Just a general observation about the demise of the DSLR camera

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19518167
I only mention it because you talked about a $1200+ budget for a used camera, but the R8 is every bit as much as a camera as those older ones you mention, and for the same price with a warraty.

I haven't thought of the R8 as being every bit as capable as an R5 or R3. Especially when it comes to processing power. But maybe I need to re-read some articles and reviews and adjust my mindset as far as the R8's capabilities are concerned. If it really will do everything that the R5 and R3 do, and do those things just as well and just as fast, then it would indeed be wise for me to acquire one promptly.

About this time last year I was all hot and bothered about mirrorless. What to get? What to sell? How can I afford it? Boy this new stuff looks nice.

That kinda wore off. Too expensive, everything is version 1, let's see how this plays out. After watching it for a year, it seems like there are only 2 unique features that really stand out in mirrorless boxes. The electronic shutter that allows insane burst speeds, and subject-detect autofocus. IBIS sounds nice too, but it's not category busting like the other 2.

For me, the only time burst and autofocus comes into play is when I'm shooting birds and wildlife. Not a huge slice of my catalog, but significant. When I shoot that, I use a 90D as part of my reach kit. If I was going to go mirrorless, replacing that crop-body with an R7 would make the most sense.

But I love my 90D. I've got 3 DSLRs (5Div, 6Dii, 90D), and the 90D is my favorite. It would be the hardest for me to replace. And the only one where I'd benefit enough to replace with mirrorless.

So I'm stuck on DSLRs. My next body will surely be mirrorless, but that might be 5 years down the road. Got my eye on some glass, too. That might come first.

As of yet, I have not surrendered my DSLRs.

drsilver wrote in post #19518235
About this time last year I was all hot and bothered about mirrorless. What to get? What to sell? How can I afford it? Boy this new stuff looks nice.

That kinda wore off. Too expensive, everything is version 1, let's see how this plays out. After watching it for a year, it seems like there are only 2 unique features that really stand out in mirrorless boxes. The electronic shutter that allows insane burst speeds, and subject-detect autofocus. IBIS sounds nice too, but it's not category busting like the other 2.

For me, the only time burst and autofocus comes into play is when I'm shooting birds and wildlife. Not a huge slice of my catalog, but significant. When I shoot that, I use a 90D as part of my reach kit. If I was going to go mirrorless, replacing that crop-body with an R7 would make the most sense.

But I love my 90D. I've got 3 DSLRs (5Div, 6Dii, 90D), and the 90D is my favorite. It would be the hardest for me to replace. And the only one where I'd benefit enough to replace with mirrorless.

So I'm stuck on DSLRs. My next body will surely be mirrorless, but that might be 5 years down the road. Got my eye on some glass, too. That might come first.

As of yet, I have not surrendered my DSLRs.

Hosted photo: posted by drsilver in
./showthread.php?p=195​18235&i=i11891120
forum: General Photography Talk

agreed. I was really excited about the R7. It would be the one I would likely get. Then the R611 came out. very nice....but for me I think the 5D4 is a better camera.....I really dont need to rely on auto eye focus

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19518108
The professional wildlife photographers who I know personally have all switched to mirrorless. . Every single one of them. . And by "professional" I mean those who make the entirety of their livelihood via wildlife photograph and whose images of wild animals are widely published throughout the world. . Every single one of those guys who I know have been switched over to mirrorless since 2020.

Also, the vast (yes, vast) majority of advanced, successful amateurs and semi-professionals who I know have also switched over to mirrorless. . I travel all over the United States and connect with hundreds of wildlife photographers every year, so I think that my experiences, albeit anecdotal, come from a very broad and diverse sample size, and therefore are viable to some degree.

I still use DSLRs because I do not want to spend all of my money on an upgrade to mirrorless. . And yes making that switch would take all of my money, and there would be nothing left to travel with. . At this point, travel puts me in position to get the kind of wildlife photos I want to get. . So to spend all of the money on a better camera would be pointless because then I would not be able to get out and use it at the better wildlife venues.

