I’m with Thom Hogan

[smoke665]

Sorry that you don’t own a Nikon D850.

Nope. I'll stay with my K1MII Nikon D850 vs Pentax K-1 II Detailed Comparison and use the $1400 difference to buy glass. I've been with Pentax since the late 60's and I see no reason to change. FYI Pentax came out with a mirroless (K-01) in 2012 that was backward compatible with all Pentax bayonet mount lenses and from what I understand was of decent quality sharing the same sensor as the D7000. It was discontinued because of lack of interest in a mirrorless a year later.

 

[cmrotell]

I've recently attended a seminar where both Nikon Reps and a Fuji Pro Photographer were talking about the new mirrorless cameras. None of them really mentioned the equipment was far superior to current DSLRs and arguments could be made they are not. What did get brought up and what is interesting to me was some of the features mirrorless had over current bodies. Those primarily being focus stacking and pre-burst shooting.

Photo Stacking is where the camera will take a series of photos at different distances and combine them within the body to create an image that is in focus from front to back. You can do this in current bodies but much more time consuming vs the mirrorless press button wait and a photo is produced. No post process work.

Pre Burst is where the camera is already taking pictures as you have the button half depressed placing them into the buffer memory. Once you fully depress the button it will include those images that were in the buffer. This allows you to capture moments that may be quicker than the eye. The example that was used was capturing a snake with its tongue out.

 

[snowbear]

These sound like features that could be added to a DSLR when used in "Live Mode."

 

[cmrotell]

Ye

These sound like features that could be added to a DSLR when used in "Live Mode."

I asked that question to the Nikon Rep. His response to the entire room was "this guy thinks that Nikon is going to give these features up for free when they can sell it." I did loose a little love for Nikon in that moment.

 

[snowbear]

I'm sure Canon would have the same general response.

 

[waday]

I'm sure Canon would have the same general response.

I think most companies would have the same response, but hopefully they wouldn't be so aggressive with the response...

 

[cmrotell]

I'm sure Canon would have the same general response.

I think most companies would have the same response, but hopefully they wouldn't be so aggressive with the response...

Untrue, Olympus and Sony are very good at updating the firmware on their older models.

With more "Tech" companies entering this arena, Nikon and Canon better watch out for their stance on this and reconsider their stance on this old mentality as the younger generation does expect more upgrades vs having to purchase new all the time. Look at how Xbox, PlayStation, Microsoft Windows, even Adobe moving to either a subscription plan model, free upgrades, and continuing to support or refresh older models as an example. Before anyone says they are too big or they will never lose customers, I bet the Sears executives 30 years ago would change their decision to not converting their catalog to a digital format if they knew what would become of Sears today.

 

[waday]

Untrue, Olympus and Sony are very good at updating the firmware on their older models.

Maybe we're talking different subjects. While they may update firmware, they may not necessarily provide those benefits in lower end (and older) models, even if they have the capability for the features...

 

[Overread]

Camera companies like Canon and Nikon have grown up in the disposable age of commerce. Basically they are built on the idea that every so often you will buy an upgrade. Their whole business model is built off the back of that approach.

Now Adobe and software firms have the edge in that they don't have to invest in machines and production factories and can just digitally release updates so its much quicker, cheaper and easier for them to setup rolling updates. That said I do think that we will reach a point where Canon and Nikon have to consider updating firmwire in older models more readily and that the market might well slow down in general.

As customers we'd see this as fewer big hardware updates and higher prices on cameras, however we'd also see more software updates and firmwire features being added to select older models.

Thing is updating firmwire for products already out there is no money for camera companies (unless that firmwire comes with options to control new accessories). Furthermore I think a fair few software updates rely on specific hardware updates to actually work. So whilst they are sitll pumping out ever more improved sensors we can expect the hardware race to continue

 

[Solarflare]

D850 and D500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.

Well ... I'm definitely never with Thom Hogan, no. That guy is wrong too often for that, even on central and important issues.

I'd say the Fujifilm X-T3 beats the D500 overall, fair and square.

On the other hand, the whole full frame mirrorless lineup is mostly simply just embarassing so far. All Canon and Nikon had was talk, while their offers are first generation junk. Whats much worse - so far there is no sign that neither Canon nor Nikon will take mirrorless serious in future.

 

[n614cd]

On the other hand, the whole full frame mirrorless lineup is mostly simply just embarassing so far. All Canon and Nikon had was talk, while their offers are first generation junk. Whats much worse - so far there is no sign that neither Canon nor Nikon will take mirrorless serious in future.

Why do you state this? Curious what you expected, and how it has not been met. Further, Canon and Nikon had to make the rather significant decision to change mounts, the first time in 30+ years for Canon and closer to 60 years for Nikon to make such a fundamental change.
Both companies have a history of making design decisions that have withstood the test of time for decades. Sony and Fuji have a history in many other industries of solutions that may last a decade.

Tim

 

[Overread]

Sony and Fuji are rocking the boat more by releasing new and different designs because they are not as entrenched in the market. This means that no matter what they add they've likely got to build a new factory for it so they can go with something totally new because its the same net cost to get it in production. Whilst Canon and Nikon are old-hands and already have factories built so its an on-top investment for them to branch into totally new things.
In addition Sony and Fuji want a bigger slice of the pie, again this makes them more bold with going in new directions and experimenting and trying to offer something different to the big names, who won't necessarily need to push as hard because they've already secured major markets.

