Posted by Holger Streu on November 12, 2014 at 10:31 AM
With recent development of smart phones, tablets and Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens systems, I am wondering, if my old heavy, bulky DSLR is on it’s way out. I have seen some of the image quality, it was not bad. I still prefer a full frame but that will soon also be available to the above mentioned systems.
What about the compatibility of lenses with Canon, Nikon and others. Does any body have any thoughts, opinions or comments on this subject? Will the DSLR be a Dinosaur soon?
As one who uses a camera made in the 1970's on a weekly basis I'd say not to worry. Technology will advance and products will be offered in an attempt to lure the dollar their way. Most of that will take place with the masses and younger generation that really lives in that world of the present not the past. So enjoy the DSLR and keep an open mind on the newer releases of hardware.
For me, the use of an iPhone is at hand all the time. However, photo taking boils down to convenience of snap shots with the unit and nothing more. No doubt the newer products are advancing and there will be the quality, but I do not see myself using an iPhone for landscape work. Again, mind set is my own dinosaur thinking.
Posted by Gary Minish on November 12, 2014 at 1:09 PM
Haven't you guys heard? Full frame, mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras have been here for almost a year already Take a look at the Sony a7, a7R and a7S. These are amazing cameras that will stack up against pretty much any full frame dslr out there and are tiny in comparison. Because the mirrorless camera lenses are much closer to the sensor they are also able to be much smaller for the same amount of light gathering. Sony has emount lens adapters that enable you to use Nikon, Cannon, etc. Lenses but the full frame emount lenses are going to be much smaller for similar performance. I think you might also be impressed with the images from many of the APS-C and 4/3 size mirrorless ICL cameras out there. I recently got the Sony a6000 (APS-C) and 4 emount lenses. My whole system weighs less than my friend's Nikon 300mm prime lens on his D4s. We did a comparison shot with his D4s and 300mm on a tripod and my a6000 with my 55-210 zoom (300 mm equiv) handheld and my image was much higher resolution, sharper and just as clean. In addition, the a6000 has a very fast focus with a large variety of focusing options plus it can shoot at quite high frame rates. Do a Google search and you'll find that there are already some fairly well known professional photographers who have pretty much switched to mirrorless camera systems. I would suggest renting an a7(r)(s) and a couple FE lenses, get familiar with them and compare your results with your current work. Be careful, though, you might find your current system suddenly feeling very much like a Brontosaurus!
I totally agree Gary. Sony looks like they're out in front at this point with some neat stuff. No doubt they all seem to be impressive with the overall weight loss, which is not a bad thing at all. Being able to use adapters for previously owned lenses will help sales overall. Sounds like you're on your way with your recent a6000 unit too. Look forward to seeing some more Alaska images with the new unit.......Enjoy!....
Posted by Roger Clark on November 12, 2014 at 5:58 PM
Some basic physics:
To get the same light, thus same photon noise levels at the sensor, you need the same lens diameter, regardless of sensor size. Thus, it is physically impossible, for example, for a 210 mm lens to deliver the same image quality as a 300 mm lens unless the lens collecting area are the same. For example, a 300 f/2.8 lens has a diameter of 107 mm. The 210 mm lens would also need a 107 mm diameter lens to collect the same amount of light, thus 210 mm f/2.
Bottom line is the smaller lenses on any size camera needs to have the same collecting area for the same performance. Which is more expensive and weighs less: 300 f/2.8 or 210 mm f/2? The f/2 may need more elements to correct for the faster optics. A common misconception is that the sensor controls the noise. No, it is the lens.
What people are seeing in cameras with different sensors is "good enough" image quality for their application, not that they actually produce better image quality (unless of course if one camera has a superb lens and the other a poor lens) It's about the lens, not the body.
Regarding mirrorless, the phase detect AF system needs to monitor the out of focus light field. With on-sensor phase detect, when the image in focus, there is no phase information, so the camera can't tell velocity, direction or acceleration of the subject, so can't track focus unless it lets focus drift off. Thus, DSLRs for tracking action will always have an advantage,
One other thing. A lot is made of the shorter lens to sensor distance to make lenses smaller. As I said above, the lens diameter can not change for the same performance, and with shorter sensor distance, angles of the incoming light to the sensor will be higher in many lens designs. With DSLRs, one uses a telecentric design which requires a different design but means that even with a wide angle lens, the light cone from the lens to the sensor is more normal to the surface, with the result of more efficient microlenses. Bottom line is that better performance of the mirrorless cameras are not established over an optically equivalent DSLR, and weight gain is small.
