Three reasons not to leave Nikon for Sony's game changer

Overread · Jun 28, 2015

Eh I think mirrorless is still a long way off - certainly if the DSLR is to remain a tool for action and fast scenes then cameras still have a long way to go. First up the sensor needs to read over the whole sensor not in lines (ergo so we don't get that bendy helicopter rotor blade effect in video); then you need a video system that can do in live view as good as mirrors can for fast moving subjects.

The tech will come but its a while off; honestly for me the bigger game changer wouldn't just be mirrorless; it would be using mirrorless to actually make an ergonomic camera - as opposed to one that is a box on the back of a lens.

Sensor wise it all depends - Sony is sinking huge amounts into sensors because they know they have to make big waves to take a slice of the market; but th question is how long can they keep sinking that investment into sensors and how long can they stay ahead.

sashbar · Jun 28, 2015

wfooshee said:
So you can do FF with a new line of lenses and have a compact camera, or you can do FF with the current line of lenses and have a dSLR-sized camera. Why bother with mirrorless, then? Plus, I'd like my batteries to last all day, thank you!

The answer is simple:economics. A mirrorless camera of a similar class is cheaper to manufacture than a DSLR with its mirrors and prism. A smilar quality similar size sensor lense for a mirrorless camera is cheaper to manufacture, than a larger lense for a DSLR. Even if the difference is small, in the long run DSLR manufacturers will start loosing and will have to cut corners to compete. So the question for the manufacturers will be exactly the opposite: why bother with DSLRs?

A DSLR has just one and a half advantage: faster AF and OVF. Shooting with X-T1 I do not think any more of an OVF as an advantage. I find it easier to shoot sith a high quality huge EVF. Mirrorless AF is still not there, but it is catching up with a frightening speed. As soon as it is there mirrorless will swiftly become a weapon of choice for sports pro photogs, because of its superior continuous shooting speed. Any additional shot per second is a victory for DSLR manufacturers because of that flipping mirror. With mirrorless it will easily go to 30 frames per sec, especially with an electronic shutter. It is simply a more modern technology.
But never mind, there are good news for DSLR shooters: used DSLR lenses will get really cheap.

sashbar · Jun 28, 2015

Overread said:
The tech will come but its a while off; honestly for me the bigger game changer wouldn't just be mirrorless; it would be using mirrorless to actually make an ergonomic camera - as opposed to one that is a box on the back of a lens.

Sensor wise it all depends - Sony is sinking huge amounts into sensors because they know they have to make big waves to take a slice of the market; but th question is how long can they keep sinking that investment into sensors and how long can they stay ahead.

Agree re ergonomics, I think future pro mirrorless will be larger, but not nessessary similar in shape to DSLRs of today. it probably will still be much thinner, lighter, but will have a large (detachable?) grip, will be wider, with a huge screen and large battery compartment.

What is important, it will be better balanced with large zooms, since the mount will be nearer to the back of the body (that it of course if you shoot with dedicated mirrorless lenses, not your old DSLR zooms with an adaptor). I think a mirrorless may be made ergonomically much better than a DSLR since it is not restricted by the large flange distance.

It will not happen tomorrow, of course, and DSLRs still have some time, but when it happens, I predict the change will be swift.

Overread · Jun 28, 2015

I suspect that economically the most sound choice will be to keep the EF mount for Canon and the FX for Nikon - I can't see them shifting to mirrorless and dropping all those production lenses and manufacture setups. It's just too big a drop- - esp for the casual market.

What I can see happening is that they will just make DSLRs that are mirrorless - heck they might even still call them DSLRS or even Mirrorless DSLRS or MDSLRs

Heck the early ones might even be hybrid - we kind of that already with digital overlays being a common thing in DSLRs. Letting the video overlay do what it can whilst the actual reflection of light through the lens is still done by the mirror - best of both worlds.

unpopular · Jun 28, 2015

Overread said:
Eh I think mirrorless is still a long way off

If we were where we are now five years ago, we might expect 10 years development to get to where we need to be.

But "a long way off" doesn't mean the same as it did five years ago, and I suspect that DSLRs will begin to phase out by 2020. They will be available for some time yet - I suspect the flagship full frame models will linger on - but the inevitable sensor-size race will ultimately kill the DSLR.

jaomul · Jun 28, 2015

To be fair I think to much emphasis is put on interior workings of the camera. Couple that with labels. CSC implies compact system camera, but do each maunufacture of mirrorless call them that. Not sure if FF cameras that have no mirror are known as CSCs. I mean if I got a camera tomorrow that uses all my current lenses and does everything the same or better than my current camera, I dont really care what technology made it do so.

If in 5 years, 5 months, 5 weeks time a camera is released (I'll talk stills only) and it does everything that say a 1dx does now, as well as a 1dx does now, it doesn't matter what it inside as long as it's robust and reliable. What will matter however is if it is mirrorless it will have an EVF. This will not suit everyone even if EVFs are so good that the lag makes no difference even for a person shooting sports at 15 fps, many grew up with OVFs and simply don't want the change.

