Do DSLR's still have a place

[Faldrax]

Some OVFs are better for focusing than others, and one of the best I ever found on an AF camera was actually in a Minolta 7000, which although it had no focus aids like prism or split centre, gave such a sharp and bright image that it was easy to see. But OVFs, especially on crop DSLRs, tend to be small and dark especially when using a zoom, and that makes focus very hard to see clearly.

On my old Sony A900 (which had a lot of Minolta heritage, as Sony were sill building on the Minolta base rather than branching off in their own direction) you could actually swap out the focusing screen in the OVF depending on your individual preference, and one of the options was to help manual focus (I don't recall the details as I never tried swapping screens).

 

[LeeRatters]

On my old Sony A900 (which had a lot of Minolta heritage, as Sony were sill building on the Minolta base rather than branching off in their own direction) you could actually swap out the focusing screen in the OVF depending on your individual preference, and one of the options was to help manual focus (I don't recall the details as I never tried swapping screens).

I done a focus screen swap on my old Canon 5D2 all those years ago to aid manual focusing - I can't remember exactly what style of screen it was now though.

 

[davholla]

Take pics of most things. The images I have for sale are travel images. Landscapes, city images, sport, most things bar portraits. The D500 can do anything and everything.

I certainly think that a DSLR can take photos of all those things. I would guess that if it a sport with poor light then maybe a modern Nikon mirrorless might be better (I mainly photograph insects, mammals and birds so don't know.)

 

[redhed17]

I certainly think that a DSLR can take photos of all those things. I would guess that if it a sport with poor light then maybe a modern Nikon mirrorless might be better (I mainly photograph insects, mammals and birds so don't know.)

I'm not sure that there would be a huge difference between the sensor performance of the D500, Z50 and Z50II. If someone has had some, or all of those cameras, and knows better than me, please post. I went onto DXO to try and compare the sensors of those cameras, but it looks like they have not even bothered to test the Z50 and Z50II.

I don't see huge increases in sensor performance in recent years, and things seem to have plateaued compared to the previous 20+ years of sensor technology progression.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I don't see huge increases in sensor performance in recent years, and things seem to have plateaued compared to the previous 20+ years of sensor technology progression.

I would agree - we've reached 'good enough' although hopefully global readout sensors will arrive allowing electronic shutter without distortion of moving objects.

 

[redhed17]

I would agree - we've reached 'good enough' although hopefully global readout sensors will arrive allowing electronic shutter without distortion of moving objects.

From what we have seen so far, I think it may be quite a few years before we get to a global shutter sensor to produce dynamic range performance close to what we have now from normal sensors. If they ever get to that point.

 

[Dryce]

Some OVFs are better for focusing than others, and one of the best I ever found on an AF camera was actually in a Minolta 7000, which although it had no focus aids like prism or split centre, gave such a sharp and bright image that it was easy to see. But OVFs, especially on crop DSLRs, tend to be small and dark especially when using a zoom, and that makes focus very hard to see clearly.

I can still use traditional manual SLR OVFs. I have a Pentax MZ-M which is quite straightforward to use with split centre and microprism collar. Not the best OVF either - it was at the bottom end of the market. (despite its overall cheapness to its credit still working after 25 years).

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

From what we have seen so far, I think it may be quite a few years before we get to a global shutter sensor to produce dynamic range performance close to what we have now from normal sensors. If they ever get to that point.

I learned one key truth from three and a half decades in IT...

...predicting the direction the technology will take is a mug's game!

 

[redhed17]

I learned one key truth from three and a half decades in IT...

...predicting the direction the technology will take is a mug's game!

I hope I am wrong. The global shutter was anticipated for many years, but I don't think many expected that sensor to be that far behind the current tech sensors for dynamic range and ISO performance. There also hasn't been a rush of other cameras with global shutters, so advances may be slow. As I said, I hope I am wrong.

 

[myotis]

I would agree - we've reached 'good enough' although hopefully global readout sensors will arrive allowing electronic shutter without distortion of moving objects.

