You ignore the real innovators who pioneered interchangeable lens mirrorless ‘hybrid’ still and video cameras. Panasonic and Olympus. Sony A mount advantages led me to change my Nikon DSLR system for the M4/3 system which I still use, supplemented today with a Sony A7iii which replaced my trusty old Sony A57. Still have and use my first M4/3 camera, which was the Panasonic G6, while my latest is the Olympus E-M1 Mk2. All great cameras with different characteristics.
He might argue that Sony and their full frame sensors was the more impactful system, but I do agree that it's pointless to focus on the branches of a tree and ignore its roots.
@@RyougiVector maybe if he was doing a deep dive, but this is the equivalent of making a video talking about the ways that apple has affected the phone industry, despite doing almost none of their flagship features first. We can talk about how LG pioneered it all day(among others), but it's apple who inevitably forces other manufacturers to pivot and keep innovating to stay ahead. Especially those that consistently fall behind because they mostly follow the trends that apple sets.
@@tankerbruja bad comparison since the whole way Apple approached touch screens and their OSs literally changed everything in smartphones. The folks at Android had to go back to he drawing board after the iPhone was announced. You can say almost everything else they copied, but their initial influence in the smartphone was their real innovation
@@alvareo92 that's literally what I just said. yes. their software influenced everyone else. and their hardware, once they choose to adopt it, influences everyone else. much like Sony started with making their image sensors competitive, then once the rest of the tech was there they adopted each piece along the way and influenced the standard for the rest of the industry.
As an early user of digital cameras I see you as overlooking the delay time we faced when all you had was an electronic viewfinder. No problem for landscape photography but a true shot killer when trying to get photos of the kids. An optical viewfinder remained the only way to capture spontaneous action for a long time after the arrival of digital sensors.
Agreed. Like many other examples in the histroy of technology, the newest trend is not always the *best* trend (*best* because there are different kind of "best" according to the user's "needs"). VHS won over Betacam, but was really better?
@@matteodemattia Betamax* and yes it really was better when you ignore the impractical Beta-I which wasn't even always available. Beta II vs standard VHS is pretty comparible, and then VHS completely decimates Betamax in max recording time. as for Betamovie vs VHS Camcorders, again VHS is clearly superior given that Betamovie could not replay tapes or act as a VCR like VHS camcorders could, nor is it's SLR viewfinder in the same league as a CRT Viewfinder for usefulness. Really VHS is the superior standard any way you look at it, even when you bring in Europe only contenders like Video 2000.
I absolutely get what you mean, and I agree on many points. While it's not my intention to belittle Sony's impact with regard to mirrorless technology, I'll pedantically remark that the pioneers in this field were Olympus and Panasonic, whose first mirrorless cameras were introduced a year earlier than the first Sony NEX camera. Sony's advantage was probably in the bigger sensor, offering more resolution than the Micro Four Thirds system, but I still think Olympus and Panasonic deserve recognition for introducing a very portable and versatile mirrorless system.
It's an Apple or Android situation in the perspective you've put forth here. Sony is the Apple in this situation, they didn't do anything first, but they did wait until the tech was proven and they had something reliable to launch. So no, not innovators, but yes, I would argue Ted is bang on here and they did affect the entire camera market in some way or another with every release. And I would say, arguably, more than anyone else.
@@tankerbruja As I said, I wasn't disagreeing with Ted. And yes, Sony has been a big influencer more than others in the camera landscape. It certainly has been the company that has believed in - and bet on - mirrorless the most.
@@Riccardo_Mori oh! I think I missed that bit, sorry! 💙 Also having said all that, Sony is probably the only manufacturer I don't want any camera they've released. lol.
@@tankerbruja at the time Sony were criticised for not releasing at the cutting edge. The quote attributed was to the effect that they would release mirrorless "when it was perfect". Meanwhile they dropped SLT into the Alpha mount as a bridge while they were getting their E mount ecosystem underway. Taking a longer term view, it seems to have worked well for them.
Great video. I'm a tech geek, went digital 35 years ago. Computer that is. While I am fond of new tech I think it's wise to halt for a short time every now and then, questioning what the end goal really is. If it is to create beautiful photographs we all know how mind blowing photos there are from the past. Skill, experience, ideas and creative is what you can't buy and I've seen to many people falling into the gear trap trying to compensate these shortcomings. Which is of course impossible.
The end goal is profit. Always has been and always will be. Just look at peter mckinnon. He successful and the gear is whats given him a leg up. There is a video of him and Casey Neistat and its evident that Casey is able to make entertaining videos with a good story with just a cheap camera but it doesn't work the other way around with peter without great gear.
There are three ways you can adapt to a changing technological landscape. First, of course, is that you can ignore it. There are many good photographers who, for example, still use film. I'm generally not that kind of person, but I don't think that such an approach is invalid. Second, what very many people do is to change what images they take in reaction to new technology when it appears. The third is to imagine how the limitations of current technology (or your budget) restrict what kinds of images or videos that you want to take. Most of us, I suspect, have a mixture of two and three. I would argue that many people should place greater emphasis on the third approach. Are there images today that you would like to capture that your current kit discourages? I think that this kind of thinking helps you evaluate new changes and also even greater expenditures for current technology. I remember first getting into digital SLR in about 2011. I also remember that back then experts were saying that "good" landscape photographers knew enough to take a siesta during the midday hours because the light was bad. You were supposed to do almost all shooting during a magic two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening. You had to strictly avoid the dreaded "dappled sunlight" in the forest. You needed lots of filters, both to get the colors right and to have any hope of capturing the sky and the land in one image. Oh, and indoors, you must be so careful! High contrasts, strongly colored ambient light, and dim lighting levels. A lot of elaborate flash equipment was necessary to get "professional" results. I would claim that the evolution of the DSLR from what we had in 2011 until at least the Nikon D850, along with the switch from JPEG to RAW, was responsible for most of the limitations cited above to be greatly reduced. It's a bit early to write the same about Mirrorless and this comment is getting rather long. I will say that the Sony A9 allowed me to go into a dark pine forest with a lens that cost a lot less than my car and take pictures of a chickadee bouncing along branches while eating insects. I was able to get sharp images despite being able to use a very shallow depth of field. I was able to hand-hold the camera. With my A1, the chickadee's eye is pin-sharp. The camera is almost silent, even though the forest is very quiet.
Right now we are experiencing the GOLDEN AGE of mirrorless cameras. Sony 1st and 2nd gen models introduced and led the way for pro mirrorless cameras. Sony's 3rd generation models revolutionized the camera world such as the A9, A7Riii and A7iii. Keep in mind all 3 of those cameras are superb for photography but not for videography. Since Sony is still lacking the autofocus for video, they released the A7Siii that revolutionized the videography aspect showcasing amazing autofocus and tracking focus for video recording. So moving from here on out, all new Sony mirrorless cameras are going to have the best of both photo and video features. 8K resolutions, 10-bit colors, Uncompressed codecs, variable shutter, and autofocus that were all missing from the 3rd gen models except for A7Siii. And then all the little features such as variable shutter, EVF, IBIS, E-shutter and so on that made mirrorless way too overwhelming for DSLR to catch. Just by removing that mirror, Sony unlocked so much potential from mirrorless cameras. When other people said its not the cameras that makes you a better photographer, its you as the photographer that makes you better, I disagreed. Since us as photographers are asking for these features, Sony listens and delivers thus improving our workflow and allowing us to capture photographs on a whim. I am thankful to witness this progression from 2015 up until now. Canon and Nikon didn't even bother to do anything revolutionary to make their cameras amazing. They just sat around twirling their fingers thinking DSLR will still stay for another 10 years. The only reasons why they have caught up 4 years later is because Sony gave them the blue prints of building superb mirrorless cameras. Sony really did killed off DSLR and I'm glad they invested so much into it or else Canon and Nikon would still be making pro DSLR bodies today. If people still thank DSLR are just as good as mirrorless, I tell them to go back to using old flip phones. Don't use your smartphones with all those features that killed off CD player, calculators, paper maps, small flashlight, Nintendo DS, and so much more.
