Do DSLR's still have a place

[ProggyMat]

I'm coming late to this discussion, but I'll throw in my two penn'orth...

I'm not one of those folks polarised for or against any type of camera, lens or medium. I believe folks should shoot whatever works best for them, and I respect their choices. No matter how someone chooses to capture, process and display their photos, it's all good with me. By the same token, I dislike being preached to and repeatedly told how this, that or another system is a better choice than mine. I know better than anyone what works for me, I know what I like, and that's what I choose to shoot

Having established that, where "serious" digital photography is concerned, I'm a Pentax DSLR guy through-and-through - Pentax, because I like the way they operate, the familiarity (having used them extensively since 2010), and I love much of the K-mount glass I own; DSLR, because I far prefer an optical viewfinder. I've tried many mid-to-high-end mirrorless cameras as recently as last year. The features and performance are amazing, no doubt about that, but they're unnecessarily complex and feature-laden for my use-cases and personal preferences... and for me, even the best EVFs - despite their indisputable advantages - pale in comparison to a good pentaprism optical viewfinder (that's just my subjective opinion). I don't mind that I have to work harder for "keepers" with my DSLRs... in fact, I enjoy the challenge, and gain a lot of satisfaction from every successful shot. Still, I totally understand why many folks prefer mirrorless... It's a very personal thing.

I do own an older mirrorless camera - the Sony A7 MkII - that I bought new some years ago, mostly for use with adapted vintage glass, but also as a backup body for my Sony A-mount equipment (using the LA-EA4 SLT adapter). It's handy for that, though I've barely used it in the last few years. Obviously, the EVF isn't a patch on those in the latest cameras - but it's a moot point anyway, as I prefer an optical view.

So, for me, YES - DSLRs definitely still have a place. I've no desire to go mirrorless - though some day I suppose I may have to...

 

[Phil V]

I agree but strange as it seems to me - not everyone takes photos of wildlife.

I’d reverse the supposition and say ‘it’s not that useful for people who only shoot landscapes’.

I mostly shoot people, and it’s an absolute boon. Did I ‘need’ it? Definitely not! Would I happily give it up? Hell no!

The ability to instantly focus on an eye that I can put anywhere in the frame? It’s like witchcraft. And whilst I never considered it a necessity before I had it, now I’ve used it, there’s no going back.

I also shoot a bit of sport, and sometimes a tiny bit of wildlife. And ever so little landscape, urban etc.

 

[Phil V]

you can turn off eye AF and have single point AF

Or even better, assign them to different buttons

 

[Nebular89]

Or even better, assign them to different buttons

That’s one thing I do like about my XT2. Though I don’t often use it I can have face detection on, which uses the entire sensor to focus, but when it doesn’t detect a face it reverts to single point.

 

[ProggyMat]

The ability to instantly focus on an eye that I can put anywhere in the frame? It’s like witchcraft. And whilst I never considered it a necessity before I had it, now I’ve used it, there’s no going back.

I completely understand why that's attractive to some... but nailing millimetre-perfect focus on the iris of an eye has never been a priority for me. I mean, of course I want someone's face in focus if they're the main subject... ideally, yes, the eyes or leading eye... but the face, certainly. Yet it's never bothered me if the focal point is just a little in front of or behind the eyeball. In quieter moments, I'll often look back at the work of my favourite film photographers from yesteryear, some of whom concentrated on portraiture, relying on manual focus with a split-image focusing screen or possibly a rangefinder, and recomposing for off-centre subjects. When I look closely at those photos - many of which are quite well-known - it's no surprise (given the equipment and circumstances) that the eyes or leading eye aren't always in perfect focus... in fact, they're often not; and here's the thing: it doesn't take anything away from the brilliance of the photos - not one bit, IMHO.

So, again, I do understand why perfect focusing on the eyeball of a person, animal or bird is attractive to some photographers. Indeed, for some it seems to be an obsession. But for me, at least, it's just not that critical (within reason). I can't think of a single photo I've taken where precision eye focusing would have improved it, except perhaps to another photographer viewing the original at 1:1 reproduction on a large monitor. Again, that's a personal opinion - and if others find it incredibly important to their photography, I can respect that

 

[woof woof]

Remember it's not just focus on an eye it's focus on an eye just about anywhere in the frame and the compositional freedom that brings.

