4 ms·

Is photography dead? Far from it, it’s just that phone cameras are good enough to replace DSLRs or full-featured P&S for most users. DSLRs are pretty much dea

Is photography dead? Far from it, it’s just that phone cameras are good enough to replace DSLRs or full-featured P&S for most users. DSLRs are pretty much dead. The handful of pros I know either have or plan to transition to mirrorless. Or, a few shoot medium format. Most of my friends have at least one mirrorless. Sometimes several. Along with a stack of both current and vintage lenses. But, they’re a well-to-do crowd with hipster tendencies, so YMMV. My parents had several film SLRs over the decades. But when their Pentax was stolen on a vacation in the late-90s or early-00s, they didn’t replace it. They got a compact P&S and now rely on their phones. The SLR was only ever used for snapshots, not photograhpy as a hobby. Personally, I grew up using their SLR plus a pile of cheap or disposable P&S. Then a few compact digitals. Bought my first DSLR in my mid-20s to get better family shots. Transitioned to a mirrorless about 10 years ago, have two bodies and a pile of lenses, but 90% of the time just use my phone. The cameras only come out for events, vacation, or on the odd occasion the mood hits.

asdff 4y ago
I don't know why pros who already have gear would move to mirrorless. Its a step back for them. Battery life gets slashed by 2/3rds at least. AF is probably worse. Plus now you need to buy into a new lens ecosystem for the first time in 40 years.
- fomine3 4y ago
  Isn't AF significantly improved since the sensor always receives signals?
  - ehnto 4y ago
    I think this is true, in my experience it is. Only difference might be speed of acquiring focus but that could have just been lens and general camera differences, not because the core concept is slower.
  - etrautmann 4y ago
    I'm (somewhat sure) the DSLR allowed for a separate light path to a separate AF sensor, so now it has to be integrated into the same sensor which has some cost in terms of sensor area and resources devoted to AF vs. regular imaging? Not an expert so please someone correct me.
    - Auracle 4y ago
      As far as I understand it, there’s no AF “sensor” on mirrorless cameras apart from the image sensor itself. They just adjust the focus until maximum contrast is achieved - but obviously it’s more complex than that.
      - miahi 4y ago
        You don't have to think about the physical image sensors as just an array of sensors with 1:1 correspondence in the final picture. There was always a lot of computation in between - bayer filters with more green pixels, different grid patterns, multiple sensors per pixel, more pixels on the sensor than in the actual photo and so on. Recent sensors have AF phase-detect sensors built into the image sensor, by splitting one "pixel" into two sensors (and having lots of them; sometimes in Canon sensors more than half of the pixels have this functionality; on some cameras you can extract the raw image including the different data on those pixels for bigger resolution). The difference between phase detect and contrast being that a phase-detect sensor will give exact values on how to adjust the focus, whilst contrast detection needs focus hunting in small adjustments, so it's slower.
        Auracle 4y ago
        Does that affect overall sensitivity?
        miahi 4y ago
        Probably yes, as it means less actual sensor surface, so it's a tradeoff between better focus and noise. But it's hard to quantify without comparing electrical signals.
  - bitbuilder 4y ago