"Canon and Nikon didn't even bother to do anything revolutionary to make their cameras amazing" Funny enough same with photographers lol. It was a gravy train but now they are running to catch up and compete with those entering the field due to cheap cameras being easily accessible.
@@craigman7262 Oh yea, photographers that still stuck with their DSLR are now picking up older models of Mirrorless cameras. Hobby photographers, I can understand their situations to stay with their old DSLR due to photography just being a hobby for them. A few of my hobby friends that have made the switched to Mirrorless, will also never go back to DSLR since they love the Eye-AF and LIVE view way too much. Old DSLR cameras are being sold for so much less now, even the lenses as everyone are moving onto Mirrorless. Anyone new to photography can pickup the old DSLR cameras for very cheap but i advise them not to because the benefits of Mirrorless just outweighs DSLR in every way.
I enjoyed that summary Sir, I'm 80 years old and my first camera was the Kodak Brownie Box Camera, from there I progressed to the Rangefinders then Bridge Cameras, I never owned, or wanted to own a DSLR. My Bridge Cameras were all Sony and when they moved to Mirrorless I went with them and have never regretted doing that. Today I have a Sony Nex F3 and would never part with it after12 years use, it allowed me to progress backwards and use all my "Vintage Legacy Lenses" and take up slow photography which I enjoy to this day, so thank you Sony.
I would argue that it wasn't the A7iii but the A9 that changed the market. The A9 was the first that really showed the power of a mirrorless with the 90% AF coverage with incredible hit rate, the 20 fps with no rolling shutter and great video specs (though not as good as some others). The A7iii would be released about a year later with most of the same features but only less so.
I completely agree. The a9 was the proof of concept that immediately made DSLR obsolete. It showed that not only could mirrorless match DSLR but also had many abilities that were completely unique to it. I remember watching the DPReview live stream on its launch and asking the question of how they felt it compared to the 1Dx. I know it immediately made mine feel like a dinosaur
I'd argue that for the amateur / enthusiast photographer, speed was never the focus. (get it?) Speed is the name of the game for a lot of profesionnal photographers : sports, wildlife, photojournalism, etc. Those people NEED speed and accuracy. The average photographer though? Eh, even a camera from 5 years ago could still deliver enough quality and speed for pretty much all his needs. I'm currently using an X-T2 from 2016 and even if the X-T3s and 4s are faster, I don't really need the AF improvement, the most tense AF situation I've been to is continuous shooting kids and house pets. And it did a good job of that already. When new technologies like global shutter will start to be incorporated into consumer level cameras, this is when I'll say that it is worth even for the average photographer to look into those, but for the moment, eeh, old stuff is good enough. A friend of mine is still taking all his landscapes shots with a 10 year old Nikon D7000 and no one noticed it.
I shot a concert last night with my elder Fuji X-E1 and was frankly impressed at how competent it was. With a little bit of thought, that old school AF was really good enough. Now, if said concert hadn't been at a really well lit venue then it might not have worked out as well, but anyway.. yeah, you don't always need the latest and greatest. Compared to the faster, more modern X-H1 I can say that the E1 is sure a lot easier on batteries!
What most people underestimate in the comments here is the propagation of Mirrorless tech by social media content creators, more than Pro-photographers. I started my photography journey with an Olympus MFT Mirrorless system. Many video creators for social media, swear by Panasonic MFT mirrorless cams. GH9 is still the gold standard. It is the hybrid capabilities of the Mirrorless system, pushed by requirements for making social media content is what drove the adoption rate, especially amongst first time buyers. The last to adopt Mirrorless systems were the Pros thanks to their investment in legacy systems. People underestimate the hobbyists in terms of sales numbers. For every 10 cameras sold, 9 are bought by hobbyists.
I thought I'd be clutching my 5D3 until it died, until I bought the R6. In my first theatre gig it felt like I was 'cheating' at photography, the eye AF made it so much easier to get good shots. I sold my 5D3 and I'm never going back to an OVF apart from on my film cameras. It really is a huge step forward. The next step is a true global shutter. Silent shooting with no banding and no rolling shutter would make it the perfect camera for theatre and event photography.
All-electronic shutter will never ever capture motion the same way a mechanical shutter does. Here’s hoping the industry never ends up switching to that in all cameras
@@alvareo92 with a global shutter sensor it's no a problem. Even with a fast enough readout speed is not a problem too. I hope the CCD sensors having a comeback in a near future, with global shutter in a shutterless.
I'm by no means a professional photographer, but I've been taking photos since the early 1990s using my father's Zenit SLRs, and I still shoot on film with Kiev and Zorki Soviet rangefinders. Since the early 2000 I had been using several Canon DSLRs, first their APSC models, then 5D MK1 and finally the 6D. I tried some mirrorless cameras in the past but they always lacked something, until two models came out. First I got the Fuji X-T1, which I quickly swapped for the X-T2 thanks to better controls. And then the mind-blowing A7III. The AF, in-body stabilization, incredible low light performance, and finally the battery life.. I've easily taken 1200-1500 photos on a single battery on several occasions, and that wasn't in burst mode. It has its quirks, the menu systems are horrible, EVF isn't great, Sony colour science could be better and I'd like to have 10-bit log recording option, but overall this is by far the most versatile camera I've ever owned. Sony really nailed it with this model.
Thanks for another thought provoking video, Ted. I absolutly agree that the mirrorless future is already here. I would add that some of the credit should go manufacturers like Panasonic and OM Systems whose micro four thirds offerings pointed the way to things like face/eye detect focusing and hybrid photo/video capabilities without overheating that the market leaders are only now offering.
I used OM and Fuji in 2012 before switching to Sony in 2016. Great systems, but it wan’t until Sony entered with the FF A7 that Canon and Nikon woke up to reality. Sony has deep pockets and the power to keep pushing the envelope. I loved my Olympus cameras, but they are teetering on bankruptcy.
@@BradleyHansonPhotography Olympus is Filthy rich with all the medica stuff they make. It's the imaging department that has been sold to OM solutions and, as far as I know, is no where near bankruptcy...
Let me just jump in and say that it looks like Leica is still existing and living in 1929... Why? Because their cameras remained the about the same, however they kept the laughably high prices. Most Leica cameras cost over $5,000 but have LESS tech in them than $200-600 point-and-shoot cameras from Nikon, Canon, Sony or Panasonic... Just let that sink in for a minute... Ridiculous and shameless. Leica is quite literally scamming people for their money. Doesn't get more pathetic than that. When a camera has $1,500 worth of tech in it but costs $6,000, you're not just getting scammed by buying it, you're literally being mocked and ridiculed for buying it, by not just everyone around you but also by Leica themselves.