 

[Nebular89]

I completely understand why that's attractive to some... but nailing millimetre-perfect focus on the iris of an eye has never been a priority for me. I mean, of course I want someone's face in focus if they're the main subject... ideally, yes, the eyes or leading eye... but the face, certainly. Yet it's never bothered me if the focal point is just a little in front of or behind the eyeball. In quieter moments, I'll often look back at the work of my favourite film photographers from yesteryear, some of whom concentrated on portraiture, relying on manual focus with a split-image focusing screen, and recomposing for off-centre subjects. When I look closely at those photos - many of which are quite well-known - it's no surprise (given the equipment and circumstances) that the eyes or leading eye aren't always in perfect focus... in fact, they're often not; and here's the thing: it doesn't take anything away from the brilliance of the photos - not one bit, IMHO.

So, again, I do understand why perfect focusing on the eyeball of a person, animal or bird is attractive to some photographers. Indeed, for some it seems to be an obsession. But for me, at least, it's just not that critical (within reason). Again, that's a personal opinion - and if others find it incredibly important to their photography, I can respect that

I think it’s context for me. If it was a straight portrait I was doing I would be annoyed if the focus wasn’t bang on. For more environmental type portraits, street photography, candids, that kind of thing, I think being tack sharp doesn’t matter as much as there is often more to the photo than just the person.
I think a bad photo isn’t saved by being in focus and a good isn’t ruined by being slightly out. Within reason

 

[robj20]

Remember it's not just focus on an eye it's focus on an eye just about anywhere in the frame and the compositional freedom that brings.

It feels like cheating when it comes to the children running around.

 

[ProggyMat]

I think it’s context for me. If it was a straight portrait I was doing I would be annoyed if the focus wasn’t bang on.

Sure. I understand, and respect that. Like the preference for DSLR or mirrorless in general, it's a personal thing.

If you can find a high resolution version of it online, I'd recommend looking at a Jane Bown portrait of Björk... she has her hands over her face, and she's peaking through her fingers (I couldn't find a high res version, but you might be able to found it: Jane Bown - Björk). It's a favourite of mine. Now, a lot of photographers today would expect to have the leading eye in absolutely perfect focus - and I've no doubt a subset would be in pieces if it wasn't... but in this photo - if you look closely (and you'll need to) - you'll find it's the finger-tips of her right hand (i.e. on the left side of the photo) that are perfectly focused; the leading eye is slightly behind the focal point... and it just doesn't matter when you appreciate the image as a whole, rather than concentrating on that one detail. In fact, it's even possible this imperfection actually adds something... I don't know, but it's a thought.

I think a bad photo isn’t saved by being in focus and a good isn’t ruined by not being

Within reason, I wholeheartedly agree

EDIT: I will say, general focus accuracy obviously becomes more important with shallower depth-of-field. The fastest lens I own is an f/1.4, and I rarely shoot it wide open. Bown typically shot at f/2.8 or thereabouts. Some folks today are taking portrait (and other) photos with 50mm and even 85mm lenses wide open at f/1.2. I won't get into the "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" arguments, as it's up to the individual what creative choices they make... but with paper thin depth-of-field, I can see how super-accurate eye AF is justified...

 

[myotis]

I completely understand why that's attractive to some... but nailing millimetre-perfect focus on the iris of an eye has never been a priority for me. I mean, of course I want someone's face in focus if they're the main subject... ideally, yes, the eyes or leading eye... but the face, certainly. Yet it's never bothered me if the focal point is just a little in front of or behind the eyeball. In quieter moments, I'll often look back at the work of my favourite film photographers from yesteryear, some of whom concentrated on portraiture, relying on manual focus with a split-image focusing screen or possibly a rangefinder, and recomposing for off-centre subjects. When I look closely at those photos - many of which are quite well-known - it's no surprise (given the equipment and circumstances) that the eyes or leading eye aren't always in perfect focus... in fact, they're often not; and here's the thing: it doesn't take anything away from the brilliance of the photos - not one bit, IMHO.

