Thom Hogan: Seven Reasons Why I Shoot With (Nikon) DSLRs

[Loswr]

Where is the AvTvM universe© located in relation to dilbertland™?
Edit: I found a map – turns out they're just across the river from one another. You know which river I mean...

Sorry, don't understand what you mean, except that it is (probably) some kind of insult. What exactly is it about the Nile?

 

[AvTvM]

aha, thanks!

Luckily I am not in denial, that mirrorless camera systems are replacing antiquated mirrorslappers.

 

[j-nord]

Im on board for a FF mirrorless body for landscapes (and other still subjects). Just because I wouldn't mind a smaller/lighter body. I'd still use EF glass and I'd still pair it with a DSLR for wildlife. Maybe the 5DS/R replacement will be mirrorless since slow fps/high mpix sensors can benefit from no mirror, you don't typically try to catch action with such a camera.

 

[ahsanford]

Im on board for a FF mirrorless body for landscapes (and other still subjects). Just because I wouldn't mind a smaller/lighter body. I'd still use EF glass and I'd still pair it with a DSLR for wildlife. Maybe the 5DS/R replacement will be mirrorless since slow fps/high mpix sensors can benefit from no mirror, you don't typically try to catch action with such a camera.

Sure, the 5DS would benefit from no mirror, just like it benefits from a shutter delay / lock-up feature. But that's not to say everyone using one is on a tripod. The camera can certainly be used handheld, and mirrors = more than just for servo AF work, they do wonders for responsiveness to catch the moment and tremendously help with battery life as well. (I'm not trying to split hairs or anything, I see what you're getting at.)

I agree that some day we'll either see a wholesale change of a previous brand level over to mirrorless or (more likely) for one generation a given brand level will have an SLR and mirrorless equivalent being sold side by side until the mirror is retired at the next generation. Either way, surely they'll start at the bottom of the portfolio and climb up over time. I see this starting with Rebels, then the XXD line, and then the XD models, as the more demanding crowd who use the pricier models will hold on to their mirrors as long as possible.

But I'd imagine that before any of that happens, we'll see a standalone higher end FF mirrorless rig* just to scoop up premium dollars pent-up with enthusiasts who want badly want one. In addition, it would give Canon some much needed batting practice with FF mirrorless ergonomics, handling, etc.

*And it's entirely possible that this first offering is a fixed lens rig like a Leica Q or Sony RX1 rig. That way Canon can experiment with mirrorless without betting the farm on a standalone mount. If the market bucks at price or size, they can walk back their ambitions without having committed to a new mount.

- A

 

[Orangutan]

aha, thanks!

Luckily I am not in denial, that mirrorless camera systems are replacing antiquated mirrorslappers.

In denial and blocks all discourse on the topic: Acute case of Aswan Syndrome, so it appears.

 

[rrcphoto]

here's a mount markshare for canon + nikon against sony.

Understand exactly what you meant, but your text, your chart titles and your numbers need some unification.

(Hint: Canon didn't have 0% market share in Jan of 2012.)

#axistitles

- A

true. however it prevents tin foil hat wearing to say that it's too biased to DSLR's by taking into account pre 2012 camera bodies.
also people upgrade, replace in 4 years, so it's probably not a bad thing.

I was rushed .. collecting all the data was bad enough

also the same applies for sony .. i see a fair amount of fangirls purchase 4-5 A7 camera bodies.. god knows why .. one crappy ergonomic body isn't enough? or maybe they probably do it because you can never get them repaired.

 

[rrcphoto]

aha, thanks!

Luckily I am not in denial, that mirrorless camera systems are replacing antiquated mirrorslappers.

perhaps not in denial .. but I must compliment you on your your current cocktail mix of hallucinogens.

 

[Loswr]

Luckily I am not in denial, that mirrorless camera systems are replacing antiquated mirrorslappers.

