DSLRs Will Never Die 

That's the spirit 😄

Did your mirror fall off😂. I heard many had to glue it back on. 😂

​@@linjicakonikon7666 fun fact amen is a reduced version of the Amorah. Sun god. It's all Saturn and planetary worship in disguise 🤔

Same here, but it’s my D700. I’m thinking about getting a backup, but if I do it’s another D700 😂

I have the same sentiment about the Nikon d700

I feel that

It? Perhaps you can shed light on how much damage all these electronic views finders are or are not? I think it's a subject worth discussing. My eyesight for reading got weaker the last few years but I'm 50. Is there a way to set up a electric VF with a blue screen shield? Hope this comment makes Sense.

@@unbroken1010 IT - information technology

@@unbroken1010 My left eye is weaker and i believe it's from all those years i looked into the the optical viewfinder. With mirrorles it's a bless, i can look in the main screen, no need to use only one eye

I spent 35 years in prepress, the last 20 or so in digital staring into to large Macs and a PC (jobs were OS determinate) and not, if I spend any length of time looking "through" an EVF, my eyes together get very tired (I assume it's an optic nerve/brain interlacing thing. AMEN!

I had an Agfa box camera.

Like musicians have done :)

I believe one day it will awaken and reborn like film camera nowadays.

Yeah Smal lCompanies will start producing them in 20 years like some are making modern Film cameras that feel oldschool right now@@raymondchan3587

But no company makes new film SLR. Something becoming popular again doesnt mean it gonna rule again in the market. Dslr is dead like film cameras​@@raymondchan3587

Love my D4. Switched from mirrorless and picked it up for $450. And there’s so many great lenses available for cheap!

Depending on the DSLR, sometimes there are aftermarket focusing screens that have microprism/split-image available. Definitely seen them for some Nikon and Pentax cameras, ones with interchangeable screens.

Canon 1d bodies too. I think even the 5d bodies could swap focusing screens!!

Yeah, after my switch from canon dslr to mirorless fujifilm, i was shocked how easier it is to shot with vintage lenses on mirorless

Sounds like you picked the wrong brand. If you had picked Nikon you could use their vintage glass on all nikon dslrs and pretty much all mirrorless cameras.

@@SuperbustrI already had Konica glass and Konica SLRs, so the Sony mirrorless (A7II) was a good fit, as the Hexanons won't adapt with intact infinity focus to basically any DSLR out there... Not to mention I got it pretty cheap. Seems to me that Sony full-frame mirrorless are the cheapest in it's category on the used market. Choosing Sony is also kind of poetic in that Minolta bought Konica which in turn was bought by Sony! But that was just by chance. In the end though I wasn't really looking for any particular brand. Any full-frame mirrorless (or DSLR, if flange distance wasn't an issue) that I could fit my lenses to, for as little money as possible, was the goal here. Nikons definitely in the runnings if I ever go looking for specifically a DSLR though. I think they even have models with exchangeable focusing screens, which would be neat for split prism reasons.

It’s fairly simple to calibrate, especially with prime lenses, but I get where you’re coming from.

Those issues only really surfaced once resolution was pushed up past 16 MP (APS-C) / 36 MP (FF). And that was already a LOT more than the vast majority need. But the manufacturers keep pushing the resolution up because they have to sell new cameras, and brainwash people into thinking they need it through their advertising. And yes, most large corporations keep psychologists on staff in their marketing teams so they can actually, literally brainwash you through their ads.

I wouldn't say non existant.

Pentax was the first market mover to produce DSLR in history back in the days. D3 is definitely a tank.

The basic of love to photography is to love our environment, so he choose to produce less waste.

Another advantage of old tech is that it is not connected to the internet/WiFi/cloud and it can't spy on you.

95 percent is close enough. Step back a foot.

@@unbroken1010 Yes, and with any dSLR from the last 10 years, there's plenty of pixels to crop that 5% out if there's something that intrudes. Also, a lot of dSLRs from that same time frame also have the ability to route the image onto the rear LCD screen, so you'd get 100% coverage like that. (Obviously, that's frequently not a great choice)

@@SmallSpoonBrigade it don't bother me, I know what. I want in my frame.

Nikon wants a word with you. Bring A bag lunch

@@unbroken1010 just my opinion because they are dedicated to that format forever

​@@unbroken1010 Nikon is happy to have a word, but their development is now focused on Z and not their DSLR past. It wouldn't be a long conversation.

@@WhoIsSerafin Historically speaking, yes I think Pentax is commited to SLR (remember the behemoth Pentax 67)? And Nikon's first film camera, the Nikon Model I, wasa rangefinder (mirrorless).

