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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 12, 2016)

```
Thom Hogan has written a great article about why he continues to shoot with Nikon DSLRs over mirrorless cameras in most situations. The same reasons could be written for shooting with a Canon system. While I had my “Sony phase” for a while, I was never happy with the results when compared to Canon DSLRs. This generally comes down to what I like to shoot, and as Thom says, that may not be the same things you like to shoot.</p>
<p>For the record, I do shoot with a Leica Q mirrorless camera, and I think it’s the best small full frame camera out there for my uses.</p>
<p>From Thom Hogan:</p>
<blockquote><p>Most of the mirrorless system issues I note above will tend to go away with time, as technology “solves” some of the problems, and digital cameras evolve even more than they have.</p>
<p>But DSLRs have been benefiting from technology moving forward, too, so it’s not as if mirrorless is trying to catch up to a stationary target. The D5/D500 proves that the target is still moving in big strides forward in some areas, and the DSLR/mirrorless problem has become like one of those algebra problems you had in grade school: “If train A leaves the station headed west at 75mph at 1pm and train B leaves the station headed west at 100mp at 3pm, when does train B pass train A?” <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/seven-reasons-why-im-still.html">Read the full article</a></p></blockquote>
<p>I am like a lot of you though, I’m eager to find out what Canon has in mind for a mirrorless system, whenever they decide to get serious about it.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 12, 2016)

his personal choice, I shoot with whatever is avl to me at rental shop. I have shot with Nikon, Sony, Canon, Panasonic and Olympus but for my personal use I stick to Canon just for MP-E 65mm f/2.8 lens and good selection of speedlights. I might change the system for good if someone else offers me good selection of macros and speedlights which so far none of the mirrorless offer.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2016)

I predict this thread will be besieged with the following terms / statements in the next few hours:

Battery Life
Mirrorslappers
All Canon needs to do in mirrorless is...
Canon is falling further behind
Mirrorless is about being small and light
Mirrorless is not at all about being small and light



#nostradamus

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 12, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I predict this thread will be besieged with the following terms / statements in the next few hours:
> ...



inconceivable.... INCONCEIVABLE!!!!!


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 12, 2016)

1. MIRRORSLAPPERS are *******.
2. STUPID CANON is *******.
3. Unless they launch fully competitive MIRRORLESS systems with APS-C and FF sensors very SOON.

PS: No amount of Thom Hogan Nikon-fanboyism or Canon forum postings will change this. 

8) ;D


----------



## jebrady03 (Jul 12, 2016)

I found it interesting that he failed to mention the incredible touch screen and fast/accurate focusing of the Canon 80D in live view. Most say it's as good or better than all other mirrorless options.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2016)

AvTvM is ******* to NEVER get the perfect-for-him camera that he wants.

PS. NO amount of his incessant whining on Canon forums will change this.

8) ;D


----------



## redpoint (Jul 12, 2016)

He forgot the most important reason: "I'm paid by Nikon" ...

This really isn't about Nikon, it's about mirrorless vs. DSLR. I tend to agree with him on a lot of points. I value the size and weight of a mirrorless system - especially for backcountry travel, but I prefer the ergos of a big-a$$ DSLR. I always prefer my 1DX over my 7D - size and feel wise.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 12, 2016)

I'd certainly be happy to have the moving mirror and shutter go away, in fact, all moving parts except for a swiveling lcd. I'd like improved performance too.

However, so far, I would have to trade off some of the performance I like, along with a small body and buttons too small for me. Even so, if there were a large body mirrorless from Canon that used EF lenses natively, I'd be tempted.

The Dual pixel technology is moving forward, but not as much as I had hoped for, time will tell.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 12, 2016)

*yawn* 
nothing new
nothing important
nothing to stop and read
*moved on*

ps.: seems a boring rumors time if such a story gets the headlines


----------



## dak723 (Jul 12, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I predict this thread will be besieged with the following terms / statements in the next few hours:
> ...



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. 

I thought his article was well presented and presented the issues in well thought out manner. Some (such as ergonomics) may just be personal preference, but mirrorless' issues with the EVF lag, AF on moving subjects, and memory usage are real. They may not matter very much (or not at all) for each specific user, so mirrorless can certainly be your system of choice. But DSLRs are still superior in these areas and the camera of choice for many folks because of that - as well as the still greater choice of lenses and accessories.


----------



## Pookie (Jul 12, 2016)

dak723 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Ahhh... nice call out for Dudbert


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I predict this thread will be besieged with the following terms / statements in the next few hours:
> 
> Battery Life
> Mirrorslappers
> ...



Do you sit alone at most cocktail parties? 

The article covers familiar ground for many members here, but don't forget there are people just beginning to consider something better than a phone.

There will long be a place for pickup trucks, and there will long be a place for coupes. Mini-vans are going to be around a while too!


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 12, 2016)

dak723 said:


> 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.



Reading can give you a hell of a lot of knowledge. Fortunately it saves me a lot of time having to reinvent the last 600 years of scientific endeavour before I decide to start work in the morning.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Well yeah, but that means you _comprehend_ what you read. That's not universally true...in fact, it does not hold true even for everyone who has posted so far in this thread.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 12, 2016)

redpoint said:


> He forgot the most important reason: "I'm paid by Nikon" ...
> ...



EXACTLY!


----------



## scrup (Jul 12, 2016)

The biggest benefit of mirrorless was DSLR quality in a compact size. That was enough to get some users on board. 

People should just use the best tool for the job regardless of brand or type. 

At home i have a cordless screwdriver, cordless drill and a hammer drill. They overlap with each other but are better at a specific task. Same as cameras, people need to stop comparing camera types and just get the one that does the job best for them.

Technology is improving, eventually EVFs will be better than OVFs in most aspects. When that happens the DSLR will be like film. It may take a while but it will happen.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 12, 2016)

scrup said:


> Technology is improving, eventually EVFs will be better than OVFs in most aspects. When that happens the DSLR will be like film. It may take a while but it will happen.



Possibly - eventually. As Thom says, probably not in his life time. The problem is that it is very difficult to beat harnessing simple physics to optically look through the lens, and it's free in energy terms. As he says, dslr technology is not standing still, and it may be that lcd overlays etc may enable some of the EVF benefits to be brought to OVF anyway. 

We will have a better idea once Canon unleash the DPAF sensor on the mirrorless market.


----------



## LesC (Jul 12, 2016)

There's room for both mirror-less & DSLR cameras but as my main camera I just prefer a DSLR. I don't find my 6D + 24-70 F2.8L too large but if I fancy travelling light, the 100D (SL1) + 17-40F4L or 18-135 STM is my choice.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jul 12, 2016)

The only part of Thom's concerns I have trouble accepting is his lament over the current best-in-class 1/250 second lag of the viewfinder image in a mirrorless body. That is 4 milliseconds. He argues that if he misses a shot by even 1 ms. he has not captured the peak. Yet, shutter lag on his favorite D5 and D500 range from 40 to 50 ms when manually pre-focused. Add in AF and then you are well into the 100+ ms range. Not to mention human perception lag. Sure for all intents one can consider the OVF as having zero delay; however, to capture a shot within 1 ms one has to anticipate all the inherent lags in the system and compensate for them. 4 ms due to viewfinder image lag seems both trivial and a predictable fixed time lag when compared to all the other much longer and variable time lags.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 12, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> scrup said:
> 
> 
> > Technology is improving, eventually EVFs will be better than OVFs in most aspects. When that happens the DSLR will be like film. It may take a while but it will happen.
> ...



Yes, this is something that many people don't seem to understand. My father was an engineer and one thing he used to say is that you should never substitute a complex solution for a simple solution, when the simple solution can do the job. 

The reflex mirror is a simple solution that has been proven over and over again for nearly a century. Some people are fascinated by new electronics and believe that a complex, electronic solution must be better, but so far that hasn't been the case. 