But I do realize that I would get much better results if I had a top grade mirrorless body. . Why? . Because of animal eye autofocus. . I miss well over 50% of the shots I want because I cannot maintain perfect focus on the subject's eye at all times. . I inadvertently focus on the neck or the muzzle or the body instead, hence many of my shots are complete wastes. . And no, depth of field is NOT sufficient to ensure that when the neck or the nose or the body is in focus, the eye is also in perfect focus, no matter what someone's silly DOF chart says. . A mirrorless body should ensure that this would never happen again, ever, and then I would connect on many more keepers that would be satisfying to me.

Someday high end mirrorless bodies will be available for cheap on the used market, and then I will upgrade. . I mean eventually an R5 or R3 or whatever the Sony flagship is will be so old that they drop down to $1,200 - $1,500 on the used market, and then I will snap one up and start getting more keepers and less throwaways. . I may be in my 60s by time that happens, but that's okay. . Better tools are worth waiting for.

.

Well stated, Tom.

umphotography wrote in post #19518319
agreed. I was really excited about the R7. It would be the one I would likely get. Then the R611 came out. very nice....but for me I think the 5D4 is a better camera.....I really dont need to rely on auto eye focus

Using two Gripped 5D Mark III’s that were a Christmas Gift in 2013 and bought second in Jan. ‘15.
Pushing ten and nine years, these “Tanks” keep going. Dependable, reliable tough old friends are looking for retirement. Call me goofy, but I am seriously considering buying two new Gripped 5D Mark IV’s. Why? Because they’re Work Horses and it’s the “End of the Line” for the 5D Series. Like by Vintage in the Present.
After that it will be Mirrorless.

We’re in Bali and have been for the past ~ 6 weeks. I brought along my semi-ancient 1D Mark IV. I have a 1DX2 but I was worried about theft so I left it at home.

I have to say, I’m enjoying the extra length. I’m not really pushing any limits here. Landscapes and surfers. We’ll see how well I did when we get home.

I am waiting to see how the R5 Mark II looks next year. I’m saving up for it along with a 100-500 now.

umphotography wrote in post #19517972
I was at grand Teton this week shooting grizzlys

There were FAR MORE people using DSLR's with 500-600 and 800mm lens than there were people using mirrorless. I would say 80% were on DSLR's. I talked to many of them. The general consensus was

A- what I have works too good and its paid for
B- costs for mirrorless lens is too much
C- and those that have tried mirrorless felt that that they got just as good results with the DSLR's...especially the 500 & 600 F4 users

I talked to about 25-30 pro wildlife photographers who are there for the month.

captured on the 1Dx2 and a sigma 150-600- the male bear was shot through brush to get the shot and the bear was moving fast.. The AF system are just so good on the 1Dx2 cameras. Im sure eye focus would help. And most of the guys said that as well....but it all came back to the top 3 comments

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=195​17972&i=i166471550
forum: General Photography Talk

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=195​17972&i=i258462775
forum: General Photography Talk

The old “Thumb Test” comes in handy.
Was a 100 meters away in Fall of ‘21 when a Grizzly was off to side of the road. “Thumb Test”.
Nicely done.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19518108
But I do realize that I would get much better results if I had a top grade mirrorless body. . Why? . Because of animal eye autofocus. . I miss well over 50% of the shots I want because I cannot maintain perfect focus on the subject's eye at all times. . I inadvertently focus on the neck or the muzzle or the body instead, hence many of my shots are complete wastes. . And no, depth of field is NOT sufficient to ensure that when the neck or the nose or the body is in focus, the eye is also in perfect focus, no matter what someone's silly DOF chart says. . A mirrorless body should ensure that this would never happen again, ever, and then I would connect on many more keepers that would be satisfying to me.

It's almost blasphemy, but have you tried any of the new AI sharpening software? It won't fix genuinely out of focus images, but it will give you a couple of extra inches of DOF, and clean up slight camera movement. (I call it the remedy for sexagenarian shake.) It won't save your butt all the time, but it might take you from 50% to 70% if you're already close.

And it costs a heck of a lot less than an R3.

eddieb1 wrote in post #19518078
Doesn’t using EF lenses negate the reason to go mirrorless? I thought RF lenses were the reason to change to mirrorless. The are, supposedly, sharper, lighter, etc. They do everything but fixing breakfast photographers. I think changing mounts every 25 years is ok if you are making major upgrades to the technology. Going FD to EF was fine since the technology changed from film to digital. The R is still digital with Canon cramming more tech into bodies. I like the KISS way of looking at things. Keep it Simple Stupid. The more they put into the cameras, the more chance of things to go wrong.