So, again, I do understand why perfect focusing on the eyeball of a person, animal or bird is attractive to some photographers. Indeed, for some it seems to be an obsession. But for me, at least, it's just not that critical (within reason). I can't think of a single photo I've taken where precision eye focusing would have improved it, except perhaps to another photographer viewing the original at 1:1 reproduction on a large monitor. Again, that's a personal opinion - and if others find it incredibly important to their photography, I can respect that

For me, it's not the 'perfect focus" that is the attraction. It's being able to leave the camera to look after the focussing, while I can concentrate on the expression, gesture, lighting, composition etc.

I'm not actually convinced that AF is the best way to get "perfect" focus, but it's an efficient way of getting "good" focus more often than you would manage without it.

 

[ancient_mariner]

If you can find a high resolution version of it online, I'd recommend looking at a Jane Bown portrait of Björk... she has her hands over her face, and she's peaking through her fingers (I couldn't find a high res version, but you might be able to found it: Jane Bown - Björk). It's a favourite of mine. Now, a lot of photographers today would expect to have the leading eye in absolutely perfect focus - and I've no doubt a subset would be in pieces if it wasn't... but in this photo - if you look closely (and you'll need to) - you'll find it's the finger-tips of her right hand (i.e. on the left side of the photo) that are perfectly focused; the leading eye is slightly behind the focal point... and it just doesn't matter when you appreciate the image as a whole, rather than concentrating on that one detail. In fact, it's even possible this imperfection actually adds something... I don't know, but it's a thought.

The image isn't particularly sharp anyway, and that lack of sharpness means that placement of the focal point isn't so obvious anyway. If that was shot with film using film era lenses, as I suspect, then critical focus is qoing to be hard to see in the way it is now with top quality lenses and modern sensors, simply because the images are so much leaner that they show up that kind of issue (I hesitate to call it a mistake) to a much greater degree.

And that picture goes to demonstrate the point about a good photo and critical focus very well. Because it's such a strong composition and enhanced by the tonal range, it's hard to notice any minor imperfections.

 

[gman]

The image isn't particularly sharp anyway, and that lack of sharpness means that placement of the focal point isn't so obvious anyway. If that was shot with film using film era lenses, as I suspect, then critical focus is qoing to be hard to see in the way it is now with top quality lenses and modern sensors, simply because the images are so much leaner that they show up that kind of issue (I hesitate to call it a mistake) to a much greater degree.

And that picture goes to demonstrate the point about a good photo and critical focus very well. Because it's such a strong composition and enhanced by the tonal range, it's hard to notice any minor imperfections.

I'm not even sure if the focus point has been missed and like you say it's more a case that the whole image is simply soft.

It sharpens up pretty easy, although I think I prefer the softer original.

Image removed for copyright reasons. If you want to see it, use the link to the original above - Admin


EDIT: Oops, sorry about the copyright infringement, completely slipped my mind.

 

[ProggyMat]

The image isn't particularly sharp anyway, and that lack of sharpness means that placement of the focal point isn't so obvious anyway. If that was shot with film using film era lenses, as I suspect, then critical focus is qoing to be hard to see in the way it is now with top quality lenses and modern sensors, simply because the images are so much leaner that they show up that kind of issue (I hesitate to call it a mistake) to a much greater degree.

That's a very fair point... although even with the latest ultra-sharp, technically near-perfect lenses and very high resolution imaging sensors, I do wonder how many folks would actually notice (or care about) minor errors in critical focus when an image is viewed at typical dimensions and distances - rather than pixel-peeping at 1:1 reproduction on a PC monitor.

Aside from focus accuracy, my views probably betray, too, a personal preference for glass that many would consider sub-standard compared to the latest ultra-high-performance lenses. I'm less concerned with razor's-edge sharpness across the frame than I am with rendering characteristics that - ironically - are often the result of technical limitations and imperfections that modern lens designs mostly eliminate.

And that picture goes to demonstrate the point about a good photo and critical focus very well. Because it's such a strong composition and enhanced by the tonal range, it's hard to notice any minor imperfections.

I think that's really the point I'm trying to make (but perhaps expressing rather poorly)... So long as the subject matter is generally in focus, a great photo won't be diminished by minor errors in critical focusing; and looking at it another way, if perfect focus on the iris is a defining quality of an image, you have to wonder if it might not be lacking in other areas.

