The Emperor Bans Noisy Mirrors

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,901
19
Southeastern USA
#1
Yes, I did see the other thread started with the same Bloomberg article, but it was posted with a tunnel-vision focus on a silly mistake made by the journalist, and the thrust of the article, too scary for some here on CR, was totally ignored.

As was the mention in the final paragraph of Japan's Emperor banishing mirrors from his presence:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-super-fast-cameras-are-winning-over-the-pros

"If Sony succeeds in making mirrorless cameras the industry standard, expect press conferences to become a lot quieter without the shh-cluck shutter sounds made by DSLRs. That's already made them popular among pro photographers at golf tournaments and courtrooms. The scuttlebutt among shooters in Japan is that noisy cameras will be banned from Emperor Akihito's abdication ceremony in April, which effectively means only Sony Alphas could be allowed in the room. An imperial endorsement, if there ever was one."

I know, "The Death of dSLR's" has been clickbait for years, but how many companies and how many technologies can continue competing for the dwindling pool of photographers with the money, love of great image capturing, talent, and lack of self-consciousness to carry around a heavy backpack while friends, family, and everybody else have a smartphone in their pockets? Printing isn't very popular anymore, so if an image has the quality to display nicely on screen, how many people will see any need for what a FF camera can do?

On the other hand, giant 4k screens for slideshows may save dSLR yet.

I'm very happy to hear the 400mm f/2.8 has been updated. Most members already know that the current generation of Big Whites does great with tele-extenders, so the new version will likely play well with EF-X adapters.

Professional images will always be in demand, but the market for the gear may never return to its peak of 10-12 years ago. In fact it may dwindle to the size of professional cinematic gear. But look at the cost of such gear and the relatively small quantity produced. Who will be paying for amazing sports photos in the coming years? The stills-photographers on the sidelines are going to be competing not only against each other but against increasingly high quality frame grabs from digital video--for an incredibly shrinking pool of sports-news outlets. And with the participants of conflict having smartphones which capture viewpoint action with adequate IQ, how many war photographers can make a living, can compete with the many available images from the participants?

I would also add that predicting the future of a technology based on today's stock market is crazier even than my speculations.
 
Last edited:
Likes: stevelee

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,012
220
#2
Sony will not make the mirorless the industry standard and to suggest they will is nothing less than self-aggrandising claptrap. And who says that 'only Sony Alphas ' will be allowed into the room? What about the Olympus and Panasonic (the latter already leading the field in the videography you mention) and good enough for press photography such as that.
In a few years mirrorless will be a significant part of the market and no-one denies that but I do wish people would stop talking about Sony in such reverential terms as if they are the only people doing this.

The article conflates (a) the rise in mirrorless and (b) the capabilities of Sony and does so in a way that makes then synonymous. They ain't.
That whole article was a paid-for, written-by Sony advertorial so no, I don't think anyone missed the point in the other thread but took it for what it is.
 
Mar 22, 2016
10
1
#3
I believe mirrorless will be the future, but the future for pro-grade is still a few years away. Sony may be an early player but early players don't always end up the long term players nor the long term market leaders.

Sony has to keep making rapid changes to their product because there are too many deficiencies. IMO a purchase into the Sony mirrorless ecosystem at this point has to be considered a short term/disposable purchase that will be obsolete within 6 months. I love my current photo equipment and expect that most pieces can and will still be in use 8-10 years from now.
 
Likes: stevelee

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,901
19
Southeastern USA
#4
That whole article was a paid-for, written-by Sony advertorial so no, I don't think anyone missed the point in the other thread but took it for what it is.
Basically you are shooting the messenger. Unless you have evidence that the article is an advertisement disguised as reporting? It's a breezy analysis, surely, but "fake news"? I've found Bloomberg to be relatively reliable and fair.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,012
220
#5
I am shooting the messenger and the content in equal measures.

The reason the article was criticised (and as you noted in your OP) was the technological mumbo-jumbo like the Sony 'capturing light faster'.
The reporter clearly knew nothing about photography so although Sony may not have physically written the article the reporter clearly took everything Sony said as fact so Sony may as well have written it. And the jaunt was a photo shoot arranged by Sony.
So although you may consider my language to have been a tad inflammatory (who, me??) I stand by the sentiment.

So I don't consider it 'news'. I don't even consider it 'fake news'. I consider it an advertorial. In several fora, one common criticism is huge disappointment that an organisation like Bloomberg would permit such a blatant piece with so much factual inaccuracy be printed as 'news' - so in respect of Bloomberg's reputation and what people expect from them, you are far from alone.
Having said that the quality of technical and science reporting in the press as a whole has taken a plummet so they are far from the only organisation with this problem.
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,188
163
Canada
#6
Eight seconds. That's how long a cowboy needs to stay on a bucking bronco to qualify for a rodeo score. For photographers, that's barely enough time to take just a few blurry, often unusable pictures.