It's certainly possible that some day electronic viewfinders will be cheaper and better than optical viewfinders. Possible, but not certain. On the other hand, looking at the latest offering from Fuji, it seems increasingly likely that even if electronic viewfinders replace optical viewfinders, the basic appearance of cameras may not change all that much. 

If and when electronic viewfinders replace optical viewfinders our cameras will likely still look very much like they do today, they will function much like they do now, they will use the same lenses that we all have now and it's likely that only technology geeks will be aware of the change.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jul 12, 2016)

8 Hours...

It would take train B 8 hours to pass train A, at 11:00pm.

Am I the only one who sought out to answer the train question?
-Tabor


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 12, 2016)

scrup said:


> The biggest benefit of mirrorless was DSLR quality in a compact size.



For whom?

That may be true to some users. Personally, I wish my mirrorless camera was bigger (sonly a7r2). Hell, if they could take the innards and shove them into a body the size of a 5D I'd be thrilled.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 13, 2016)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> 8 Hours...
> 
> It would take train B 8 hours to pass train A, at 11:00pm.
> 
> ...



Are you sure? I calculate that Train B never passes Train A


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 13, 2016)

Dslr vs mirrorless again? ;D

To be honest, I lost my hope with Canon mirrorless. I have no plans nor wishes for Canon up coming mirrorless.


----------



## TAF (Jul 13, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > scrup said:
> ...




The biggest problem with the reflex mirror is the very large and expensive prism and the micro-mechnical pieces required to make that cheap and simple mirror useful.

Eventually, it will be cheaper to get rid of all the moving parts and the expensive glass, and use an EVF. I expect that will occur much sooner than the author expects, because electronics continue to drop in price and increase in capability, while making large chunks of glass precisely (and precision micro-motors and gears) just gets more expensive (although it is always possible that something will happen to reverse that trend as well).

Just look at the history of the Rollei TLR. What really raised the cost to outrageous levels was the lack of availability of an affordable leaf shutter - the rest of the camera is fairly simple.


On a separate thought - when will I be able to get an EVF that attaches to my glasses, so the camera can be independent of where my eye is - wouldn't it be useful to be able to shoot from above (or below) a crowd, or around a corner, or behind you?


----------



## gregory4000 (Jul 13, 2016)

I liked this article a lot.
I don't care if the writer is paid by nikon ( nikon does have a mirrorless system)
It was fair and honest. 
I feel that many on this rumors are professionals at collecting expensive camera gear like a neighbor collect snap-on tools for his hobbies. And that the writer under estimated the evolution of photography a bit. Sure, DSLR will evolve and so will mirrorless. But the great majority of new photographers are using cell phones. Somewhere there is some kid that can smoke all of us as photographers just using a iPhone due only because he has imagination that equipment can't buy.
In ten years eyeglass/sunglasses will be equipped with cameras, after this Contact lenses will have the ability to record video and stills. And anyone in those future days will have cameras that will out-photo the tools we have today in size and features. I'm 56 years old. At 19 I had my first 35mm ( Nikon FM -remember those) If you had a little knowledge of light, you could take photos that the average person could only dream of. But today and the future is different. Only imagination will separate one with skill, not your fancy camera, why? Because "All" cameras will take photos good enough to display in a museum!


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 13, 2016)

TAF said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


Some things are easier with mirrorless.... like a 100FPS burst rate.....


----------



## Tinky (Jul 13, 2016)

Concur with most of that.

I went down the panasonic route, mainly for video, I still use my Canon DSLR for stills.

The menu on the panasonic is horrificly convoluted, contratictory and riven with caveats. You can't use this mode if you use that mode, and if you use that feature the camera defaults to this unpleasant feature etc..

The jpegs are horrible (RAWs are fine though)

The headline feature for me though was the 4K video. 

I adapt my canon lenses via a metabones XL, and shoot in 4K.

This has three effects: the lens image circle is compressed to s35 equivalence (in 4K mode) by compressing more of the lens resolution i get better sharper pictures, and the extra stop & 1/3 of light helps too.

At the editing end I also scale these 4K rushes to a 1080 timeline, again, squeezing in that resolution. I also have cropping options, but the 1080 output is vastly improved over the 1080 I was delivering from my canons.

Still grabs at 4K are pretty useful, as is the 1080 50i mode, if I'm doing anythng for broadcast.

To get a canon with these features would have meant at least a c300mk1.

If I wasn't doing video, I would still be with my DSLR fulltime.

The Panasonic promise much like 4K batch, and post focus, and the DFD theory is very clever even if the results don't match the hype.

Horses for courses.

If you don't care about video, stick with your DSLR. Even an older DSLR.


----------



## hmatthes (Jul 13, 2016)

"For the record, I do shoot with a Leica Q mirrorless camera, and I think it’s the best small full frame camera out there for my uses"

I too use the Q for almost everything but carry the Canon kit for more challenging things.

Canon should look at the Q as the harbinger of what the FF M ILC series should be... Small FF/M lenses, mainly primes, designed in a new compact mount -- then sell an adapter for EF glass. HERE's MY MONEY...


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 13, 2016)

hmatthes said:


> Canon should look at the Q as the harbinger of what the FF M ILC series should be... Small FF/M lenses, mainly primes, designed in a new compact mount -- then sell an adapter for EF glass. HERE's MY MONEY...



I agree with that. I'm 100% sticking with my DSLR and am excited to pick up a 1DX mark II by the end of August, but I've been watching the Fuji X-T2 out of curiousity. I'd rather spend my money with Canon though and I don't have any business reason to buy outside of the system I've invested so much money into.

That said, if Canon could make a full frame mirrorless, I'd be interested in it simply for lightweight primes. Not much interest here for small zoom lenses if they weren't fast, which is physically impossible. If I'm going to use big zooms I'm going with my SLR, but I'd like to have a set of fast 35mm, 24mm and 50mm primes on a small mirrorless that I could use as a back-up or just carry with me in my free time.

I do remember the rumor of a fixed-lens full frame camera with a 35mm f/1.4, which would be fine with me as well. I'd like the flexibility to use a wider/longer lens + use my own lenses with an adapter though.


----------



## tron (Jul 13, 2016)

old-pr-pix said:


> The only part of Thom's concerns I have trouble accepting is his lament over the current best-in-class 1/250 second lag of the viewfinder image in a mirrorless body. That is 4 milliseconds. He argues that if he misses a shot by even 1 ms. he has not captured the peak. Yet, shutter lag on his favorite D5 and D500 range from 40 to 50 ms when manually pre-focused. Add in AF and then you are well into the 100+ ms range. Not to mention human perception lag. Sure for all intents one can consider the OVF as having zero delay; however, to capture a shot within 1 ms one has to anticipate all the inherent lags in the system and compensate for them. 4 ms due to viewfinder image lag seems both trivial and a predictable fixed time lag when compared to all the other much longer and variable time lags.


+1000 You just prove he talks BS. That he makes errors with two orders of magnitude or even worse he has illusions of grandeur... (1msec, wow...)


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jul 13, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Tabor Warren Photography said:
> 
> 
> > 8 Hours...
> ...



I'm glad you questioned my answer!

After taking another look, I added back the first two hours when I shouldn't have. They meet up at 9:00.

1:00, both trains are at the station // Train A takes of at 75mph
2:00, Train A is now 75 miles away continuing at 75mph // Train B is sitting still // They are now 75 miles away from each other
3:00, Train B takes off at 100mph, however, at this moment they are 150 miles away from each other
4:00, Train A is 225 miles away from the station // Train B is 100 miles away from the station // 125 miles apart
5:00, Train A is 300 miles away from the station // Train B is 200 miles away from the station // 100 miles apart
6:00, Train A is 375 miles away from the station // Train B is 300 miles away from the station // 75 miles apart
7:00, Train A is 450 miles away from the station // Train B is 400 miles away from the station // 50 miles apart
8:00, Train A is 525 miles away from the station // Train B is 500 miles away from the station // 25 miles apart
9:00, Train A is 600 miles away from the station // Train B is 600 miles away from the station // 0 miles apart

Thank you again, and I hope this helps anyone else who's curious!
