DSLR's Dead?

[Ysarex]

I think camera company's keep designing new cameras to earn money. To do that they have to convince the people that this new camera is better than your old one. More expensive? yep! Better, maybe. Question you need to ask is does the camera your using now satisfy you? If it does then what improvement are you looking for? I shoot a D7000 and recently thinking about a mirrorless. Where I stumble though is I simply can't see where the mirrorless camera is gonna make me better pictures!

I can see it. The mirrorless camera enables me to achieve better technical quality in my photos than I used to get or would now get from a DSLR. It's not huge it's incremental, but it is real. It doesn't help me make better compositions or better expressive images -- it just makes it easier and or possible for me to sharpen the IQ edge over what I'd get with a DSLR. Enough for me to consider it worthwhile.

Seems that photography company's seem to think the way they survive is to convince the photographer's that the newer more expensive camera's will make them better, I don't believe they will. And unless you are really good at understanding how camera's work, you'll never figure out all a newer one might have to offer. So you end up stepping out of something you might, probably don't, know how to use into something you don't and have to start all over just figuring out how to take photo's and soon as your getting photo's you like your there! Shoot I shot film a long time then stepped up to digital and had to start all over. Did I get better photo's? To my eyes, no. What did get better was my ability to process and print my own photo's. Took a long time but gave up on the idea getting more expensive equipment was gonna make me better. It won't but then I get stuff I like, process my own and print all my own. Lot less expensive that way! I also picked up on making my own frames and that really got less expensive! My frames I cut out of wood from scrap piles and they work for me. Bunch of other's around here also, ranch community and pretty much all of them have a number of my frames hanging in their house.

If I was to go looking for a new camera I'd need a better reason other than it will make me a better photographer because it won't. There is only one thing that will make a better photographer and that is learning to take better photo's, and learning to see what might have made them better. Then your old stuff will bring you up a long way. One of my favorite photo's is a buck deer I did with a D70 when I first started digital and printing my own stuff. Had a few good 8x10's but discovered the 13" printer and learned how to better my stuff and that old entry level has now given me a 12x24 photo that I dearly love. Couldn't have done that that long ago and up grading the camera just wasn't necessary. Get a new one, get something your reasonably familiar with.

Some of my favorite photo's to do are pointing dogs and started that I think with my D7000, maybe my old D5000. Discovered it takes more than a well exposed photo to make a special shot! DSLR got in the way a lot in the field and I went through several different Point and Shoots looking for a better way. All of them took better photo's than I could at the time. They also had a short life span and went in the garbage way to soon. Today I have what I believe to be a much better Point and Shoot in a Panasonic that has a fixed 25-250 lens and it goes everywhere with me. Wish I could afford a multi thousand dollar Lecia but cant and don't know that it would be much improvement over my $600 Panasonic. Keep in mind while your looking, it ain't the wrench, it's the mechanic!

Dog photo taught me a lot I think!

Two things I got wrong here for sure. Dog should be higher and butt back more toward that side of the photo. It's a learning process and I learn slow!
Same dog about a year ago. Notice he's pointing into the photo and bird is actually in line with where he's pointing. He's coming into the photo! [url=https://imgur.com/cOYcML4]

My computer skill's leave lot's of room for improvement!

 

[smoke665]

The mirrorless camera enables me to achieve better technical quality in my photos than I used to get or would now get from a DSLR.

Interesting comment as I just finished reading an article in Fstoppers, "Why technical perfection stifles creativity". In the article the author noted that you need technical ability as a baseline, but not at the expense of creativity. He went on to say "problems arise when technical rules become creative constraints rather than enabling tools. Photographers who rigorously follow exposure guidelines might never explore the emotional impact of deliberate over or underexposure. Those committed to perfect sharpness miss opportunities to use selective focus or intentional blur for artistic effect".