Perhaps this is why Canon hasn't gone into this area big time. They have brought out some pretty small DSLRs instead.
If you have an array of lenses, and don't need fast action cameras, check the entry level DSLRs for their small weight, and probably similar performance to jumping to a mirrorless alternative.
Roger, sounds like some valid points being made which leads to a couple questions without getting into a hard line on the type of gear aspect.
If the point being made about lens diameters and light sensing for noise issues is an item for concern, and it is obviously, does using the older larger opening lenses with the "e" adapter eliminate or minimize that issue? Or is the opening on the mirrorless units merely choking things down and there is really nothing gained by using the older lens then?
Apparently the thoughts of AF speed does not really benefit by larger lens opening usage for AF tracking as much as the mirrorless units ability to track things if I understand your comment on that item correctly.
Posted by Roger Clark on November 12, 2014 at 9:14 PM
Hi Paul,
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking about using an adapter to mount an existing old dslr lens onto the mirrorless camera? If so, then yes, that would give the same light and same S/N. But then that doesn't help reduce weight of using smaller lenses.
Correct on the AF. For example, the AF of most 300 f/2.8 lenses are very fast. Put it on a nirrorless and initial acquisition could be very fast, but once in focus, there is no more phase detection. Many of these cameras then switch to contrast detect AF, which is quite slow. For landscape photographers, this is not a problem, but is for tracking action.
Roger, your comments above did answer the points I was asking about.....thanks!....
Posted by Holger Streu on November 13, 2014 at 11:14 AM
Wow! With so many opinions, I am still confused. I decided to hang on to my present Equipment, for now and try to get more exercise so that I will be able to carry my precious cargo deep into the wilderness.
Thank you for all of the responses and I will certainly follow the progress carefully.
Posted by Basil Greber on November 16, 2014 at 7:13 PM
For Nikon users, Thom Hogan has very recently had a look at the latest Sony mirrorless-es and Nikon FX cameras:
Thanks Basil, some more interesting points here. Overall there is a situation of constant change in the digital world, seemingly always to the positive side. So, at what point does a person say; that's the best ever and buy to be ahead of the crowd?
Probably never, a good reason I still use film...... ......
The battery life of mirror-less cameras would be deal breaker for me. Suppose you're out in the field, can't get to a place where you can recharge the batteries--you are SOL, unless you carry a pile of spare batteries.
There's also the time lag on the screen update. I really like the view on my D-7100; screen or viewfinder, and oh, the ground glass on my 4x5.
--P
Posted by Roger Clark on November 17, 2014 at 8:24 PM
"The battery life of mirror-less cameras would be deal breaker for me. Suppose you're out in the field, can't get to a place where you can recharge the batteries--you are SOL, unless you carry a pile of spare batteries."
A very small and lightweight solar panel works quite well for such situations.
A very small and lightweight solar panel works quite well for such situations.
I see your point, Roger. But in my opinion, carrying extra batteries, or a charger plus solar panel pretty much negates any weight and bulk advantage a mirror-less camera has over a mirrored DSLR.
Of course, a DSLR will chew through a battery pretty quickly if live view and or image review is used extensively. I try to keep such operations to a minimum.
--P
Posted by Jeff Martyka on November 18, 2014 at 10:29 AM
4 spare batteries (1.5 ounce each) on my A7r take up about as much space as 2 or 3 rolls of film...and get thousands more images. Mirrorless have their issues, but battery life just hasn't been one for me.
Back to the original issue: too much weight when hiking.
What are you carrying? I find I suffer from cramitfull and whatifineedthat when packing...either a camera bag or a suitcase. Most of the time there is stuff in there that I don't need and didn't use.
Also, hiking poles really help my endurance.
Posted by David Chauvin on November 18, 2014 at 2:25 PM
Cameras are tools. Pick the best one that fits your needs of the job at hand. In the interest of full disclosure, I now use the Canon 5DIII and Sony A7r. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses.