The main advance of the FD to EF transition was autofocus...which was indeed a greater innovation than TTL metering, probably ranking with auto-stop down apertures and instant-return mirrors put together.

With just a couple of attempts with FD autofocus, Canon realized mechanical autofocus was a dead end. Nikon hobbled for more than a decade trying to make mechanical autofocus work, leaving a trail of Frankenstein bodies and lenses behind them.

Canon's "big bang" switchover from FD to EF was painful--I had a lot invested in FD bodies and lenses that were suddenly obsoleted--but ultimately it proved the best way.

The EF mount was such a far-sighted success that the transition to RF is about as painless as any transition can be. Heck, I've got three RF bodies and no RF lenses yet...and I'm fine with that.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19518064
Also each time, the change in mount typed meant more and more capabilities could be made with new lens designs. FD was very limited, EF was better, and now R is superior to both.

I know that this is a very Luddite point of view but I won’t let that stop me:

This (“more and more capabilities”) is analogous to a lot of software (now called “apps”). I still do a lot of word processing. As the software has become “more sophisticated,” it has become more complex and more bloated. I find that newer versions of the software contain many features that either: (1) I don’t know about because the manual (online) is equivalent to a large novel (analogy here is the R6 ii manual that checks in at over a thousand pages) or (2) I don’t care about because I don’t need them or don’t use them.

Here’s another analogy. I have four screwdrivers that I bought over over 40 years ago. They still work perfectly and do exactly what they were made for and exactly what I need them for. Unfortunately, one them was lost. When I went to the hardware store a few weeks ago looking for a replacement, the salesman tried to sell me a fancy ratcheting screwdriver with all kinds of fancy bits. I was astounded at the price of the new ratcheting screwdriver and awed by the number of different kinds of bits. I pointed to one of the bits that I had never seen before and asked the salesman where screws with that type of head were located in the store; he said they were a special order item. Then, noting the price of the ratcheting screwdriver with all the fancy bits, I said to the salesman that surely for that price, that screwdriver must make setting screws almost effortless. He said that setting the screw would take the same amount of effort but the ratcheting mechanism would make it seem easier. I declined the ratcheting screwdriver with all the fancy bits and left with a plain old screwdriver that cost many times less.

Like my old screwdrivers, my “old” dSLR does what I want it to do. It takes pictures, many of which I like. The camera’s main limitation is the user.

umgrizz wrote in post #19519221
I know that this is a very Luddite point of view but I won’t let that stop me:

This (“more and more capabilities”) is analogous to a lot of software (now called “apps”). I still do a lot of word processing. As the software has become “more sophisticated,” it has become more complex and more bloated. I find that newer versions of the software contain many features that either: (1) I don’t know about because the manual (online) is equivalent to a large novel (analogy here is the R6 ii manual that checks in at over a thousand pages) or (2) I don’t care about because I don’t need them or don’t use them.

Here’s another analogy. I have four screwdrivers that I bought over over 40 years ago. They still work perfectly and do exactly what they were made for and exactly what I need them for. Unfortunately, one them was lost. When I went to the hardware store a few weeks ago looking for a replacement, the salesman tried to sell me a fancy ratcheting screwdriver with all kinds of fancy bits. I was astounded at the price of the new ratcheting screwdriver and awed by the number of different kinds of bits. I pointed to one of the bits that I had never seen before and asked the salesman where screws with that type of head were located in the store; he said they were a special order item. Then, noting the price of the ratcheting screwdriver with all the fancy bits, I said to the salesman that surely for that price, that screwdriver must make setting screws almost effortless. He said that setting the screw would take the same amount of effort but the ratcheting mechanism would make it seem easier. I declined the ratcheting screwdriver with all the fancy bits and left with a plain old screwdriver that cost many times less.

Like my old screwdrivers, my “old” dSLR does what I want it to do. It takes pictures, many of which I like. The camera’s main limitation is the user.

