Will dSLR's be sustained only by nostalgia?

[Aussie shooter]

I'm not talking about a workaround with current products, I'm talking about future improved EVF products that meet your needs. Inevitable.

That means you assume that an EVF can be made to work at the speed of light. Fact is there will ALWAYS be lag. it is a matter of whether that lag can be reduced enough for serious wildlife photographers. Clearly you are not a serious wildlife photographer so you probably have little understanding of what that niche entails but trust me. Meeting the needs of wildlife photographers is not 'inevitable' for mirrorless. It is a serious challenge

 

[Kit.]

It would be nice to have an analog film camera and a few rolls of film to record what happened after an EMP attack.

My dentist still uses film for X-ray.

 

[koenkooi]

That means you assume that an EVF can be made to work at the speed of light. Fact is there will ALWAYS be lag. it is a matter of whether that lag can be reduced enough for serious wildlife photographers. Clearly you are not a serious wildlife photographer so you probably have little understanding of what that niche entails but trust me. Meeting the needs of wildlife photographers is not 'inevitable' for mirrorless. It is a serious challenge

I wonder how long the M6II burst mode can be active in pre-shot mode on a single battery charge. It's electronic shutter only on the M6II, I don't know if that's a problem for serious wildlife.
Apart from battery issues, this would also fill your storage very, very quickly.

 

[Optics Patent]

That means you assume that an EVF can be made to work at the speed of light.

You have successfully won the argument against your own hallucination that you know what I assume. Congratulations.

Now if others wish to discuss whether overcoming perceptible lag without reaching the limits of physics will meet the needs of wildlife photographers, I’m all ears.

I’m equally interested in learning about the special needs of such applications besides the presumed battery life concerns with long term surveillance.

 

[YuengLinger]

That means you assume that an EVF can be made to work at the speed of light. Fact is there will ALWAYS be lag. it is a matter of whether that lag can be reduced enough for serious wildlife photographers. Clearly you are not a serious wildlife photographer so you probably have little understanding of what that niche entails but trust me. Meeting the needs of wildlife photographers is not 'inevitable' for mirrorless. It is a serious challenge

I'm seeing incredible 4k video of wildlife on BBC documentaries and others. Looks to me like the videographer is using an EVF to frame and to capture. Perhaps they use an optical spotting scope while waiting for the moment to begin filming? They sure track well enough. . I think technologically it's happening, just not in Canon prosumer products yet, not at a price point Canon thinks is viable.

Of course video capture is different than still, but I have faith that the big players can and will make EVF that distracts no more than the barely perceptible mirror blackout of dSLR's. Just a matter of processing power in a body that doesn't cost more than the market will bear.

 

[Nelu]

Fact is there will ALWAYS be lag.

Are you sure about that?
Sony A9 blackout

 

[Kit.]

I'm seeing incredible 4k video of wildlife on BBC documentaries and others. Looks to me like the videographer is using an EVF to frame and to capture. Perhaps they use an optical spotting scope while waiting for the moment to begin filming?

Or perhaps their framing is not tight enough for a photographer, unless they are shooting subjects that are close to stationary.

Are you sure about that?
Sony A9 blackout

You seem to confuse a lag with a blackout. This youtube image shows the lag of at least 2 frames (at least 1/15 s, based on its 30fps rate) if you watch it frame by frame (you can move frame by frame on youtube by using ',' and '.' buttons).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Here's my main assertion: We only need a significant (not "revolutionary) improvement in EVF's, a little faster burst rate, and IBIS to see the nostalgic appeal of dSLR's give way to using what works best. I don't care how experienced a photographer, how flawless the technique, if, spec for spec a mirrorless approaches the performance of a dSLR, mirrorless will be chosen.

The thing is, ergonomics are not really part of a ‘spec’. If Canon (or someone else) makes a mirrorless ‘pro’ body (i.e. 1-series) in the current ‘pro’ form factor and an improved EVF, I would have no problem replacing my 1D X with such a camera. If Canon makes a ‘pro‘ mirrorless that improves on the 1-series DSLR line with a faster frame rate, IBIS, and other bells and whistles, but in an R- or Sony a9-like Form factor, I would absolutely not choose the mirrorless.