If you're not in denial, then you're simply ignorant of basic facts. Or your understanding of math is below toddler level. I just asked my three year old which was a bigger number: 594,766 or 163,277? He gave the correct answer, can you? The first number is dSLRs shipped in May, 2016 and the second is the number of MILCs shipped that same month. That's 3.6 dSLRs for every MILC. Mirrorless systems may be replacing dSLRs in your own mind, but out in the real world, that's not quite the case.

Sure, you can argue that MILC sales are growing...at least, that was true in 2015 when they grew a whopping 1.7% y/y (link). At that rate, it would have taken about 10 years for MILC sales to regain their 2012 levels...but so far in 2016 they're dropping, just like they did in 2013 and 2014.

Or perhaps you'd like to make the argument that dSLR shipments are shrinking faster than MILC shipments. That's certainly true, but if their relative rates of decline as seen since 2012 (the first year CIPA started tracking MILCs separately) continue on the same slopes, MILC shipments will hit zero before they overtake dSLRs.

Of course, I don't expect you to argue either point, since fact based discussions are apparently anathema to you. Luckily, you can perhaps take comfort because as crazy and unrealistic as life in the AvTvM universe© must be, you can gaze across that River and know that it's far worse in dilbertland™. ;D

 

[Loswr]

No, you are incorrect. Hogan's opinions (at least as far as one can tell) come from a professional photographer based on actual experience and knowledge of how cameras and sensors work and the physics involved. That is far more valid than the opinion of someone who has little no knowledge or experience and just gets their info from internet sites.

His opinions are still that - just opinions. His background doesn't make them any more or less valid.

It's important to consider the background of the person sharing their opinion, as well as the intrinsic validity of the opinion itself. To be clear, I'm not questioning the right of a person to share their opinion...but if a person's opinion is that the Earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, or that the Canon 1D C is not really a dSLR, then sharing that opinion still makes them look like an imbecile.

 

[rrcphoto]

AvTvM universe©

see? it fits doesn't it

 

[rrcphoto]

Im on board for a FF mirrorless body for landscapes (and other still subjects). Just because I wouldn't mind a smaller/lighter body. I'd still use EF glass and I'd still pair it with a DSLR for wildlife. Maybe the 5DS/R replacement will be mirrorless since slow fps/high mpix sensors can benefit from no mirror, you don't typically try to catch action with such a camera.

I am too!

I want my SL1x .. an EF mount 28MP DPAF full frame camera, with 4fps, tilt screen and 2.36MP EVF.

 

[AvTvM]

none here - myself included - is in denial of the fact, that DSLRs still sell in much higher numbers than mirrorless cameras, even though the sales statistics are quite "muddy". But the interesting question is: WHY is it that way?

#1 reason is because neither Canon nor Nikon have yet launched compelling mirrorless systems. Not with APS-C sensor. And none at all with FF sensor. I am convinced, once they do, [and if priced reasonably!], unit sales will rapidly turn in favor of MILCs over DSLRs.

There are no longer significant technical obstacles to build solid state cameras today with overall functionality clearly superior to any DSLR. Even better EVFs, somewhat better AF systems, higher capacity batteries, global shutter ... technically and economically all very doable in 2016.

 

[j-nord]

That EVFs have a time lag and OVFs have no time lag is a fact.

According to Mr. Hogan, the lag is "1/250," which I interpret to be 4ms. The human vision system has a lag (light falling on eyeball to brain recognition) of about 100ms. That's a 4% increase over the inherent neuron-based lag; this is probably well within human variation and well-within the ability of a normal human brain to accommodate. To my mind, a 4ms EVF lag is, for any practical purpose, non-existent.

The latency is higher, NOT 5ms. One of the last questions in this interview:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/09/27/photokina-interview-samsung-nx1-redefine-pro-performance-quantum-leap-tech
"No, actually the display refreshes at about 54 fps" = 18.5ms refresh and that is not a full measure of light hitting sensor to it hitting your eye. 5ms sensor to screen latency is impressive but only part of the story, it's Marketing manipulating you... EVFs are very noticeably slower than a mirror when ms count.