-Tabor


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 13, 2016)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Tabor Warren Photography said:
> ...



Not only that, but if they are on the same track, then B can never pass A


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jul 13, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Tabor Warren Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


----------



## Otara (Jul 13, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> scrup said:
> 
> 
> > Technology is improving, eventually EVFs will be better than OVFs in most aspects. When that happens the DSLR will be like film. It may take a while but it will happen.
> ...



Being able to show the actual exposure outcome or amplify for night/low light are pretty big benefits for a lot of people. The main advantage of optical is its limitation as well - you only see what your own eyes can see, not what the sensor is really seeing.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 13, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Not only that, but if they are on the same track, then B can never pass A



hehe! 
but at 9 o'clock train B has caught up and kicks train A in the butt.
just like mirrorless cams have caught up with and are kicking mirrorslappers in the butt in 2016.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 13, 2016)

Otara said:


> Being able to show the actual exposure outcome or amplify for night/low light are pretty big benefits for a lot of people. The main advantage of optical is its limitation as well - you only see what your own eyes can see, not what the sensor is really seeing.



exactly! 
plus no vibration, no noise, short X-sync times, no rolling shutter - as soon as mechanical shutters are also thrown out of cameras and replaced by electronic global Shutter. 

solid state digital cameras are only 1 more step away from being better in every aspect and for any photographic task than mirrorslappers. 
it COULD already happen with a Sony A9. 
unless hit by a bus before, it WILL happen in Thom's lifetime. and mine.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 13, 2016)

I finally actually looked at the article, it seems pretty clickbaity, the only point where I read the entire paragraph was the idea of "neutral" looking JPEGs. Except that subject has nothing to do with mirrors.

In general I have to agree with the sentiment, mirrorless systems are still under development. Canon and Nikon are practically the only camera manufacturers that make truly mature photography tools along with an advanced ecosystem around them.

Case in point, the Fuji X-T2 still doesn't give you a live feed of your subject beyond a 5fps burst rate... What's the point of having an 11FPS mode at all?
And you can probably count a dozen or so of these "quirks" on any given system outside of the big two (and even they still have a few things to iron out).
After hearing that the X-T2 is basically no better for BIF than my Rebel (probably a lot worse actually) that pretty much drops the perceived value down to just above entry level (ok, it has two card slots, and all those awesome dials, but it's going to be less usable than the A6300 in fast action).

Mirrorless manufacturers need to really step up their game if they want to look like anything more than a gimmick.


----------



## davidj (Jul 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> solid state digital cameras are only 1 more step away from being better in every aspect and for any photographic task than mirrorslappers.



Better battery life? I'm not holding my breath for mirrorless to be beating SLRs in this way.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 13, 2016)

Otara said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > scrup said:
> ...



Yes, I agree. I'm using the full M3 system now as well as FF DSLR. But those advantages of the EVF are old news, they've been around for perhaps ten years ? They just haven't taken the photographic world by storm, so although as you say, they have big benefits for many, and I agree that being able to review the image through the viewfinder without daylight interfering is useful, there are still a much greater number of people who prefer the experience of optically looking through their lens. 

It will be interesting to see how long the pentamirror lasts now EVFs are maturing, and whether Canon / Nikon / Pentax will start putting a decent pentaprism in their lower end dslrs. In fact I think Pentax may have started.


----------



## Otara (Jul 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Otara said:
> 
> 
> > Being able to show the actual exposure outcome or amplify for night/low light are pretty big benefits for a lot of people. The main advantage of optical is its limitation as well - you only see what your own eyes can see, not what the sensor is really seeing.
> ...



I think thats a bit too uh, fervent for me. But I do think theres a lot of room for improvement with mirrorless. So far Ive not seen a EVF that comes close to an optical VF for my needs, and predicting the future has its way of biting people - VHS vs betamax comes to mind for instance. I suspect theres going to be room for both for some time to come.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> davidj said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Having a longer battery life than the 5D mark III in live view a pretty low bar to beat at 200 shots. I couldn't sustain my workloads off of that and I have three spare batteries. I've spent days in the field without access to battery chargers and have shot tens of thousands of shots off of the batteries I have for my 5D mark III, I'd absolutely hate to think of how many batteries would be required for an A7R II. 

Beyond even just working in charging-limiting situations, I don't have the pleasure of being constantly able to prepare for my line of work. I went to a small assignment photographing syrup being made for about 30 minutes and ended up at the scene of a plane crash for the next 7 hours on my way back. I packed a single spare battery just in case and that spare battery sustained me for the entire rescue operation with over 3000 shots. Had I had been using the A7R II, I would have run out within the first hour and would have had to drive 40 minutes back to grab more batteries. No time for that in news.


----------



## infared (Jul 13, 2016)

I find Thom to be a repetitive bag of hot air. He is also paid by Nikon(which is an incredible camera system), and that fact, in this instance makes his hot air even less palatable.
His always "expert" view is tiring.
I use two relatively extensive systems. DSLR and Mirrorless. One is big, one is small (as are the lenses!).
They both have positive and negative attributes.
I use my mirrorless 90% Of the time. It's very capable, lightweight and SMALL. My situation satisfies my image creating needs. Everyone is different and has different needs. 
There Thom...was that so tough?


----------



## tron (Jul 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> davidj said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


Maybe but can the Sony A7RII shoot in non live view mode and take 2000 shots with 1 battery just like my 5D3 or 7D2 manage to do?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> just like mirrorless cams have caught up with and are kicking mirrorslappers in the butt in 2016.



Wow, I knew your grip on reality was tenuous, but I didn't realize you'd let go entirely and let your mind drop into the abyss. Sad. 

CIPA global shipments Jan-May 2016:
dSLR – 3,217,939
MILC – 1,066,443


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 13, 2016)

infared said:


> <snip>
> I use two relatively extensive systems. DSLR and Mirrorless. One is big, one is small (as are the lenses!).
> They both have positive and negative attributes.
> I use my mirrorless 90% Of the time. It's very capable, lightweight and SMALL. My situation satisfies my image creating needs. Everyone is different and has different needs.


I use two relatively extensive systems. DSLR and Mirrorless. One is big, one is small (as are the lenses!).
They both have positive and negative attributes.
I use my mirrorless 20% Of the time. It's very capable, lightweight and SMALL. My situation satisfies my image creating needs. Everyone is different and has different needs. 

Both systems are indispensable... it is hard for me to imagine doing without either.... one has fantastic ergonomics and the other has great portability..... there is a time and a place for both with my kit.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > just like mirrorless cams have caught up with and are kicking mirrorslappers in the butt in 2016.
> ...



Neuro obsession with yesterdays and yesteryear sales numbers. I let camera companies worry about those.

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.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 13, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > davidj said:
> ...



agree with H. Jones,

This is one of A7 weaknesses and therefore cant be compared to DSLR. I'm shooting with A7 and an extra battery is almost a must have item to carry around.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 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. :


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> By now, mirrorless camera systems are as capable as almost all most DSLRs ...



There, you've summed up the situation. To make further progress in replacing dslr sales they are going to have to become more capable. And that's going to be tricky as dslr s continue to develop as well.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


Sales numbers tell us important information about what customers want, even if they don't tell us about today's tech. It's important to understand that what other people want may be very different from what you want.



> 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*.


Again, you're saying they've caught-up/surpassed DSLRs for *your* needs, which may not be the same as those of the general public.

I agree that mirrorless will "soon" overtake DSLRs, and I would love to have one that did everything I need, but they do not yet meet my needs. It appears that the EVF lag problem has been solved, but there are still problems with battery life and tracking AF.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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......


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 13, 2016)

in all honesty, majority of people still buying a Canon or Nikon APS-C DSLR today are pretty much clueless [exception: many of the 7D and D500 purchasers]. All they will ever do with their cameras could be done with any current APS-C MILC ... M3, A6300, Fuji X-thisandthat and they would have to carry less weight and bulk. 