Battery grips flex and add vibration when on a tripod. Cameras without the portrait grip and the longer landscape grip that comes with it become uncomfortable for me to hold after an hour or so, particularly with a heavy lens attached e.g. a 70-200/2.8. The heavier body also counterbalances the heavy lens more effectively.

So personally, I completely disagree with your assertion. I don’t choose a camera for the spec sheet, I choose a camera to enable my photography, and being able to hold and use the camera comfortably for long periods of time with an f/2.8 zoom on it is critical. My EOS R is a nice camera, great for occasional use and for travel where most use is on a tripod, but no camera with that or a similar form factor will ever by my main body.

 

[YuengLinger]

The thing is, ergonomics are not really part of a ‘spec’. If Canon (or someone else) makes a mirrorless ‘pro’ body (i.e. 1-series) in the current ‘pro’ form factor and an improved EVF, I would have no problem replacing my 1D X with such a camera. If Canon makes a ‘pro‘ mirrorless that improves on the 1-series DSLR line with a faster frame rate, IBIS, and other bells and whistles, but in an R- or Sony a9-like Form factor, I would absolutely not choose the mirrorless.

Battery grips flex and add vibration when on a tripod. Cameras without the portrait grip and the longer landscape grip that comes with it become uncomfortable for me to hold after an hour or so, particularly with a heavy lens attached e.g. a 70-200/2.8. The heavier body also counterbalances the heavy lens more effectively.

So personally, I completely disagree with your assertion. I don’t choose a camera for the spec sheet, I choose a camera to enable my photography, and being able to hold and use the camera comfortably for long periods of time with an f/2.8 zoom on it is critical. My EOS R is a nice camera, great for occasional use and for travel where most use is on a tripod, but no camera with that or a similar form factor will ever by my main body.

Excellent point. Even with (or because of) my relatively small hands, I have real trouble balancing the ef 70-100mm f/2.8L IS II on the R when in portrait orientation. The lens is front heavy, the adapter adds length, and the shape and weight of the R just make it very difficult for me to keep the rig steady.

I'm just taking for granted that ergonomics will be better in a "5D version" Rf mount body, and a that Canon will put out, eventually, a mirrorless comparable in size and weight to the 1D series. In other words, I'm hoping. Fingers crossed.

Good reminder about how battery grips introduce flex to the set up.

Perhaps I'm being myopic. For portrait photography, the R beats anything I've ever used before. I'd say it's great for landscape too, and it can be, but the weather sealing isn't as reassuring as it could be. Of course sports and wildlife photographers, and those who don't like the "fit" of the camera, won't be so rah-rah.

 

[AlanF]

My dentist still uses film for X-ray.

Mine doesn't - he's digital. He's Swedish and spends half his time in the UK, and Swedish dentistry is superb.

 

[unfocused]

I really don't understand the religious fervor of some mirrorless users. I own and like the R. It has strengths that a DSLR does not have. I use it when I need or prefer those advantages. But, I also own and use both the 5DIV and 1Dx II. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

My opinion is that some of these strengths and weaknesses may be inherent to the formats/technology and aren't likely to just disappear with a new iteration.

Too many mirrorless proselytizers seem hell bent not just on reaching mirrorless heaven, but on condemning DSLRs to eternal damnation.

I admit that I enjoy playing devils advocate, in part because of the outrage it elicits.

As I have tried to explain before, I think it's kind of silly to extol the virtues of mirrorless by looking to some future promised land of technological advancement and then compare that dream camera to today's DSLRs, without acknowledging that Canon will improve on DSLRs in the future as well.

If there are future improvements that will extend the life of batteries for mirrorless cameras, those same improvements will mean even more efficient use of power for DSLRs (which we have already seen in the 1Dx III). So, for example, when one argues that a future mirrorless will resolve the energy consumption problems that today's bodies face, one needs to also recognize that those same efficiencies may actually mean the gap between DSLRs and mirrorless could widen, not narrow.

I also enjoy watching the mirrorless believers move the goalposts. We were told that mirrorless would be smaller. Hasn't happened. We were told mirrorless would be cheaper. Hasn't happened. So now, they are saying it will be better. We will see if that happens.