When I hear the phrase "technical quality" I'm reminded of the beauty that can be created with nothing more than a pinhole camera as in here: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Pinhole-article-OL-2017-exports-1-1.jpg

We each have things we consider important in our photography it makes us who we are, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Ysarex]

Interesting comment as I just finished reading an article in Fstoppers, "Why technical perfection stifles creativity". In the article the author noted that you need technical ability as a baseline, but not at the expense of creativity. He went on to say "problems arise when technical rules become creative constraints rather than enabling tools. Photographers who rigorously follow exposure guidelines might never explore the emotional impact of deliberate over or underexposure. Those committed to perfect sharpness miss opportunities to use selective focus or intentional blur for artistic effect".

When I hear the phrase "technical quality" I'm reminded of the beauty that can be created with nothing more than a pinhole camera as in here: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Pinhole-article-OL-2017-exports-1-1.jpg

We each have things we consider important in our photography it makes us who we are, nothing wrong with that.

I've encountered that very tired article in various forms for the past 50 years. Here's his premise in one sentence; "The pursuit of perfect technique—while important as a foundation—often becomes an end in itself rather than a tool for creative communication." There's no rule that says that has to happen. He's right about technique being an important foundation so we can't dismiss either. It's then up to each individual to learn to manage the two together, both being essential components of a successful outcome.

Sitting here as is my habit with music playing I'm listening to Shostakovich's Piano Quintet played by the Borodin Quartet and Svaitoslav Richter. It is irrefutable testament that consummate technical mastery (Shostakovich's compositional ability and Richter's and the Borodin Quartet's musicianship) free creativity and send it soaring.

 

[smoke665]

. It's then up to each individual to learn to manage the two together, both being essential components of a successful outcome.

In a perfect world that happens, but to often with photography, people get blinded by the tech, and glitzy marketing, while losing track of the creative side. Just like the example of the pinhole image....you don't need to spend $$$$$$$ to create an art worthy image. You also left out that part of the article were he talked about how and when people go astray. "That they become so focused on optimizing camera settings, analyzing light, and perfecting composition, that they miss fleeting expressions, authentic interactions, or spontaneous moments that contain genuine emotional content". He also said "the over active pursuit of technical perfection can lead to a sterile image", something most film shooters routinely complain about in digital. While you enjoy classical music, I hate it.....different tastes, different perspectives, to each their own. I know I'm not likely to change your opinion, nor am I trying, just as you are not likely to change mine so we'll just leave it as that.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

For me pursuing technical excellence often results in boring images.

 

[Rickbb]

It was a lens decision for me, way too much invested in old glass to switch to mirrorless. Besides turn on live view and viola mirrorless. I know I could have used an adaptor, but I also know I wouldn't be happy with that.

 

[Ysarex]

In a perfect world that happens, but to often with photography, people get blinded by the tech, and glitzy marketing, while losing track of the creative side.

But you don't have to let that happen. It's up to the photographer. You'd could be like me still using his 2016 X-T2, happy with the results and not tempted by the new X-T5 or rumored to be announced this year X-T6.

Just like the example of the pinhole image....you don't need to spend $$$$$$$ to create an art worthy image. You also left out that part of the article were he talked about how and when people go astray. "That they become so focused on optimizing camera settings, analyzing light, and perfecting composition, that they miss fleeting expressions, authentic interactions, or spontaneous moments that contain genuine emotional content".
He also said "the over active pursuit of technical perfection can lead to a sterile image",

And again you don't have to let that happen. It's up to the photographer. What you can't do is ignore the tech side to the point where you're unable to take the creative photo you want. Which happens more frequently? a) someone obsessed with technique so that all their photos are sterile, or b) someone technically incapable so that they often fail to get the photo they want, or c) someone who has managed to work both sides to advantage so that their technical ability supports their expression. I would think they rank in order c), b), a). What you can't do in any of the arts is ignore either aspect.

something most film shooters routinely complain about in digital. While you enjoy classical music, I hate it.....different tastes, different perspectives, to each their own.