For most pros especially, they need a camera to get the job done, i'm sure they don't really care how the camera is internally made

Derrel · Jun 28, 2015

So far Sony has not made ANY "game-changer" cameras....only battery-changer cameras with weak, small batteries that require three per day of serious shooting. So far, the Sony lens line has been mostly promises. The A7 line still uses cooked 11-bit RAW imaging...still has nowhere near caught up to Fuji's EVF technology or quality...and this is why Sony has 11 percent, or less, of the camera market, even despite HUGE price cuts on first the a900, then the a850, then the NEX bodies, and then the initial two A7 models...Sony has proven, multiple times, that they cannot even BUY market share by offering their best products at huge markdowns almost immediately after their market introductions. Sony has no "game-changer" anything.

Overread · Jun 28, 2015

What about all those sensors everyone raves about?

Also I'd say 11% in the time they've been in the market and considering the market itself is pretty impressive

runnah · Jun 28, 2015

Overread said:
Eh I think mirrorless is still a long way off - certainly if the DSLR is to remain a tool for action and fast scenes then cameras still have a long way to go. First up the sensor needs to read over the whole sensor not in lines (ergo so we don't get that bendy helicopter rotor blade effect in video); then you need a video system that can do in live view as good as mirrors can for fast moving subjects.

The tech will come but its a while off; honestly for me the bigger game changer wouldn't just be mirrorless; it would be using mirrorless to actually make an ergonomic camera - as opposed to one that is a box on the back of a lens.

Sensor wise it all depends - Sony is sinking huge amounts into sensors because they know they have to make big waves to take a slice of the market; but th question is how long can they keep sinking that investment into sensors and how long can they stay ahead.

The bendy video is due to a rolling shutter vs. a global shutter. As far as a I know the way the shutter works in a dslr is the only way to get super fast shutter speeds and high fps.

Overread · Jun 28, 2015

Runnah I thought in video mode the shutter was open the whole time and that it was the way the sensor reads the light not just how the shutter curtains work (though yes the term rolling shutter is the one I've heard as well).

I think that it is possible - Nikon had a DSLR which could operate without the shutter curtains being in control over the exposure. I forget which camera; but it was the only one done that could do flash sync at nearly any speed; because there was no rolling shutter nor shutter blades when using flash (it defaulted to using the blades when shooting without flash) it meant that the time the sensor was powered was the only time light mattered - ergo it could power it for the fraction of a second needed when the flash was fired.

In theory then it can be done;' but from what I recall it eats up a lot of processor power; and with MP always getting more and more its likely that modern DSLRS would need a huge upgrade in processor power and performance to keep what they have whilst also allowing for such a system - even though it would in many ways be superior ot shutter curtains (barring battery lifespan)

runnah · Jun 28, 2015

Inthink you are thinking about the mirror being locked open for video mode. The electronic shutter still operates in video mode.

Global shutters that are found in video cameras are more off/on rather than sliding up and down like the dslr shutter. That is why you don't get bendy images.

wfooshee · Jun 28, 2015

Neither rolling shutter nor global shutter are actual mechanical shutters, but terms describing the electronic capture of what's on the sensor.

Rolling shutter in video works by recording the sensor as a scan, and things move during the scan. One famous example I've seen is a frame from a video of champagne cork popping and hitting the man in the face. In the frame, the cork is just out of the bottle, but the shadow of the cork, farther down in the frame, is against his face. (Or maybe I'm recalling those backwards and the cork was hitting but the shadow wasn't. Regardless, the time from the scan of the frame was enough to have a different event being captured, as the subject moved during the capture.)

Global shutter works by recording the entire sensor, every pixel, simultaneously. Nothing changes position during the capture other than normal motion-blur from "long" shutter. This is obviously a more intensive process electronically, thus more expensive. It makes the video more of what you expect to see, though, by a large factor.

Shutter speed is STILL a factor. 1/60-second shutter gives "smooth" video, with the shutter being the frame rate, no "empty space" between frames. Very fast things in the image will show motion blur if you pause the video. Very fast shutter speeds make a very fast capture of the frame, then wait until time for the next frame, resulting in possibly a choppy video, with visible stuttering of fast items like propeller blades in airplanes. Stills show frozen images, but video doesn't move as smoothly, playing as a series of stills rather than smooth motion.

It's important to realize that shutter speed is independent of frame rate, and high-speed shutter with normal frame rate is possible.

It's also important to know the difference between rolling shutter and global shutter, and to understand that both are electronic captures, not a mechanical shutter opening and closing. Rolling shutters are easier and cheaper, global shutters appear on more expensive equipment.

runnah · Jun 28, 2015

Yup, you explained it better than I.

Best example was a person with a flash light. Global shutter is turning off and on the flashlight and rolling is using you hand to cover the light in an up and down motion.

Solarflare · Jun 30, 2015

Err ... rolling shutter is not any kind of shutter at all.

Its an effect in photographs - the "rolling shutter effect". That result from an ordinary electronic shutter that isnt a global shutter, i.e. has to read the image pixel by pixel (or, in case of Sony sensors, pixelline by pixelline, since every pixel in a line on a Sony EXMOR gets its own A/D converter).

Its not exclusive to electronic shutters either. If you have a focal plane shutter thats very slow, you'll get exactly the same effect.

The main reason I wont buy the Sony is simply that as a hobbyist, photography is not a source of income to me, thus the cameras I buy have to be very carefully selected.

The camera I'm looking forward to is the rumored medium format Fuji. I think (or rather: hope) it will probably be a mirrorless with the 44x33mm sensor from Sony (or its successor, considering it will take up to 2 years before Fuji goes public wih this).