On the other hand, it does appear Canon is taking some of what they have learned from mirrorless and incorporating it into DSLRs. For me, one of the greatest advantages of mirrorless is the tactile selection of autofocus points. It appears Canon is moving toward a functional equivalent in DSLRs (again using the 1Dx III as the model). Achieving that could breathe new life into DSLRs, especially if DSLRs continue to maintain the other autofocus advantages that they enjoy today over mirrorless.

Yes, it would be in my best interest to have a single format that does everything well. It would save me money, time and trouble. But, I recognize that Canon may have another agenda. If they succeeded in luring me into buying three full frame bodies, why would they want to offer me a single body that does it all, even if they could? To those who suggest that somehow R&D dollars for DSLRs will dry up, please explain why Canon would walk away from such a large and lucrative market.

I'm frankly agnostic about the formats. I'm going to enjoy watching Canon develop and improve on both mirrorless and DSLR formats and admire their ability to have me reaching for my wallet. If I live long enough, I expect there will still be people on this forum confidently swearing that the 5D XII is going to be Canon's last DSLR.

 

[Aussie shooter]

You have successfully won the argument against your own hallucination that you know what I assume. Congratulations.

Now if others wish to discuss whether overcoming perceptible lag without reaching the limits of physics will meet the needs of wildlife photographers, I’m all ears.

I’m equally interested in learning about the special needs of such applications besides the presumed battery life concerns with long term surveillance.

Obviously you failed to read the rest of my post just after the bit you quoted.

 

[Optics Patent]

Excellent point. Even with (or because of) my relatively small hands, I have real trouble balancing the ef 70-100mm f/2.8L IS II on the R when in portrait orientation. The lens is front heavy, the adapter adds length, and the shape and weight of the R just make it very difficult for me to keep the rig steady.

This is the profound advantage of the RF70-200. The (lighter) center of mass is just 3" forward of the flange at 70, and 4" forward at 200. It shoots like a mid-range 2.8 zoom.

 

[Optics Patent]

Obviously you failed to read the rest of my post just after the bit you quoted.

You seem nice. Thanks for sharing your insights into your enthusiasm. Happy to have learned what you think.

 

[Optics Patent]

I really don't understand the religious fervor of some mirrorless users. I own and like the R. It has strengths that a DSLR does not have. I use it when I need or prefer those advantages. But, I also own and use both the 5DIV and 1Dx II. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Both sides are opinionated, but the mirrorless folks seem far more cheerful, which is understandable because our favored technology is ascending, not disappointing before our eyes. Maybe happy people are more prone to look at new technology, who knows? I was hoping to learn why live view of nature is so important besides battery life, and asked politely. Do you know?

 

[jd7]

Both sides are opinionated, but the mirrorless folks seem far more cheerful, which is understandable because our favored technology is ascending, not disappointing before our eyes. Maybe happy people are more prone to look at new technology, who knows? I was hoping to learn why live view of nature is so important besides battery life, and asked politely. Do you know?

I don't do serious nature photography but my understanding is the issues with an EVF for nature photography are:

eye strain - which seems to be an inherent issue with screens, at least with existing technology - because people may be spending very long amounts of time continuously with their eye to the viewfinder as they watch and wait for the opportunity to get the shot they want

lag - the opportunity to get a shot may be fleeting, and unlike many sports where you at least have some opportunity to anticipate what is going to happen and could take a burst covering the relevant moment if you didn't want to rely on timing your shot, you may not have much if any warning of when the interesting moment is likely to happen so taking bursts may not be the answer

battery life - spending very long amounts of time continuously with your eye to the viewfinder means you are chewing up batteries if the viewfinder is an EVF. As battery technology improves and the components of a camera (including any EVF) become more power efficient, battery life may (or may not) cease to be a practical issue, ie even if a DSLR would go for longer on a single battery, a mirrorless camera may last long enough - we will see.

exposure preview in the EVF may not be something a nature photographer wants to use, because they may want to keep their eyes adjusted to the ambient light rather than look at relatively bright image in a viewfinder and then have to readjust when they take their eye away from the viewfinder. I assume you can make an EVF dim so that isn't a problem if you want, but what I'm saying is that one perceived advantage of a EVF may be lost at least to some degree on nature photographers.

I'll be interested to see if those doing serious nature photography correct and/or add to that list.