Again, these are just my personal opinions. I accept that many other folks feel differently about this

 

[ancient_mariner]

Aside from focus accuracy, my views probably betray, too, a personal preference for glass that many would consider sub-standard compared to the latest ultra-high-performance lenses. I'm less concerned with razor's-edge sharpness across the frame than I am with rendering characteristics that - ironically - are often the result of technical limitations and imperfections that modern lens designs mostly eliminate.

I have a number of lenses I especially like, some of which are at the bleeding edge of perfection in terms of detail and some that are not. In the first group are Sony 50 f1.2 GM and Sigma ART 35 f1.2, both capable of very highly detailed images even wide open. The others are a couple of Samyang f1.4s (50 and 85 MkI versions) and a Sony/Minolta A mount 50 f1.4. All give lovely rendering for a practically glowing image at a lower level of detail than the f1.2 lenses, and are probably what I would use if I were doing portrait photography. I do also have a manual focus Nikkor AI 135 f2.8 that I use adapted, but this is well into vintage glass territory, and the level of detail and rendering are also quite vintage even by later film era lens standards.

OTOH the 50 f1.2GM is a great lens if you're shooting an event of some kind and you just want guaranteed performance without having to wonder if the lens will be up to the job. I've seen others using this lens to generate beautifully rendered images too, but in my hands it tends to be a little crunchy even wide open. With this kind of glass you're not looking for detail especially, because it is always there, but rather the way in which an image is rendered becomes more important.

 

[woof woof]

I think that's really the point I'm trying to make (but perhaps expressing rather poorly)... So long as the subject matter is generally in focus, a great photo won't be diminished by minor errors in critical focusing; and looking at it another way, if perfect focus on the iris is a defining quality of an image, you have to wonder if it might not be lacking in other areas.

Again, these are just my personal opinions. I accept that many other folks feel differently about this

The counter to that is if the picture matters then why not do it justice and capture it with at least some degree of competence. I've been taking pictures since I was 10 so that's quite a bit now. In the olden days money was tight and a 36 roll lasted a long time and the prints were small and small size hides a multitude of issues. These days I can take as many pictures as I want, I can print to A3 at home and I can pixel peep at 300% if the mood takes me.

I take pictures of people and places I love and of moments that matter to me to record memories and if the picture has issues that could potentially spoil it I might be disappointed. It's the degree of issue that therefore matters I suppose. Having a nice file to look at is a part of it but the main thing is still the recording of memories which can be looked at and enjoyed again and again and if the focus is obviously on someone's nose or five foot behind them I'll regret it if it spoils the picture and that moment can't be captured again.

I can appreciate that some people don't care about the various technical issues, and we can include focus and composition and all the rest in that, but even for them there must be a point at which issues such as where the point of focus is begin to matter and then potentially spoil the picture.

 

[Phil V]

That's a very fair point... although even with the latest ultra-sharp, technically near-perfect lenses and very high resolution imaging sensors, I do wonder how many folks would actually notice (or care about) minor errors in critical focus when an image is viewed at typical dimensions and distances - rather than pixel-peeping at 1:1 reproduction on a PC monitor.

40 plus years of photography, 20 years of forums, a lifetime working in various industries.

And this is the first time I’ve seen someone suggest that we shouldn’t bother trying to produce the best we can. That somehow, minor failure isn’t an issue, and we should just accept second best. I’m not a pixel peeper or a perfectionist.

Why wouldn’t I find kit that allows me the freedom to produce my best work? I appreciate that some people find joy in the struggle, but whether I’m buying a car, a camera or a computer mouse, whether I’m taking a photo or building a spreadsheet, what I want to do is make it efficient, I want the tools to get out of my way so I can get a result.

BTW that image of Bjork is excellent, but it’s far from the most compelling portrait Bown produced, and IMHO the most compelling ones are the ones where you can see straight through the eyes into the soul, and to do that does require critical focus on the eyes. Samuel Beckett, Orson Welles, Truman Capote etc.

 

[Erty]

Older lenses didn't go to f/1.2. The majority of DSLR glass didn't go beyond 2.8 for zooms or 1.4 for primes. If you have a deeper depth of field then the precise focus is not so important. Anything wider than about f/5.6 full frame is a shallower depth of field than people can see anyway, so could be considered as being into arty choices territory.

 

[ProggyMat]

he counter to that is if the picture matters then why not do it justice and capture it with at least some degree of competence.