    Yes. Parent is leaning on the conventional wisdom of 10 years ago regarding mirrorless. The AF on my a7 III is nothing short of miraculous compared to any mirrored camera I've ever used, even in light where I'm shooting at 128k ISO, 1/125, 2.0f. Quick and accurate locks every time. I shot 1000+ photos over 3 hours at an event last week, and honestly I couldn't even tell you how much battery I used. Because I wasn't paying attention, because it's a non-issue. Even if it was, batteries are cheap, small, and easy to swap.
- etrautmann 4y ago
  A few advantages: silent shooting for events like weddings, smaller and lighter bodies and lenses, new lenses with faster / silent AF, fewer moving parts (less to break and smaller batteries).
- devnulll 4y ago
  The reasons are pretty clear: 1) Clearly better lenses for the first time in a generation. 2) Smaller, lighter camera's (to go with better and smaller/lighter glass), and 3) Your old glass works with an adapter, and 4) Focus is better than the DSLR World, even looking at a D6 or similar as the baseline.
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  Like many technologies, the first couple of mirrorless cameras were a step back from DSLRs, but the fundamentals of mirrorless design have allowed them to rocket past the capabilities of any DSLR. Take a look at the Nikon Z9, which is a professional mirrorless and shutterless camera. It can take essentially infinite shots without wearing out. DSLRs need maintenance every few hundred thousand shots, which sounds like a lot, but some pros take 10-20K per day. Timelapse videos especially are murder on DSLRs and can take big chunks out of the shutter mechanism lifetime. The lack of moving parts means it can be totally silent and take full-res shots at 30 fps without mirror blackout. Lower-res shots can be taken at an astonishing 120 fps, which allows photographers to capture fleeting moments that would be missed otherwise. Focus is as-good, if not better than any other DSLR in the world. E.g.: eye-tracking auto-focus is generally not possible on DSLRs because they can't use the full-resolution sensor while the mirror is down, and eyes are too small to recognise with the phase-detect array. They've thrown in 4K and 8K HDR video capture as well, because why not, and this works with the viewfinder. That's not possible on DSLRs because the mirror blocks the viewfinder in video mode.
- Auracle 4y ago
  I shoot weddings/portraits with a Z6ii (mirrorless, $2k) and a D850 (widely regarded as the best DSLR ever made, was $3k - now less). The D850 has much higher resolution. I’d much rather use two Z6iis. The only reason I haven’t upgraded is because I’m anticipating a Z6iii soon and I’d love for it to be ~33mp as I think that’d be the sweet spot for me. The autofocus advantage is huge, and the viewfinder is typically much easier to see. Yeah, I need to swap batteries at least twice as often. One battery still makes it through a 2 hour portrait session just fine.
- lm28469 4y ago
  AF is better since it's based on the actual image and not a reflection from a mirror that may or may not be tweaked Battery life is solved, you get 1000+ shot with modern mirrorless, batteries are $20 a pop
- alistairSH 4y ago
  The only buy-in is the body and an adapter. AFAIK, all of the systems work fine with their SLR predecessor's glass. Pros already change bodies periodically to get the latest features (nowhere near annually, but probably one body every 2.5-5 years, and they'll have 2-3 bodies used in paid gigs). And the bodies are relatively cheap at ~$2000 (half that for a previous generation or enthusiast grade body). Lenses tend to start around $1000, go up to $10k, and a pro will have 10 or more of them.

