure as the sun'll come up tomorrow :)
 
If the prices of these cameras come down (significantly), they can replace the p&s and bridge cameras. These are definitely good alternative for the people who always use the auto mode on their DSLRs as well.

I wouldn't mind having one for holidays or when going out at night, but I wouldn't pay that much.

SLR will always be here I think. People think some entry model DSLRs are too small, so I can't see people/pros using tiny cameras out in the field.
 
A lot of folk seem to be quite anti these new types of camera and I wonder why? It would be different if everyone was being forced to change but they're not. I don't care much for phone cameras but I don't object as I don't have to use one. Surely it's great that we now have another choice?

But even if the "worst" (in some people's minds) actually happened and within a few years these cameras made full frame DSLRs obsolete, would it really matter? Just look at how little you now have to pay to get a quality used MF film camera. If DSLRs go the same way you'll be able to pick up a Nikon D3s or Canon EOS1Ds MkIII - plus all that lovely old glass, for next to nothing! Win/win situation, I think! :D
 
For me they compliment a conventional SLR setup rather than replace them. In the same way that BITD a Leica rangefinder would compliment a Canon A1/Nikon F3 with all the additional kit.

For my personal photography, I'd quite like one as a "Take on Bike Rides" camera - quite a bit smaller and lighter even than the EOS450, decent image quality & sensor size and so on, but I've a PAS that'll do me for that. As far as bang for the buck is concerned, I'd be better putting the money towards better glass for the EOS.
 
TheBigYin said:
For me they compliment a conventional SLR setup rather than replace them. In the same way that BITD a Leica rangefinder would compliment a Canon A1/Nikon F3 with all the additional kit.
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought of that. Sort of in the same way many of the new HD-capable DSLRs are complimenting real video cameras in a rising number of productions. I imagine many in the video world see DSLRs in the same light as we're currently seeing the EVIL cameras.

The EVIL cameras could be a good walkaround camera, or to take on holiday with the family when you don't want to lug around a big DSLR with grip, half a dozen lenses, three or four flashes and 3 million extra batteries. :)
 
Cameras may get smaller....but hands don't. A compact has it's place but anything smaller than a XXD is uncomfortable to hold for extended periods for me.....don't think even with an EVF holding it up to your eye is going to be as comfortable as a full size body.

That and smaller sensors can't achieve the same narrow DoF as larger ones?
 
mid_gen said:
Cameras may get smaller....but hands don't. A compact has it's place but anything smaller than a XXD is uncomfortable to hold for extended periods for me.....don't think even with an EVF holding it up to your eye is going to be as comfortable as a full size body.

That and smaller sensors can't achieve the same narrow DoF as larger ones?
Click to expand...

whats your objective?

i thought my pos was too small..now its fine and easy to pocket...

dof isnt the holy grail of photos
 
mrcrow said:
dof isnt the holy grail of photos
Click to expand...

'Shallow' depth of field isn't the Holy Grail, but it is nice to have the option to easily achieve a shallow Depth of Field, given a suitable lens, should you want to. ;) :lol:

The smaller the sensor, the harder it is to achieve a shallow Depth of Field.
 
redhed17 said:
'Shallow' depth of field isn't the Holy Grail, but it is nice to have the option to easily achieve a shallow Depth of Field, given a suitable lens, should you want to. ;) :lol:

The smaller the sensor, the harder it is to achieve a shallow Depth of Field.
Click to expand...

OTOH when a large DOF is required it's easier to achieve with Four Thirds/Micro Four Thirds than on Full Frame where, without accurate DOF and distance scales on a zoom lens, it's far more difficult to guestimate.
 
Kaouthia said:
The EVIL cameras could be a good walkaround camera, or to take on holiday with the family when you don't want to lug around a big DSLR with grip, half a dozen lenses, three or four flashes and 3 million extra batteries. :)
Click to expand...

That last bit has to be backwards, when I go on holiday I usually end up with 2k-4k photos which equates to roughly 2-4 EN-EL3e batteries. Ok, so you won't be firing ~7fps, but that's got to be at least three times as many batteries with an EVIL :bonk:
 
Mud said:
That last bit has to be backwards, when I go on holiday I usually end up with 2k-4k photos which equates to roughly 2-4 EN-EL3e batteries. Ok, so you won't be firing ~7fps, but that's got to be at least three times as many batteries with an EVIL :bonk:
Click to expand...