For sure, and I'd never suggest otherwise... I just wouldn't say that a few millimetres' error in critical focus demonstrates a lack of competence (depending on the reason), nor should it ruin a good shot - for me, at least. With my Pentax DSLR gear, PDAF in AF-S mode is as accurate as any other DSLR system I've used (AF-C's another story), especially with AF fine adjustment dialled in correctly for each lens... but it's still influenced by the subject's features, the size of the focus point, and in my case the fact that many of my favourite lenses are screw-drive (accurate to a point, but there are mechanical tolerances at play that can result in very minor under- or over-shoot). As such, consistently perfect focus on the iris of an eye simply isn't possible when using the optical viewfinder and PDAF (and especially with screw-drive lenses). It might be perfect in one or several shots, it might get the eyelashes or eyebrows in another, or it might be a couple of mm behind the iris. It's not a matter of competence, but of limitations with the DSLR PDAF configuration and electro-mechanical AF. I'm sure there are folks using Leica M-series rangefinder cameras that can't achieve consistently perfect focus on an iris too... and I'm sure they get by.

I take pictures of people and places I love and of moments that matter to me to record memories and if the picture has issues that could potentially spoil it I might be disappointed. It's the degree of issue that therefore matters I suppose. Having a nice file to look at is a part of it but the main thing is still the recording of memories which can be looked at and enjoyed again and again and if the focus is obviously on someone's nose or five foot behind them I'll regret it if it spoils the picture and that moment can't be captured again.

I think you're right that the degree of inaccuracy matters, and in that sense recent mirrorless systems offer a level of AF accuracy and consistency that DSLRs simply can't match. I wouldn't be happy if my portrait photo of a family member or friend was focused on a background or foreground element instead - or even the tip of their nose rather than the leading eye - and I wouldn't consider that a "keeper"... but I can, will and do accept those where the general area of the eye is focused accurately. With a DSLR's PDAF, I can achieve that much repeatably. I could use magnified live view and fine tune the focus manually, but depending on the circumstances, there isn't always time for that (the moment has come and gone), and for me it's just not that crucial... I'm not zooming into 3:1 reproduction in post to look at the iris - I just want the image as a whole to pass muster at typical dimensions and viewing distances

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I just want the image as a whole to pass muster at typical dimensions and viewing distances

I agree whole heartedly.

For most of us, close enough is good enough. For those who want better than that, they have my sympathy because, as the second part of my signature block says...

 

[ProggyMat]

this is the first time I’ve seen someone suggest that we shouldn’t bother trying to produce the best we can. That somehow, minor failure isn’t an issue, and we should just accept second best.

I've never suggested we shouldn't bother trying to produce the best we can, Phil (but see below).

Why wouldn’t I find kit that allows me the freedom to produce my best work?

I'm not suggesting you or anyone else should or shouldn't do anything. It's none of my business what other folks do, or consider important.

In my reply to the quoted section of your post, I stated "nailing millimetre-perfect focus on the iris of an eye has never been a priority for me", and "I can't think of a single photo I've taken where precision eye focusing would have improved it, except perhaps to another photographer viewing the original at 1:1 reproduction on a large monitor". I didn't - and don't - ask or expect anyone to agree with me, and I've tried make it abundantly clear - in several posts - that I accept and respect the fact that others will differ (I'll do so again at the end of this post).

Honestly, I'd be overjoyed if my chosen system could achieve precision focus on the eye-ball consistently (who wouldn't?)... but it can't, and I'd rather accept very slight errors in critical focus - that don't, IMHO, ruin my shots - and continue shooting a platform (with its optical viewfinder arrangement) that I enjoy so much as a photographic tool. I do the best I can with the equipment I prefer to use, and I'm generally satisfied with my results.

BTW that image of Bjork is excellent, but it’s far from the most compelling portrait Bown produced, and IMHO the most compelling ones are the ones where you can see straight through the eyes into the soul, and to do that does require critical focus on the eyes. Samuel Beckett, Orson Welles, Truman Capote etc.

What can I say? It's my favourite of her portraits... but, again, I don't ask or expect anyone to agree with me. It's just my subjective view.

Apologies if I've ruffled any feathers here. That wasn't my intention at all.

As I've tried convey in previous posts, these are just my personal opinions. I accept that many other folks feel differently...