Why are not more MILC systems bought? because Canon and Nikon are refusing to serve the more discerning/advanced target group: FF DSLR buyers only have Sony as an (affordable) option. For CaNikon users it would mean full or partial system switch ... something most people are rather cautious about. And for many good reasons. 

If Canon and Nkon both had FF competitors as capable and npot more expensive than Sony A//R/S I and II ... DSLR sales would be trailing MILC sales already by a good margin. If we need to talk about "unit sales".


----------



## RGF (Jul 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> If we need to talk about "unit sales".



Smart phones win then


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> in all honesty, majority of people still buying a Canon or Nikon APS-C DSLR today are pretty much clueless [exception: many of the 7D and D500 purchasers]. All they will ever do with their cameras could be done with any current APS-C MILC ... M3, A6300, Fuji X-thisandthat and they would have to carry less weight and bulk.





> Why are not more MILC systems bought? because Canon and Nikon are refusing to serve the more discerning/advanced target group




The essential facts you continue to overlook are:


You don't know what other customers want
You don't know what the marketing teams at Canon and Nikon know
If there were money to be made in mirrorless you can bet your slapper that Canon and Nikon would be on-board with it.

It's an error in judgement for you to continue to assert that your limited experience with cameras and camera buyers extends to the entire market.
Once again let me say that I would love to have a mirrorless that satisfies my needs, but it ain't so right now.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 13, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> You don't know what other customers want
> You don't know what the marketing teams at Canon and Nikon know
> If there were money to be made in mirrorless you can bet your slapper that Canon and Nikon would be on-board with it.



you can save yourself you useless rethoric tricks and attempts to make and make me sound like I am the ONLY person on earth more interested in a good mirrorless system than in antiquated mirrorslappers. 

It is so EVIDENT, what the market wants: Not everybody, but MANY, MANY, MANY photographers from entry level to advanced to semi-pro to pro would just love to get a great Canon EOS-M "Pro" body right now for APS-C or a killer Nikon APS-C MILC system (instead of a pathetic Nikon 1). 

And MANY MORE would immediately shell out money for a Canon or Nikon FF MILC system fully competitive with Sony A7/R/S II. 

Denial is really ridiculous.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> The essential facts you continue to overlook are:
> 
> 
> You don't know what other customers want
> ...



I have a love / eye-roll relationship with AvTvM -- the passion for what he/she wants is A+, but the way it is argued for is jaw-dropping, nonsensical, and Bush-43-like in terms of his/her perceived infallibility. 

The idea that AvTvM is the 'future whisperer' of photography tech based on always betting right with everything could be his/her pièce de résistance:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30007.msg601380#msg601380

- A


----------



## Thom Hogan (Jul 13, 2016)

redpoint said:


> He forgot the most important reason: "I'm paid by Nikon" ...



I get no remuneration from Nikon. Never have in 20 years of doing this. Indeed, the NikonUSA folk tend to talk negatively about me, even in my presence. I get better support from Canon than I do Nikon, actually, despite the fact I'm registered with NPS.


----------



## Thom Hogan (Jul 13, 2016)

old-pr-pix said:


> The only part of Thom's concerns I have trouble accepting is his lament over the current best-in-class 1/250 second lag of the viewfinder image in a mirrorless body.



As I note in the article, lags are cummulative. There is my own response lag, shutter lag, and on mirrorless cameras, EVF lag. Well, the correct order on a mirrorless camera is EVF lag, response lag, shutter lag. On a DSLR there is only response lag, shutter lag.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> you can save yourself you useless rethoric tricks and attempts to make and make me sound like I am the ONLY person on earth more interested in a good mirrorless system than in antiquated mirrorslappers.
> 
> It is so EVIDENT, what the market wants: Not everybody, but MANY, MANY, MANY photographers from entry level to advanced to semi-pro to pro would just love to get a great Canon EOS-M "Pro" body right now for APS-C or a killer Nikon APS-C MILC system (instead of a pathetic Nikon 1).
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone disagrees that mirrorless is the future -- I think they are arguing mirrorless is not _*the present*_. 

You speak of mirrorless in revered tones that would imply it is outselling SLRs today. It's not even close to doing that (unless you include cell phones, P&S, etc. in that tally), and in ignoring that data, you come across as delusional. (That tends to undermine the argument you are making.)

You speak of SLRs like they are a thing of the past, a relic about to die, etc. In fact, SLRs broadly and comprehensively outperform today's mirrorless options except for a few very small and specific needs that do not overpower mirrorless' glaring present limitations, e.g.:


1/32,000 shutter is undeniably neato, but carrying 3-4 batteries is not.
EVFs with histo / peaking / brightness amplification are great, but not if they miss the shot due to lag.
Being able to use other companies' lenses is amazing but it's not for everyone as AF performance with adapters is spotty.

These are just a few examples of why mirrorless has a ton of SLR users waiting on the side of the pool rather than jumping in. It will happen. But it will not happen soon.

- A


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > You don't know what other customers want
> ...


I never said that. I just said that the big companies know better than you how many there are in that group. Not only that, but they know who is willing to buy mirrorless, and how much they're willing to pay. You don't. Your repeated proclamations do not create facts.



> It is so EVIDENT, what the market wants


As my math professors used to say, since it's so evident, you will have no trouble proving it. 



> Denial is really ridiculous.


You need to be more specific: is it true that many people want and will buy mirrorless? Yes. Is it true that there are enough of them to make it a profitable line? Nikon and Canon know best. To deny that is ridiculous.


----------



## Thom Hogan (Jul 13, 2016)

infared said:


> I find Thom to be a repetitive bag of hot air.


Everyone's entitled to their opinion. No problems with that.



infared said:


> He is also paid by Nikon(which is an incredible camera system), and that fact, in this instance makes his hot air even less palatable.


That I have a problem with. Nikon has never paid me for anything. I have no relationship with Nikon other than I'm a member of NPS, like most pros shooting Nikon.

When people make up facts to justify their opinions, then I start having problems with their opinions ;~)



infared said:


> His always "expert" view is tiring.


I suppose. But let me ask you this: if you become expert at something, you're suggested that you should always pretend NOT being an expert from time to time? 



infared said:


> Everyone is different and has different needs.



I don't disagree with that, and there's nothing in my article that contradicts that. Indeed, the entire article was "this is my decision based upon what I do." 

You seem to be suggesting that there shouldn't be open discussions of what differences those are and what those needs end up suggesting. You're obviously not shooting the same stuff as I am, so I'm sure you'd choose something different. But what if you *did* shoot the same thing? 

Read, don't read, I don't actually worry about that. If you don't like what I write, don't read it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Why are not more MILC systems bought? because Canon and Nikon are refusing to serve the more discerning/advanced very small minority target group: FF DSLR buyers only have Sony as an (affordable) option. For CaNikon users it would mean full or partial system switch ... something most people are rather cautious about. And for many good reasons.
> 
> If Canon and Nkon both had FF competitors as capable and npot more expensive than Sony A//R/S I and II ... DSLR sales would be trailing MILC sales already by a good margin. If we need to talk about "unit sales".



Fixed that for you.

Well, there are a couple of possible reasons that Canon and Nikon don't make a full lineup of FF MILC offerings...

1) They know their market _far_ better than you, and the concentrate their efforts to serve the majority of that market
2) They are clueless idiots serving a mass market of fools

We all know which you believe... :




AvTvM said:


> ...make me sound like I am the ONLY person on earth more interested in a good mirrorless system than in antiquated mirrorslappers.
> 
> Denial is really ridiculous.



No, you're not the only person on Earth more interested in good MILC systems than in dSLRs. Nor are you the only person on Earth who can manage to sound like a complete idiot. However, despite your rampant refuals to accept documented facts, in the first case you are in the minority. I'd like to hope that you're in the minority in the second case, too, but I'm not sure that's true since unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who sound like complete idiots.

But in either case, you're certainly one of the CR Forum poster children for being ridiculous!