Nikon's Z8 and Z9 have digital-only shutters with fast enough readouts to make distortion of moving subjects minimal, and apparently rarely noticeable. I haven't paid too much attention to it other than the tests I've seen made by people who were concerned about Nikon's decision to abandon the mechanical shutter on these cameras.

The penalty of the stacked faster shutter readout seems to be a slight loss in dynamic range compared to the D850, and Z7 sensors.

As Nikon has been putting global shutters into their industrial cameras for some years, it will be interesting to see how Nikon balances even faster scanning vs global shutters on their future Nikon Z cameras.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I'm not sure why people are blaming distortion on electronic shutters.

Focal plane shutters were notorious for it...

Photography - Big wheel keep on Rolling... a technical-ish look at shutter effect

Watchprosite - Recently cazalea from the Seiko Forum was in Japan to visit (surprisingly) two of Seiko s facilities. In order to do that he had to take the Shinkansen to Morioka... along the way he snapped the following photo out the window of the 300 kph bullet train. When I first saw the...

www.watchprosite.com

 

[gman]

Nikon's Z8 and Z9 have digital-only shutters with fast enough readouts to make distortion of moving subjects minimal, and apparently rarely noticeable. I haven't paid too much attention to it other than the tests I've seen made by people who were concerned about Nikon's decision to abandon the mechanical shutter on these cameras.

The penalty of the stacked faster shutter readout seems to be a slight loss in dynamic range compared to the D850, and Z7 sensors.

As Nikon has been putting global shutters into their industrial cameras for some years, it will be interesting to see how Nikon balances even faster scanning vs global shutters on their future Nikon Z cameras.

I'm sure from memory that my Sony A9 was the same, which also had a stacked sensor. But yes, the dynamic range wasn't great and for me it was noticeable, hence me shifting to the D810 with its beastly dynamic range as base ISO.

 

[myotis]

I'm sure from memory that my Sony A9 was the same, which also had a stacked sensor. But yes, the dynamic range wasn't great and for me it was noticeable, hence me shifting to the D810 with its beastly dynamic range as base ISO.

Yes, I'm not suggesting other cameras don't have stacked sensors, but the Z9, was the first where the readout speeds were high enough to allow Nikon to "only" have a digital shutter.

The loss in dynamic range between the D850/Z7 and the Z8/Z9 is still small, and although measurable, is unlikely to be important in real life. The same applies to autofocus in the D6, which is still measurably faster than the Z9.

As a generalisation, in changing from a cropped (A9) sensor, to a FF (Nikon D810) sensor, you would expect to gain about a stop in dynamic range anyway, regardless of any stacked sensor effect.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Focal plane shutters were notorious for it...

Were. It doesn:t seem to be an issue these days.

 

[gman]

Yes, I'm not suggesting other cameras don't have stacked sensors, but the Z9, was the first where the readout speeds were high enough to allow Nikon to "only" have a digital shutter.

The loss in dynamic range between the D850/Z7 and the Z8/Z9 is still small, and although measurable, is unlikely to be important in real life. The same applies to autofocus in the D6, which is still measurably faster than the Z9.

As a generalisation, in changing from a cropped (A9) sensor, to a FF (Nikon D810) sensor, you would expect to gain about a stop in dynamic range anyway, regardless of any stacked sensor effect.

Yes, the A9 did have a mechanical shutter as well and I do remember having to use it occasionally for certain scenes due to the limitations of the electronic shutter. It's a full frame sensor in the A9, but there was something about the images it produced that I didn't like. I remember posting about it on here a long time ago, I think it was something like a dithering type effect but I really can't remember now.

It's a D810 not a D850 I've got, although I wish I went for the D850 as it's got a far better AF system. I think I may have looked at the Z series but they were more than I wanted to spend at the time. Looking at them now, the Z7 looks like very good value for money, maybe I'll check it out as the D810 is quite bulky.