That's a good comparison. And I agree. I love the cheap old DSLR stage we're in right now :D

Lenses are soooo cheap if you know what you need. Just look at Nikon E-Series glass, for example.

@@snappiness It depends if you're selling your gear to buy mirrorless or not. I personally got kind of screwed selling some used gear, so I decided to use it as a trade in to get a 2nd hand Canon 70-200mm F4L. I had the 70-200mm F2.8L IS and this was just kind of a nice lense to have if I didn't really need the extra light. I was also able to get Tamron's F3.5 180mm macro lens for a little over $200 which was quite the deal as it's in very good condition. But, I do think that the camera manufacturers are premature, I do think that Canon would do well to cut back to 2 or 3 dSLR lines (1 beginner, 1 cropped pro body and 1 full-frame pro body) and to just manufacture their mirrorless bodies similar to how they added the EF-S standard years back where any EF-S body could handle both EF-S and EF lenses, but only the EF-S bodies could handle the EF-S lenses. Since only some lenses even benefit from not having the mirror anyways, it makes little sense to force people to replace their entire lens collection for a body that might be significantly worse than the one they've got. I've got somewhere around $4k worth of lenses, if my options are sticking with the bodies and lenses I've got, or throwing it all out and starting over, I'm sticking what what I've got. It will probably be many years before the bodies I've got are no longer good enough to do a great job of what I'm likely to want to do.

@@SmallSpoonBrigade That's exactly what Canon is doing, with the 1DXIII and 5DIV still available for pros who want to look through a prism, and the EF to RF lens adapter for the investment in lenses to carry over to the new bodies.

One has a mirror and one doesnt. Same difference Not like we are talking digital vs film here.

film.

Exactly, we are taking photo instead of caputring frame in video shooting.

This is why I use a canon 5D mk 1 for fun a lot, the clunk of the shutter and the optical viewfinder are just, nice. For work I use my mirrorless sony setup

They practically both take great pictures. So how is a DSLR process much better than a Mirrorless? Let me guess? Since you never used one, you bashed it to justified keeping your DSLR right?

"All I have is a piece of hard rock candy. But it's not for eatin'. It's just for lookin' through" TOJW :)

this is what I think of when he said, “what you see is what you get”. No, what you get is what the sensor sees. so no matter how much the photographer can see, you will be limited by the sensor.

More representative of the output image, but not more representative of reality. Looking through an ovf is just like looking through a monocle where just your eyes are the sensor, and the light does not have to meet the camera’s sensor, then to be displayed onto your eyes

WYSWYG is a term for the old range finder & twin lens user who sometimes only got close to what they wanted because the film image frame was a different path from the viewfinder path or lens used. A mirror less also alters the image you see by the sensor settings and adjust for brightness white balance, and noise. But then yes it will also be the image recorder to.

Came to the comments for this. Love my a99II and Minolta a7 combo.

A pro with a great but tiny mirrorless could put it in a cage with a wooden focus wheel, extra battery mount, external screen with hdmi cable, and xlr adapter. Then the client would feel they got what they paid for!

@@editingsecretsDidn’t Sony do just that with one of their earlier small “pro” video cameras? They got complaints from videographers doing work at weddings and such, that they looked just like the dad with the Handicam, and they wanted something that looked a little beefier.

There is something about that I feel too. G9 is a great camera though. But there is something to be said for finding a camera that gels with you.

The g9 has been my favorite camera in the mirrorless space

I had a couple of G9s a few years ago, and though they are capable of great results, I felt I was fighting the camera a lot of the time because it was so complex. I do miss some of the truly excellent Olympus and Panasonic Leica lenses though.

You can send to me for free 👃😁

I think I felt the same when my agency switch to Sony. Yes, it had more features that were useful in the field but it was tiny and we were using 24 to 70mm 2.8 lenses. And they were like 150 different menus and so I just deal with the default settings even though it was a pain to freaking use.

And are going broke using it. I think the hype won`t stick.

agree - the middle ground is the marriage of both, ergo the Z6 cameras or those of Fujis

The D90 was one my first DSLRs and it's till very popular. I sold mine for more than I bought it for new. Same for the Canon 50D. They are some of the best midrange ones every made. My wife does photography and I do professional videography and streaming. I still use a D7100 and wife uses a D7500.

I can say the same for the nearly identical 7100, which is often still my go-to for vacation stuff.

Right, most have never touched a Canon 1dx or equivalent Nikon... They destroy almost everything out here today under 3.5k to this day.

What is the benefit of an optical Viewfinder? They don’t show you your actual exposure, you get blinded if you look thru them at a bright light source (shooting into the sun etc), they don’t show a usable image if you are shooting in very low light etc.. why would anyone want that other than nostalgia?