To me the breakthrough for Sony was in 2013 with the sudden and less expected release of the A7 series. That this came with full frame sensor was a shake-up for all other brands - other than Fuji which for some reason stuck to the cropped sensor mirrorless format and later jumped to digital medium format.
What gets me is how all the DSLR users were banging on about how it would never catch on and how awful it was that Sony were releasing a new mount when they already have A-mount (which, btw is still available).
yea, 2013 with the introduction of the first Alpha 7 was the beginning of the end for DSLR. I did have my doubts about Mirrorless as well in 2015 but still decided to pick up an A72 because knowing technology, Sony will greatly improved on it. I'm glad Sony never abandoned Mirrorless and really did improved greatly on it in 2017.
A few notes about SLT: SLT cameras originally did not have any Contrast Detection AF, only Phase Detect AF using a dedicated AF module like a DSLR. The SLT mirror was only there to feed the AF module with light to function. This caused half a stop of light loss to the sensor. It is only the Sony A99II who used a combination of AF from the dedicated AF module and on sensor AF, and only with a selection of lenses. Apart from the SLT mirror, the SLT cameras were mirrorless cameras. Like todays mirrorless cameras they used an EVF and continuous live view with fast AF on both stills and video. SLT was a stop-gap technology. Mirrorless cameras like the NEX series relied on slower Contrast Detection AF. On Sensor Phase Detection AF was not mature yet. In order to have the benefits of a mirrorless camera, but with fast Phase Detect AF that was compatible with existing A-mount lenses, the SLT was developed (E-mount was still in its infancy at that time, in fact the first SLT camera came on the market before the first NEX camera). But from the moment that On Sensor Phase Detection AF became widely available, SLT became obsolete. It would have been possible to create fully mirrorless A-mount cameras, but then you would not have the benefit of the smaller flange distance of E-mount, and would not benefit from the faster E-mount lens control. So Sony went ahead with E-mount and A-mount was stopped. The A77II and A99II were the pinnacle and the last of the SLT camera line. Sony did not completely abandoned the user base however. The LA-EA5 adapter is capable of driving A-mount lenses (both screw driven and with internal focus motor) on the latest E-mount cameras (A1, A7IV, A7RIV, A6600) with similar of even better performance than on the last native A-mount cameras.
@@richardtargett4128 Although mechanical aperture control may not be as good as electronic aperture control, it is not a really important thing. Sony proved with the A77II and A99II that you can have stepless aperture control with A-mount as well. Gary Friedman demonstrated this in this video (from 9:10 onwards): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Fzf5ixoApSM.html
After the children were grown I restarted my photo hobby in 2003 with a new Minolta Maxxum 5 35mm film SLR for $140. In 2008 I went digital with a Sony A300 DSLR because all my Minolta lenses and flash were compatable. Since then I've has a 16mp A580DSLR, a 24mp A68 SLT and just recently made a big jump to full frame mirrorless last year when the A7R2 was on closeout. With adaptors all my lenses and flash still worked and I'm glad I haven't had to start over when Sony bought Minolta.
I started last year with a Pentax K10D from 2006 (!) and upgraded to a K-3 ii in summer because I was getting into wildlife photography, where more megapixels and better ISO performance makes a difference. Aside from that, I'm still happy with the 2006 model, and honestly think most people would be perfectly fine with a digital camera (MFT or larger) from 2010 or later, as long as they're not professionals or need more video than their smartphone can provide. Mirrorless is nice for some purposes, like adapting vintage lenses - short flange distance, electronic light boosting in the viewfinder window and focus peaking means almost any lens of the last hundred years is easily usable with a cheap adapter. And some lenses can be really compact - however this seems to be the exception, most modern lenses are so huge that the compactness of the body itself loses all point and you would be better served with a large DSLR - deep and ergonomic grip included - for stability.
@@XXX-vy6xv It does create great colours, I noticed it especially in the sky shades :) The 18-55mm kit lens also isn't half bad. If you have no other Pentax glass so far, I can also recommend the Pentax-M 50mm 1.7, great build quality, very compact, and can be had for a good price.
@@fricki1997 oh, I have lots of Pentax glass...thanks for the tips though. My main camera is the KP....and use it with my 12-24, 20-40 ltd, 50-135*, 55-300 plm. But I plan to use the K10 solely with limiteds and legacy glass (yes, I own the M-50 1.7 as well 😃)
@@XXX-vy6xv Maybe you could get into Takumar collection then ;) They also have a nice colour rendition, I have a 135mm Super Takumar that gives nature subject the most beautiful colours.
@@fricki1997 yes, maybe I will try few of those at some point. Being m42 mount was always my biggest concern regarding this line. Still I have some lenses from the K and M lineup that I really like and hopefully will work nicely on the k10.
Wasn’t Olympus and Panasonic that made mirrorless a thing in 2009? Sure it wasn’t FF or ApsC but it didn’t had a mirror , had a EVF or live view and had interchangeable lenses.
@@njrtech there’s still a myriad ways they could’ve screwed up. Sony had ample experience with their DSLRs and mirrorless and they could as you say reverse engineer many things Panasonic and Olympus did and their first FF mirrorless cameras still had very basic problems like weird shutter noises and mounts coming off
A bit of a let down that the first pure mirrorless system from ground up Micro 43 was absent from delivery- when it still innovates in the digital idiom ,with Live ND for example, whereas C,N,S just yanked out the mirror and viola - they are architects of the new age ...
And the Sony A7III is the one that was the beginning of the end for DSLRs, the A7III not only made a big impact in the world of mirrorless cameras, but in the future of the DSLR. I think Nikon and canon knew it and accepted it way before their customers did so they planned in advanced and which is why the Nikon Z6/Z7 & Canon EOS R/RP was released more than a few months after the A7III. I still have the A7III and it’s like Sonys D750. The Nikon D750 remained relevant and very capable for so many years, the A7III doesn’t lack far behind it’s successor the A7IV. And in terms of low light performance it’s still better than the new A7IV which low light performance is the main reason I bought a Sony A7III, that and the availability of lenses compared to Nikon and Canon at that time. I definitely agree and I most definitely saw it coming back in 2017, Sony was going to put an end to the DSLR sooner or later.
To me, it was the Sony A9 that revolutionized the camera industry. Everything about it was just amazing back in 2017 with internal 4K recording, 20 fps burst shooting, E-shutter, EVF, dual card slots and most of all, 600+ fast autofocus points. It was also the camera that changed Jared Polin's stance on mirrorless cameras. A7R3 was released that same year and offer the great benefits of what the A9 had except for the insane burst speed. Though these 2 cameras were too pricey with A9 at $4,500 and A7R3 at $3,500, no one could afford them. But once Sony made the A73 that was priced at $2,000, that was HUGE!!!!! A pro body for $2,000 that had way better features than the Canon 5D mark IV. A73 was definitely the final nailed that seal the coffin of DSLR away.
Always appreciate your historical and perspectives Ted. As an Exakta fan I appreciate you mentioning the importance of their early 35mm slrs. Exakta had solid German-made quality, and in the 1950s they were similarly priced to the Leica rangefinders.
