Is the DSLR going extinct?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19508202
And how exactly do we know that? Are there published tech and cost specs that show this to be true? I would love to know this cost of manufacturing of a mirror box vs the cost of an EVF.

Anyways the comment I replied to alluded to the skilled labor of installation, not manufacturing, because canon doesn’t manufacture EVFs.

In the end it doesn’t matter though, DSLRs from canon are extinct, and we are fully engulfed in the mirrorless canon world now.

Anything digital is cheaper to manufacture than the same thing built mechanically. A car dashboard used to have a dozen switches and knobs. Now, maybe 2. Plastic slabs are how we do things now primarily because it's cheaper. Even things that seem mechanical, like gas and brake pedals and even steering wheels are just joysticks now.

Even the focus ring on a lot of RF lenses just send electronic pulses to a processor that controls a motor which actually moves the lens elements. (Focus by wire.) Since that processor already exists for AF, it's cheaper to do manual focusing with the motor than it is to put precision machining behind the focus ring.

I did not know that Canon doesn't make its own EVFs. If that's true, I'll double down on my prediction that we'll be seeing super-cheap mirrorless cameras in the future. If EVFs become a commodity, some company will buy up clearance stock of last year's technology and put out a $400 mirrorless box, probably with an electronic-only shutter.

Supply and demand drive a huge part of the prices, and as we know, just because a manufacturer has found a way to save money somewhere, that doesn't a) immediately translate as a cost savings to the customer OR b) never translates to the consumer, but rather to the shareholders.

Rumor has it that on at least the R5, Canon is using Sony EVF. However the part number when I research it doesn't match the resolution from Sony specs - ecx339a

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19509463
Supply and demand drive a huge part of the prices, and as we know, just because a manufacturer has found a way to save money somewhere, that doesn't a) immediately translate as a cost savings to the customer OR b) never translates to the consumer, but rather to the shareholders.

Rumor has it that on at least the R5, Canon is using Sony EVF. However the part number when I research it doesn't match the resolution from Sony specs - ecx339a

It's a perfect match. 1600x1200 is 1.92mp, which is what the R5 has.
It's not a 5.76 megapixel EVF. It's 5.76 million dots.
1.92 million dots each of red, blue, green.

Choderboy wrote in post #19509604
It's a perfecr match. 1600x1200 is 1.92mp, which is what the R5 has.
It's not a 5.76 megapixel EVF. It's 5.76 million dots.
1.92 million dots each of red, blue, green.

Thank you that makes sense, I glossed over the details and missed it.

I can't speak for anybody but myself, but I see nothing nostalgic about DSLR's. I consider them state of the art for many uses that have yet to be excelled for those uses. There are also areas that the mirrorless have their advantages. No reason for anybody to have just one kind of camera, that would get boring.

Rob L wrote in post #19511875
I can't speak for anybody but myself, but I see nothing nostalgic about DSLR's. I consider them state of the art for many uses that have yet to be excelled for those uses. There are also areas that the mirrorless have their advantages. No reason for anybody to have just one kind of camera, that would get boring.

Well the alternative is true, having a mix of cameras and trying to use them in the field would get confusing. I don't know how many times I was trying to review pictures or the menus in the VF of the 5D4 when I shot my last wedding with the R6 and 5D4. At some point, I will have to stop using the 5D4, it is just too different in controls and operational behavior.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19511902
Well the alternative is true, having a mix of cameras and trying to use them in the field would get confusing. I don't know how many times I was trying to review pictures or the menus in the VF of the 5D4 when I shot my last wedding with the R6 and 5D4. At some point, I will have to stop using the 5D4, it is just too different in controls and operational behavior.

After 50 years of playing with 35mm SLRs and their descendants, I've found that once you get beyond the base-level, Best Buy models, there aren't too many bad cameras. If you do your research and plunk down four figures for a body, it should work for you if you hold up your end.

I've found the best way to get good at photography is to get good with one kit. Learn how to use it, backwards and forwards. When you're out shooting, beyond, set it this way for this shot, you should give zero though to your camera. All your attention should go to the scene.

I like birds in flight. It's hard and I'm not very good at it, but I like doing it and I'm envious of those who do it well. When I see a great BIF shot I never think, I wonder what camera she used? My first thought is often, how did she manage to be standing where she stood at that moment? If I could figure that part out, I got plenty of gear to get the shot, as long as I know how to use it.

I can't buy the where-to-stand part. You know, the photographer part. Gear acquisition doesn't help with that much.

drsilver wrote in post #19511945
...
I can't buy the where-to-stand part. You know, the photographer part. Gear acquisition doesn't help with that much.

Photoshop does though.

gjl711 wrote in post #19511948
Photoshop does though.

Explain

drsilver wrote in post #19511964
Explain

gjl711 wrote in post #19511948
Photoshop does though.

First, note the train of smilies.
But on a more serious note, take a picture of the perfect location, take a picture of the perfect bird shot, merge using photoshop. Result = perfect bird shot in perfect location.
Or these days, use some AI program and request a perfect bird shot in a perfect location and see what comes up like that Boris Eldagsen just did to win the Sony World Phototgraphy award. Now he came clean I think just to highlight an issue, but he fooled a bunch of judges with an image that was not taken with a camera. Sort of takes the fun out of photography.

gjl711 wrote in post #19511986
First, note the train of smilies.
But on a more serious note, take a picture of the perfect location, take a picture of the perfect bird shot, merge using photoshop. Result = perfect bird shot in perfect location.
Or these days, use some AI program and request a perfect bird shot in a perfect location and see what comes up like that Boris Eldagsen just did to win the Sony World Phototgraphy award. Now he came clean I think just to highlight an issue, but he fooled a bunch of judges with an image that was not taken with a camera. Sort of takes the fun out of photography.

OK, fair enough. But I think it takes the fun out of photography to the point where it's not even photography anymore, but that's a topic in itself. I guess it does put into question "lens photography" as we know it, so that kinda fits into an extinction thread.

I come from a photojournalism background and I had pretty strict standards about, what I'm showing you is what I saw when I was there. It's been a long time since I've done that and I've softened to, more or less what I saw, but I still shoot in that spirit.

Photography means standing someplace and looking at something.

I won't even do sky replacement. I played with it a little bit. It's pretty amazing. But I can't bring myself to use it. Here's a couple of shots. The photograph I made, I didn't like. The photograph I like, I didn't make. I wasn't there that day. The shadows are all wrong. It doesn't belong to me. I've never shown either of them outside a discussion like this. Makes me feel dirty.

Mirrorless! I am all in.

This is why I prefer simple OVF cameras.

I'd rather use my brain than gizmos to have object in focus and I rather see it with my eyes, instead of some artificial, lower quality implementation.

kf095 wrote in post #19519920
This is why I prefer simple OVF cameras.

I'd rather use my brain than gizmos to have object in focus and I rather see it with my eyes, instead of some artificial, lower quality implementation.

Wait until you have cataracts and need one set of bifocals for distance and another set of bifocals for the desk.

I am of the same mindset. If it violates my conscience, I won't do it.