Sony to stop producing DSLR?

Status
Not open for further replies.
To the original point. I honestly believe that eventually there will be no moving parts within the camera body. This just seems like the way technology goes. Look at how far things have come since the first DSLRs, and that's a really short timeframe. It may take a few false starts, but it will happen.

You are absolutely correct, and that is the direction of technology. Any pro who wants to be successful stays ahead of change and is not obsessed by the past.

skieur

I don't want to get into the argument, but that's like saying that the gear is what makes the photographer...

I know several portrait photographers who use large format view cameras. Does that make them less of a pro because their camera doesn't have everything and the kitchen sink? Nope. It just means that they are more deliberate and skillful than probably 70% of DSLR/DSLT users.

Large format view cameras fit the needs of some portrait photographers, particularly if they are working in a studio and if that is the only kind of photography they are doing. Taking one out on location to another country or doing sports photography with it is something however that most would not even attempt. You also realize of course that the market for large format view cameras is limited to say the least.

However those pros that shoot on location would love a smaller interchangeable lens camera as silent as the Leica rangefinder M series, with continuous shooting not limited by the mirror, without the need for a tripod, remote, and flipping the mirror up to avoid vibration, with a viewfinder that allows you to see the effect of your auto or manual exposure settings, with exposure readings directly off the sensor, with ISO into the 100,000 area, with no Bayer filter on the sensor, no need for anti-aliasing, flash sync at any shutterspeed, a much cheaper price....the list goes on. The point is that if the camera makers see the market expanding for mirror-less cameras, then that is where the new features and technology will go.

You can see from the present marketplace that in a tight market, few pros that work on location or in several locations want to be at a technological disadvantage related to their competition. (That is of course, assuming that they want to be successful from a financial perspective.)

skieur
 
To the original point. I honestly believe that eventually there will be no moving parts within the camera body. This just seems like the way technology goes. Look at how far things have come since the first DSLRs, and that's a really short timeframe. It may take a few false starts, but it will happen.

You are absolutely correct, and that is the direction of technology. Any pro who wants to be successful stays ahead of change and is not obsessed by the past.

skieur

I don't want to get into the argument, but that's like saying that the gear is what makes the photographer...

I know several portrait photographers who use large format view cameras. Does that make them less of a pro because their camera doesn't have everything and the kitchen sink? Nope. It just means that they are more deliberate and skillful than probably 70% of DSLR/DSLT users.

Thank you Rexbob for pointing out how Skieur is completely Wrong again, he is now claiming that all pros need to stay ahead of technology curve too remain at the top of their game!! :lmao: hahahahaha Cameras are so good nowadays, 99% of people can not even use these cameras to their full potential. It really is now, down to the skill of the photographer, NOT staying ahead of technological curves.
 
if its posted on the Internetz, it has to be true
bigthumb.gif
 
Well, if you are working at the low end, Nikon Josh, then the skill of the photographer does make a difference because there are a lot of new pros with minimal skills entering the field.

If you are working closer toward the high end, then those who have got to this level are already highly skilled or they would not be able to charge what they do and be successful. As I said before, it is here that new cameras are bought every 3 years or less and medium format equipment, studios etc. are rented when necessary. This is where the details and differences distinguish the work of one photographer from another and staying ahead of the tech curve with style and skill is the way to become successful and stay that way.

skieur
 
There are still lots of pro's shooting film
That may be the case, but it won't be for much longer. Anyone can process film in their own darkroom, but without a viable source of film and paper that arena of photography is doomed. It may take a while longer but at some point the manufacturers are going to see it as a profitless direction and the sources of film and paper will dry up. Kodachrome is gone, Ektachrome is going, and there will be more to follow. I'm of the opinion that those who claimed that digital would replace film were the only ones that ever got a photographic rumor correct.

I'm also of the opinion that at some point mirrorless cameras will take over the market and the SLR as we know it will fade away. It won't be any time soon but it is inevitable that it will happen sooner or later. Decades ago, when reflex cameras came into being, they were the only viable method for seeing what the lens actually seeing. The other alternative were "View Cameras" in which the film was put in place after the camera was focused. These days, what does it really matter? Does it matter in the slightest whether what we see through the viewfinder is actually through the lens or if it is an electronic "Copy" of what is on the sensor? After all, that electronic "Copy" is what is actually going to be the final image so in reality the mirrorless cameras are providing a more true representation of what the final captured image will look like.

