Are DSLR's a dying breed?

[JerryLove]

You're not seeing the correlation? Sony's new a6000 is boasting the fastest af ever and that tech was developed in the alpha series.

Can you tell me how this relates to all your claims on the A77? I'd hate to think you were just jumping topics until you "win" by accident rather than arguing a point.

To sum it up, this thread is about DSLR's been phased out... In terms of the moving mirror I think Sony in general is a good example of how they are being phased out.

So when you bring up translucent mirror DSLR's like the A77, you are doing so to illustrate that the A77 is a dying tech?

I really got the impression you were talking about translucent mirrors as the way forward, not something whose time has passed. My bad.

 

[JerryLove]

I think robbins.photo is pretty much dead on the money.. though I can imagine someone like Samsung or the m4/3 coalition leading the way. Sony is too fragmented and has too little history of success at setting standards; and they've already been in the market long enough to make the change if they could.

If not of their own accord, pressure from the non-mirrored ILC cameras will push Canon and Nikon into adding them into their EOF / whatever lineup.

Honestly: Canon is already almost there. The EOS-M with an EF mount and "proper" body would be a mirror-less SL1. They could even skip the mount given that there's a very good adapter available (since they are electrically the same (almost?))

 

[bribrius]

I dont know why any of you are bothering with these single picture contraptions...
mirror, no mirror...wont matter.
pretty soon taking a single picture is going to be phased out by taking stills from video.

video in most occasions is usually better than photo. The problem with it might come from preserving the data or transferring that data to new devices over years. Files become lost, corrupt, data changes, the vehicle for data perservations change.
you take a photo, print it, its done.
On the other hand, if you can preserve that data for say fifty years, still have a means available of watching or print, you have preserved it in its original form. where as the photo will show its age.

 

[JerryLove]

I dont know why any of you are bothering with these single picture contraptions...
mirror, no mirror...wont matter.
pretty soon taking a single picture is going to be phased out by taking stills from video.

video in most occasions is usually better than photo. The problem with it might come from preserving the data or transferring that data to new devices over years. Files become lost, corrupt, data changes, the vehicle for data perservations change.

Preservation is possible: But I don't see how video is objectively better.

Certainly a still pulled from video isn't better, if for no other reason than the loss in resolution.

Video as an art isn't better, but is certainly more difficult.

Video as a way to capture memories is sometimes better and sometimes not.

 

[minicoop1985]

Are DSLRs a dying breed? I dunno, mine seems to be holding up pretty well.

 

[bribrius]

I dont know why any of you are bothering with these single picture contraptions...
mirror, no mirror...wont matter.
pretty soon taking a single picture is going to be phased out by taking stills from video.

video in most occasions is usually better than photo. The problem with it might come from preserving the data or transferring that data to new devices over years. Files become lost, corrupt, data changes, the vehicle for data perservations change.

Preservation is possible: But I don't see how video is objectively better.

Certainly a still pulled from video isn't better, if for no other reason than the loss in resolution.

Video as an art isn't better, but is certainly more difficult.

Video as a way to capture memories is sometimes better and sometimes not.

because a photo cant relive the moment like a actual replay of the moment. It's just a photo. still image.

 

[Gavjenks]

To sum it up, this thread is about DSLR's been phased out... In terms of the moving mirror I think Sony in general is a good example of how they are being phased out.

Attempt #4 or so at explaining this, with extra emphasis:
Translucent mirrored cameras like the A77 >>ARE<< DSLRs.
DSLR does not mean "moving mirror." It means a digital camera with a single lens and ANY mirror.

I dont know why any of you are bothering with these single picture contraptions...
mirror, no mirror...wont matter.
pretty soon taking a single picture is going to be phased out by taking stills from video.

Well perhaps sometimes, but:
A) Why take all that extra time later at home to sift through 4,000 frames of video to pick out the one almost identical copy that is in the best focus, etc, when you can just select the moment you want in the moment and be done with it? For a decisive moment of burst action? Yeah, totally. For a picture of a landscape? Not so much.
B) This assumes that you never want a photo that uses a slower shutter speed than 1/30th of a second.
C) Taking and storing a cache / buffer of video all the time would drain battery unnecessarily, which will continue to be a consideration long after they develop the processing power to make it a possibility.

 

[pixmedic]

To sum it up, this thread is about DSLR's been phased out... In terms of the moving mirror I think Sony in general is a good example of how they are being phased out.

