The thing is…when you look around, PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS don’t care whether you shoot DSLR or mirrorless. It’s only the CZcams tech heads who will say DSLR’s are dead. If you need the technology of mirrorless to expose an image properly, you should probably go learn on film.
*The best social media picture this year was taken on a phone!!* I know, this makes us look dumb asking about DSLR's. My childhood was rough, my father left us, my girlfriend deserted me. *But I can talk about DSLR's.* Girlfriend talking here * I ask hm to mat the shutter speed, it did not end well.
Affordability is relevant. My total investment for a used Canon 6D with 4 (3 purchased used) well rated prime lenses is $1500. That would be $4000 for a quality full frame mirrorless and equal number of lenses.
In regard to the benefit of EVF's I've found that you don't always get what you see 🤔 If your working in a studio environment it's possible to stream the camera's output to a good quality external monitor, but alias not practical when your shooting on the hoof or on location.. I find the best option is to get really well acquainted with your equipment and build up confidence ( and know what to expect without the constant need to chimp)
I have a 90D, so I get some of both worlds. It is not uncommon for me to frame a shot in the viewfinder before switching to live view on the rear screen. I would say a person still needs a lot of the same basic understanding of how a camera works in able work a mirrorless version, if they want to shoot less duds. The person shooting is the artist.
I think the ultimate questions are "How much time do you have to get your photograph?" And "How certain do you want to be that you've gotten your photograph?" As time goes down and need for certainty increases the demand for mirrorless becomes more attractive (but again, not necessary). Yes professionals have shot on film, but if your client is paying thousands it makes sense to opt for the ability to "double-check" you got the shot. And if you're extremely pressed where dynamic exposure, white balance, focus, etc. are all concerns then again opting for the greater certainty of live preview EVF is another benefit. Are DSLRs dead? Absolutely not. But every tool has its pros and cons, use what you're comfortable with and that which meets the level of demand from your clients.
@semperfi-1918 It's the fact that a DSLR will always show you what the lens is seeing through the prism, but not what the sensor is capturing. By that logic, you're operating based on your eyes' current perception of brightness and your memory of last known settings (both things that are objectively flawed and wane with 8-12+ hours of shooting). It's a common joke in the photography community that you walk from a bright area to a dark area or vice versa and forget to change your settings, only to look down to see an under/overexposed image on the back of your LCD. Anybody who says they've "never" done this, frankly, hasn't been in demanding enough environments to warrant making such mistakes. With a mirrorless only ever showing you what you are capturing on the EVF, it's literally physically impossible to bring the camera to your eye and see pure white or pure black and think "I have the perfect exposure". You instantly know your settings are off and quickly adjust to get the shot (the shot you might have clicked the shutter on the DSLR and reviewed after realizing you just missed). Again, is this necessary? Absolutely not (never said it was, if you refer to my earlier comment). But if you were to measure the number of well exposed, in focus, properly composed, less rushed, etc. shots from the same photographer on a DSLR vs. Mirrorless, statistically, you will have a greater number of keepers from the latter (your 90% vs your 98% with a mirrorless). When you can take your time and walk through a shoot, agreed the difference is negligible, and I actively recommend DSLRs to those that are budget conscience or don't have time sensitive shooting needs. However, anybody who has ever shot in dynamic lighting conditions like weddings, events, concerts, galas, etc. (where the lighting can be different from one second to the next) would agree that knowing what your exposure will always be more fool-proof than guessing what your exposure is. My current kit is 2 APS-C/Full-frame DSLRs and 1 mirrorless, and the work product from the latter is handily less labour intensive with a greater success rate (aka what most professional photographers are gunning for). To those who shoot on DSLRs and film, absolutely keep doing so and don't ever stop. If your goal is to execute a creative vision and the gear you have does that for you, then absolutely disregard everything I'm saying. My opinion does not trump your reality (and vice versa, your opinion does nothing to dissuade my experience of enjoying mirrorless). I'm simply stating that for a new photographer, if you had the budget to go mirrorless or DSLR and objectively asked "Which one offers a greater range of benefits with regards to focus, exposure, photo review, for a fast-paced and dynamically lit environment?" I'm leaning towards mirrorless for most cases.
My 5 pro DSLRs have hundreds of thousands of shutter life remaining. Therefore, won't waste money on unnecessary gears. Rather spend it visiting places and creating images. Sorry mirrorless, I don't need you.
id say mirrorless users are irrelevant, they be coming here in yosemite national park looking like they taking photos with a smartphone with the way they use their live view. like bruh how tf you taking so long to take the damn photo when you literally have a camera that does everything for you while us dslr dinosaur users have already taken the shot minutes ago and enjoying coffee while we watch you struggle to take an hdr photo that you're gonna end up photoshopping later anyway just to get roasted in a photo group on facebook when you post it.