As to whether or not Sony will end production of DSLR cameras, all I can say is that if they do it will REALLY piss off both of the people who bought one ;)

The viewfinder issue matters to me. Just like with EVFs on video cameras, the EVFs on DSLTs give inaccurate noise/gain in the viewfinder as opposed to what is present in the final image, so one could argue that in all but the most ideal environments the EVFs are actually "lying" to the photographer.

I'd much rather squint to see my subject than having to squint while also having to try and not be distracted by the grey speckles where the blacks should be. When they can resolve this issue, I'll jump on the bandwagon.

I was actually considering a Sony because I want video autofocus, but I don't have any Sony lenses, and don't want to buy Sony lenses.
 
You can see from the present marketplace that in a tight market, few pros that work on location or in several locations want to be at a technological disadvantage related to their competition. (That is of course, assuming that they want to be successful from a financial perspective.)

skieur

I guess that is why so few PRO's use SONY! ;)
 
I'm jumping off the Sony bandwagon this year. As a A700 user I was impressed by the quality of photos I was able to create with this robust camera but now that the entire line is being "upgraded" to SLT technology, I'm no longer interested in playing their game. Sony was a great value compared to other high-end DSLR's for a while but the move to SLT leaves me wondering why they haven't gone fully mirrorless like with their NEX series. I've decided to buy into Fuji's experiment with the X-Pro 1 because I believe eliminating the reflex mirror is the next logical step in pro-photography. Mirrors are loud, vibration-inducing and now a relic of the past as direct-view cameras are coming to market with usable resolution and features. Sony's SLT mirror is just another stumbling-block in the light-path of the imaging sensor. Fuji was kind enough to include an eye-level optical finder (that switches to EVF) for guys like me who use them extensively. I'm sad to see Sony using this "bridge" technology between the DSLR and mirrorless camera because the cameras remain bulky and have low-light performance issues.

Sony: go full-throttle into mirrorless or find a way to make the DSLR more relevant to the future of photography. SLT may just be an incredible waste of time and resources.
 
The viewfinder issue matters to me. Just like with EVFs on video cameras, the EVFs on DSLTs give inaccurate noise/gain in the viewfinder as opposed to what is present in the final image, so one could argue that in all but the most ideal environments the EVFs are actually "lying" to the photographer.

I'd much rather squint to see my subject than having to squint while also having to try and not be distracted by the grey speckles where the blacks should be. When they can resolve this issue, I'll jump on the bandwagon.

I was actually considering a Sony because I want video autofocus, but I don't have any Sony lenses, and don't want to buy Sony lenses.
Give 'em time. There's a lot to be said FOR electronic viewfinders once the manufacturers figure out neat ways to use them. Live histograms superimposed down in the corner, blinking blown highlights and blocked shadows before even taking the shot, etc. It took a while for DSLR's to reach the maturity they are at now and when (if?) the focus of the mainstream consumer moves in the direction of mirrorless cameras it's hard to guess at what the next generation of photographers will have to play with.

Having been around long enough to see most of the changes in cameras in the past 50 years or so it's really hard to imagine what the next 50 will bring, and how photographers will be discussing the relics we had to deal with in the early 21st century. The things that so many people take for granted today were not even conceived of not that long ago. Enjoy the revolution!
 
You can see from the present marketplace that in a tight market, few pros that work on location or in several locations want to be at a technological disadvantage related to their competition. (That is of course, assuming that they want to be successful from a financial perspective.)

skieur

I guess that is why so few PRO's use SONY! ;)

Well, if Colorado is your area of comparison....:lol:

skieur
 
skieur said:
You are absolutely correct, and that is the direction of technology. Any pro who wants to be successful stays ahead of change and is not obsessed by the past.

skieur

False. Most successful pros stay with the tried and true and many still use old film cameras. Technology chasers tend to be for the most part your noobs that think a more advanced system will make them better photographers
 
You can see from the present marketplace that in a tight market, few pros that work on location or in several locations want to be at a technological disadvantage related to their competition. (That is of course, assuming that they want to be successful from a financial perspective.)

skieur

I guess that is why so few PRO's use SONY! ;)

Well, if Colorado is your area of comparison....:lol:

skieur

I am just going to add you to the IGNORE list with the rest of the trolls.. I have never seen you make a useful comment, only spew SONY excrement! :)
 

Why buy zeiss when we can go with canon and nikon and have the choice between those brands and still get zeiss?
 
Personally I'm not will to ever give up ovf. I don't see enough advantages and personally thing mirrorless isn't going anywhere anytime soon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

Back
Top