 

[woof woof]

For sure, and I'd never suggest otherwise... I just wouldn't say that a few millimetres' error in critical focus demonstrates a lack of competence (depending on the reason), nor should it ruin a good shot - for me, at least. With my Pentax DSLR gear, PDAF in AF-S mode is as accurate as any other DSLR system I've used (AF-C's another story), especially with AF fine adjustment dialled in correctly for each lens... but it's still influenced by the subject's features, the size of the focus point, and in my case the fact that many of my favourite lenses are screw-drive (accurate to a point, but there are mechanical tolerances at play that can result in very minor under- or over-shoot). As such, consistently perfect focus on the iris of an eye simply isn't possible when using the optical viewfinder and PDAF (and especially with screw-drive lenses). It might be perfect in one or several shots, it might get the eyelashes or eyebrows in another, or it might be a couple of mm behind the iris. It's not a matter of competence, but of limitations with the DSLR PDAF configuration and electro-mechanical AF. I'm sure there are folks using Leica M-series rangefinder cameras that can't achieve consistently perfect focus on an iris too... and I'm sure they get by.


I think you're right that the degree of inaccuracy matters, and in that sense recent mirrorless systems offer a level of AF accuracy and consistency that DSLRs simply can't match. I wouldn't be happy if my portrait photo of a family member or friend was focused on a background or foreground element instead - or even the tip of their nose rather than the leading eye - and I wouldn't consider that a "keeper"... but I can, will and do accept those where the general area of the eye is focused accurately. With a DSLR's PDAF, I can achieve that much repeatably. I could use magnified live view and fine tune the focus manually, but depending on the circumstances, there isn't always time for that (the moment has come and gone), and for me it's just not that crucial... I'm not zooming into 3:1 reproduction in post to look at the iris - I just want the image as a whole to pass muster at typical dimensions and viewing distances

For some the level of accuracy and consistency achievable with older kit isn't enough now plus of course mirrorless brings other advantages and I think compositional freedom is one of the big plus points. It's not just about accuracy and consistency. Then there's the implications for camera and lens combinations and micro adjust. This may only be an issue when the depth is shallow but it's another issue that goes away with mirrorless.

 

[woof woof]

I agree whole heartedly.

For most of us, close enough is good enough. For those who want better than that, they have my sympathy because, as the second part of my signature block says...

"Best wishes" would be better than "sympathy." Nobody needs your "sympathy". All everyone needs is the freedom to pursue this hobby / profession and achieve the results they want.

IMHO once you've mastered the theory and pressing the buttons the rest is all opinion and there's enough of those to go around.

 

[ProggyMat]

For some the level of accuracy and consistency achievable with older kit isn't enough now plus of course mirrorless brings other advantages and I think compositional freedom is one of the big plus points. It's not just about accuracy and consistency. Then there's the implications for camera and lens combinations and micro adjust. This may only be an issue when the depth is shallow but it's another issue that goes away with mirrorless.

Yes, I do understand and fully acknowledge all the advantages of mirrorless cameras, and why folks value them. Superior AF and AF tracking aside, there's the considerable benefit of having phase-detect AF sensors built into the imaging sensor instead of separate to it (the latter requiring micro-adjustment on a per lens basis), faster continuous shooting, WYSIWYG in the viewfinder, the ability to amplify the EVF signal in low light, excellent manual focusing aids, and I've found a histogram overlay in the viewfinder to be especially helpful. There's a bunch of other benefits, too... really, an awful a lot to like. I get it, believe me. Mirrorless cameras are fantastic bits of kit, and I'd never criticise anyone for choosing that type of system, nor would I actively encourage anyone to shoot DSLR instead (though if someone asked me about it, I'd suggest they at least try one for the experience, because it's quite different and they might just enjoy it).