Doesn't alter the accuracy of the analogy -- just sub in Ellington and Grappelli or ________________.

I know I'm not likely to change your opinion, nor am I trying, just as you are not likely to change mine so we'll just leave it as that.

 

[Ysarex]

It was a lens decision for me, way too much invested in old glass to switch to mirrorless.

It was a lens decision for me too. I wanted better wide angle lenses that were distortion free (not available for a DSLR). I bought one and the mirrorless camera came with.

Besides turn on live view and viola mirrorless.

Mirrorless without an eye-level viewfinder.

I know I could have used an adaptor, but I also know I wouldn't be happy with that.

 

[smoke665]

But you don't have to let that happen. It's up to the photographer.

Straw Man Fallacy....you've over simplified the argument leaving out important context by assuming that everyone is like you and will make that choice, while negating the fact that human nature in reality is much different for a large segment. I could quickly run out of fingers and toes, counting the number of people I know who've bought expensive new cameras because it was the best out there, and don't have a clue how to use the features. I asked a young lady in our photo group recently with a new entry level Canon, what settings she was using....she didn't know, she only used it on Auto, someone told her it was a good camera. I spent an hour with her showing her how to use the features available, she was overwhelmed at how much there was to learn.

 

[cgw]

Still deeply in love with the Fuji X100 series hybrid VF: paralax-corrected frame lines with the OVF or EVF with a quick switch toggle. Magic...

 

[Ysarex]

Straw Man Fallacy....you've over simplified the argument leaving out important context by assuming that everyone is like you and will make that choice, while negating the fact that human nature in reality is much different for a large segment. I could quickly run out of fingers and toes, counting the number of people I know who've bought expensive new cameras because it was the best out there, and don't have a clue how to use the features. I asked a young lady in our photo group recently with a new entry level Canon, what settings she was using....she didn't know, she only used it on Auto, someone told her it was a good camera. I spent an hour with her showing her how to use the features available, she was overwhelmed at how much there was to learn.

I didn't say it doesn't happen I said it's up to the photographer and you don't have to let it happen. Few would be more aware than me after 38 years in a college classroom teaching photo. I've seen every possible combination. I've seen plenty of the a) tech-obsessed, but they're the smallest group by a long shot. The group b) who fail to learn the tech adequately so as to be able to take the photos they want are a larger group and the group c) that manages both so that their use of the tech well supports their expression is also a larger group than a), not sure how much larger they are than group b) though.

 

[JBPhotog]

Well this has gone off the rails so I might as well make an analogy.

What does a 1917 WWI Sopwith Camel and a F-35 Lightning II have in common? They are both planes that fly and obey the laws of aerodynamics but that's about it. The pilot in the F-35 II still has to fly the plane but has massively more technology at his/her fingertips that the Sopwith Camel pilot could not have ever dreamt of.

Just because technology advances doesn't mean the creator has become less creative, in fact it may even spur on creative options that the technology has opened the door for. But if that is the argument then pinhole cameras must be the pinnacle of creative photography and everything following that is lazy, boring and uncreative, right?. Tongue in cheek!!

 

[cgw]

Straw Man Fallacy....you've over simplified the argument leaving out important context by assuming that everyone is like you and will make that choice, while negating the fact that human nature in reality is much different for a large segment. I could quickly run out of fingers and toes, counting the number of people I know who've bought expensive new cameras because it was the best out there, and don't have a clue how to use the features. I asked a young lady in our photo group recently with a new entry level Canon, what settings she was using....she didn't know, she only used it on Auto, someone told her it was a good camera. I spent an hour with her showing her how to use the features available, she was overwhelmed at how much there was to learn.