WHAT A LOAD OF GARBAGE!

With a 1DX2 you will have 100 sharp and usable pictures... Or a 7D2 and 80 good shots.... or 80-100 out of your Nikon.... or 100 or so out of your Olympus.... or your Panasonic..... I can stand there with my iPad and take good pictures! I can go home, grab my 40+ years old OM-1 and winder, and burn through a 36 exposure roll of film in that time, and I will get those shots in focus!

When the first sentence of the article is so incredibly wrong, you have set the tone for a fluff piece.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,901
19
Southeastern USA
#10
I am shooting the messenger and the content in equal measures.

The reason the article was criticised (and as you noted in your OP) was the technological mumbo-jumbo like the Sony 'capturing light faster'.
The reporter clearly knew nothing about photography so although Sony may not have physically written the article the reporter clearly took everything Sony said as fact so Sony may as well have written it. And the jaunt was a photo shoot arranged by Sony.
So although you may consider my language to have been a tad inflammatory (who, me??) I stand by the sentiment.

So I don't consider it 'news'. I don't even consider it 'fake news'. I consider it an advertorial. In several fora, one common criticism is huge disappointment that an organisation like Bloomberg would permit such a blatant piece with so much factual inaccuracy be printed as 'news' - so in respect of Bloomberg's reputation and what people expect from them, you are far from alone.
Having said that the quality of technical and science reporting in the press as a whole has taken a plummet so they are far from the only organisation with this problem.
On the other hand, photographers have an emotional and financial investment in their gear and practices. A reporter who has been trained to analyze business trends might be unskilled with a camera but more objective discussing the industry.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,012
220
#11
The article was written by someone who is was proven ignorant of any technical expertise - whether or not they are a photographer is irrelevant. And as for 'discussing the industry he didn't do that either - you can only discuss the industry if you know the basics of the technology and understand what is happening and why. The reporter clearly did not. As Don Haines pointed out, he did not even realise that 8 seconds at 15 frames per second = 100 shots not 8. Even the most basic Rebel will shoot 8 x 3 fps = 24. And the 1Dx2 will follow focus as well, if not better.

I have absolutely no issue with discussing shortfalls of different marques and I am not tied to Canon. But if someone from a respected journal presents an article about how the market is changing I expect a basic level of understanding of what that market is.
 
Likes: stevelee

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,313
360
#12
On the other hand, photographers have an emotional and financial investment in their gear and practices. A reporter who has been trained to analyze business trends might be unskilled with a camera but more objective discussing the industry.
Eight seconds. That's how long a cowboy needs to stay on a bucking bronco to qualify for a rodeo score. For photographers, that's barely enough time to take just a few blurry, often unusable pictures.”

Yeah, that sounds like an objective description of the industry from a diligent reporter who’s done the necessary background research for a story.

Not.
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
#13
The scuttlebutt among shooters in Japan is that noisy cameras will be banned from Emperor Akihito's abdication ceremony in April, which effectively means only Sony Alphas could be allowed in the room. An imperial endorsement, if there ever was one."
If silence is so important why not just shoot the dslr in Liveview mode ? This is what I do at weddings where some vicars (priests) only allow photography during the ceremony if it's silent. No one can hear the very faint "slick" of the closing shutter when using electronic first curtain. As you're inside there is no issue with being able to view the rear lcd.

This so much the fallacy of those that promote an inevitable "mirrorless 'revolution". They always conveniently forget that a modern dslr can shoot in mirrorless mode anyway.
 
Aug 11, 2016
109
6
#14
If silence is so important why not just shoot the dslr in Liveview mode ? This is what I do at weddings where some vicars (priests) only allow photography during the ceremony if it's silent. No one can hear the very faint "slick" of the closing shutter when using electronic first curtain. As you're inside there is no issue with being able to view the rear lcd.

This so much the fallacy of those that promote an inevitable "mirrorless 'revolution". They always conveniently forget that a modern dslr can shoot in mirrorless mode anyway.
Except for the fact that it makes a loud ruckus when you first flip that mirror up or power off/on. In addition, when comparing this to a full e-shutter, there is no "slick" as it is 100% silent. Lastly, you now have this bright distracting screen at arm's length that no longer allows you the use of your VF or additional body support contact when shooting. Mirrorless on DSLRs are essentially tacked on with certain compromises.
 
Likes: Hillsilly

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,188
163
Canada
#15
First: Mirrorless is an evolution, not a revolution.

Second: It happened ten years ago.

Third: Think Olympus and Panasonic. Sony is late into the game, same as Canon and Nikon.
 