I moved into industrial and agricultural photography with a degree in journalism and photo-journalism from the U of Minnesota. I worked for major corporations and advertising agencies mainly using Nikon and Hasselblad camera's. Eventually I retired and several years later furthered my interest in photography by purchasing all Canon digital cameras and lenses. Canon seemed to have started with a clean sheet of paper whereas Nikon seemed too interested in bringing along old film lenses, etc. Over time my interest moved to wildlife photography, particularly birds and butterflies. My Canon cameras so often disappointed in not grabbing focus quickly enough. Then I bought a Sony A10 IV and suddenly I had a digital camera which pretty regularly got my bird and butterfly photos in sharp focus. From there it was an easy jump to the full-frame mirrorless Sony cameras and lenses. I sold my Nikon and Canon cameras and lenses and am now really please with what I capture with my Sony's. I'm still learning my way around my Sony A1 but am delighted with it. After all my years in photography, in my studio and on locations, I'm learning again and couldn't be more pleased.
Can't say that I'm terribly surprised by this. The early to mid 2000's was when I was first learning photography so I spent all my free time reading anything and everything that I could get my hands on and I remember reading a small article about Sony's acquisition and entry into the consumer photography market. Knowing what an electronic giant Sony is, I remember thinking to myself that one day they would supplant Nikon and Canon. And here we are...
My first 'real' camera was a Pentax K5, I wasn't happy with the autofocus and wanted something better. I had heard about Sony mirrorless, but had invested in two Sigma Art lenses for the Pentax. I made the mistake of thinking the new Pentax K3II would be an improvement over the K5. Pentax made zero improvement in that camera, bait-and-switch. I bought a Sony A7S and a A6000 for travel. I'm far happier and enjoy the hobby more. But now I have two Pentax bodies and Sigma lenses that are worthless in the used marketplace.
Same here…was an Pentax diehard…learned photography with my K1000, ZX5n and loved my K-5 but wanted better autofocus. I had bought an RX100iii for hiking and backpacking and was surprised at the image quality. I’m just an enthusiast so limited budget. Always wanted to upgrade to full frame so when the A7II with a kit lens went on sale at under $1000, I pulled the trigger. I also bought a used A6000 for travel and backup body. Happy with the switch…lenses were a bit pricey but found some good used and third party options. I’m sold on the mirrorless workflow. Loving the improvement in autofocus and the fact that I can preview the histogram before taking the shot. The Sony bodies even works better with my vintage manual focus Pentax glass with focusing aids and exposure previews. While I will always look back fondly at my old Pentax cameras, it was time to move on. I was glad I made the switch to Sony.
Thank you for just calling it like it is. I have spent most of my career in the tech sector and generally find myself as an early adopter when the technology makes logical sense and would improve my experience as a user. I was quick to move to and use digital cameras, but I had been reluctant to take a deeper plunge financially because I wasn't too impressed with the quality or the still bulky equipment. When Olympus put out a digital mirrorless interchangeable lens camera I embraced it immediately. When I needed more than an M43, Sony was the logical system. I've been working for Sony since 2019 and it's been interesting to watch the change over the past three years. This video summarizes what I tell prospective clients regularly. People still come in to look for gear with outdated mental images of what quality gear looks like thanks to the media portrayal of what cameras look like.
If anything the quality is gone down, since technology makes it so you need to know less and less to make your photos. And this isn’t against the beginners-plenty pros making a living out of photography don’t care that much about exposure since the malleability of modern sensors mean you can just recover shadows and highlights later. Shooting film for years and now coming back to digital, I’ve been surprised at how much proper exposure matters not just for noise and colour depth, but for a natural and pleasant look without much editing at all
I find it strange that I have used Sony cameras the most when looking at the past 20 years. My first camera was a Cybershot 505v during college, a high-end point and shoot, from the early 2000. Years later, I bought a Canon 20D which was my only non-Sony camera. I upgraded to a a77, its first SLT and first true post Minolta developed ILC camera, shortly before the NEX 7 announcement. The key reasons I bought this was 1080p 60FPS recording and full time autofocus. I am now using the A7 series of cameras.
The plan bit is interesting - Ricoh are a much smaller and less diverse company that Sony, but they did have an established camera business of their own and still had the resources to go somewhere with Pentax if they had chosen to, but they seemed to lack a plan that would make the money people give them the cash they needed to realise any ambitions they might have had. Which is a shame - they make very good DSLRs which are more than good enough for most people's needs but are being increasingly written out of history (and the history is not insignificant) because of their niche status and lack of innovation in core technologies - and the troubke with being small is that any really useful innovation you do make is adopted by others before you can cash in, so you hardly even get credit.
I used to have an SLT-A99 body some 10 years ago and it was something in terms of innovation. No flipping mirror shake and an EVF in a pro body with an articulating screen! It was different. Sony's move to the E-mount though which opened the system to all lens manufacturers and even allowed the system to burrow glass from Nikon and Canon through adapters is what made it greatly popular in my opinion. I still prefer the ergonomics of the Alpha bodies over the E bodies though.
No third party adapter was ever given access to 'open mount' specs from Sony. This is according to Caldwell Optical, makers of the Smart Adapter for EF to Sony FE. They had to reverse engineer all of it. And Sony was the winner because of it.
Though Sony is at the center of Mirrorless revolution which killed DSLR, I sincerely thank Sony because they caught Nikon by their Collar and helped us get best technology from Nikon (Z9). Otherwise Nikon would have taken at least another 10 years to reach where we are today and would have released another 10 bodies with cosmetic upgrades ripping loyal Nikon shooters. Thank you Sony for Kicking the.............
There's a lot missing here. Electronic Live-view imaging has been around in the form of the Camcorder for decades now. Having both the legacies of the Handycam and the Minolta SLR in its hands, and with Canon's 5D Mark II and Panasonic's G1 already on the scene, the NEX system was Sony's way to keep up. The transition from film to digital imaging devices also included the slew of live-view only digital cameras from all makes marketed to everyday consumers, each model incrementally gaining in ability from the previous. Where the Nikon 1 failed in popularizing interchangeable lenses to more casual photographers, Micro Four Thirds appeared to fill that gap and make the Four Thirds SLR redundant, just as the NEX eventually replaced the A-mount and became the Sony Alpha we know today.
Computational photography is next. The iPhone, for example, shoots multiple images and combines those computationally extremely quickly, so you get stunning results, even if you know nothing about photography. Sony is well positioned here, with the A1's extremely fast chip set. An example would be in-camera focus stacking where you no longer need to shoot multiple images and Photoshop them together as layers. The camera will shoot multiple images with focus bracketing and combine them in-body. Same for advanced HDR, astro photography stacking (think compensating for earth movement across multiple 20s exposures) and such. Sony is in danger from the ease of use and high quality iPhone results possible now. Their way to keep that danger at bay is to adopt computational photography, but do it at high resolution with full control by the photographer, as opposed to the iPhone's PDB (push da button) approach.
The great innovation with the SLR was the ability to see directly through the lens when composing a shot. This is something I am not yet willing to give up. An EVF is fine but it eats battery for breakfast. My Nikon DSLR in full manual mode with a manual lens will shoot just about 1000 shots on a charge. When I can find a mirrorless that will do that I will be impressed. However I recognize that you are probably right. Mirrorless is no doubt the future but I can't help but wonder if it and the DSLR might be able to co-exist. After all TV was supposed to kill radio but it's still here.