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> You need to be more specific: is it true that many people want and will buy mirrorless? Yes. Is it true that there are enough of them to make it a profitable line *for Canon given what they already have on the market*? Nikon and Canon know best. To deny that is ridiculous.



One important correction above. Few would doubt Canon and Nikon have deliberately held off their own mirrorless efforts -- because it financially serves them to. They could make money on a mirrorless system right now, it just wouldn't be as profitable as investing further in the galactically big SLR ecosystems they've already built.

Were a dream team of Canon and Nikon lifers to start a new photography company together with the goal to develop a new camera system to dominate the photography world in 10 years time (let's presume they had massive financial backing), _does anyone really think there'd be a mirror in it?_

So I agree with AvTvM's oracle work of the general demise of SLRs. Mirrorless will absolutely win out. I just think it will take a very long time to get there.

- A


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 13, 2016)

Thom Hogan said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > He is also paid by Nikon(which is an incredible camera system), and that fact, in this instance makes his hot air even less palatable.
> ...



Just to clear the air, do you have any sponsorship deals that bear on this discussion?


----------



## Thom Hogan (Jul 13, 2016)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> 8 Hours...
> 
> It would take train B 8 hours to pass train A, at 11:00pm.



rate * time = distance

r t d
75 X 75x
100 X-2 100x-200

thus 75x = 100x -200 (distance = distance)
thus x = 25x -200 (subtract 75x from each side)
thus 200 = 25x (add 200 to each side)
thus 8 = x


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > You need to be more specific: is it true that many people want and will buy mirrorless? Yes. Is it true that there are enough of them to make it a profitable line *for Canon given what they already have on the market*? Nikon and Canon know best. To deny that is ridiculous.
> ...


I believe Keynes famously said, "in the long run we are all past our _shoot-by_ date" or something like that...  

The problem is that "in 10 years time" might as well be forever: old companies will die or merge, new companies could rise from a fertile field of venture capital. Looking past two generations is fairly pointless.


> So I agree with AvTvM's oracle work of the general demise of SLRs. Mirrorless will absolutely win out. I just think it will take a very long time to get there.


Not much oracle to that, I think few will argue that mirrorless is the future; however, as I said before, if it's not in the next two generations it's not really worth talking whining about.


----------



## Thom Hogan (Jul 13, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> Thom Hogan said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



I have been 100% clear on this for 20 years on the Internet. Whenever I have a relationship that impacts something I write, I disclose it. So let's recap pretty much all of that:

* At one point in the early 00's I had a relationship with Fujifilm where they were supplying one of my books with their camera. I received a camera from Fujifilm (S3 Pro) as part of the remuneration. This was disclosed in my review and subsequent book.
* I'm a member of NPS and qualified the same way all other Nikon-shooting pros do.
* My Web site has an exclusive advertising (not affiliate) relationship with B&H. From time to time I borrow gear from B&H to review. The source of review equipment is always disclosed. Most of the time it is "personal purchase from my dealer." My D500 review, for instance, says "This review is based upon a personal camera bought through NPS, as well as handling and use of two other bodies that I borrowed." Those borrowed bodies were from other pros. And for what it's worth, NPS priority purchases like that still go through your local dealer, it's just that NPS folk get to cut in line.
* Every ad or link to an external relationship on my site is labeled "advertising" or "ad link" or something similar, following FTC guidelines for Web sites to the letter (not a lot of Web sites do this correctly).
* I have, at my own expense, traveled to Nikon and presented ideas and suggestions to Nikon executives and designers. When I mean "at my own expense," I mean it. I hired two of my own translators, paid for absolutely everything, including the traditional small gift offerings you do at the beginning of real Japanese business meetings.
* I have, without remuneration, given camera companies software code that improves their products. The most recent of that was delivering Marianne Olerund's recoding of Nikon's hot pixel suppression scheme, which showed up in the next camera Nikon delivered (and has since been further altered by Nikon).
* I have, at workshops I paid to attend, borrowed Canon and Nikon gear from CPS and NPS for the purposes of the workshop.

Every last bit of the above has been (and is still) disclosed on my sprawling Web sites. 

Oh, I guess I didn't answer your question: at present I have no sponsorship deals with anyone. I shoot independently, mostly sports for clients, wildlife for myself and sometimes a client or two. I shoot events for local groups. I shoot landscape for myself.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2016)

Thom Hogan said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Thom Hogan said:
> ...



Yeah, but do you have a growing family to feed? 

Seriously, thanks for your participation here and your many pithy insights over the years!


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 13, 2016)

Thom Hogan said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Thom Hogan said:
> ...



Thanks, that covers it.


----------



## Refurb7 (Jul 13, 2016)

Thom's seven reasons are my seven reasons exactly. The viewfinder is my number one reason as well. I second everything he wrote. The only difference is that I shoot with Canon DSLRs, but it could as easily be Nikon.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> you can save yourself you useless rethoric tricks and attempts to make and make me sound like I am the ONLY person on earth more interested in a good mirrorless system than in antiquated mirrorslappers.
> 
> It is so EVIDENT, what the market wants: Not everybody, but MANY, MANY, MANY photographers from entry level to advanced to semi-pro to pro would just love to get a great Canon EOS-M "Pro" body right now for APS-C or a killer Nikon APS-C MILC system (instead of a pathetic Nikon 1).
> 
> ...



no facts is equally ridiculous.

here's a close approximation of the mount marketshare between the EF and the FE mount.







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






here is the marketshare for both EU and NA .. the only real places the A7 series cameras are selling.






the marketshare for MILC is remarkably FLAT for the past 2+ years.

there was as "step shift" when sony dumped the A mount and moved to rolling the hard six on the mirrorless, however, it hasn't gained traction since.

not only that, but sony has obviously not even fully recovered their mount marketshare from pre-NEX days of around 13% reaching only 12% by switching to VALUE that also includes lenses. you can pretty much ballpark sony's overall marketshare has being around 8-10%.

so this idea that EVERYONE is wanting this, and the fact that EVERYONE is purchasing sony is truly your own unsupported myth from your own very "special" *AvTvM universe©*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> so this idea that EVERYONE is wanting this, and the fact that EVERYONE is purchasing sony is truly your own unsupported myth from your own very "special" *AvTvM universe©*



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...


----------



## dak723 (Jul 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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

That mirrorless cameras drain more power and have battery issues is a fact.

That mirrorless cameras can not focus on moving objects as fast as DSLRs is a fact.



> The word you were looking for (but didn't use) is "informed." His opinions may be more informed than many others due to his background but that doesn't raise them above being an opinion.



Yes, his opinions are informed opinions. Informed opinions are based on knowing as many of the facts as possible and being educated n the subject. Personal experience is another major factor on having informed opinions. So, yes, Thom Hogan expresses some opinions. In my opinion, informed opinions are worth more than uninformed opinions. If you don't believe that informed opinions are more valid that uninformed opinions, then that is quite unfortunate.


----------



## zim (Jul 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> You know which river I mean...



Cleopatra syndrome 
Laugh, I nearly bought a round! the old ones are the best ;D ;D ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> 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


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 13, 2016)

dak723 said:


> 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.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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?


----------



## ritholtz (Jul 13, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > That EVFs have a time lag and OVFs have no time lag is a fact.
> ...


How come every review is noticing this. Sony has to reduce resolution so low with high fps.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the AvTvM universe© located in relation to dilbertland™?
> ...


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 13, 2016)

aha, thanks!

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


----------



## j-nord (Jul 13, 2016)

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 (Jul 14, 2016)

j-nord said:


> 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 (Jul 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 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 (Jul 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > here's a mount markshare for canon + nikon against sony.
> ...



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 (Jul 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2016)

dilbert said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jul 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM universe©



see? it fits doesn't it


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 14, 2016)

j-nord said:


> 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 (Jul 14, 2016)

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 (Jul 14, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > That EVFs have a time lag and OVFs have no time lag is a fact.