Sony also wanted to take a slice of the camera market pie which is why they invested a fortune in sensor development and research which got them ahead of the game for a bit. Again they wanted to move into this market so they had to make big and new waves to push out the competition and carve their own corner.


Also lets not forget that mirrorless is not replacing DSLRs and that mirrorless are not 100% improvements. They've got their benefits and negatives and, to my mind, compliment the DSLR market rather nicely.

 

[n614cd]

Sony and Fuji are rocking the boat more by releasing new and different designs because they are not as entrenched in the market. This means that no matter what they add they've likely got to build a new factory for it so they can go with something totally new because its the same net cost to get it in production. Whilst Canon and Nikon are old-hands and already have factories built so its an on-top investment for them to branch into totally new things.
In addition Sony and Fuji want a bigger slice of the pie, again this makes them more bold with going in new directions and experimenting and trying to offer something different to the big names, who won't necessarily need to push as hard because they've already secured major markets.

Sony also wanted to take a slice of the camera market pie which is why they invested a fortune in sensor development and research which got them ahead of the game for a bit. Again they wanted to move into this market so they had to make big and new waves to push out the competition and carve their own corner.


Also lets not forget that mirrorless is not replacing DSLRs and that mirrorless are not 100% improvements. They've got their benefits and negatives and, to my mind, compliment the DSLR market rather nicely.

What negatives besides battery life does mirrorless have?

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

 

[Overread]

What negatives besides battery life does mirrorless have?

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

Well there's a few:
1) Battery life - yep if you're running live view the whole time then the battery life is going to always be worse than the same battery technology in a comparable DSLR. This can be quite a significant aspect for people if they are shooting all day and can lead to a real world cost in requiring more spare batteries for extended shoots.

2) Video lag - video is not "as" fast as the mirror screen when it comes to fast moving subjects, fast moving camera and very fine movements. The blurring it can render can also be different so panning and moving can be trickier to work with whilst with the mirror setup any blurring from fast movement is purely natural as your eye would see it. Whilst this is an area that will always steadily improve its still not quite there yet technology wise.

3) Bendy details in video. Because of the way most DSLR's read video from their sensors they read it in lines not in the whole screen at once. This leads to thinks like bending helicopter blades when they are moving fast and other similar oddities with fast moving subjects and situations. Again this has improved over time, but won't fully improve until the way sensors work - ergo when the camera reads data from the whole sensor in one go instead of line by line.

4) Weight and size. This is more an issue for bigger lenses. Right now many mirrorless bodies are marketed on being smaller than DSLRs. Therefore they keep being small. Which is great if you're using small lenses on them; but if you've got yourself a fullframe mirrorless and now want to start putting 400mm lenses on the front you're going to start finding that the smaller and more compact body isn't as easily held against the body and the lighter weight makes the setup more likely to be front heavy.

5) Balance. If you're using the screen on the back your balance and posture is already harmed. With a short lens its fine, but with bigger and heavier lenses you don't want the camera at arms length. Now you'll say but some mirrorless have viewfinders on them and that's true, but then you're not really saving much in space nor design over a traditional mirrorless setup (and on some the top side viewfinder is an extra attachment so comes with extra cost).

6) Missed trick - this isn't really a negative nor a positive but a personal observation of mine. Cameras are TERRIBLE in terms of ergonomics. It's a hangover from when they had film inside that has never changed. It's still a flat rectangular box that you hold to your face (which even in many Asian countries, still has a very 3D profile and is not a flat surface). In my view the big missed trick was a chance to seriously step up the game in terms of camera ergonomics and design. Heck as you only need the sensor behind the camera there's no reason for the rest of the camera to need to be behind the lens itself. They could easily have made the whole camera more like a cradle design, letting you move the end of the lens back toward your shoulder and have a viewfinder slide out along half way. Again my thoughts here are with bigger, heavier lenses, but even shorter ones would benefit from improved ergonomics and the freedom of design that is accorded with a liveview based camera.


Now granted many of these are issues that will go away in time. Even battery life will go away once battery technology reaches a point where the difference in performance makes little real world meaning to most users. However right now I feel that these issues are still present for some users and we can see that big camera makers agree otherwise mirrorboxes would have vanished very fast.

Of course with mirrorless you can do away with mirrorslap; with mechanical failure of components; with a shorter lens rear to sensor distance etc... There's loads of bonuses and for many situations the negatives are not an issue. For some they are and for sports, action, wildlife and such similar subjects these are legitimate concerns. I also wonder if astophotography also suffers in so much as it might result in increased unit heat because the whole time the sensor is recording its also outputting the liveview feed (thus running a whole series of additional components which can put up the heat and increase battery drain)

 

[Solarflare]

Why do you state this?

Because thats the facts, and my opinion about it.

Canon and Nikon had to make the rather significant decision to change mounts

Nope, not even remotely.

They have started new camera systems. They did so in the past (Nikon One, Canon EOS-M).

Their SLR systems obviously will stay, since they keep releasing new stuff for them, and their new mirrorless systems are treated like toys by them so far, and theres no saying if that will ever change.