Likes: stevelee

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,188
163
Canada
#16
The article was written by someone who is was proven ignorant of any technical expertise - whether or not they are a photographer is irrelevant. And as for 'discussing the industry he didn't do that either - you can only discuss the industry if you know the basics of the technology and understand what is happening and why. The reporter clearly did not. As Don Haines pointed out, he did not even realise that 8 seconds at 15 frames per second = 100 shots not 8. Even the most basic Rebel will shoot 8 x 3 fps = 24. And the 1Dx2 will follow focus as well, if not better.

I have absolutely no issue with discussing shortfalls of different marques and I am not tied to Canon. But if someone from a respected journal presents an article about how the market is changing I expect a basic level of understanding of what that market is.
Personally, If I were to go out and shoot a rider on a bucking bronco in good daylight, and I could take the camera/lens of my choice, I would be hard pressed to choose between a 1DX2 and 600F4 at 14FPS, or to go mirrorless and get a E-M1 Mark II and a 300F4 at 60FPS.

What I would find hard to do is to find a camera made by any manufacturer in the last ten years that would not be able to deliver decent pictures.
 

kaihp

EOS Rebel T7i
Mar 19, 2012
833
2
#18
I believe mirrorless will be the future, but the future for pro-grade is still a few years away
There are already a couple of (full-year accredited) pro photographers following/shooting the MotoGP races that are using Sony Alpha's. So there is an argument for mirrorless being Pro-Grade already, even for very difficult AF cases.
 
#19
...it was posted with a tunnel-vision focus on a silly mistake made by the journalist, and the thrust of the article, too scary for some here on CR, was totally ignored.
Nothing scary at all. The thrust of the article was not ignored, it was soundly refuted. Which is totally different.

.
As was the mention in the final paragraph of Japan's Emperor banishing mirrors from his presence...
This is a legitimate point. Anyone who has ever watched a presidential or congressional news conference can't help but notice the annoying machine gun clicks of dozens of DSLRs. I'm surprised that the video folks don't throttle the stills folks. Still, the article conflates one advantage of mirrorless with a single brand and presumes that this will give Sony some advantage over others. That's simply not true.

.
...I know, "The Death of dSLR's" has been clickbait for years, but how many companies and how many technologies can continue competing for the dwindling pool of photographers with the money, love of great image capturing, talent, and lack of self-consciousness to carry around a heavy backpack...Printing isn't very popular anymore...

...giant 4k screens for slideshows may save dSLR yet.

I'm very happy to hear the 400mm f/2.8 has been updated. Most members already know that the current generation of Big Whites does great with tele-extenders, so the new version will likely play well with EF-X adapters.

Professional images will always be in demand, but the market for the gear may never return to its peak of 10-12 years ago...Who will be paying for amazing sports photos in the coming years?
I'm sorry but I'm afraid I don't get the point of these stream-of-consciousness comments. Digital cameras are a mature market and that market is not likely to return to the levels it was at during the first decade after digital cameras were introduced. It's clear that the major camera manufacturers understand that and are adjusting their product lines to adapt -- focusing on enthusiasts with high disposable income being the major adjustment. The thing some people fail to understand is that camera manufacturers are agnostic when it comes to DSLR vs. Mirrorless. They are going to make whatever sells for as long as it sells.

. The stills-photographers on the sidelines are going to be competing not only against each other but against increasingly high quality frame grabs from digital video--for an incredibly shrinking pool of sports-news outlets.
It doesn't work that way. Video needs to shoot at a shutter speed about twice the speed of the frame rate so that there is sufficient blur in the images to make the transitions from frame to frame appear smooth. Sports frame grabs from video shot at 1/60th of a second are too blurry for stills.Video shot at 1/1000th of a second is too jittery to use.
 

Aglet

EOS 7D Mark II
Feb 26, 2012
1,692
9
AB
#20
Personally, If I were to go out and shoot a rider on a bucking bronco in good daylight, and I could take the camera/lens of my choice, I would be hard pressed to choose between a 1DX2 and 600F4 at 14FPS, or to go mirrorless and get a E-M1 Mark II and a 300F4 at 60FPS.

What I would find hard to do is to find a camera made by any manufacturer in the last ten years that would not be able to deliver decent pictures.
Having done exactly that, last year, when I got my EM1v2, I can tell you, unequivocally, the EM1v2 wins my choice.
I shot bucking broncs at variable frame rates with mech and e-shutter and barrel racers at full 60fps and the results are stunningly good!
Only thing was it's hard to tell how quickly those pix are piling up when you hold that button down and don't hear a thing!

Best possible improvement will be global e-shutter and even better CAF during that kind of operation.
As it is, the e-shutter is fast enough for most fast action to show negligible distortion.
After all, mech shutters still can't travel faster than about 1/250s to 1/320s over the whole frame anyway.

I LOVE MY OLY!