 

[Loswr]

Not only that but eyes ... "retain" (?) the light they see for a relatively long period of time too.

At 50Hz, the cycle time for the lights (and all of the old CRT TVs) in most houses is 20ms yet nobody ever worried about that.

Is that your opinion? :

Incandescent lights don't flicker perceptibly, because the filament doesn't cool significantly as the power cycles. Fluorescent lights with magnetic ballasts do flicker, but they do so at twice the frequency of the current alternation...so that's 10 ms for 50 Hz power. Of course no one complains about that, since the typical flicker fusion threshold is ~13 ms. Modern lighting – fluorescent with electronic ballasts, LED – also usually flicker, although electronic-ballast fluorescent lighting flickers in the µs range (kHz range), and LEDs flicker at 100 or 120 Hz (although some bulbs convert power to DC so effectively don't flicker at all). Bottom line, lighting in most houses does flicker, but too fast for normal, direct perception. If their lights flickered at 20 ms as you suggest, people certainly would complain. Well, except in dilbertland, because the laws of physics don't apply there, apparently.

 

[Loswr]

none here - myself included - is in denial of the fact, that DSLRs still sell in much higher numbers than mirrorless cameras, even though the sales statistics are quite "muddy". But the interesting question is: WHY is it that way?

#1 reason is because neither Canon nor Nikon have yet launched compelling mirrorless systems. Not with APS-C sensor. And none at all with FF sensor. I am convinced, once they do, [and if priced reasonably!], unit sales will rapidly turn in favor of MILCs over DSLRs.

There are no longer significant technical obstacles to build solid state cameras today with overall functionality clearly superior to any DSLR. Even better EVFs, somewhat better AF systems, higher capacity batteries, global shutter ... technically and economically all very doable in 2016.

With respect, who cares if you are convinced (besides you, of course)? If Canon and Nikon were convinced that they could improve their sales/profits by driving production and sales toward mirrorless, they'd have done so already. The bottom line is that ILC sales as a whole are dropping, and MILCs don't offer any sort of salvation for dSLR market leaders. Other makers are pushing MILCs not because they're 'superior' (except in the AvTvM universe on the bank of the DeNile River) but simply because they cannot effectively compete with Canon and Nikon for dSLR sales.

 

[Don Haines]

none here - myself included - is in denial of the fact, that DSLRs still sell in much higher numbers than mirrorless cameras, even though the sales statistics are quite "muddy". But the interesting question is: WHY is it that way?

#1 reason is because neither Canon nor Nikon have yet launched compelling mirrorless systems. Not with APS-C sensor. And none at all with FF sensor. I am convinced, once they do, [and if priced reasonably!], unit sales will rapidly turn in favor of MILCs over DSLRs.

There are no longer significant technical obstacles to build solid state cameras today with overall functionality clearly superior to any DSLR. Even better EVFs, somewhat better AF systems, higher capacity batteries, global shutter ... technically and economically all very doable in 2016.

+1
I would love to see a 6D2 or 7D3 mirrorless camera come out with the same form factor as its predecessor...... We must not fall into the trap of thinking that mirrorless cameras must be small.....

 

[TAF]

From the context of my posting and the entire thread it was clear to every "normal" person, that I was referring to photographic/functional capabilities. By now, mirrorless camera systems are as capable as almost all most DSLRs ... except the most expensive ones and/or for some specific imaging situations.

Ahhh, but the majority of those "normal" people keep on buying dSLRs instead of MILCs, which indicates that in the minds of the majority of those "normal" people, the only butt being kicked here is the idea that MILCs are equal or better. But hey, you go right ahead and ignore objective reality, even when it's staring you in the face. :

I wonder how much of this is ergonomics? I wonder how many buy DSLRs (particularly the entry ones) and really don't care if it has a mirror or not, because they like the size and feel of it......