Discussion
15 repliesWhat about the compatibility of lenses with Canon, Nikon and others. Does any body have any thoughts, opinions or comments on this subject? Will the DSLR be a Dinosaur soon?
For me, the use of an iPhone is at hand all the time. However, photo taking boils down to convenience of snap shots with the unit and nothing more. No doubt the newer products are advancing and there will be the quality, but I do not see myself using an iPhone for landscape work. Again, mind set is my own dinosaur thinking.
To get the same light, thus same photon noise levels at the sensor, you need the same lens diameter, regardless of sensor size. Thus, it is physically impossible, for example, for a 210 mm lens to deliver the same image quality as a 300 mm lens unless the lens collecting area are the same. For example, a 300 f/2.8 lens has a diameter of 107 mm. The 210 mm lens would also need a 107 mm diameter lens to collect the same amount of light, thus 210 mm f/2.
Bottom line is the smaller lenses on any size camera needs to have the same collecting area for the same performance. Which is more expensive and weighs less: 300 f/2.8 or 210 mm f/2? The f/2 may need more elements to correct for the faster optics. A common misconception is that the sensor controls the noise. No, it is the lens.
What people are seeing in cameras with different sensors is "good enough" image quality for their application, not that they actually produce better image quality (unless of course if one camera has a superb lens and the other a poor lens) It's about the lens, not the body.
Regarding mirrorless, the phase detect AF system needs to monitor the out of focus light field. With on-sensor phase detect, when the image in focus, there is no phase information, so the camera can't tell velocity, direction or acceleration of the subject, so can't track focus unless it lets focus drift off. Thus, DSLRs for tracking action will always have an advantage,
One other thing. A lot is made of the shorter lens to sensor distance to make lenses smaller. As I said above, the lens diameter can not change for the same performance, and with shorter sensor distance, angles of the incoming light to the sensor will be higher in many lens designs. With DSLRs, one uses a telecentric design which requires a different design but means that even with a wide angle lens, the light cone from the lens to the sensor is more normal to the surface, with the result of more efficient microlenses. Bottom line is that better performance of the mirrorless cameras are not established over an optically equivalent DSLR, and weight gain is small.
Perhaps this is why Canon hasn't gone into this area big time. They have brought out some pretty small DSLRs instead.
If you have an array of lenses, and don't need fast action cameras, check the entry level DSLRs for their small weight, and probably similar performance to jumping to a mirrorless alternative.
Roger
If the point being made about lens diameters and light sensing for noise issues is an item for concern, and it is obviously, does using the older larger opening lenses with the "e" adapter eliminate or minimize that issue? Or is the opening on the mirrorless units merely choking things down and there is really nothing gained by using the older lens then?
Apparently the thoughts of AF speed does not really benefit by larger lens opening usage for AF tracking as much as the mirrorless units ability to track things if I understand your comment on that item correctly.
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking about using an adapter to mount an existing old dslr lens onto the mirrorless camera? If so, then yes, that would give the same light and same S/N. But then that doesn't help reduce weight of using smaller lenses.
Correct on the AF. For example, the AF of most 300 f/2.8 lenses are very fast. Put it on a nirrorless and initial acquisition could be very fast, but once in focus, there is no more phase detection. Many of these cameras then switch to contrast detect AF, which is quite slow. For landscape photographers, this is not a problem, but is for tracking action.
Roger
Thank you for all of the responses and I will certainly follow the progress carefully.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sony-a7-versus-nikon-d750.html
Thought that he made some relevant points.
Probably never, a good reason I still use film......
There's also the time lag on the screen update. I really like the view on my D-7100; screen or viewfinder, and oh, the ground glass on my 4x5.
--P
A very small and lightweight solar panel works quite well for such situations.
I see your point, Roger. But in my opinion, carrying extra batteries, or a charger plus solar panel pretty much negates any weight and bulk advantage a mirror-less camera has over a mirrored DSLR.
Of course, a DSLR will chew through a battery pretty quickly if live view and or image review is used extensively. I try to keep such operations to a minimum.
--P
Back to the original issue: too much weight when hiking.
What are you carrying? I find I suffer from cramitfull and whatifineedthat when packing...either a camera bag or a suitcase. Most of the time there is stuff in there that I don't need and didn't use.
Also, hiking poles really help my endurance.