Are entry level DSLR's dead in the water?

[Village Idiot]

Total newbie to photography, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Though, I bought a GH2 with a 14-140mm lens last year and here's the arguments that sold me to the m4/3 format.

I have 2 kids so I need to be able to do 2 things quite fast : photos and videos. From my readings, videos doesn't seems adequate with DSLR, at least in the price range of about 1000 to 1500$. Of course, I also need to be able to produce good photos. I know that's a compromise, but these mirrorless cameras are the only choice of someone that needs to do both.

So, unless DSLR becomes adequate at producing good videos, I'll be forced to stick with the mirroless systems.

Now, in terms of the quality of the photos, we were disappointed by the JPEG rendering of the GH2. We switched to RAW and with some minor post-processing we are quite pleased and we are now considering buying an (expensive!) Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 lens to adjust for the fact that in low lighting, the GH2 is not the performer (and also for the fact that my kids are moving quickly!).

Sorry, but the video quality on even the entry level Canons outshines the m43 format cameras. And for $1000-$1500, you can get a camera that can do 1080p at 30, 25, and, 24fps as well as 720 at 60fps for smooth slow motion. There's also a host of other benefits. I think the biggest thing that could be held agains them is the shallow DoF, but that's why a lot of people use them.

 

[Balinus]

Sorry, but the video quality on even the entry level Canons outshines the m43 format cameras. And for $1000-$1500, you can get a camera that can do 1080p at 30, 25, and, 24fps as well as 720 at 60fps for smooth slow motion. There's also a host of other benefits. I think the biggest thing that could be held agains them is the shallow DoF, but that's why a lot of people use them.

Well, I've seen a lot of videos made with DSLR (Canon and Nikon) that made the vertical lines (i.e. building, trees, etc..) oblique when panning. Did they fixed that problem? I thought at the time that it was a major problem, especially when filming kids, you need to pan like 100% of the clip you do.

In terms of specifications, the Sony can make 1080p60. Just looked at the T4i and it seems to only do 1080p30 and 1080p24.

So, clearly, even if they fixed the oblique vertical lines, they doesn't have the ability to shoot in 1080p60, which is a good indicator of video quality.

While doing my research, I've also stumbled upon reviewers that was saying that AF during videos was not so great with a DSLR. Is there improvements there?

Finally, the hacking possibility of the GH2 seems higher than any other models. Some people can shoot a stable 88Mbit, which is quite high. Though, I haven't hacked it, I'm too coward!

 

[jake337]

They will as soon as 35mm sized sensors are standard in them at an affordable price point.

 

[jimmyjamjar10101]

I don't really go much on mirrorless due to them being lens heavy and lacking grips. I handled one when deciding on cameras in the shop and unlike the dslr, I thought I was going to drop the mirrorless.

 

[brunerww]

...the video quality on even the entry level Canons outshines the m43 format cameras...

Respectfully, this has not been my experience. I have shot video with both Canon T2i and T4i DSLRs - as well as the Panasonic GH2 DSLM - and I got rid of the Canons when I saw what the GH2 could do.

Here is the Canon 60D side-by-side with the GH2, note the horrible moire on the shingled roof from the Canon: [video=vimeo;20565849]https://vimeo.com/20565849[/video]

See this post over at indieforum to see a few examples of what the GH2 can do: IndieTalk - Indie Film Forum - View Single Post - *** Shot by a GH1 or GH2

In my view, the choice is clear for video shooters:

- for higher resolution, silent autofocusing lenses and reduced moire, buy a GH2 or the new GH3.

- for lower resolution, moire, lenses with loud autofocus motors and a great brand reputation, buy a Canon T4i

And, as far as lack of grip goes, the GH3 takes care of that, in a package that is still less bulky and lighter than a DSLR


Best,

Bill

 

[CP1]

This is a funny thread. Mirrorless cameras are for a completely different market than DSLR's, even entry ones. With a MILC, companies are trying to get that point and shoot crowd pushed more into enthusiasts that doesn't want a bulky system (even though some of the lenses are pretty big). The DSLR market has a huge range of accessories, high end lenses, and are really meant for people much more into technical aspects of photography. Entry DSLR's are meant to get someone's feet wet, and to start thinking of lens investments as they progress into better bodies/FF bodies. At the moment, MILC's will still be for the point & shoot crowd/ enthusiasts until their accessory & lens lines start to grow (watch Sony, they lead the market). I don't think anyone considering a MILC over a DSLR is thinking about lenses, if they were, they I don't think they would consider the MILC...yet. Oh, and RX-1 is pretty cool, nice to see that finally come up in the market. These are my opinions, I'm not trying to troll anyone here

 

[TheFantasticG]

I don't think anyone considering a MILC over a DSLR is thinking about lenses, if they were, they I don't think they would consider the MILC...yet.

Then you would be surprised. I'm on half a dozen or so forums and some have switched completely over to a MILC system, i.e. sold off all their DSLR gear.

 

[Balinus]

There's not a lot of lenses, but the ones that are there seems good. I badly want the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4.

But, I'm still not totally convinced. My biggest constraint is my need to do HD videos with the camera, and the videos posted by brunerww is a clear indication that Canon is not there yet. Though, maybe it would have been sufficient for my need. Who knows, I haven't bought one.

 

[sashbar]

These two types of photo cameras aim ( at least for now) at two rather different groups of customers - MILCs are for those who want to get better quality images and DSLRs are for those who want to make better photopraphs.

 

[usayit]

Oh really?

Please back up your claim.

I argue that the opposite is can be true. I say the DSLRs still edge out the MILC in image quality (and performance) but their compact size and packaging enable the everyday user to make better photographs. What's the first lesson many of us learn on honing our photographic eye? "Never leave home without a camera."

