Martin P Wilson Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 If you don't believe the dslr is obsolescent even for professional use and will become a niche product like view cameras, medium format, film ... Think about this piece at Fuji Rumors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 I am beginning to regard my DSLR the same way I used to regard my film 4X5. Not something you want to carry around unless you enjoy pain. This photojournalist just moved over from DSLR Canon to mirrorless Sony A7. LIFE, CNN, and Reuters are his regular customers. http://zoranmilich.com/#/GOTHAMATIC/GOTHAMATIC/1/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Thanks for that, Martin. Looks like there may be one fly in the ointment, being the way the X-t1 handles foliage. Watercolor effect that may be caused by in-camera noise reduction? When mine comes, I'll be sure to test it out. Although I don't do a ton of landscapes, I do shoot other things with trees in them. (birds). Also, if I'm shooting a butterfly, I want the flower/leaves to be sharp. So far, images I've seen with the X-t1 showing, for instance, a tree limb with blooms, the image was perfect. Maybe this defect is only apparent at high ISOs. Generally, when I take outdoor images, I have good light. If that problem only rears its head at high ISOs, I'm good to go. Your point, and what it means for me, if Fuji gives me a great super tele, this system could replace my Nikons. Wow, wouldn't that be something. I have the X-t1, 10-24, and 56 on order. I signed up for a B&H notification for when the remote comes in. I want a polarizer and maybe some kind of Neutral Density filter, too, (for the wide tele) so I can smooth water. Fuji is coming out with a super zoom, but no specs on the range, yet, or when it will be announced in general. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 I can't say I have noticed the watercolour effect but then I haven't shot much foliage (not much around at the moment!) especially as in-camera jpgs, I use raw and convert 98% of the time. As others have shown you can shoot sport with a Fuji. After all some great sports photos (think Bob Beaman's long jump) were shot on film, with manual exposure, no autofocus or motorwind. I made a living doing that for a few years. Even with my Canon 1Ds3 I can't just point it at a moving subject and expect it to focus instantly. I need to use servo focus, pick up the subject (with half shutter) and give the camera a moment to catch up. When I get an X-T1 I may have to adjust the length of that moment. I will be delighted whenI can give up my heavy DSLR kit, already have for most non-sport stuff and I only have the X-E1. We need to learn the techniques - good photography has never just been point and shoot which so many now expect; even supposed professionals. It is easier now but skill still comes into it to get the best out of any equipment. I am looking forward to the fast zooms and especially the superzoom - Fuji have taken a patent on 85-300 f2.7-3.7 which would be good (120-400 FF equivalent) I would prefer 100-400 tho' (150-600mm equiv) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 I am sure it is only a slip of the finger Martin but won't the super zoom be 125 - 450 FF equivalent? Not to the exact penny but near enough. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Tucker Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 hmmm, well I use the Fuji X-E1 and they are a great carry about camera, I often go in the mountains and wild camp to take pictures. I have stopped taking the D800 for this. But I disagree that the bell tolls for the DSLR, not yet anyway. Personally I prefer the ergonomics of a DSLR for normal use and the mirrorless have a long way to go with fps, AF tracking and resolution in many cases. I think they will probably get there but when you (or they) say obsolete for professional use I think they are forgetting about sports and wildlife photography and probably studio work. Mirrorless sales are down too are they not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 I'm in the process of shooting upwards of 1,000 jewelry images. I'm on 200, long way to go. (very lucrative for me) I'm using my D800. These involve heavy cropping, sometimes down to a 2200 longest side image. So I'm happy to have those 36mp images to be left with a decent sized images. Not sure what would happen with a 16mp image. The web designer wants as large as I can give her. I can't see getting rid of the Nikon, yet, but I can see using the Fuji for 75% of what I do. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 I did not say obsolete, I said obsolescent - heading towards becoming obsolete.I also said like MF and view cameras, dslrs will become a niche device for specialist purposes (like Betty's jewelry or sport, at least at the moment). They are not yet as good as the best slrs but are getting close to the capability of many dslrs of only a few years ago and there is no reason why they should not be as good - after all that is really different is the viewfinder which liberates us from all that electro-mechanical flapping mirror stufff (tends to be less reliable than electronics). My guess is by 2020 (possibly earlier) the dslr will have all but disappeared except for some niches (and I don't think sport will be one of them) Not all mirrorless have modest pixel count - Sony A77R for example? As a long time sports photographer I will enjoy it more and get better results if I can halve the weight and bulk of my kit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 I am sure it is only a slip of the finger Martin but won't the super zoom be 125 - 450 FF equivalent? Not to the exact penny but near enough. Allan Indeed it was! I was obviously thinking of the actual range that I wanted not the equivalent for the patent spec! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Thanks for that, Martin. Looks like there may be one fly in the ointment, being the way the X-t1 handles foliage. Watercolor effect that may be caused by in-camera noise reduction? When mine comes, I'll be sure to test it out. Although I don't do a ton of landscapes, I do shoot other things with trees in them. (birds). Also, if I'm shooting a butterfly, I want the flower/leaves to be sharp. So far, images I've seen with the X-t1 showing, for instance, a tree limb with blooms, the image was perfect. Maybe this defect is only apparent at high ISOs. Generally, when I take outdoor images, I have good light. If that problem only rears its head at high ISOs, I'm good to go. Your point, and what it means for me, if Fuji gives me a great super tele, this system could replace my Nikons. Wow, wouldn't that be something. I have the X-t1, 10-24, and 56 on order. I signed up for a B&H notification for when the remote comes in. I want a polarizer and maybe some kind of Neutral Density filter, too, (for the wide tele) so I can smooth water. Fuji is coming out with a super zoom, but no specs on the range, yet, or when it will be announced in general. Betty The Foliage / Watercolour issue was from a long time back and it was the result of excessive Noise Reduction & Sharpening in camera when the X-Pro first came out. You could reduce both settings to remove it if you used jpg. That said, they've come on a lot since then and this is something of a historic problem. As far as Raw files go, Adobe were well known to not be the best at handling these files and the default colours were poor and prone to suffer from the "Watercolour Effect". The likes of Capture One, Iridient Developer, Noise Ninja etc have better control / processing of the X Trans files and as such, the odd occasion it does crop up, it'a easily removed with a few tweaks of the sharpening tools etc. Adobes new Camera Raw 8.4 Beta seems a lot better but is still behind the others in terms of detail. What it can offer though is access to presets that match the Astia, Velvia and other films types etc. Fuji have been working with them to get this right apparently! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 hmmm, well I use the Fuji X-E1 and they are a great carry about camera, I often go in the mountains and wild camp to take pictures. I have stopped taking the D800 for this. But I disagree that the bell tolls for the DSLR, not yet anyway. Personally I prefer the ergonomics of a DSLR for normal use and the mirrorless have a long way to go with fps, AF tracking and resolution in many cases. I think they will probably get there but when you (or they) say obsolete for professional use I think they are forgetting about sports and wildlife photography and probably studio work. Mirrorless sales are down too are they not. I don't think fps is an issue, the X-T1 manages 8fps quite easily. Where they do need to improve further is the tracking capabilities. The X-T1 does a great job but it is still a bit off DSLR. If they can provide more PDAF focus points across the entire image it would be great. I've been able to track and capture good shots of a fast moving puppy. I find it's my skills rather than the camera that lets me down most often . Resolution, yeah, it would be nice to get up to 20-24mp.... but not at the expense of high ISO performance. The X-T1 with vertical grip is great for studio work but Fuji need to come up with some fast long lenses to make inroads on the Sport / Wildlife scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kilpatrick Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Was showing two or three photographers my A7R with Kipon shift adaptor and 20mm Canon FDn lens at a photo show yesterday. Amazement but also liking the size and feel of the camera. I can get roughly 5mm shift from the 20mm, which actually works out at a fairly useful correction. Now I'm on a hunt to find out which, of all the old classic manual focus wide angles around 17-21mm, has the largest usable imaging circle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 This is interesting to me, if for no other reason than the fact I actually like a larger camera. I prefer it. I like the ergonomics, the size of the controls. I use a D700 (always with attached vertical grip) and D4. Sometimes older bodies like D3, but they're all much a muchness size-wise. I've tried the X100 and the Nikon DF and other smaller-bodied beasties . . . but still I actually prefer the bigger D700/D4. Coupled with my not-too-small hands, a good elasticized strap and wander-lust, my D700 can rest easily that when I eventually replace her, it'll be with a similarly sized machine. I'm surely not alone in this . . . ummm . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Medium format...a niche market....Stephan Schulz, the Head of Professional Photo at Leica Camera AG.....talking about the move into medium format in 2013 http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/09/leica-s-system-interview-at-forbes.com "Among other observations, Schulz told Forbes that as photojournalists earn less and less, Leica 'needed a product that could appeal to the kind of professional photographers who are able to afford a professional camera. Today, these photographers predominantly work in fashion and commercial photography. They need a different type of camera than photojournalists who use the Leica M.' I'm with DD on this, I like a bigger camera, use a tripod most of the time, I have no need for smaller cameras - quite the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Yates Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 This is interesting to me, if for no other reason than the fact I actually like a larger camera. I prefer it. I like the ergonomics, the size of the controls. I use a D700 (always with attached vertical grip) and D4. Sometimes older bodies like D3, but they're all much a muchness size-wise. I've tried the X100 and the Nikon DF and other smaller-bodied beasties . . . but still I actually prefer the bigger D700/D4. Coupled with my not-too-small hands, a good elasticized strap and wander-lust, my D700 can rest easily that when I eventually replace her, it'll be with a similarly sized machine. I'm surely not alone in this . . . ummm . . . dd I also like the feel of the bigger camera and agree about the D700, however i have recently purchased the Fuji X-PRO1 and it certainly has it's place as a great walkabout camera and has a certain convenience in some situations. My big dislike is the shutter action there is nothing like the press and click of a DSLR button. The Fuji is light but almost too light whereas the D700 is a solid beast,maybe I need to tie it to a brick for it to feel more comfortable. So for me my DSLR is here to stay and will work side by side with the Fuji, but you can see the mirrorless cameras evolving further they are a long way off matching the DSLR capabilities on many fronts but image quality is already there. ThIs picture was taken in a crowded cafe with an 18mm lens and if i had used my D700 i would have knocked the table behind me as i pulled the camera out to take the shot, but the convenience of the smaller camera made the taking of the image quick and simple and it tasted quite good as well, and before anyone mentions it I wish i had swapped the coffee cups round so a clean one appeared in the background, a good reason to go back for another scone me thinks. Regards Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 When I first got my X-Pro1 I tried it out in the studio. I deemed it not being worthy of studio photography because of focus speed. I tried the XT-1 in studio last Saturday. I was completely blown away with the image quality - I don't have the 56mm lens yet but I was using the 35mm (50mm equivalent). One thing I learned (and would have known had I bothered to read the manual) was that at Low ISO (100 iso) the camera does not record in RAW - native iso to the camera is 200 iso. When I got back home to edit photos, I was a little bothered by this in that the camera only recorded jpg images. The jpgs right out of the camera were awesome and I edited them no problem in Lightroom and Photoshop CC. The only edits were small changes to lighting (which I could have done on set). Eyes were in focus, color was accurate, detail was perfect. My only dilemna is whether I'll be selling my Canon gear via eBay or just sending it all to B&H. I'm not in any hurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 ...forgot to mention, if you are shooting in studio, you must change the view finder setting in the menu of the XT-1 so that you can actually see what you are shooting otherwise you are going to see what the camera sees (more than likely almost complete darkness if using flash in studio). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 ...forgot to mention, if you are shooting in studio, you must change the view finder setting in the menu of the XT-1 so that you can actually see what you are shooting otherwise you are going to see what the camera sees (more than likely almost complete darkness if using flash in studio). Second that. The setting is "Preview Exp. In Manual Mode" within Screen Set Up (Blue Menu Section). Set it to off when using flash/strobe. If you are using it as a studio camera, try the Vertical Grip (if you haven't already). It's handy having the extra battery and if you have the camera on a tripod/magic arm etc, you can replace the battery without detaching the camera from the tripod/rig. The camera uses the V Grip battery first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Tucker Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 This is interesting to me, if for no other reason than the fact I actually like a larger camera. I prefer it. I like the ergonomics, the size of the controls. I use a D700 (always with attached vertical grip) and D4. Sometimes older bodies like D3, but they're all much a muchness size-wise. I've tried the X100 and the Nikon DF and other smaller-bodied beasties . . . but still I actually prefer the bigger D700/D4. Coupled with my not-too-small hands, a good elasticized strap and wander-lust, my D700 can rest easily that when I eventually replace her, it'll be with a similarly sized machine. I'm surely not alone in this . . . ummm . . . dd +1 as I too said earlier, so you are not alone ergonomics play a big part in this and buttons and dials are a part of this, it is far easier to use buttons and dials that are in the right place than it is to start going into a menu system. The D800 and D4S just work for me ergonomically. The X-E1 even though I have added a grip does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I think it is a matter of what we are used to. I've shot Nikon since seriously entering photography. I love the ergonomics. Yet, for people (like me) who have arthritic hands, spine problems, and such, weight is a consideration. A few years ago, I took my Nikon gear in a sling bag to the San Diego zoo. Hubby took one section, I took another, since we knew we'd never be able to cover it all together. We arranged a meeting point. Halfway through my area, the pain became so great in my back that I got spasms and I could barely breathe. And that was changing the way the bag crossed my body every 10 minutes. I had to quit, go to the meeting spot, set my bag at my feet and wait for hubby. I barely made it to the car in a large parking lot. Think now of a small setup like the Fuji X-T1, with a couple of lenses. Would I be able to cover the zoo and still be able to breathe? I think so. If young and healthy, going small wouldn't be so important. Things change, thanks to a guy driving a pickup who plowed into the back of my car some years ago. That, added to arthritis I've had since being in my 20s fixed my wagon. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I'd love a mirrorless than can do all.Especially after my accident last April tripping over a brick that was behind a door and flying into the sidewalk...My whole right side starts to act up when the temps change or humidity gets bad. The problem I encountered when I had the Oly OMD EM5 or Fuji's(X Pro 1 or EX 1) is the fact that for events I need to add a flash and my choice flash bracket and cable. I need a powerful flash but at the same time the bigger flash is too top heavy for the smaller systems. As far as cables go,every single one I had broke within days.Nikon makes the best,never had one break with my DSLRs. Another issue at the time was a fast long range zoom that doesn't way 20x more than the camera. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Have a look at my last post on here Fuji X-T1 vs Sony RX10? David? Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imagery by Charly Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Three years ago, I walked into a store to buy my first DSLR. A Canon was the planned purchase, but the salesman asked if he could show me another camera. I said sure and he pulled out a mirrorless Sony, telling me all the advantages compared to a mirrored camera. Not knowing anything about DSLRs, I wound up buying the Sony SLT and not a day has passed that I've regretted that decision. Though I've gone through many a times being told I should've bought a Canon or Nikon. lol I did find it too lightweight, so was glad to find out the old Minolta film lenses fit on my camera to give it some weight. Plus I love those lenses and they also fit the Minolta Maxxum 7 35mm film camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Charly, the thread is about mirrorless, not fixed-mirror. They have the lighter lenses which don't have to clear the mirror. They are a bit lighter though, and my A55 gathers far less dust than the old A350 I dropped on the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imagery by Charly Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I know as I did say I bought a Sony SLT mirrorless and I only dislike the lightweight to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.