Afraid I've seen that movie a few times, too. Couple weeks back I helped a friend running an intro medium format workshop. Handling and loading film into Mamiya RB and Bronica SQ magazines along with a couple Yashicas was "interesting." More so was the added intro to incident and spot metering. Some were put off by the fussing with 120 but eventually got it. Metering baffled quite a few but comparing readings from digital cameras and the meters helped make real the abstract exposure triangle. Reactions and results reported mostly positive. Nearly all found the "slow" photography process rewarding. Some said they were swearing off "spray and pray" shooting after being limited to 10-12 shots/roll.

 

[smoke665]

Just because technology advances doesn't mean the creator has become less creative,

Never said that, I said that Joe had - "over simplified the argument leaving out important context by assuming that everyone is like him and will make that choice". Not all photographers are "experienced", not all photographers are "interested in all the tech", not all photographers "need or want" all the tech. Those with experience can easily make an informed decision how, when, where the tech should be used. I have multiple menus with more options than I actually need, but I know how each works, and sometimes use them...sometimes not. Sometimes, it's easier to flip over to manual, which is where you'll find me in studio, because I want a clean raw file, devoid of camera interaction. Using your same analogy why would I want a F35 to take a leisurely Sunday afternoon flight (something I did with my father growing up every week in his Cessna) over the surrounding countryside, blink once, and you'd miss everything in the F35. It's a big world, with a lot of different preferences and requirements, if you're big on tech, go for it, but that doesn't mean everyone should and for me the DSLR remains alive and well, as are my film cameras, and if I dig around maybe a homemade pin hole camera from years ago.

 

[Ysarex]

I switched back to DSLRs. Who cares anymore. Shoot what you like. I had an awesome Z6II with bunch of Nikon Z lenses that cost way..way too much for what I do. Picked up a D750 and a 50mm for like $600 in like new condition with only 2k on the shutter and I still take the same photos, they're indistinguishable and the D750 is actually more ergonomic than the Z6II I had. The stupid tarrifs and all the BS going on in the world has made cameras crazy expensive. Just ain't worth it FOR ME to have the latest and greatest. I'd rather have fun using an older camera with older glass and save the money for other things.

No reason that has to be a DSLR. About 6 months ago I bought a new to me used camera -- two years older than your D750, and it's mirrorless. I wasn't looking for mirrorless I was looking for as small and light as possible ILC with a MFT sensor. For those reasons it makes sense it would be mirrorless. Wound up with an Olympus E-PL5 and I've been delighted with it. It's an older camera but it doesn't make me work that little bit extra to get a good photo. That's never been simpler or easier in the 50 years I've been a photographer and mirrorless definitely helps with that. Why make things more difficult?

Mirrorless isn't cutting edge new. It's been around in digital for over a decade and back in the good old film days I used mirrorless cameras as much or more than SLRs. Back then it was often about that wide angle lenses/mirror problem.

I actually like DSLRs more only because it's an OVF, I am so tired looking at screens all the time. It's nice to experience photography through actual light and not a computer screen. I also felt like mirrorless was making me lazy because they are so incredibly good at taking photos. Having an older camera makes you work just that little bit extra to get a good photo which to me makes it more satisfying.

If you have the money, definitely get the best you can afford. Not saying you shouldn't. It's just find it funny people spend several grand on high camera equipment to just post low resolution on social media. If you need the better equipment for what ever style of photography you do then by all means, get the best. But for general hobbyists like myself, it just ain't worth it in my opinion. I can walk around all day with that D750 and my 50mm and the 28mm and capture all the photos I want with no worries about battery life because these batteries last forever and knowing this has cost me $500 and not $3000 definitely puts me at ease.

I don't think DSLRs are dead. They are still viable. While mirrorless is the future, I think the DSLR will always be around. I think mirrorless is great but I also feel they are filled with so much stuff. I loved having IBIS but I been shooting without for a while now and it's never been that big of a deal. I just have to watch my shutter speed more and adjust accordingly which makes photography fun to me. The Z6II, I could point out of ear and take photos and they'll always be in focus with perfect exposure. I like being challenged I guess.