First of all, who said TV was going to kill radio? Secondly, I've never been limited by battery life. It's so quick and easy to change batteries. But then again, I started shooting with film where we had to change film every 36 shots! One reason I could never go back to a DSLR is that I could never go back to the very limited AF point coverage of DSLRs, especially full frame DSLRs where the AF points only cover about a third of the total viewfinder area. On top of that, I would miss the amazing intelligence and tracking capabilities of face AF and eye AF tracking that mirrorless cameras provide. Truly amazing stuff that has changed the way I do photography. With DSLRs, I used to constantly do "focus-lock-recompose", especially when shooting portraits and people. With mirrorless, I hardly ever do that at all. I can just frame my shot, and the camera will lock and track the subject's face or eyes wherever they move within the frame. Give up that for longer battery life? No way!
Why is it such a big problem to switch batteries? I know it’s better not to, but in my opinion the benefits (size and weight for one!) outweigh that small nuisance.
One thing I don't understand why is not happening just yet: You have a device called smartphone, that is compact, and "cheap" that is able to upload your files (documents, images, videos, etc) right up to the cloud and have it synchronized almost instantly. Why we don't have such thing on a camera? Why Sony/Canon/Nikon don't push their own cloudStorage service with a monthly subscription? The card can be just a phisical backup in case you're offline on isolated locations. I think that camera companies should add SERVICE on their portfolio. Imagine you taking a photo in ICELAND while your team make some edit using the raw file back at home thousands of miles away amost in real time, using the cloud service built-in.
I am an amateur photographer and use mirrorless cameras that entered the market between 2016-2018 and bought them used. Simple reason is that i dont use the video funcrionality or rarely at least. So i really dont see a point of buying the latest camera. If you are photography centric user I wouldnt recommend buying the latest.
This has been my strategy also, very much trailing edge. Until recently I was using 2 A700's that I paid a combined $500 for maybe a decade ago. Surely the best value ever. I've just "updated" to the A99, a splendid device which I expect I'll operate until it drops along with a brace of Minolta G lenses. Imagine how awesome mirrorless will be by then.
Interesting stuff to do with full-sensor readout: - real-time Z-mapping with the focus points (in tandem with regular focus peaking) and other fancy AF assist - fancy noise reduction data (maybe taken from pre/post shots) - better object tracking and recognition - more intelligent auto settings (or at least guardrails for semi-auto modes)
Agree; Sony killed it. The A1 till today is the best camera a photographer can get right now. Nikon and Canon need to step their game up. The Z9 is good, and the R3 but not good enough.
I certainly agree with you and the possibilities that current cameras give are incredible. My main camera is a A7R IV and while the 60+ MP is absurdly high and I never need that much resolution for a print, it has made it possible to basically replace my 70-200/300 telezoom lenses with the 135mm GM. Obviously I am missing out on the wide-end, but the lens is so sharp that together with the resolution, I can pretty much crop in and post-compose however I want with the background separation of a f/1.8. This really changed the way I do a lot of my photography.
Wow....while you may be right I see this as a huge loss for photography somewhere down the road. Imagine even higher resolutions in the future where you'll only need to shoot a couple of photos with a wide lens and head home.....and there you can take all the time you need to crop on every part of that one photo and get multiple images and compositions! I dont like that thought a bit.......
@@XXX-vy6xv For me it is only a gain as the size and weight of a regular 70-200 f/2.8 is what I don´t want. My 135mm setup just makes a lot possible. Also for fast movement like sports or bird photography the setup helps enormously because you can track the subject easier. A wide lens wouldn´t work the same way because of the dof on a technical level. Nevermind the skill of a photographer in choosing the angle, waiting for the correct moment and adjusting the settings to suit the subject, lighting and desired motion. It is simply camera evolution that makes it easier to nail the picture. The same can be said for the dslr replacing the rangefinder, manual metering to auto metering, manual focus to auto focus, single focus to tracking focus, film to digital, 3fps to 30fps, etc. . I enjoy shooting with my 400d with an adapted Minolta 50mm f/1.4 every once-in-while (I began learning on a Canon AE-1 but film is too cumbersome for me) , but for getting the shot, modern tec is great -- as long as person behind the camera knows how to use it.
Sony did to the camera industry what Tesla is doing to the car industry today! Both companies looked to the future, and made a plan, then they acted on the plan! BTW, I have a Lumix G9 and an a7r2. The Lumix is my preferred walk around camera, but only with modern M4/3 glass. The Sony gives new life to vintage 35mm glass in a way that the Lumix envies. I do like my 24-105 f4 G on the Sony for the results are excellent. But the size weight and handling just isn't as carry friendly. Panasonic and Olympus pioneered mirrorless. In order to compete, Panasonic came out with the S series, and Olympus struck a financial reef and had to sell out to reorganize. Sony is boss right now!
I think there will be two trends in the next years. Like the mirrorless gained the market I think next cameras will be the shutterless, like the Nikon Z9. The second trend must be the smart cameras, the smartphones and camera will find the same way: a smart camera with android, where you can install apps (and other camera apps to try different user interface or post processing). I mean, think in a Pixel HDR with a FF sensor. Or a HDR in raw. AI applied to super resolution pictures, etc
This would be bad news for people that are just getting into photography, or areas with lower incomes (like the African continent). There aren't many options for a mid-level mirrorless camera that are affordable and will take great glass. I love that I can start my daughters off with Rebel dSLRs and they can upgrade lenses before needing a new body.
For a while those people will be able to enter photography with second hand low cost dslr models...even great ones. Everyone seems to be jumping off ship and there will be amazing opportunities if one is willing to wait and look out for. At some point though companies might need to do something to raise their customers base. Even in countries with higher income there are not many willing to invest a small fortune for a new hobby. So, I'm sure the mirrorless hype will eventually catch on everyone who's into photography...but will this be enough for all those brands out there to survive? And what if cellphones further raise their quality/sensors and make a couple of ad-on lenses as well? More lost customers..... We'll just have to wait and see! For the time being I'm not going to make the switch ...I already invested in dslr technology and I can afford to wait and see how that fight of the brands turns out. After all, leaving a "corpse" like the dslr system and investing in a new system (and brand) would be financial suicide if that brand wouldn't make it in a few years time.
Can't wait for Leica to catch up to the rest. They need phase detect to even come close. They already have a beast of a camera with the SL2 and SL2-S just downside of autofocus. With a legendary collection of lenses that they have produced, amazing colours and jpeg engine, the noise profile which looks filmic, I believe one day they'll catch up. Beautiful bodies and ergonomics, top of the world in my opinion.