asdff 4y ago

I don't know why pros who already have gear would move to mirrorless. Its a step back for them. Battery life gets slashed by 2/3rds at least. AF is probably worse. Plus now you need to buy into a new lens ecosystem for the first time in 40 years.

fomine3 4y ago
Isn't AF significantly improved since the sensor always receives signals?
- ehnto 4y ago
  I think this is true, in my experience it is. Only difference might be speed of acquiring focus but that could have just been lens and general camera differences, not because the core concept is slower.
- etrautmann 4y ago
  I'm (somewhat sure) the DSLR allowed for a separate light path to a separate AF sensor, so now it has to be integrated into the same sensor which has some cost in terms of sensor area and resources devoted to AF vs. regular imaging? Not an expert so please someone correct me.
  - Auracle 4y ago
    As far as I understand it, there’s no AF “sensor” on mirrorless cameras apart from the image sensor itself. They just adjust the focus until maximum contrast is achieved - but obviously it’s more complex than that.
    - miahi 4y ago
      You don't have to think about the physical image sensors as just an array of sensors with 1:1 correspondence in the final picture. There was always a lot of computation in between - bayer filters with more green pixels, different grid patterns, multiple sensors per pixel, more pixels on the sensor than in the actual photo and so on. Recent sensors have AF phase-detect sensors built into the image sensor, by splitting one "pixel" into two sensors (and having lots of them; sometimes in Canon sensors more than half of the pixels have this functionality; on some cameras you can extract the raw image including the different data on those pixels for bigger resolution). The difference between phase detect and contrast being that a phase-detect sensor will give exact values on how to adjust the focus, whilst contrast detection needs focus hunting in small adjustments, so it's slower.
      - Auracle 4y ago
        Does that affect overall sensitivity?
        miahi 4y ago
        Probably yes, as it means less actual sensor surface, so it's a tradeoff between better focus and noise. But it's hard to quantify without comparing electrical signals.
- bitbuilder 4y ago
  Yes. Parent is leaning on the conventional wisdom of 10 years ago regarding mirrorless. The AF on my a7 III is nothing short of miraculous compared to any mirrored camera I've ever used, even in light where I'm shooting at 128k ISO, 1/125, 2.0f. Quick and accurate locks every time. I shot 1000+ photos over 3 hours at an event last week, and honestly I couldn't even tell you how much battery I used. Because I wasn't paying attention, because it's a non-issue. Even if it was, batteries are cheap, small, and easy to swap.
etrautmann 4y ago
A few advantages: silent shooting for events like weddings, smaller and lighter bodies and lenses, new lenses with faster / silent AF, fewer moving parts (less to break and smaller batteries).
devnulll 4y ago
The reasons are pretty clear: 1) Clearly better lenses for the first time in a generation. 2) Smaller, lighter camera's (to go with better and smaller/lighter glass), and 3) Your old glass works with an adapter, and 4) Focus is better than the DSLR World, even looking at a D6 or similar as the baseline.
jiggawatts 4y ago
Like many technologies, the first couple of mirrorless cameras were a step back from DSLRs, but the fundamentals of mirrorless design have allowed them to rocket past the capabilities of any DSLR. Take a look at the Nikon Z9, which is a professional mirrorless and shutterless camera. It can take essentially infinite shots without wearing out. DSLRs need maintenance every few hundred thousand shots, which sounds like a lot, but some pros take 10-20K per day. Timelapse videos especially are murder on DSLRs and can take big chunks out of the shutter mechanism lifetime. The lack of moving parts means it can be totally silent and take full-res shots at 30 fps without mirror blackout. Lower-res shots can be taken at an astonishing 120 fps, which allows photographers to capture fleeting moments that would be missed otherwise. Focus is as-good, if not better than any other DSLR in the world. E.g.: eye-tracking auto-focus is generally not possible on DSLRs because they can't use the full-resolution sensor while the mirror is down, and eyes are too small to recognise with the phase-detect array. They've thrown in 4K and 8K HDR video capture as well, because why not, and this works with the viewfinder. That's not possible on DSLRs because the mirror blocks the viewfinder in video mode.
Auracle 4y ago
I shoot weddings/portraits with a Z6ii (mirrorless, $2k) and a D850 (widely regarded as the best DSLR ever made, was $3k - now less). The D850 has much higher resolution. I’d much rather use two Z6iis. The only reason I haven’t upgraded is because I’m anticipating a Z6iii soon and I’d love for it to be ~33mp as I think that’d be the sweet spot for me. The autofocus advantage is huge, and the viewfinder is typically much easier to see. Yeah, I need to swap batteries at least twice as often. One battery still makes it through a 2 hour portrait session just fine.
lm28469 4y ago
AF is better since it's based on the actual image and not a reflection from a mirror that may or may not be tweaked Battery life is solved, you get 1000+ shot with modern mirrorless, batteries are $20 a pop
alistairSH 4y ago
The only buy-in is the body and an adapter. AFAIK, all of the systems work fine with their SLR predecessor's glass. Pros already change bodies periodically to get the latest features (nowhere near annually, but probably one body every 2.5-5 years, and they'll have 2-3 bodies used in paid gigs). And the bodies are relatively cheap at ~$2000 (half that for a previous generation or enthusiast grade body). Lenses tend to start around $1000, go up to $10k, and a pro will have 10 or more of them.