You can recharge them. :)
 
The reply thread is interesting to skim here...cameras have ALWAYS been evolving, ALWAYS making some photographers, who had grown accustomed to seeing and working in one way, uncomfortable. That's all this is again. Sure, this may be the future. If so, bring it on!
Remember, it's never the gear, it's always the photographer, that makes the real difference! Related post about some of this here.

Andrew
The Discerning Photographer
 
Andrew Boyd said:
Remember, it's never the gear, it's always the photographer, that makes the real difference!
Click to expand...
Only to a point. Once the photographer reaches the limits of his current equipment, you're not telling me that upgrading will not allow him to produce better and more creative images.

If it were true, we'd all be shooting D100s and 300Ds, and nobody would own any lenses costing more than £200 a piece. :)
 
gingerjon said:
He's the marmite of internet photography.
Click to expand...

Nah, he's just an idiot.

St Ken said:
It costs nothing incrementally to add a new feature via firmware"
Click to expand...

Or he just knows thousands of top quality programmers that work for free.
 
These 'EVIL' cameras will never replace DSLRs for the reasons outlined in the article itself!

It states these cameras are aimed at those who 'buy the DSLR with the kit lens' and only shoot with that. Well, as these EVIL cameras are based around the principle that the lenses are interchangeable, I doubt the majority who buy these will consider other lenses for it and simply use the walkabout kit lens. This itself is contradictory. Sure there are enthusiasts who will buy other lenses (some on here have) but these consumers will not form the sales base of the product. These people will be those who buy a small, compact camera where you dont have to change the lens or worry about technical settings. Hmmmm???

Furthermore, if Canon, Nikon etc make a body that can accept existing SLR lenses, the body will have to cope with the bulk of the lens. The only lens I own that would comfortably fit on the current size EVIL bodies (bulk wise) is my 50mm. Anything else would be massive! I cant imagine what my 10mm or even 18-135 would look like on one of these and the weight distribution would be at the far end of the lens - exactly the wrong place for stability. How can this be fixed? Making the lenses so hi tech and precise that they can fit a large zoom or UWA into a tiny and very expensive lens or.... making them bigger and adding a grip. Hmmmm again....

I can see these replacing compacts in the future, but not DSLRs. Not by a long shot.
 
Broadly I agree with Ken's opinion in the article; especially about digital cameras ...
 
St Ken said:
When I shoot a real camera, I drop in my film, shoot it, drop it off at the lab, and then drop the slides in my projector. I'm done, and get fantastic colors with no work.
Click to expand...
Because it's all corrected at the lab for you.

St Ken said:
Ditto for prints. I get my film back, and have 39 perfect prints on a roll of 36, complete with negatives for back-up. If I want digital files, I check the box for Pictures on CD, and I'm done.
Click to expand...
Ditto for prints, except there'll always be the odd one with "This image is overexposed" stickers all over it, even though you wanted it to be overexposed in areas and the perfectly lit subject is obscured by the sticker informing you that you don't know what you're doing.

St Ken said:
With digital, no one can get their cameras to go. Half the time the pictures don't take when you press the button. Maybe there's no card in the camera, maybe you have it set wrong, or maybe the battery is dead. Good luck, sucker!
Click to expand...
Ok, so he's got a bad memory, he forgets to put the card in the camera or recharge his batteries before he goes out. He uses the wrong settings? Well, you can just as easily enter the wrong settings into an F4s.

St Ken said:
If you can get the camera to work, good luck trying to figure out how to set it. There are hundreds of garbage features in its menu system, so you never can get to the two or three features that actually do something useful.
Click to expand...
Just because a camera (or any other electronic device) may have many many features, nobody is required to use them all. They're there because if they weren't, people would be screaming "why can't my camera do [whatever]?" That's why new features are added, because customers want them.