On another note, from what I read around the internet, my feeling is that it's the mirrorless folk who often seem more determined to say that mirrorless is a fundamental change and mirrorless is so much better than DSLRs that DSLRs will be swept away, while the DSLR folks are more likely to be happy for others to use and enjoy mirrorless cameras while simply pointing out that DSLRs still offer some things (at least at this point in time) which some people consider advantages so DSLRs shouldn't be written off.

As I've said many times before, for my own part I ultimately do not care whether there is a mirror in my camera or not. I do care about how much I enjoy using my camera for photography - and how much I enjoy it reflects in part the results I get and in part what the process of taking photos is like. At least with current EVF tech, I simply enjoy the process of taking photos less with an EVF than an OVF. Whether that will change at some point as EVF tech develops, or whether mirrorless will ultimately offer advantages which mean I decide to put up with an EVF to get those advantages, we will see. I am pretty happy with my existing DSLR gear though, so I'm not betting I will buy a mirrorless camera anytime soon (and perhaps I never will?). But as has been said by others above, there is no reason to think DSLR tech will stand still either, so we will have to see how DSLRs develop as well as how mirrorless cameras develop. (I, for one, am looking forward to independent reviews of how the 1DX III's AF performs for accuracy with wide apertures compared with mirrorless cameras.)

 

[Aussie shooter]

I don't do serious nature photography but my understanding is the issues with an EVF for nature photography are:

eye strain - which seems to be an inherent issue with screens, at least with existing technology - because people may be spending very long amounts of time continuously with their eye to the viewfinder as they watch and wait for the opportunity to get the shot they want

lag - the opportunity to get a shot may be fleeting, and unlike many sports where you at least have some opportunity to anticipate what is going to happen and could take a burst covering the relevant moment if you didn't want to rely on timing your shot, you may not have much if any warning of when the interesting moment is likely to happen so taking bursts may not be the answer

battery life - spending very long amounts of time continuously with your eye to the viewfinder means you are chewing up batteries if the viewfinder is an EVF. As battery technology improves and the components of a camera (including any EVF) become more power efficient, battery life may (or may not) cease to be a practical issue, ie even if a DSLR would go for longer on a single battery, a mirrorless camera may last long enough - we will see.

exposure preview in the EVF may not be something a nature photographer wants to use, because they may want to keep their eyes adjusted to the ambient light rather than look at relatively bright image in a viewfinder and then have to readjust when they take their eye away from the viewfinder. I assume you can make an EVF dim so that isn't a problem if you want, but what I'm saying is that one perceived advantage of a EVF may be lost at least to some degree on nature photographers.

I'll be interested to see if those doing serious nature photography correct and/or add to that list.

On another note, from what I read around the internet, my feeling is that it's the mirrorless folk who often seem more determined to say that mirrorless is a fundamental change and mirrorless is so much better than DSLRs that DSLRs will be swept away, while the DSLR folks are more likely to be happy for others to use and enjoy mirrorless cameras while simply pointing out that DSLRs still offer some things (at least at this point in time) which some people consider advantages so DSLRs shouldn't be written off.

As I've said many times before, for my own part I ultimately do not care whether there is a mirror in my camera or not. I do care about how much I enjoy using my camera for photography - and how much I enjoy it reflects in part the results I get and in part what the process of taking photos is like. At least with current EVF tech, I simply enjoy the process of taking photos less with an EVF than an OVF. Whether that will change at some point as EVF tech develops, or whether mirrorless will ultimately offer advantages which mean I decide to put up with an EVF to get those advantages, we will see. I am pretty happy with my existing DSLR gear though, so I'm not betting I will buy a mirrorless camera anytime soon (and perhaps I never will?). But as has been said by others above, there is no reason to think DSLR tech will stand still either, so we will have to see how DSLRs develop as well as how mirrorless cameras develop. (I, for one, am looking forward to independent reviews of how the 1DX III's AF performs for accuracy with wide apertures compared with mirrorless cameras.)

That list pretty mich hits the nail on the head. Tbh though battery life is fast becoming a minor issue as technology improves but the eye strain and the lag(as minor as it may seem to some) may never be fixed unless there is some new technology coming that we dont know about.

 

[stevelee]

but the mirrorless folks seem far more cheerful,

Cheerful, or gloating?

 

[Kit.]

Cheerful, or gloating?

Obsessed.

 

[AlanF]

Obsessed.

Like new converts to a religion or members of a new cult.