 

[myotis]

Yes, the A9 did have a mechanical shutter as well and I do remember having to use it occasionally for certain scenes due to the limitations of the electronic shutter. It's a full frame sensor in the A9, but there was something about the images it produced that I didn't like. I remember posting about it on here a long time ago, I think it was something like a dithering type effect but I really can't remember now.

It's a D810 not a D850 I've got, although I wish I went for the D850 as it's got a far better AF system. I think I may have looked at the Z series but they were more than I wanted to spend at the time. Looking at them now, the Z7 looks like very good value for money, maybe I'll check it out as the D810 is quite bulky.

You are of course correct. I'm not sure why I thought the A9 was a cropped sensor.

I don't know how the AF in the Nikon Z7 compares to the D810. Image quality is likely to be better, and it's obviously going to be a lot smaller and lighter.

As a principal use for my Nikons is wildlife, I delayed moving to mirrorless until I could afford the Z8, which in the end, given how much I traded in, cost me less than £1000 in actual expenditure. For me, it's the best "35mm" camera I've ever used. However, image quality on the Z8, isn't as good as it is on the Z7/Z7II for landscape work.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Were. It doesn:t seem to be an issue these days.

I think the more obvious examples were from whole plate cameras. The large format meant that the slit took plenty of time to traverse the big plates.

 

[Erty]

I hope I am wrong. The global shutter was anticipated for many years, but I don't think many expected that sensor to be that far behind the current tech sensors for dynamic range and ISO performance. There also hasn't been a rush of other cameras with global shutters, so advances may be slow. As I said, I hope I am wrong.

Nikon used to make DSLRs with a global shutter (D70, D70s, D40 and probably D50). You can get a D40 for about £50 if you want to scratch that itch. The flash synch works using a cheap Chinese manual flash up to 1/4000s. Nikon flashes only manage 1/500s with one.

I've got one. Apart from making day look like night with a flash, which was interesting but silly, I've never needed the global shutter. I think it is not that useful for most photographers.

 

[myotis]

Nikon used to make DSLRs with a global shutter (D70, D70s, D40 and probably D50). You can get a D40 for about £50 if you want to scratch that itch. The flash synch works using a cheap Chinese manual flash up to 1/4000s. Nikon flashes only manage 1/500s with one.

I've got one. Apart from making day look like night with a flash, which was interesting but silly, I've never needed the global shutter. I think it is not that useful for most photographers.

The Nikons you list had scanning digital shutters that worked alongside a mechanical shutter. This allowed higher flash sync speeds: assuming you used flash guns designed to work with them.

Global shutters read all the photo sites on a sensor at the "same time", and although Nikon (as mentioned in my earlier post) makes and sells industrial cameras with global shutters, as far as I am aware, only Sony have produced a commercially available "every day" camera with a global shutter.

 

[Erty]

I thought some CCD sensors didn't scan like CMOS.

I Used a Yongnuo flash and it was fine. Above 1/4000s (D70S) the flash worked less well.

 

[Erty]

I'm not sure that there would be a huge difference between the sensor performance of the D500, Z50 and Z50II. If someone has had some, or all of those cameras, and knows better than me, please post. I went onto DXO to try and compare the sensors of those cameras, but it looks like they have not even bothered to test the Z50 and Z50II.

I don't see huge increases in sensor performance in recent years, and things seem to have plateaued compared to the previous 20+ years of sensor technology progression.

Photons to Photos has the D500 slightly out performing the Z50. Probably because of all the non-photosensor stuff on a mirrorless sensor. Have a look at the D7200 performance at low ISO to.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

 

[myotis]

I thought some CCD sensors didn't scan like CMOS.

I Used a Yongnuo flash and it was fine. Above 1/4000s (D70S) the flash worked less well.

Yes, I had forgotten about CCD sensors ;-(. Sorry.

 

[gman]

You are of course correct. I'm not sure why I thought the A9 was a cropped sensor.