I for one have been a photographer since I was a kid when image quality didn't matter one iota. I just wanted to experiment making photographs. Semi-professional - done that. Invested with high end everything Canon - done that. Darkroom - done that. Like many, I also struggled with the idea of balancing my love for photography with a (non-photographic) career and a growing family. Large systems just DON'T fit. My son's bruised forehead is proof of that and was the final straw. I went through a short stint when the camera stayed home. The micro 4/3's system specifically was a refreshing change... a balance between form and function.

In the end, I believe the equipment choices we make have little to nothing to say about the photographer behind it. IN the almost 10 years I've been active on the TPF, I've seen wonderful photographers with lowly P&S and lowly photographs made with high end DSLRs. Its simply a general statement rooted in little foundation.

 

[Village Idiot]

Sorry, but the video quality on even the entry level Canons outshines the m43 format cameras. And for $1000-$1500, you can get a camera that can do 1080p at 30, 25, and, 24fps as well as 720 at 60fps for smooth slow motion. There's also a host of other benefits. I think the biggest thing that could be held agains them is the shallow DoF, but that's why a lot of people use them.

Well, I've seen a lot of videos made with DSLR (Canon and Nikon) that made the vertical lines (i.e. building, trees, etc..) oblique when panning. Did they fixed that problem? I thought at the time that it was a major problem, especially when filming kids, you need to pan like 100% of the clip you do.

In terms of specifications, the Sony can make 1080p60. Just looked at the T4i and it seems to only do 1080p30 and 1080p24.

So, clearly, even if they fixed the oblique vertical lines, they doesn't have the ability to shoot in 1080p60, which is a good indicator of video quality.

While doing my research, I've also stumbled upon reviewers that was saying that AF during videos was not so great with a DSLR. Is there improvements there?

Finally, the hacking possibility of the GH2 seems higher than any other models. Some people can shoot a stable 88Mbit, which is quite high. Though, I haven't hacked it, I'm too coward!

The jello effect also happens on M43 cameras, it's just less apparent.

...the video quality on even the entry level Canons outshines the m43 format cameras...

Respectfully, this has not been my experience. I have shot video with both Canon T2i and T4i DSLRs - as well as the Panasonic GH2 DSLM - and I got rid of the Canons when I saw what the GH2 could do.

Here is the Canon 60D side-by-side with the GH2, note the horrible moire on the shingled roof from the Canon: [video=vimeo;20565849]https://vimeo.com/20565849[/video]

See this post over at indieforum to see a few examples of what the GH2 can do: IndieTalk - Indie Film Forum - View Single Post - *** Shot by a GH1 or GH2

In my view, the choice is clear for video shooters:

- for higher resolution, silent autofocusing lenses and reduced moire, buy a GH2 or the new GH3.

- for lower resolution, moire, lenses with loud autofocus motors and a great brand reputation, buy a Canon T4i

And, as far as lack of grip goes, the GH3 takes care of that, in a package that is still less bulky and lighter than a DSLR


Best,

Bill

I don't get that. Not all M43 cameras shoot at 1080p where all Canons do. You also have a wider range of formats to shoot on Canon DSLRs.

 

[Balinus]

The jello effect also happens on M43 cameras, it's just less apparent.

Well, then I guess that "entry level Canons outshines the m34 format cameras" is not totally true then?

i.e. :

...the video quality on even the entry level Canons outshines the m43 format cameras...

Or that would be saying that despites high ISO performances of the m43 format that are lower than their DSLR conterparts, that still, m43 formats outshines the DSLR in still photography?

I don't get that. Not all M43 cameras shoot at 1080p where all Canons do. You also have a wider range of formats to shoot on Canon DSLRs.

I haven't seen any Canons doing 1080p60. Unless I'm mistaken?

 

[simpsonshoots]

I think the question is that can lenses ever be sufficiently reduced in size that the quality traditionally associated with DSLRs is possible to achieve on Compacts? The Sony NEX-5 is a nice piece of kit, but compared to a budget bridge with a kit lens, like the Nikon 3200, I'm not sure if optically it competes.

 

[sashbar]

Oh really?

Please back up your claim.

I argue that the opposite is can be true.

It depends on what do you mean by a good photograph and by a good image quality. A good photorgaph to me (almost always) implies a good image quality. Whereas good image quality does not nessessary mean a good photograph*. I am not saying that MILCs have a better image quality than DSLRs.
What I am saying is there are two customer's mindsets - one group wants their photos to be sharper, more colourful, more detailed and generally more beautiful than what they get with their cheap compacts. MILCs have a good trick up their sleeve - " Look, it is small and user friendly, just like your compact, well - almost. But it has all the options just like a DSLR !"
But the truth is - these options will remain exactly as it is - just options, buried deep in their menus. Most MILC users will use Auto mode most of the time. Wheeas DSLR buyers strive for a better photograhpy rather than just a better image quality. And that, of course means going beyond Auto. I hope it is clear. I can even go as afr as to suggest that a typical MILC user will never devote as much time, energy, additional funds etc into his photography as an average DSLR user will do. I would say today's MILC is "smart casual". It is a smart choice for a casual photography.

*There are of course some famous great photographs with a poor image quality, but this is a completely different story.

 

[rexbobcat]

I think the question is that can lenses ever be sufficiently reduced in size that the quality traditionally associated with DSLRs is possible to achieve on Compacts? The Sony NEX-5 is a nice piece of kit, but compared to a budget bridge with a kit lens, like the Nikon 3200, I'm not sure if optically it competes.

The NEX has a DSLR sensor in it...