Ted, the company that most profoundly led the mirrorless revolution isn't SONY, but Olympus. To the point of developing a new sensor size that was neither full frame nor APS-C. m43 is looked down upon by large sensor snobs but I will attest that my switch to Olympus in Dec 2015 radically transformed my photography - and I've been shooting full time since 1987. Their lenses are literally optimized for the format - not a rehash of film based lenses. Their jewel like f/1.8 & f/2 premium primes (what I affectionately refer to as my Olycron's) are amazingly sharp wide open and very affordable. Their Pro Primes surpass any other fast series of lenses from other companies. The Pen-f literally took all the advantages of the M series Leica and made it affordable. I've tested side by side against Fuji XE/XPro and see only a marginal nod to Fuji - yet the only way to pull the full IQ out of their RAW files is to avoid Lightroom at all costs (Capture One is the way to go on that). I own a total of 3 Pen-f's (My primary go to cameras for documentary and street shooting), 3 EM1mk2's (4K video, marginal weather and underwater in an Isotta aluminum housing) and 2 first gen EM5's (My original first m43 cameras) and I have no complaints or regrets for the IQ I get in my street and documentary work. To say SONY revolutionized mirrorless is only true to the extent of full frame sensors and sticking an amazing video codec into their bodies. Otherwise, Olympus was the true trailblazer for Mirrorless Camera innovation - they literally invented IBIS. And their lens lineup usurps any other brands mirrorless lens offerings. Now that it's been sold and rebranded as OM Systems, who knows what the future holds for the system. And when it comes to portability, no system can touch micro 4/3 IMO.
I can't believe SONY failed to continue to use the TRi-Navi system of the NEX-7. I still use the camera til this day because the system makes life simple.
I currently still shoot with an a-900. Recently a trip to Alaska and watching a fellow shooter with her sooo light new mirrorless - and equal results made me think I will make the switch to mirrorless when I retire this rig. It was so compact, even her lens were pretty light (I brought 2 very good Tamron).
this video essay is titled "Yes, Sony Killed the DSLR" not "Who Pioneered Mirrorless?" The answer to the latter would be Olympus and Panasonic. by going FF mirrorless and competing in that prosumer market, Sony eventually forced canon and nikon to take mirrorless seriously and ultimately made those two manufacturers put their money behind mirrorless over DSLRs. Prior to FF mirrorless, the big two (Canon and Nikon) did not consider mirrorless a threat despite all the great tech and innovation. So, yes, Olympus and Panasonic began the innovation of the mirrorless platform, and Sony developed that platform in FF and used it to force Canon and Nikon to completely change their R&D and Marketing strategies.
"can't carry lenses over to the new system".... my 300mm 2.8G VRII works wonderfully adapted on the Z system so I don't wholly agree with this sentiment. Also, my Sigma 20mm 1.4Art works better adapted than it did native on my D850.
Don't know about the Z mount since I heard some very mixed opinions regarding adapted lenses af performance, but on Canon literally EVERY adapted lens works better on mirrorless cameras than on DSLRs.
What's even better, you can bring lenses from other systems into your mirrorless system. Eventually that advantage of mirrorless will go away of course, but for now, there is a huge portfolio of Canon and Nikon DSLR compatible lenses from many companies that can be easily adapted to many different mirrorless systems.
Maybe Canon and Nikon got their adapters right but for Sony there's always a limitation: LA-EA 1 and 3 only have AF with lenses that have their own AF motor. And AF works well with an A6400 but just forget it with a Nex-6. 2 and 4 with SLT mirror are bulky and have few AF points. As far as I understood Sony's compatibility, the latest LA-EA5 has an AF motor but fully compatible with very few cameras.
@@jochenkraus7016 to be fair I do not remember any Sony lenses worth adapting from Sony A for example. Especially when there are so many good 3rd party options like Samyang.
8:23 Errrrmmmm acshually 🤓Sony released 17 traditional DSLR cameras from 2006 to 2010, and in 2010, they debut their SLT cameras, which weren't discontinued until 2020. The best part about all of these cameras is the ability to put minolta lenses on them.
Another part of digital camera history is bizarre enough, NASA. Cine camera tech like you find in the RED one and ARRI were originally pulled from the team at JPL/NASA that made imaging tech for deep space in.. get this... 1963! I can go on and on with this. COLOR is another interesting point. Why, what and HOW! Color, when pulled together finally, actually completely controlled the industries around photography and cinematography. Technicolor and, then Kodak with Kodachrome (which is a very early development, but...). The main point of the "democratization of photography" besides OWNING the space (Technicolor/Kodak) was not only access, compactability, but who CONTROLS the process of COLOR. More on this at another time.
It's the buying public giving up on the DSLR and ultimately killed it. At that time the mirrorless systems were packed with Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm, and Canon with the EOS-M. The Nikon 1 was hardly a blip but was still there. Lest we forget the D850 was still selling well. Well up until the RF and Z showed up. Over the course of the last 3ish years with Canon and Nikon fleshing out their RF and Z mounts, Canon and Nikon finally realised that users have abandoned DSLRs for the RF and Z, they finally accepted it and pulled the plug. So no, Sony didn't kill the DSLR; the people (and Canon and Nikon) did.
Talking about Leica 's 35mm format, let 's not forget that in those days most prints were contact prints, enlargers were not used very much. Ergo, the Leica produced a 24x36 cm print. IMHO there is the idea that Barnack was creating a box to expose cine film, there where no exposure meters used in those days, a film was exposed and then a piece was test developed, therefore the need for a reliable tool to expose a small length of film etc. The way I understand it, later this was taken up by Ernst Leitz who extended the camera into an 'ecosystem' with it's own high quality enlarger, small negative > big results, see dr Paul Wolf etc. I think there are doubts whether Barnack initially wanted to create a small camera, small portable camera's already were created at the time, e.g. the Ermanox, see Dr. Erich Salomon.
"resolution may come one day but it's too early" is a very American perspective. Remember these camera companies are Japanese and they are always a big step ahead. People in Japan already have 8k tvs and their tv network broadcasts certain things at that resolution. Obviously it's not a resolution feasible for RU-vid, but camera technology need to keep up, or stay ahead of the tech that are in tvs.
Some credits should go to Panasonic and Olympus MFT. Their only mistake is they stick to MFT sensor size. Other companies used that as an advantage and introduced APS-C sensors. Of course, Sony also used that as an advantage and also introduced the first full frame mirrorless ILC with auto-focus.
Sony may have put the final nail in the coffin for the DSLR on a manufacturing level. But thanks to Sony, DSLRs are still very alive and well, and doing a roaring trade, being very capable photography and video machines, in the hands of those strapped for cash. Thanks to Sony professionals are ditching their once top of the line DSLRs to follow the upgrade trend, allowing those of us who have to shop in used markets, to reap the rewards of using those old top notch flagships of yesteryear. Personally, I think for most of us, we've reached the limit of where technology will improve our photography and videography to a noticeable level by lay people, shooting for websites and social media. That's the way with the history of tech. I remember when ghettoblasters stopped getting bigger, and when mobile phones stopped getting smaller, because it no longer mattered to the masses. I think the same will happen with the tech advances in mirrorless cameras… maybe it already has… 🤔
Sony did single handedly change the camera market. But the next evolution is already here, Nikon Z9. The Z9 is the first all electronic camera eliminating the mechanical shutter. The Sony A9 and A1 were the first camera's to make this possible with the stacked sensor. I can see Sony also introducing the all electronic camera eliminating the shutter in their next generations of camera bodies.
Great video. Nikon is primarily an optics company, and probably found that the larger flange size for the Z series cameras offers them lens engineering advantages over the F size flange. And removing the mirror affords the photographer frame per second rates as high as 120 these days. Canon's development lag (no pun intended) is more confusing. Do you think that this will end the mirror, and prism based Leica S series line, as well?