If I was shooting professionally, or if the images mattered to me above all else, I'd undoubtedly buy into one of the more popular mirrorless systems, choosing a couple of mid-to-higher-end bodies and a brace of high-performing modern lenses to go with them... but I'm just a humble amateur, practicing photography for my own enjoyment, and mine alone. A such, I have the luxury of shooting the equipment I enjoy most, and not necessarily that which provides the pinnacle of performance and convenience in each and every area. The experience and process of photography is as important to me as the images I capture and create (as I'm sure it is for many of us), and for all the advantages of mirrorless and EVFs, it just so happens that I enjoy using optical viewfinders more. I don't claim they're "better", and I don't criticise EVFs (I can shoot with them when necessary)... I just prefer using optical viewfinders for most of my own photography. I prefer them enough that I'm willing to forego the many advantages that mirrorless configuration brings, and accept the limitations and occasional frustrations of the DSLR configuration - none of which pose any insurmountable challenges for my use-cases.

Similarly, I choose to shoot a lot of film (actually, more film than digital these days) - and for B&W, I develop it at home - because I enjoy the experience as well as the results. I could shoot digital instead, with all its benefits and conveniences, and process my images to mimic film to some extent - but I'm willing to forego those benefits and conveniences, because I really enjoy film photography.

Going back to the original purpose of the thread...

I know a lot of folks who prefer DSLRs to mirrorless systems. I also know folks who like both types and choose to continue shooting their DSLRs - either in isolation, or in tandem with mirrorless - because they're invested in their systems, achieve very good results with them, and see no reason to change. Still, all those people together are, I'm sure, a small minority compared to those who shoot and prefer mirrorless systems alone... and that's fine. I understand - mainstream technology has evolved, it is what it is. But the OP asked if DSLRs still have a place. For me and a good number of folks I know, they really do...

 

[woof woof]

Good to see you still laughing Andrew. Keep your chin up and remember that no one else's opinion really matters all that much. If you're happy with your photography that's all that matters. Here's wishing you luck with it.

 

[Tysonator]

This video by Simon d'Entremont is a good comparison between the 2 systems, and the uses off...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd4dYvIsvNY

 

[davidch99]

Keen to know which you’d go for now for a beginner . My son has just started an a level (well similar ) course and needs a camera . I’m going to maybe dig out my old 550 but what do most get these days ? Thanks david

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

A camera is a camera.

If you wish to show off, get the snaziest one on sale at the time. If you want to take pictures, get the one you can afford and which feels right in your hands.

 

[artyman]

I still have my Canon 350D, guess what it still takes pictures

 

[LeeRatters]

Keen to know which you’d go for now for a beginner . My son has just started an a level (well similar ) course and needs a camera . I’m going to maybe dig out my old 550 but what do most get these days ? Thanks david

My boy already had a Sony A6000 with some mainly 'night sky' primes. He used that for his A level studies but did buy a standard kit lens (16-50mm I think) to use as it was much more convenient for the assignments.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Keen to know which you’d go for now for a beginner

There's a lot of 'depends'.

Beginner cameras are often made with limited controls (i.e. the same wheel is used for aperture and shutter speed requiring the user to dig through menus instead of taking the picture). Build quality may also be poor. I'd suggest a used enthusiast/mid range model rather than a new beginner model.

Mirrorless or DSLR? If this is likely to form the base of a future outfit then mirrorless for fiture compatibility. OTOH if cost is an issue and it's for holiday snaps then DSLR will be cheaper for body and lenses.

Size and weight: DSLR bodies tend to be heavier than mirrorless for a given format. Crop APS-C bodies are smaller than full frame but often share the same lens mount so lenses aren't always smaller and lighter. Micro four thirds (M43) cameras use a much smaller sensor making them and their lenses smaller, lighter and sometimes cheaper. However a smaller camera body can feel cramped and awkward to handle.

For a beginner now with a £300-£400 budget I'd look for a Sony A7 mk1 or 2 plus kit lens. It's a balance of cost, size and weight, performance, future proofing.

However, given you already have a perfectly good camera, I'd let him try that.

 

[Erty]

I think the 550 sounds like a good start. If he loses or breaks it, it won't be as bad as something newer/more expensive. Used lenses and flash are really cheap. It is small so he can take it anywhere and get some practice out of school.

It only has one dial, so it might be a bit of a pain to use on manual. Limited controls and easy to use is likely to be more productive than lots of confusing controls and no help. Particularly if you can show him how to use it.

The other extreme would be an early pro DSLR. They have controls for everything but it would take him hours to figure out what they do. Trying this can be a really good learning experience at some point ;-)

 

[ancient_mariner]

The other extreme would be an early pro DSLR. They have controls for everything but it would take him hours to figure out what they do. Trying this can be a really good learning experience at some point ;-)

TBH it makes much more sense - to me at least - to have separate wheels for aperture and shutter speed plus usually an ISO adjustment control. The rest can be ignored most of the time.