OTOH, I've abandoned plain slot and Philips screws and their drivers in favor of Torx-type screws and drivers whenever possible. Even in screws, there is positive and beneficial innovation. Most people don't realize that the Philips screw head is designed to cam out when the torque reaches a certain level.

I see this like the forced battery vehicles on us knowing nothing is wrong with gas/ diesel engines. We have plenty of the substance but finding enough material to make batteries is difficult not to mention the decay of the vehicle when it goes out.
Canon made a calculation and I’m not sure it’s going to be as good as slr or digital ones

Just have to find out. Change is a challenge but forced change makes it worse.

umgrizz wrote in post #19519221
I know that this is a very Luddite point of view but I won’t let that stop me:

This (“more and more capabilities”) is analogous to a lot of software (now called “apps”). I still do a lot of word processing. As the software has become “more sophisticated,” it has become more complex and more bloated. I find that newer versions of the software contain many features that either: (1) I don’t know about because the manual (online) is equivalent to a large novel (analogy here is the R6 ii manual that checks in at over a thousand pages) or (2) I don’t care about because I don’t need them or don’t use them.

Here’s another analogy. I have four screwdrivers that I bought over over 40 years ago. They still work perfectly and do exactly what they were made for and exactly what I need them for. Unfortunately, one them was lost. When I went to the hardware store a few weeks ago looking for a replacement, the salesman tried to sell me a fancy ratcheting screwdriver with all kinds of fancy bits. I was astounded at the price of the new ratcheting screwdriver and awed by the number of different kinds of bits. I pointed to one of the bits that I had never seen before and asked the salesman where screws with that type of head were located in the store; he said they were a special order item. Then, noting the price of the ratcheting screwdriver with all the fancy bits, I said to the salesman that surely for that price, that screwdriver must make setting screws almost effortless. He said that setting the screw would take the same amount of effort but the ratcheting mechanism would make it seem easier. I declined the ratcheting screwdriver with all the fancy bits and left with a plain old screwdriver that cost many times less.

Like my old screwdrivers, my “old” dSLR does what I want it to do. It takes pictures, many of which I like. The camera’s main limitation is the user.

I think you made the right choice. Fancier and more modern are not always best.

We need to remodel the kitchen. Should we pick granite or quartz? Or some other modern solid state surface? It seems laminate is cheap and performs better. All our friends and neighbors might laugh, but I think we will go for the practical laminate alternative even if we have to pay less.

But I did upgrade to mirrorless.

I went to local Velodrome, international event in April. Mix of DSLRs and mirrorless.
I see people with DSLRs as often in Toronto as with mirrorless, if not more often.
One of Canada Canada ambassadors is with DSLR and nothing else.
The rest is often with DSLR and mirrorless.
https://www.canoncreat​orlab.ca/ambassadors/

Another Toronto professional who does it for major brands with DLSRs as well.
I see interest in DLSRs among young-ones.
If you want Monochrome from manufacturer the only one at reasonable cost is going to be from Pentax as DSLR.

But we are in hands of manufacturers. It is much more cheaper, more profitable to push EVF, instead of optical-mechanical.

OVF could become premium, if not niche already. Check how much Leica wants and actually gets for no IBIS, no even dust reduction M series cameras.
Or FujiFilm X100V not even accepting on waiting list. XPro2 used prices ski-rocketed. So, here is definitely demand for non EVF cameras.

Cynthia lou wrote in post #19519225
I see this like the forced battery vehicles on us knowing nothing is wrong with gas/ diesel engines. We have plenty of the substance but finding enough material to make batteries is difficult not to mention the decay of the vehicle when it goes out.
Canon made a calculation and I’m not sure it’s going to be as good as slr or digital ones

Just have to find out. Change is a challenge but forced change makes it worse.

No one is forcing anything on anyone, there's plenty of gas/diesel vehicles in the new car lots I drive past everyday. There's a lot more behind the change to EVs than you know about and a lot more about electrical vehicles than you know about, but some people make it political so I'll stop here.

The current mirrorless cameras sold by Canon seem to be as good as DSLRs with features that allow a higher percentage of good images to be captured. When they produce a sensor with a global shutter, it will be as good as any DSLR.