> ...



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 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 (Jul 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 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 (Jul 14, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...




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 (Jul 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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




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 (Jul 14, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> 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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2016)

TAF said:


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



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).


----------



## unfocused (Jul 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 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.



While that sounds reasonable, do you ever ask yourself why it is that two highly competitive companies that together have accounted for the vast majority of enthusiast camera sales for decades, and have completely dominated the professional market for more than half a century, have not jumped into this market if it is as simple and as lucrative as you believe?

You are fond of calling Canon "stupid," but given that the sole purpose of any company is to turn a profit for their shareholders (And Canon has done that consistently for quite some time) do you ever wonder if maybe they have some financial reasons why they don't agree with you?

Let's put aside the conspiracy theories for once and try to deal with facts, please. 

If your assumptions were correct, why wouldn't Canon and Nikon be jumping in with both feet? The only valid answer is that you do not have access to the same research and business information that they have and your assumptions are most likely wrong.

I don't think most people who disagree with you really care if Canon or Nikon were to move to a mirrorless form factor. I know I don't. It's just that assumptions, conjecture and whining do not constitute a business case. 

I fully expect that cameras will evolve over the next decade. That evolution might (but might not) include moving from optical viewfinders to electronic view finders. As I've said many times before, when and if that happens, I don't expect the cameras to actually look that much different (Exhibit A: Fuji X-T2). I expect that most people won't notice much difference; and I expect that they will still take EF and EF-S lenses.


----------



## j-nord (Jul 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Not exactly the same thing but you can absolutely consistently and accurately report 60Hz monitors vs 120Hz monitors in side by side comparison and there is still precievable room to improve which is why gaming monitors are now 144Hz+.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 14, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 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.....
> ...


Or 120FPS burst mode?


----------



## j-nord (Jul 14, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Irrelevant if you can't properly track the subject.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Not exactly the same thing but you can absolutely consistently and accurately report 60Hz monitors vs 120Hz monitors in side by side comparison and there is still precievable room to improve which is why gaming monitors are now 144Hz+.



Certainly. As I stated above, 'typical' psychophysical measurements put flicker fusion at ~13 ms or 75 Hz. A 60 Hz flicker can be directly and reliably perceived. Remember the advice to increase monitor refresh rate from the default 60 Hz to 72 Hz (or higher, if available) to avoid eye strain?

The 'room for improvement' above 120 Hz that you mention isn't really about flicker, but rather about avoiding motion artifacts. My TV has a 240 Hz refresh rate, and there are still sometimes motion artifacts.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...Well, except in dilbertland, because the laws of physics don't apply there, apparently.



It's a wonderful place. CFast cards work flawlessly in Nikon cameras there.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 14, 2016)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ...Well, except in dilbertland, because the laws of physics don't apply there, apparently.
> ...


I don't own nikon, but a friend does. His gear is very up to date. I don't recall nikon uses Cfast. I can be wrong of course


----------



## j-nord (Jul 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Not exactly the same thing but you can absolutely consistently and accurately report 60Hz monitors vs 120Hz monitors in side by side comparison and there is still precievable room to improve which is why gaming monitors are now 144Hz+.
> ...


A gaming monitor + gpu is far superior to any tv  Tvs are loaded with awful onboard processing effects, the worst of which are the motion smoothing/enhancing ones.


----------



## retroreflection (Jul 14, 2016)

When AvTvM's perfect mirrorless camera does get built, what happens next?
Do the brownshirts have a night of fun destroying all of the heretical mirrorslappers?
Do the preordered rise to heaven in a rapture, leaving behind the sinners with mirrors?
Does ktulu rise from the deep to destroy any who reflect his horrors directly (our hero looks at the gorgon through an EVF and then can cut off her head, but he was in the wrong story so he's dead)?
Does the great photographer of the universe recognize the utter perfection and take the (stunning photo timed just right)? The universe is then wiped clean as the sensor read plays out. Analyze the data, man. The big bang was a CMOS read.

Or is it possible that the destiny of all does not lead to an arbitrary design decision?


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jul 14, 2016)

Thom Hogan said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > The only part of Thom's concerns I have trouble accepting is his lament over the current best-in-class 1/250 second lag of the viewfinder image in a mirrorless body.
> ...



Totally agree that all the lags are cumulative. Also agree the time sequence is as you state above. My concern was the relative magnitudes. When a decisive moment occurs, a photographer using a dSLR with OVF will have a viewfinder image of it instantly (ignore the speed of light and the path it follows for this discussion) while a mirrorless shooter with a best in class EVF won't get that image until 4 msec later. Agreed? Now, assuming both photographers have equal reaction time, both will process the viewfinder image and decide to take a photo. A great reaction time might be 100 msec. so the dSLR shooter is now 100 msec after the decisive moment and the EVF shooter is 104 msec late. Having hit the shutter button we are now into the shutter lag which can vary extensively. Given best case, manual focus with lens pre-focused on the right spot - the actual image capture occurs 40 - 50 msec later. [adding in AF can add an additional 50-100 msec in 'good' light] So our dSLR shooter has missed the moment by 140-150 msec while the EVF shooter is 144-154 msec off. The variability in camera reaction time between models [and maybe even with the same body in different modes - Av, Tv, P, M?] is greater than the lag introduced by the EVF. Your D5 and D500 differ from each other by 10 msec according to Nikon specs. Do you notice that difference and compensate mentally for it? 

The only way to hit a decisive moment within a millisecond is to anticipate it knowing the characteristics of your camera. Or, spray and pray at 14 FPS - which still can miss by as much as 70 msec.

Am I missing something? BTW: Thanks for tuning in to the discussion.

Now, replace the best in class EVF with my older OMD-EM5 and we can have a different discussion!


----------



## eml58 (Jul 14, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Hi Dylan, Friend of mine on my recent trip to Sth Africa & Botswana was shooting with the Nikon D5, the Nikon D5 uses the XQD & CF cards, or you can order the D5 from Nikon with 2 x XQD Cards, hopefully Canon will follow this sensible example at some point & offer the 1 Series with 2 x C Fast cards, that are compatible.

Interestingly when I got home & noted the issue with my 1Dx II and the C Fast card from SanDisc (supplied with both Bodies), he mentioned Nikon also had some issues with the D5 and the XQD Card system.

I think we are long past the stage of expecting any of these Companies to be able to release a Camera without Bugs, it's pretty well expected now, but huge disappointment with Canon over this C fast Card issue when they supplied the Cards in the Box.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 14, 2016)

Dylan777 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You are confusing the real world and Dilbertland.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 14, 2016)

I have followed this thread. Will keep my contribution here relatively pointed.

Firstly, ‘back in the day’ (up to 20 years ago) I read everything I could find online from Thom about digital imagery. These days I continue to read widely, but spend more time taking photos, enjoying them and undertaking other pursuits in life. I’m glad Thom came online and contributed in this CR discussion, I found it helpful he used that opportunity to clarify and add some useful information.

Secondly, while there is, and has been – a lot of rather heated debates online here about sensor types and brands, mirrorless vs DSLRs, etc – particularly between certain members, I would encourage everyone to keep it civil and choose which battles to fight (or rather, choose which battles not to fight). Even if some contributors may not back up their statements with facts (or ignore evidence as presented by others, whether according to own perception or reality), please folks - ‘take the higher road’. Choose humility and let the heated discussions die down with a polite ‘ok, that’s all I’m going to say on [insert topic of dissention here]’.

Now to the point, my thoughts on camera format, and in particularly mirrorless in the future. I actually believe the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (MILC) format will in some years’ time be the preferred format for most enthusiast photographers around the world. How long that timeframe will be, is still anyone’s guess (though some will be more accurate than others). I am middle aged, and I certainly hope mirrorless will happen long before I reach my 60’s! [As an aside, if I have the capability, I hope to continue pursuing photography as a hobby during my retirement, but certainly not being the sole thing I do].