Attempt #4 or so at explaining this, with extra emphasis:
Translucent mirrored cameras like the A77 >>ARE<< DSLRs.
DSLR does not mean "moving mirror." It means a digital camera with a single lens and ANY mirror.

I dont know why any of you are bothering with these single picture contraptions...
mirror, no mirror...wont matter.
pretty soon taking a single picture is going to be phased out by taking stills from video.

Well perhaps sometimes, but:
A) Why take all that extra time later at home to sift through 4,000 frames of video to pick out the one almost identical copy that is in the best focus, etc, when you can just select the moment you want in the moment and be done with it? For a decisive moment of burst action? Yeah, totally. For a picture of a landscape? Not so much.
B) This assumes that you never want a photo that uses a slower shutter speed than 1/30th of a second.
C) Taking and storing a cache / buffer of video all the time would drain battery unnecessarily, which will continue to be a consideration long after they develop the processing power to make it a possibility.

really, I was being facetious.
but thank you for pointing out the concerns with going to a strictly video setup.

 

[Gavjenks]

Well it's kind of a good idea for just everyday walkaround photography! Less in the sense of just continuously running stored video, more like just what it would be like to have a 30 FPS still camera...

"Video" for as long as you hold down the shutter, stored as separate frames, with metadata saved to keep track of which groups of frames were part of the same shutter press if you want to export them AS a video, or not. And of course, if your shutter is slower than 1/30th it just does as fast as is valid otherwise. Simple button on the body similar to the ISO button can bring up a rapid toggle menu for:
"lock to 1/30th or faster" (essentially bulb video / 30FPS hybrid mode) vs.
"don't lock" (more like a 30 FPS still cam with no mucked up exposures but also no guarantee of usable video) vs.
"toggle mode" (normal video as we know it) vs.
"slow speed" (10 FPS or so to cut down on memory hogging and photo choosing headache later for non active subjects) vs.
"single shot"

That would be great

 

[JerryLove]

Preservation is possible: But I don't see how video is objectively better.

Certainly a still pulled from video isn't better, if for no other reason than the loss in resolution.

Video as an art isn't better, but is certainly more difficult.

Video as a way to capture memories is sometimes better and sometimes not.

because a photo cant relive the moment like a actual replay of the moment. It's just a photo. still image.

Video as a way to capture memories is sometimes better and sometimes not.

I did notice how all sculpture and painting stopped shortly after the invention of the movie camera. [where is that sarcasam font?]

I've got far more experience with videos than stills. There's a time and a place for either. To call one better than the other is to call painting in oils better or worse than water-color.

Captures from video are inferior to dedicated still shots, and what I have hanging on my walls are all stills. Video is distracting as art.

 

[JerryLove]

Well perhaps sometimes, but:
A) Why take all that extra time later at home to sift through 4,000 frames of video to pick out the one almost identical copy that is in the best focus, etc, when you can just select the moment you want in the moment and be done with it? For a decisive moment of burst action? Yeah, totally. For a picture of a landscape? Not so much.
B) This assumes that you never want a photo that uses a slower shutter speed than 1/30th of a second.
C) Taking and storing a cache / buffer of video all the time would drain battery unnecessarily, which will continue to be a consideration long after they develop the processing power to make it a possibility.

D) There is no camera (reasonably accessable) that takes 20MP-36MP video.
E) Storage space
F) Flashes
G) I'm not sure there's a sensor in common use that can sustain 1/4000 sec shutter in video (though I could be wrong).

 

[minicoop1985]

*TOPIC DERAIL* Anyone think shutterless higher end cameras will be a thing? */TOPIC DERAIL*

 

[Gavjenks]

G) I'm not sure there's a sensor in common use that can sustain 1/4000 sec shutter in video (though I could be wrong).

Why not? (Still at 30 FPS, I mean)
Not disagreeing, just asking. Don't know much about video tech.

*TOPIC DERAIL* Anyone think shutterless higher end cameras will be a thing? */TOPIC DERAIL*

Well yeah. I think it's simply a bandwidth/processor issue that a mechanical shutter is needed at all. If you can wipe then transfer all new data off in 1/4000th of a second, then you don't really need a shutter for anything, no?
And that's the first moving part that usually breaks, so you get longer lived cameras

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Well yeah. I think it's simply a bandwidth/processor issue that a mechanical shutter is needed at all. If you can wipe then transfer all new data off in 1/4000th of a second, then you don't really need a shutter for anything, no?
And that's the first moving part that usually breaks, so you get longer lived cameras

I can't imagine a day when I won't hear the click of a shutter. The Horror!!