No doubt that SONY has driven the market for the past 10+ years. They make some incredible products (we are all spoiled). I started as a Nikon shooter 15 years ago with an entry level camera and ventured into the SONY about 4 years ago with some of the APS-C cameras and an A7Sii for video. I loved using the mirrorless cameras, especially with adapted lenses, however FOR MY USE CASE, I struggled more with the SONY RAW files than I did with NIKON's NEF files to get the colors where I wanted them. NIKON's files are easier to grade for MY work flow and style. Secondly, SONY's menu system always drove me crazy. For 2-3 years I always felt I was spending more time scrolling through menu's than I was shooting. Fast forward to today, I have since sold off all my SONY gear and moved fully to the Nikon Z system. For me and the type of photography that I do, I find the files are still easier and faster to get them where I need them to be with more latitude in post and the UI of the Nikon system is much more intuitive and enjoyable to me- If your gear doesn't bring you joy and inspire you to go out and shoot, then why have it. Great vid as always TED- Sony definitely deserves its props for dragging the rest of the industry along with it- (kicking and screaming sometimes)- but we definitely owe a lot to the team of innovators there for sure.
I don't know why EVs are so popular, the resolution of the human eye is close to that of a large format camera, and a clean mirror can project that. I've not seen an EV that close to the res you get from a mirror. EVs do have uses such as in low light, but you can't beat a mirror for detail. You'd probably need an EV operating in 4k to match a good full frame mirror.
In the pipe for sure are Mirrorless computational cameras. The SmartCamera! And it’s not if, it’s when. Basically the iPhone on major steroids. And Sony has already shown steps in that direction with the launch of the new Xperia PRO-I This was step one in the smart camera direction. “Photography: Pro, ZEISS® quality lenses calibrated specifically for Xperia PRO-I, ZEISS® Tessar T* Lens, Up to 20fps AF/AE, Up to 60 times per second continuous AF/AE calculation, Real-time Eye AF(Human, Animal), Real-time Tracking, 3D iToF, RGB-IR, OIS photo, LED, Photo flash, Photo light, Video light, AI Super Resolution Zoom, HDR (High Dynamic Range)” Hello!! …. Let’s talk in 5 years! Again, it’ll unhinge the industry.
The unsung, and I'd say much maligned, heroes of the mirrorless revolution were the A-33 and A-55 with the SLT. It made Sony really try some ideas on EVF, liveview and others. Also, nobody at Sony was thinking the the NEX-3 with a 16/2.8 was going to be the gradddad of the A1 with a 600/4
I personally don't yet see sufficient advances in the quality of mirrorless still photography to ditch my range of high quality Nikon lenses that took years to collect and thrill me even now. I have toyed as a Nikon user with the idea of mirrorless but can actually buy 3 low shutter count Nikon D750's for the price of a new Z7 and each of those cameras will utilise every lens that i own. I will admit that it is frustrating that Nikon are making it so difficult to get camera parts here in the UK and the independant repairers will no longer touch their bodies. So for now i will stockpile a few good quality DSLR's as the prices plummet further but when the day comes that i do see the advances that make a noticeable difference in my images then i may well purchase a new system - and i don't think that it will be Nikon . i will however keep my lenses and a couple of DSLR's because i enjoy using them . i dont know why i like some of my lenses - i just do
sunken cost fallacy, just because you invested on nikon glass. doesn't mean it's not obselete for future proofing. for picture quality, check a1 for video quality, evf, autofocus. for photos, great iso performance. if you shoot dslr just the native iso of course it's still okay, but so much more convinient factor such as ibis even for photos. your sunken cost is clouding your judgement
My judgement is not clouded - it is very clear. I am thinking of the future. In say 5 years time the very latest cameras and lenses of that time will be readily available. A low shutter count DSLR of my choice may not be however . i have a nucleus of lenses that i love - some of them are over 15 years old and in 5 years time i want to be still able to use them . i dont want to find that my shiny new state of the art camera does not work with my 20 year old lenses . i have 2 commercial shoots this week and neither will be disadvantaged by the fact that i am not using a mirrorless camera.
@@shzammpatapon9865 many of the mirrorless "inovations" are not new at all. My 2017 Pentax KP dslr has great 5-axis IBIS as well as focus peaking ...yet people keep calling those features "advsntages of the mirrirless system"! Dont get me wrong, there are advantages in the mirrorless system (and also a couple of drawbacks), yes I'd LOVE to have that instant and accurate AF of the Sony system. But a "sunken ship"? We'll see about that: The Fact that those "ships" still float great (so nowhere near to "sunken") will be one of the main problems the mirrorless system will probably face in the years to come. They'll need a lot of customers into the system since their investment was huge, they will hardly get those from photography "newbies" since few will be willing to invest big just for a new hobby (dslr lineups had many affordable options for them as well) and lets not forget that there are now 3 big fish in that pond; 4 with Fuji.) Will there be enough buyers so everyone has a profit out of it? Or will many just prefer to stay in the 2nd hand DSLR world which means zero profit for all those companies?
@@shzammpatapon9865 true, although mirrorless compared to dslr isn't nearly as innovative as dslrs were during the end of the film era. Unlimited photos at the moment instead of 36 expensive shots you could only see days after (never, if something went wrong) was a HUGE step up and it was certain that everyone would jump ship. Today advantages are not that clear. And the fact that lots of the things a mirrorless does a phone will be able to do as well (not yet, but soon enough) will be one of the main issues the system will face sooner than later. No more a "Sony lake" means that in order for all those companies to survive, large-scale numbers will be acquired. Will professional photographers be sufficient for that? I honestly dont know......
No, Sony didnt. It was a case of Sony speeding up the evolution of camera tech. Give it 4 years and the big 2 will outdo the consumer electronics maker.
It is an interesting take. From people owning the Sonys that I know, it seems that the better video capabilities where what drew them to that system. I prioritize stills and shoot DSLR still. I recently bought another D610 because I want the redundancy. I think it is wrong of Nikon and Canon to drop the DSRL as there is a market for it. The problem is that the market for a single purpose image device is so small. I'd rather look into if they could do something new with film. Images in general has become so common and it doesn't feel that special anymore, but whenever I get out my Instax, people light up.
People's first cameras nowadays are not cameras at all, but phones. This is what has killed the DSLR, because people are already used to not using an optical viewfinder. This is not to say that a DSLR cannot produce high quality images, but manufacturers cannot afford to continue producing them just to satisfy a dwindling market.
1/31/22 Interesting to see your view on Sony. My last film camera was a Minolta Maxxim AF with zoom lenses, when going to digital I went with Sony bridge camera with a 25X zoom, built-in GPS, but only jpeg files, Next it was a Sony SLT A-55 so I could use all my A-mount Minolta AF without breaking the bank. Now it is Olympus OM-D 10, 5, 1 cause of the micro 4/3 sensor and smaller and lighter size and compact lenses. Love mirrorless as it allows for the use of vintage lenses in manual on my Olympus cameras. Sony is also known for producing sensors for the other name brands' cameras. I like Sony because of its advanced features and value, and they produce great photo files for post-production.