I currently own a 7D and a good old trusty 350D. I used many other cameras, from 1DsIII to 700Ds and several Nikon DSLRs (including the D800).
I also have used some mirrorless cameras (Sony A6000, a few Fujis, an Olympus on the odd occasion too, etc). I shoot a mix of photography – mainly ‘nature’ (from landscapes, to wildlife to macro), but I also take thousands of photos a year in other genres, including ‘event’ (church, public events, ‘occasions’), a bit of outdoor sports, stock photo/still life, etc. I rarely take videos, and prefer photography as a hobby and in general to view, though there are still many amazing videos people take which I appreciate.

Mirrorless technology has in recent years been improving rapidly. How mirrorless may benefit one’s photography does depend a lot on the type and style of an individual’s photography. I have used the Canon 80D in recent months, and the DPAF is really good. No doubt it can be improved, but it is already impressive. The speed, accuracy and reliability of DPAF is good (for both photograph and videography). I hope that Canon has a few tricks up its sleeves in obtaining even more benefits from DPAF. Sony has created some amazing on-sensor AF hardware and software algorithms also. 

While I would often appreciate a lighter (& sometimes somewhat smaller) camera package, I have yet to find a mirrorless (MILC) camera that I really love to hold and view, in anywhere near the same range as (my) Canon DSLRs. Weight wise, a 400 gram camera body helps me with balance (lens dependent of course, with lenses… generally the smaller and lighter the better). My ideal camera size is part-way between the 80D and 7D. The smaller and often ‘slippery’ (i.e. poor / no substantial grip) feeling of most MILCs leaves me with a much less satisfied shooting experience ergonomically.

The potential mirrorless advantages of wider ranging shutter speeds (at both extremes), perfect ‘autofocus’ on sensor (no need for AFMA), (almost) perfectly quiet operation, etc are particularly attractive to me. While some cameras have achieved (some of) these criteria already, no doubt maturity and improvements can still be made. I look forward to technology continuing to advance – with us, the consumers being the end beneficiaries.

Earlier today I was contemplating whether my next camera body will be a DSLR, or a MILC. I currently own lenses from the Sigma 8-16mm to the Canon 70-300mm L. My ‘all purpose’ lens is Canon’s 15-85mm IS USM. I also have a 18-135mm IS STM. (Yes, Canon, I’m wanting a 15-135mm… lol). I own a few primes also. If Canon can come out with a ‘pro’ MILC with somewhat the features of a 80D to 5D still, I would be very tempted. While not a ‘requirement’ – if I could use my existing EF/EF-S lenses, that would be great – though I’d potentially be prepared to purchase lenses in a new lens format if required – i.e. if the system really ‘worked’ well.

Battery life does matter to me, though I am also prepared to take along up to 4 batteries if required. I regularly shoot around several hundred to over 2000 in one outing or occasion. Battery technology has also seen significant upgrades within the past 15 years or so, but I expect we’ll see more advances in battery technology too (electric car J-curve comes to mind).

I believe within a decade the ‘photography market’ will have two main segments, ‘main’, but not exclusive. Smart phones (which have already seen the large demise of point-and-shoot cameras) – and MILC. Smart phone images are good enough for many people for ‘snapshots / memory-moments’ and social-media sharing. Mobiles go everywhere with most smart-phone users, and are (usually) small enough to keep in a pocket / tuck into a (tiny) bag / satchel, etc. Mirrorless cameras may replace the ‘camera body of choice’ for many current DSLR owners, and photo enthusiasts within the upcoming millennial-generation who will have (more of their) own purchasing power soon. Mirrorless cameras with 1” ™ and larger sensors for those who require limited depth of field, improved low light capability and generally higher IQ, etc.

We live in exciting times. My Canon 350D was a highly useful bit of photography gear when I purchased it in 2005. My 7D has superseded it by a comfortable margin, and remains very capable for most of my needs. But I expect one day I will own a mirrorless camera that far eclipses anything my 7D can do now. EVFs will hopefully improve. I do use Live View regularly (e.g. for macro, night-time shooting in low light etc). Yes, I really find how the screen ‘gains’ light at night, and with my 10 stop ND filter is really helpful.

Best wishes and peace to all.

Paul 8)


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jul 14, 2016)

pj1974 said:


> I have followed this thread. Will keep my contribution here relatively pointed.
> 
> Firstly, ‘back in the day’ (up to 20 years ago) I read everything I could find online from Thom about digital imagery. These days I continue to read widely, but spend more time taking photos, enjoying them and undertaking other pursuits in life. I’m glad Thom came online and contributed in this CR discussion, I found it helpful he used that opportunity to clarify and add some useful information.
> 
> ...



In my opinion this is an excellent and well balanced contribution to the discussion. For many of us it simply does not matter which technology the camera we used is based on. What is important is that the camera is comfortable, easy to use and that it is capable of producing good results. Of course we all have different tastes and preferences so what is right for one person will be wrong for another and there is not a single option that will suit everyone.
I have been on a couple of dates with mirrorless cameras, and the results were acceptable. However at the end of the day I was pleased and relieved to return home to my trusted 5D mk3. Maybe it is a bit old fashioned, and it could be smaller and lighter, but for me it is comfortable to use and the pictures it produces are better than anything I was able to create with the mirrorless options I tried. Maybe it is just that I am more familiar with the controls on the 5D mk3 and that over time I would have been able to do better with the mirrorless cameras. However, for me I find that the mirrorless cameras are small, the tiny little grip is uncomfortable and when you add a decent sized lens it feels unbalanced. I am in my 60s and I have never felt that my 5D mk3 is too big or heavy, and I really don't care whether it has a mirror inside or not. It is the right camera for me and it really does annoy me when someone who knows nothing about my photographic style or preferences comes up to me out of the blue and advises me it is time to swap my "dinosaur" for something smaller.


----------



## martti (Jul 14, 2016)

There are nine pages of postings, I read the pages 1,2 and 9. 
Japanese cars are not only smaller than the American sauriens, they are smarter. They have a higher information content per tonne which again means that they will run with less trouble and far longer. They have no down time. 
That's the reason they have won and now the Coreans are coming with similar quality and better pricing and more imaginative designs. Like what Samsung was about to do but decided not to, for whatever reason.


Now to my question: Can anybody around here confidently tell from looking at a quality journal what camera/lens combination has been used to take a certain full-page shot? If this is not the case, what might be the point of this article and this discussion? My point after having recovered from the GAS (Gear Acquiring Syndrome) is htat much of the gear talk is time wasted and also it is a part of the world-wide Capitalist plot to keep people buying rather than seeing & learning.


I'd lilke to see Ken Rockwell's 8) take on the subject.

Edit to remove some HTML dirt.
Visited Ken's site and he had posted a video on the subject by the excellent tutor Phil Steele who basically says "whatever floats your boat". Why don't we.


----------



## Otara (Jul 14, 2016)

martti said:


> Now to my question: Can anybody around here confidently tell from looking at a quality journal what camera/lens combination has been used to take a certain full-page shot? If this is not the case, what might be the point of this article and this discussion?



I think the point is I can fairly confidently say what kinds of shots _werent_ taken with a mirrorless at this stage of technology. I can also fairly confidently talk about what I prefer to use to take a given kind of picture - the process has some importance to me personally, even if it might not to the end viewer. For a start if one type of photographic setup might take hours of work to get the same shot as another might be able to do in one go, that has some relevance too.

Im a bit flummoxed this needs explanation.


----------



## LDS (Jul 14, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Ford & GM are the home grown "big car makers" in the USA that built "American cars" for many many years.
> Which two companies now fill out the top three car sellers? Toyota & Honda, selling smaller cars.



Sorry, but classic US cars are much more alike 8"x10" view cameras. Same recent technology, small practical size, and cheap to operate  

But people don't buy cars the same way they buy cameras - very different needs and prices. If you believe you can sell cameras the same way you sell cars, you'd be out of business in a short time.