 

[davidch99]

Thanks everyone . He’s using a canon at school and prefers to stick with the same brand . Fair enough I thought . Found my old 550 . Can’t get it to turn on but might be battery problem so ordered a new battery and see if that helps .

 

[davidch99]

There's a lot of 'depends'.

Beginner cameras are often made with limited controls (i.e. the same wheel is used for aperture and shutter speed requiring the user to dig through menus instead of taking the picture). Build quality may also be poor. I'd suggest a used enthusiast/mid range model rather than a new beginner model.

Mirrorless or DSLR? If this is likely to form the base of a future outfit then mirrorless for fiture compatibility. OTOH if cost is an issue and it's for holiday snaps then DSLR will be cheaper for body and lenses.

Size and weight: DSLR bodies tend to be heavier than mirrorless for a given format. Crop APS-C bodies are smaller than full frame but often share the same lens mount so lenses aren't always smaller and lighter. Micro four thirds (M43) cameras use a much smaller sensor making them and their lenses smaller, lighter and sometimes cheaper. However a smaller camera body can feel cramped and awkward to handle.

For a beginner now with a £300-£400 budget I'd look for a Sony A7 mk1 or 2 plus kit lens. It's a balance of cost, size and weight, performance, future proofing.

However, given you already have a perfectly good camera, I'd let him try that

There's a lot of 'depends'.

Beginner cameras are often made with limited controls (i.e. the same wheel is used for aperture and shutter speed requiring the user to dig through menus instead of taking the picture). Build quality may also be poor. I'd suggest a used enthusiast/mid range model rather than a new beginner model.

Mirrorless or DSLR? If this is likely to form the base of a future outfit then mirrorless for fiture compatibility. OTOH if cost is an issue and it's for holiday snaps then DSLR will be cheaper for body and lenses.

Size and weight: DSLR bodies tend to be heavier than mirrorless for a given format. Crop APS-C bodies are smaller than full frame but often share the same lens mount so lenses aren't always smaller and lighter. Micro four thirds (M43) cameras use a much smaller sensor making them and their lenses smaller, lighter and sometimes cheaper. However a smaller camera body can feel cramped and awkward to handle.

For a beginner now with a £300-£400 budget I'd look for a Sony A7 mk1 or 2 plus kit lens. It's a balance of cost, size and weight, performance, future proofing.

However, given you already have a perfectly good camera, I'd let him try that.

Really helpful . Thanks . I remember the a7 being a great piece of kit . He has asked to stay with canon ( they use at school) . If I can’t get my old 550d to work what would you recommend from canon ?

 

[davidch99]

TBH it makes much more sense - to me at least - to have separate wheels for aperture and shutter speed plus usually an ISO adjustment control. The rest can be ignored most of the time.

I’m thinking 7d or 60d . Would go with some basic lenses I have too so that even if he drop / loses not end of world. Makes sense ?

 

[ancient_mariner]

I’m thinking 7d or 60d . Would go with some basic lenses I have too so that even if he drop / loses not end of world. Makes sense ?

I don't know Canon cameras well - calling @Phil V for suggestions.

 

[Phil V]

I’m thinking 7d or 60d . Would go with some basic lenses I have too so that even if he drop / loses not end of world. Makes sense ?

I think if those are around your budget, it’s what I’d recommend.
Presumably you still have some lenses from the 550?

I’d definitely go for a slightly older enthusiast camera than a neutered entry level one.

 

[Erty]

TBH it makes much more sense - to me at least - to have separate wheels for aperture and shutter speed plus usually an ISO adjustment control. The rest can be ignored most of the time.

I agree. The second dial makes a huge difference in manual shooting and can make adjustment more intuitive. It is definitely worth the extra money if you are buying something.

 

[Mozziephotography]

Just snapped a load of runners with a Nikon D7500. It's brilliant. Batteries last for an age, not so my mirrorless.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Just snapped a load of runners with a Nikon D7500. It's brilliant. Batteries last for an age, not so my mirrorless.

I've found the same with my Nikon D600,

(there has to be some compensation for luging it around)