I don't know how the AF in the Nikon Z7 compares to the D810. Image quality is likely to be better, and it's obviously going to be a lot smaller and lighter.

As a principal use for my Nikons is wildlife, I delayed moving to mirrorless until I could afford the Z8, which in the end, given how much I traded in, cost me less than £1000 in actual expenditure. For me, it's the best "35mm" camera I've ever used. However, image quality on the Z8, isn't as good as it is on the Z7/Z7II for landscape work.

The AF in the D810 is ok, but not a patch on my A9, I really miss eye autofocus. I quickly discovered that trying to get a sharp shot of my hound in action was a challenge with the D810. but these days those opportunities are few and far between and my attention is more at landscape and stiches, ideal for the D810. It's not ideal for general travel, which is why I'm thinking about mirrorless again. On saying that, phone cameras are so good and convenient, I'm still rather torn.

 

[F1.2]

ALL cameras have a place, You just need to find the correct person.

 

[myotis]

The AF in the D810 is ok, but not a patch on my A9, I really miss eye autofocus. I quickly discovered that trying to get a sharp shot of my hound in action was a challenge with the D810. but these days those opportunities are few and far between and my attention is more at landscape and stiches, ideal for the D810. It's not ideal for general travel, which is why I'm thinking about mirrorless again. On saying that, phone cameras are so good and convenient, I'm still rather torn.

"stiches" ??

The Z7, as a smallish, lightish, landscape camera looks like a great choice to me.

 

[gman]

"stiches" ??

The Z7, as a smallish, lightish, landscape camera looks like a great choice to me.

pop a 't' in there lol


EDIT: I just realised it might be the meaning you were questioning and not the typo. Stitches as in stitching together multiple shots to create a panoramic. I love them, especially when using a telephoto for each photo as it can provide great detail and clarity in the finished image.

 

[Tysonator]

"stiches" ??

The Z7, as a smallish, lightish, landscape camera looks like a great choice to me.

This was a big factor for me buying Canon R7 to replace my 7Dii was the size factor especially when sigma announced the 18-50 f2.8 Contemporary. This lens is small non IS, however it is sharp, light, and small.
Another up side as mentioned in this thread the improved ISO, DR, the eye AF is alien technology coming from my 7Dii !

 

[redhed17]

Nikon used to make DSLRs with a global shutter (D70, D70s, D40 and probably D50). You can get a D40 for about £50 if you want to scratch that itch. The flash synch works using a cheap Chinese manual flash up to 1/4000s. Nikon flashes only manage 1/500s with one.

I've got one. Apart from making day look like night with a flash, which was interesting but silly, I've never needed the global shutter. I think it is not that useful for most photographers.

I think the move to CMOS sensors was for a higher performance sensor which gave significantly greater dynamic range and high ISO performance, but also I think video.

If if you go to Photos to Photons and/or DXOMark and compare the sensor performance of the "D70, D70s, D40 and probably D50" against something like the D500, and the difference is stunning.

 

[JackBell]

I have not read all of the thread, but one of the main advantages of an OVF for me is not having to turn the camera on (and off again) every time I want to preview a shot.

 

[Erty]

I think the move to CMOS sensors was for a higher performance sensor which gave significantly greater dynamic range and high ISO performance, but also I think video.

If if you go to Photos to Photons and/or DXOMark and compare the sensor performance of the "D70, D70s, D40 and probably D50" against something like the D500, and the difference is stunning.

Haven't they done well in 20 years! ;-)

I quite like the D40. In half decent light it is fun.

Nikon replaced the 6 megapixel global shutter ccd cameras with 10 megapixel ccd ones which weren't. As far as I can tell, no one really cared. That is why I think global shutter is a waste of time and is a commercial dead end. You will only see it if it gives the photographer or videographer something else he finds valuable.

 

[Tysonator]

Does any one know what the specs are the processors in DSLR's ie canon 7Dii DIGIC 6 !