Anyway Toyota at Le Mans was just like a mirrorless - no power when it truly needed it <G>


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2016)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Interesting analogy...typically flawed. The prominence of smaller cars in the auto market started because those cars were more energy efficient (remember the oil crises and gas station lines in the 70s?), and continued because those small cars were substantially cheaper than their 'American car' counterparts, thus had a perceived better value. That's still the biggest factor – the global top selling vehicles from both Asian and US automakers are the ones at the lower end of the cost spectrum. Neither of those is true for MILCs relative to dSLRs – the former are less power efficient and most importantly, _not_ less expensive. 

Also, the markets are quite different – it's not as if the entire auto market is being eroded by the rise of the bicycle as a ubiquitous replacement mode of transportation that's always with you and 'good enough'.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


Also flawed.....
I have two bicycles, yet only one car. This obviously means that globally bicycles are replacing cars due to their lower cost, smaller size, and greater DR.

That said, the global bicycle market is ******* because shoes are even more popular, have greater sales numbers, and come with laces!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Fixed that for you. 

Although we know in AvTvM's house people are giving up dSLR buying completely in favor of purchasing only MILCs, his house is not representative of the global market, nor are the people or cities you mention representative of the global market. Last year there were over 88 million cars sold (~7 times as many as the number of ILCs sold), and unlike ILCs, global car sales have risen every year for the past five. In most of the developed world, more households own cars than own bicycles.


----------



## j-nord (Jul 14, 2016)

old-pr-pix said:


> ... while a mirrorless shooter with a best in class EVF won't get that image until 4 msec later. Agreed?



NO I don't agree. The camera mentioned by Thom has an EVF that is refreshing at 54Hz = 18.5ms, so at the very least that is the total lag, but it's probably a little higher (+5ms, the time it takes to go from the sensor to EVF for processing). Refer to my post with the interview with Samsung. 

This will produce real world visible lag, most notably when tracking subjects or trying to time your shutter press just right.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jul 14, 2016)

j-nord said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > ... while a mirrorless shooter with a best in class EVF won't get that image until 4 msec later. Agreed?
> ...



I used Thom's claimed 1/250 sec delay... feel free to change it to 18.5 ms, or 23.5 ms... it is still way less than the other delays in the system. And, the EVF delay is consistent compared to other lags. Human perceptual lag varies based on lots of factors. Shutter lag varies based on the complexity of the auto exposure algorithm being used (matrix v. spot), whether AF is involved, etc. I can much more easily compensate for the minor EVF delay than lag due to AF hunting. And, to consistently time a shot to within 1 ms without some sophisticated, non-human controller is unrealistic. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## martti (Jul 14, 2016)

Most GM and Ford cars sold here in Europe have never been even close to the United States. The 'Chevrolet' I checked up was made by Daewoo in South Corea (it was stamped on the engine block) and my daughter's Ford SUV comes from Germany. 


BTW Japanese carmakers are now introducing mirrorless cars. Let's see how they handle real life situations.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 14, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ...
> That said, the global bicycle market is ******* because shoes are even more popular, have greater sales numbers, and come with laces!



so it is! LOL ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2016)

old-pr-pix said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > old-pr-pix said:
> ...



Absolutely true about the importance of a consistent lag. That's why, for example, on the 1D X you can choose to have a shorter shutter lag of down to 36 ms, but it will be variable between 36–55 ms based on aperture setting, etc.; the default setting is a standard 55 ms.


----------



## bp (Jul 14, 2016)

Wow Thom. That's a whole lot of typing. TLR = "this still just works better for me". Cool, ok. The entire article could've been 3 sentences, maybe toss in a bullet list if you're feeling randy


----------



## j-nord (Jul 14, 2016)

bp said:


> Wow Thom. That's a whole lot of typing. TLR = "this still just works better for me". Cool, ok. The entire article could've been 3 sentences, maybe toss in a bullet list if you're feeling randy



The length seems appropriate for the format > blog post. However, the giant font makes it hard to read quickly.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 14, 2016)

j-nord said:


> bp said:
> 
> 
> > Wow Thom. That's a whole lot of typing. TLR = "this still just works better for me". Cool, ok. The entire article could've been 3 sentences, maybe toss in a bullet list if you're feeling randy
> ...



Giant font? What happened to Ctrl + Mouse Wheel to shrink it? Problem solved! 

- A


----------



## j-nord (Jul 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Giant font? What happened to Ctrl + Mouse Wheel to shrink it? Problem solved!
> - A



I shouldn't have to and it's only an issue for me maybe 1x a year


----------



## Halfniak (Jul 15, 2016)

pj1974 said:


> I have followed this thread. Will keep my contribution here relatively pointed.
> 
> Firstly, ‘back in the day’ (up to 20 years ago) I read everything I could find online from Thom about digital imagery. These days I continue to read widely, but spend more time taking photos, enjoying them and undertaking other pursuits in life. I’m glad Thom came online and contributed in this CR discussion, I found it helpful he used that opportunity to clarify and add some useful information.
> 
> ...



So why did you keep the 350 and not the 700Ds?


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Jul 18, 2016)

Don't all these things require answers _before_ you can even conceive of going out and making a decent image?

   



ahsanford said:


> I predict this thread will be besieged with the following terms / statements in the next few hours:
> 
> Battery Life
> Mirrorslappers
> ...


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Jul 18, 2016)

By extension ->

Canon and Nikon are the home grown "big camera makers" around the world that built "great cameras" for many many years.

Which two companies will soon fill out the top three "camera" sellers? Apple and Google Android, selling smaller cameras connected directly to the network and social media.

 



dilbert said:


> Ford & GM are the home grown "big car makers" in the USA that built "American cars" for many many years.
> 
> Which two companies now fill out the top three car sellers? Toyota & Honda, selling smaller cars.


----------



## hwoarang5 (Jul 20, 2016)

wait who's thom hogan again? ???


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 20, 2016)

hwoarang5 said:


> wait who's thom hogan again? ???



an old Nikon mirrorslapper fanboi who is *not* paid by Nikon but achieves a good part of his income by writing *about* every latest incremental iteration of every boring "new" Nikon mirrorslappers ...


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 20, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> hwoarang5 said:
> 
> 
> > wait who's thom hogan again? ???
> ...



Or maybe he is someone who thinks Nikon gear is the best for his needs and Nikon identify him as someone who could help sales, and if Nikon stopped supporting him he would still shoot with Nikon gear. 

I don't understand how that negates anything he wrote in his article.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 25, 2016)

Hi Halfniak. 
I would imagine the differentiator here is the use of the terms "own" and "used." I would imagine that means the cameras were company or borrowed or rented rather than owned. 
Of course it could just be that there was more emotional attachment to his first dslr. 
Or by the time he had to choose between selling the either the 350D or 700D there was not enough residual value to the earlier camera to support an upgrade, this is what usually happens to me. 
Following an unexpected shutter death whilst on holiday I resolved never to be without a backup hence I kept my 300D until I wanted to upgrade my 40D, 300D value <£100, camera had more value as a time lapse shutter sacrifice so I kept it, it is still going and gets loaned to my nieces to use without fear of financial ruin! 

More on topic. 
Angela had an EOS M that we bought for her to use as she wanted better control than is offered by a phone, had to be a Canon MILC to take advantage of my lens collection. After a couple of days where just walking on the seafront on a summer day made picture taking impossible (live view reflection) it was decided that a viewfinder was required. So we looked at an M3 plus add on evf vs an SL1 / 100D, the M3 with evf was about 20% smaller than the SL1 / 100D (not sufficiently smaller enough to not need a small camera bag) and about 25% dearer, enough to sway the decision. 
We are both happy with the SL1 / 100D as I can help with menus and controls as they are very similar to my cameras and Angela is already having better results for her effort, she can also track moving targets that were much more difficult on the M due to lag. Plus I'm not likely to try to "borrow" it as I find it too small to hold comfortably, it causes cramp from screwing my hand up so small on the grip. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Halfniak said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > I currently own a 7D and a good old trusty 350D. I used many other cameras, from 1DsIII to 700Ds and several Nikon DSLRs (including the D800).
> ...


----------