St Ken said:
Even if you get a digital camera set and ready to go, you have to try each picture six times looking at the LCD, until you get a good result.
Click to expand...
As opposed to film where you take one shot and have no idea until it's developed whether it worked or not. Metering systems are much better on modern digital cameras than they ever were with film, and nothing has changed as far as aperture, shutter speed & ISO. If you're shooting on an F6 with a 50mm f/1.8D @ f/4, 1/250th of a second @ ISO200, you'd get the same image as if you were shooting on a D3x with a 50mm f/1.8D @ f/4, 1/250th of a second @ ISO200. The only difference is that with digitial, you're essentially stuck with one type of "film" until you load it into Photoshop. How many film shooters would be crying if they were told "No, you can only shoot with Kodak Gold, you're not allowed to use Velvia, Provia, any Ilford B&W films, etc"?

St Ken said:
When you are done shooting, you're not done. You now have to spend untold hours on your computer trying to get it to look as good as film would have, and you still don't have prints.
Click to expand...
Depends how good the original shots are out of the camera. See above, we can't change out our CCD/CMOS to get Provia, Velvia or other film types. If he doesn't like digital, why shoot it? go back to film.

St Ken said:
Inkjet prints went obsolete in the 1990s, but some people still make them. Inkjet prints look awful compared to real prints made at a lab from digital files on real Fuji Crystal Archive paper. Don't even get me started on B&W prints: nothing looks as good as real fibre-based B&W prints, which is why so many inkjet systems try to claim "almost as good as."
Click to expand...
Dye-sub? Anybody?

St Ken said:
Hey - if you have to run over to Costco to pick up your prints, wouldn't it have been much easier just to have shot film and saved all the trouble?
Click to expand...
Or, I can not go to Costco, Walgreens, Walmart (in the US) or Jessops, Boots, etc (in the UK) and just stay at home with my digital prints, upload them via the web, pay online, and receive them in the mail the next day.

St Ken said:
Want to project? It takes longer to get the computer and projector to talk to each other than it does to develop film!
Click to expand...
Plug it into the VGA port on a laptop, turn on the projector, press Function+Whatever, adjust focus, done. That takes forever

St Ken said:
Worse, digital cameras are disposable. Ever come across an 8-year-old digital camera? It won't even turn on. Even if it does, why on Earth would you want to? With digital cameras, you have to buy a new one every couple of years.
Click to expand...
Again, just because new features are added doesn't mean they all need to be utilised. 8 Year old digital body? Sure, I still use my D100 now n' again.

St Ken said:
Find a 50-year old LEICA or Nikon at a garage sale? It still works great.
Click to expand...
I'll give this one *some* credit, although there's a lot of crap sold at garage sales, most of it non-working.

St Ken said:
Digital cameras? You can pay thousands of dollars and still get stuck with disposable plastic crap.
Click to expand...
Or a camera I'll still be using 8 years from now with a metal alloy chassis. :)

St Ken said:
If you know how to shoot, go shoot some slides and drop them in your projector. You, like me, will ask yourself what all the hubbub was about back in the 2000s with digital.
Click to expand...
Digital is still an emerging technology. If Film SLRs were perfect from day 1, we'd never have seen the likes of the F4s, F5, F6, etc. and Germany would've taken over the world with the Contax S in an attempt to get some compensation after WWII. ;)

As I said, he's an idiot.
 
Compacts, SLRs, view cameras... I don't care what it is, what it's called or what it looks like so long as it does the job I want to do, well.

If megapixels and zoom are the only two variables that separate an amateur from a professional, then I'd suggest that professional head back to college and learn a new trade.


The basic premise of oil paint hasn't changed in 100's of years.
 
Denyerec said:
Compacts, SLRs, view cameras... I don't care what it is, what it's called or what it looks like so long as it does the job I want to do, well.

If megapixels and zoom are the only two variables that separate an amateur from a professional, then I'd suggest that professional head back to college and learn a new trade.


The basic premise of oil paint hasn't changed in 100's of years.
Click to expand...

By the same token, a painting done on a computer program; then semi-redrawn properly in another editing software; then finally printed in a mechanical spray-paint type machine could be art of some sort; but its surely not oil painting. :D
 
HoppyUK said:
In five years, I believe they will have wiped out DSLRs pretty much completely.
Click to expand...
Care to put your money where your mouth is?

£100 says you're talking out of an orifice normally used for other purposes. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top