I believe, Don, that you hit the nail exactly on the head with "ergonomics".

The western customer walks into a camera store looking for something more than a P+S, and salesman has him play with several cameras. Perhaps a Rebel, an EOS Mx, and a 5D3 (if he gets a commission). Or the Nikon equivalents.

The customer then buys a Rebel or similar DSLR (note the sales figures), because that is what feels right in the hand. The MILC's are too small - it doesn't help their case that they exude P+S, regardless of the reality.

Further, once the customer realizes that the MILC's suffer from too many other additional challenges (too few lenses, or like the Sony the need to cross platform for a decent selection), their initial impression is confirmed. A DLSR is the way to go.

And once lost, those sales are largely not recoverable. If you have a selection of EF lenses, you are not inclined to stray without a VERY good reason. Current state of the art isn't it.

As long as the (Asian) manufacturers of cameras insist that the MILC are going to be vastly smaller than a DSLR, they are limiting their sales to the home market. Which may be large, but it isn't the 'big picture'.

If Canon comes out with a MILC that takes EF's (I would also expect a retro look, simply because they might as well...people will think Leica...and a simple optical viewfinder makes up for many of the limitations), I wouldn't be surprised if that sold well (and got the ball rolling).

 

[TAF]

Not only that but eyes ... "retain" (?) the light they see for a relatively long period of time too.

At 50Hz, the cycle time for the lights (and all of the old CRT TVs) in most houses is 20ms yet nobody ever worried about that.

Is that your opinion? :

Incandescent lights don't flicker perceptibly, because the filament doesn't cool significantly as the power cycles. Fluorescent lights with magnetic ballasts do flicker, but they do so at twice the frequency of the current alternation...so that's 10 ms for 50 Hz power. Of course no one complains about that, since the typical flicker fusion threshold is ~13 ms. Modern lighting – fluorescent with electronic ballasts, LED – also usually flicker, although electronic-ballast fluorescent lighting flickers in the µs range (kHz range), and LEDs flicker at 100 or 120 Hz (although some bulbs convert power to DC so effectively don't flicker at all). Bottom line, lighting in most houses does flicker, but too fast for normal, direct perception. If their lights flickered at 20 ms as you suggest, people certainly would complain. Well, except in dilbertland, because the laws of physics don't apply there, apparently.

Actually, there have been some studies that show that the 120 Hz flicker of fluorescent lights is very much perceptible, and is the source of migraines for many people (like my wife).

Fortunately, properly designed LED lamps do not flicker. Even the cheap ones flicker much less than fluorescents.

 

[j-nord]

I would love to see a 6D2 or 7D3 mirrorless camera come out with the same form factor as its predecessor...... We must not fall into the trap of thinking that mirrorless cameras must be small.....

7D3 is one of the last cameras that should be mirrorless... Action/sports/wildlife camera with EVF delay? LOL

 

[Loswr]

Bottom line, lighting in most houses does flicker, but too fast for normal, direct perception.

Actually, there have been some studies that show that the 120 Hz flicker of fluorescent lights is very much perceptible, and is the source of migraines for many people (like my wife).

Fortunately, properly designed LED lamps do not flicker. Even the cheap ones flicker much less than fluorescents.

By 'normal, direct perception' I mean conscious perception and the concomitant ability to correctly report whether a light source is flickering or not. That differs from other ways the flicker could be perceived, either stroboscopically or subconsciously. Those are real...just not direct, and they occur far less frequently.

Regarding LED lighting, Cree (a maker of them) tested about 100 different bulbs from many vendors and reported that 65% flickered at 100-120 Hz (8% flickered much faster and 27% were DC with no flicker). Of the 65% that flickered, 70% had an acceptable 'percent flicker', i.e. the amplitude of the intensity change was sufficiently low. So fortunately for your wife, about 80% of LED lamps are 'properly designed' (even though the majority of them do flicker).