@@amirleon996 you can get a Sony a7iii or canon eos-r for like $1500 that blows that out of the water

@@RustyShackleford9000 no advantage for me. true the EVF sucks battery, or what I have experienced with Fuji will be some weird dancing lines with frame rates but thats about it. you get better SOOC images out of mirrorless, less editing, more accurate representation of exposure, depth of field, etc.

It`s not like you`re focussing on singular stars in the dark, so that`s a nonsense argument. Dslr`s are a thing of the past, they`re obsolete and will never return.

@@brugj03 well infact the orion theta stars are very bright and visible. You do realise that observational astronomy is a thing so as long as a camera offer you a optical viewfinder, you get to see what you normally see with a eyepiece, except you can take a picture. The moon is also very bright, so for lunar and solar photography i still think DSLRs are relevant. And it's not a thing of the past. It's a preference.

@@brugj03 I find the brightest star and focus on that. Once set, just point the camera where you want. The downside of live-view, for me, is the effect of looking at a bright object when working in near total darkness. I do a lot of nighttime timelapse so that means setting the camera up, start the timelapse and leaving well alone. Sometimes, I may even go home for a couple of hours and come back later. Yea, I live out in the sticks and I can do that. The shutter sound helps me find the camera again. Each to his own I guess. Then again, cost is a major factor for me. I get all the bang for my buck I need with my D800. As for obsolete, I'm always skeptical when the people selling the product say that. From them it's little more than a fashion statement. My camera does what I want it to do and I intend keeping it until it dies.

@@PhilJonesIII nice ! You could consider yourself a amateur astrophotographer since you do rather night landscape photography (so constellations and milky way). Time to time, do you also stack your images to get a better wide shot of the milky way ? Anyways, your eyes are far better than any live view and from my experience you can see the alot of stars with your naked eye trough a telescope, so i am pretty sure it's the same for a DSLR. I also tried to photograph the orion nebula (quick snap) and the optical viewfinder was a really big help to focus my Canon lens (it doesn't mark "infinite" so it's not all the way one way).

@@photonik-luminescence I've used Deep Sky Stacker in the past. Managed some half decent shots of Phalades star cluster. My limitations at the time were storage space and a steam-powered computer. My timelapse efforts were eating up disk space like no tomorrow so I eventually treated myself to an 8TB external drive. There seems to be any number of packages for photo-stacking now. Lots of reviews but not quite the same until you try for yourself. And yes, infinity isn't infinity which is a shame. Objects so far away that they are no longer where you are looking should qualify in my books.

Hey, I'd probably buy into a DTLR just to try out 🤣

If I could get a full frame DSLR the same shape and size as an OM-1 I'd do it in a heartbeat

The best camera is the one you bring with you!

@@fuzzyblurrydotcomSony afc

Hey that's a good catch! I did not even check into medium format doh

interesting. I wonder then why today's mirrorless cameras are commanding double the prices of the dslrs before.. on the contrary I think shrinking down the tech (less moving parts) may actually be more costly on the manufacturing side of things, hence the shift to Thailand, Philippines, etc. take Sony, Nikon and Fuji mirrorless entry level camera pricing as an example

Fantastic. I am loving mine. I will share more on just this camera in the future :)

Is S3 pro better than s2pro? They have almost the same appearence

.

I have my pentax spotmatic for when my a7ii gets to be too overwhelming or I just need to dumb down life a little bit. I love that tactile feel and control of old analog film.

Weight ? D850 and Z8 same weight , same size, more or less, and ... lenses heavier and bigger !!! Not speaking tha added adaptor.

Just look up camera reviews from five years ago about the latest and greatest DSLRs. You'll soon have your shopping list!

If you can commit to carry heavy DSLRs along with you, it stands a high chance you are true hobbyist. Otherwise, you'll stop very soon. I would say, even high end mirrorless, you lenses will still be bulky, it is the physics.of opticals

D610 and sony7 are totally different. I would take Sony just for manual lenses. Otherwise Nikon is better for the price&choice of lenses&convenience

I bet you do art photos 😂 camera conspiracy has his eye on you😂

There will always be a niche for people who like inefficient but incredibly well engineered mechanical systems, like SLRs and Swiss watches.

Yes, good note! Others have let me know that too. For some reason I only remembered their entry and mid level SLTs and didn't realize their top of the line ended up slt as well. It really points to their transition to mirrorless as leading up years before.

Weight. You are going to lose 1/3 to 1/2 of it if you go full Sony. But that is going to be a huge investment, and of course some people wanted more weight.

I've been waiting for a K-1iii to come out. Been happy with my K-5 and M-series lenses, though!