 

[Faldrax]

Haven't they done well in 20 years! ;-)

I quite like the D40. In half decent light it is fun.

Nikon replaced the 6 megapixel global shutter ccd cameras with 10 megapixel ccd ones which weren't. As far as I can tell, no one really cared. That is why I think global shutter is a waste of time and is a commercial dead end. You will only see it if it gives the photographer or videographer something else he finds valuable.

The Sony A9iii has sold reasonably well despite the compromises the global shutter brings - for some it is a definite advantage - and as probably the biggest single camera failure we hear about is the shutter mechanism, moving to global with no shutter is a logical step forward once the technology has advanced to minimise the loss in ISO and Dynamic range.

 

[myotis]

pop a 't' in there lol


EDIT: I just realised it might be the meaning you were questioning and not the typo. Stitches as in stitching together multiple shots to create a panoramic. I love them, especially when using a telephoto for each photo as it can provide great detail and clarity in the finished image.

Yes, your edit answers my question. Although I "stitch" images together, I still call the images produced "panos", so I was a bit lost with what "stitches" were. All clear now.

 

[davholla]

I'm not sure that there would be a huge difference between the sensor performance of the D500, Z50 and Z50II. If someone has had some, or all of those cameras, and knows better than me, please post. I went onto DXO to try and compare the sensors of those cameras, but it looks like they have not even bothered to test the Z50 and Z50II.

I don't see huge increases in sensor performance in recent years, and things seem to have plateaued compared to the previous 20+ years of sensor technology progression.

I thought that for Canon comparing the R range to the best DSLRs the ISO performance was better but I am not sure.

 

[Tysonator]

I thought that for Canon comparing the R range to the best DSLRs the ISO performance was better but I am not sure.

I suppose comparing an R1 to 1DXiii maybe, or R5 to 5Div / SR !
The lower end mirrorless to lower end DSLR's would be an interesting comparison !

 

[davholla]

Also when I compared the Canon R7 autofocus to Canon 7DMKII and 90 it focused better (I got my wife to bounce a ball up and down - and it did better but of course does everyone need that level of autofocus??)

 

[Tysonator]

Also when I compared the Canon R7 autofocus to Canon 7DMKII and 90 it focused better (I got my wife to bounce a ball up and down - and it did better but of course does everyone need that level of autofocus??)

For sports, and wildlife a very big yes.
The best example I can use is a bird flying and moving around in erratic swoops, turns etc. The eye AF of the R7, and similar cameras makes this so much easier to do. As all you have to worry about is keeping the subject in the frame. The AF will do all the work of tracking the subject.

 

[davholla]

For sports, and wildlife a very big yes.
The best example I can use is a bird flying and moving around in erratic swoops, turns etc. The eye AF of the R7, and similar cameras makes this so much easier to do. As all you have to worry about is keeping the subject in the frame. The AF will do all the work of tracking the subject.

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

 

[lunar22]

I have not read all of the thread, but one of the main advantages of an OVF for me is not having to turn the camera on (and off again) every time I want to preview a shot.

I thought I was done with DSLR's but in fact I enjoy using my Nikon Df which i got second hand relatively recently, at least as much as my Zf. One huge advantage is the fact you can pan around looking for shots through a nice clear OVF without using any battery power. And the manual lenses just seem so much nicer without an adaptor. Of course there's no IBIS, you can't check the results of your shot quite as easily as with an EVF. and there's no silent mode. Basically I have a completely different lens line up for the two cameras so enjoy using both. However, for longer or more critical trips, I'll still usually take the mirrorless as the results are more reliable -- which has as much as anything to do with the excellence of the Z lenses as opposed to the often greater character but sometimes less precision of the generally rather elderly DSLR ones.

 

[Tysonator]

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

Yes indeed, a horse for a course, and one of best things with mirrorless is you can turn off eye AF and have single point AF.

So though I believe DSLR's are not dead the mirrorless revolution has given us choice to have many different modes of shooting style in one body.