I suspect the death of the DSLR is largely the result of RU-vid influencers feeding GAS addicts who rarely shoot fast actions sports, extended video, or vlog. I've been down that path too with Sony and Fuji. It's taken me quite a while to realize that the 12mp Nikon d700 and d300 produce the most pleasing images to my eye. I routinely make prints at 16x20 and occasionally at 24x36. I shoot the Nikon d500 for BIF, the occasional basketball game, and when I know I may need to do a bit of cropping. I find the optical viewfinder is infinitely more pleasing to shoot and that DSLR bodies balance better with most lenses. I also believe it continues to make me a better photographer because I have to consider my meter setting before I press the shutter. It saddens me to think you are right Ted. And while I love your channel and content, I wonder if you have something to do with perpetuating the myth that mirrorless is the linear evolution from the SLR...
The move from DSLR to mirrorless removes the necessity for certain skills like reading exposure. For SLR purists this sounds disgusting but for the average Joe, this is wonderful quality of life feature. What I'm trying to say is that there's nothing wrong with this, the market has moved to no longer need certain skills, but it doesn't invalidate those skills since you still need a decent understanding of how they work to manipulate the image to look a certain way. I think blaming social media instead of just accepting it makes seem like people are just stuck in their old ways. It's comparable to saying that people who depend on autofocus are shit photographers because they can't use manual focus, but in reality - for their work, it's probably not a skill they require.
I think Sony got burned with betamax and minidisc and these days, instead of innovating, they'll watch a market and buy up small companies that DO innovate and then pour a lot of money on the r&d to fine tune new tech.
There are tons of already known possible options for cameras and they are all has been experienced in mobile: pixel binning for dynamic range and/or increase/decrease resolution, reducing the noise etc, export jpg to clouds and clouds computing, 5g stuff, cut out 12k short hi-rez clip and picking a frame in post as a desired shot. It all could be inherit from mobile cameras.
Oh, Sony is innovative alright. I bought a $1000 Sony Betamax, TV video recorder back in 1979. It had a 15 foot wired remote. It is not Sony who will make the decision what will be used in the future. It will be determined by others.
Enhancing cameras by Evolution is no bad thing. I cannot see a manufacturer taking Big risks without a Technology Leap. Perhaps a New sensor material ? Artificial computing will only remove the photographer from the process. A Fundamental Flaw 😐
Pro-photographers will be needed far too few in the coming years. Photography as a business is dead, unless if its a large scale operation fit within entertainment or the e-commerce industry.
Great video, Ted! Definitely an exciting time to be a user of cameras! And definitely agree that in ways that matter (8k doesn't matter right now, as you said), everyone is trying to catch up with Sony right now.
I enjoyed this easy to understand and listen explanation. I agree with everything but that SONY killed DSLR. It`s not SONY that killed them, but evolution lead by SONY, and followed by FUJI, MFT... It was time for DSLR idea to retreat in favor of the MILC, the situation was ripe for that move. But moment WAS NOT RECOGNIZED by CANON, NIKON and PENTAX/RICOH. They were too cautious. They were too slow to completely adopt MILC idea. Nikon abused customers to fund their MILC experiments with stillborn Nikon 1 system. Obviously it was their polygon for something bigger - the "Z" system, and was never meant to last. They made more camera models than lenses. Very similar situation is with EOS M, just that Canon is still reluctant to admit to audience that it is time to kill it, and transfer APS-C EOS M idea, knowledge and experience to RF mount system. And to remount existing EOS-M lenses if necessary, why not? Also the system with more developed camera bodies than lenses. These two development politics made customers like me pretty frustrated. Or I am missing something...
Sony's first DSLR's were true DSLRs and basically bodies Minolta had in development (joint with Sony) before the buyout. SLT was only introduced with the A55/A33 in 2010 a few months after the E-mount launched with NEX-3 & 5. SLR, DSLR and SLT systems were all Phase Detect where mirrorless cameras were stuck with Contrast Detection until the launch of the NEX-6 (technically Canon's Dual Pixel PDAF predates this but was only used on DSLRs in Live-View). Sony was innovative right from the beginning though much of their early history is muddy since they really weren't taken seriously in those days. Folks didn't really start waking up to what Sony was doing until the first A7 and A7R were launched.
Switching over from dslr to mirrorless was not a problem for me. I use adapters. For Leica M. For EF Canon. Both adapters give me autofocusing. No problem.
Hmm, I beleive that the next big paradigm shift will be when Samsung or some other Korean company bring out a smartphone with a curved senor. That would allow for full frame image quality in a pocket form factor.
I believe the next big thing, and something that seems inevitable, is the incorporation of computational photography, as has been demonstrated to work in smart phones, into all forms of mirrorless cameras. There are already startups like Arsenal bringing those capabilities to DSLRs and mirrorless cameras via their add-on device, which itself interfaces with smart phones. But it's such a wide open field that it's nearly impossible to envision what the world of photography will look like in just five years. And who will lead it.
Isn’t this kind of what LightRoom and Photoshop already accomplish for photographers? Just after the fact with control and a much more powerful system, rather than during a shot with potentially little control and relatively little performance by comparison? A best of both worlds approach would be to allow the photographer to load custom presets or programs on their own. The camera manufacturer would beef up their SoCs, and it would be up to the photographer on how best to utilize the computational power. Utilizing some sort of open API shared among the camera manufacturers would be best.
@@Lauren_C that “best of both worlds” approach is how i envision it as well. Photographers these days are too used to everything coming out as flat as possible so they can edit it later, so there’s no way the manufacturers would implement something irreversible
I’m starting to realise that the roadmap/plan Sony had back then was really industry changing, kindo like Tesla is spear heading this innovation, just to show the industry what’s possible and to trigger a response from the competitors, and just put this whole movement of innovation to the next generation into motion. It’s pretty awesome to see. I think the technologies in Sony A9 and Nikon Z9 with shutter-less and distortion less readout stacked sensors is going to be the next thing. And in time we will have pretty much solid state cameras with no more mechanical actuating parts inside. Just fast sensors and chips processing light.
Thank you Ted for the discussion of the photographic equipment, that takes pictures, has gone through desirable and welcome innovative changes to facilitate photography in a way that has always been and has remained certain constraints felt by photographers at their point of time, and this lead to modifications of the equipment called cameras those capture images of someone who may or may not be termed photographer in the stricter sense, and the changes have been made for the people who felt the need a piece of capturing equipment to help their kind of work and this is the main factor that camera companies are never running out of innovative ideas that make them stay in the business for such a long time with a success story unlike any other industry!! Yes, there are dark stories also attached to this business but the giants remain firm and almost steady even now and they will continue to be in the same trend as long as photography reaches the acme when no photographer will need any further refinement to take any picture that could be thought of a super picture a man can perceive with all his semses working, and that is an impossibility!! Therefore, no stopping for more refinement of cameras at anytime!! Can you still do your kind of photography to the level you can perceive it as the last thing that could not be retouched to give it the ultimate perfection?!! I believe the answer will always be an emphatic no and that is where your equipment needs further improvement to give you and return to your once best shot over again and embellish it further more, and more, and more, and there is no end to the perfection of even a single best shot you consider it the best right now, which is very much unlike the paintings once as it is done you cannot retouch to improve. them!! That is where photography wins over and marches ahead with the innovators of the cameras to give you the reach you need to your photograph[phy!!