BBC Documentary, Green Planet(2022), second episode, part of the documentary at the end, about plants and photographing the plants life, camera that is used for shooting-Nikon D800. Nope, not a z9, no leica, no sony a7, a9...no no canon r5 or r3...yeah, good old Nikon D800.
I will never switch from DSLR to mirrorless until they come up with something you can zoom and shoot with your eyes, or change apperture by blinking, or something with voice operation on a walking trypod, "hey camera, go out and take some nice pictures here and there, and come back home, and draw the pictures you took on the wall with your built-in lazer"
As a rule of thumb a person who makes a living from selling you some thing cannot be unbiased about whether older versions of what they are selling you is relevant. SLRs have been around for a long time and no one ever asked for a mirrorless, whoever made the first mirrorless pretty much tjought that out on their own. DSLRs will always be relevant even long after they are not sold anymore. A proper photographer does not need all these new fangled stuff mirrorless advertises to sell itself. They just want it and that is a totally different thing. Jist like cellphones have given us a generation of retards that can't do maths or rmember their own telephone number, in the same way these new mirrorless cameras are going to mean the end for REAL photographers
I love that in your delusional elitism, it's obvious that someone was saying the exact same thing about Film when digital came out. A film elitist could just as easily create an arbitrary definition of "real photographer" that excludes you. Believe it or not you can prefer something without hating the alternative. I know, what a mind blowing concept these days right?
There's definitely something reassuring about that Clunk .. If it weren't so, why frequently do fully electronic ( no mechanical shutter) cameras ( and phones with inbuilt cameras ) go to the trouble of synthesis the sound 🙃
The thing is…when you look around, PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS don’t care whether you shoot DSLR or mirrorless. It’s only the CZcams tech heads who will say DSLR’s are dead. If you need the technology of mirrorless to expose an image properly, you should probably go learn on film.
I shoot my D700 right along side my Canon R3 on every shoot. I shoot the d700 with the short lens and the R3 with a long lens for sports.
*The best social media picture this year was taken on a phone!!* I know, this makes us look dumb asking about DSLR's. My childhood was rough, my father left us, my girlfriend deserted me. *But I can talk about DSLR's.* Girlfriend talking here * I ask hm to mat the shutter speed, it did not end well.
Affordability is relevant. My total investment for a used Canon 6D with 4 (3 purchased used) well rated prime lenses is $1500. That would be $4000 for a quality full frame mirrorless and equal number of lenses.
In regard to the benefit of EVF's
I've found that you don't always get what you see 🤔
If your working in a studio environment it's possible to stream the camera's output to a good quality external monitor, but alias not practical when your shooting on the hoof or on location..
I find the best option is to get really well acquainted with your equipment and build up confidence ( and know what to expect without the constant need to chimp)
Ofcourse relevant,one who knows how to create a good photo this question is not even in their mind.
I have a 90D, so I get some of both worlds. It is not uncommon for me to frame a shot in the viewfinder before switching to live view on the rear screen. I would say a person still needs a lot of the same basic understanding of how a camera works in able work a mirrorless version, if they want to shoot less duds. The person shooting is the artist.
I think the ultimate questions are "How much time do you have to get your photograph?" And "How certain do you want to be that you've gotten your photograph?" As time goes down and need for certainty increases the demand for mirrorless becomes more attractive (but again, not necessary).
Yes professionals have shot on film, but if your client is paying thousands it makes sense to opt for the ability to "double-check" you got the shot. And if you're extremely pressed where dynamic exposure, white balance, focus, etc. are all concerns then again opting for the greater certainty of live preview EVF is another benefit.
Are DSLRs dead? Absolutely not. But every tool has its pros and cons, use what you're comfortable with and that which meets the level of demand from your clients.
Hmmm.... i used my pentax k50 with 90% sucess on photos while double checking every so often. Mirrorless is not that much faster if it even is.
@semperfi-1918 It's the fact that a DSLR will always show you what the lens is seeing through the prism, but not what the sensor is capturing. By that logic, you're operating based on your eyes' current perception of brightness and your memory of last known settings (both things that are objectively flawed and wane with 8-12+ hours of shooting). It's a common joke in the photography community that you walk from a bright area to a dark area or vice versa and forget to change your settings, only to look down to see an under/overexposed image on the back of your LCD. Anybody who says they've "never" done this, frankly, hasn't been in demanding enough environments to warrant making such mistakes.
With a mirrorless only ever showing you what you are capturing on the EVF, it's literally physically impossible to bring the camera to your eye and see pure white or pure black and think "I have the perfect exposure". You instantly know your settings are off and quickly adjust to get the shot (the shot you might have clicked the shutter on the DSLR and reviewed after realizing you just missed). Again, is this necessary? Absolutely not (never said it was, if you refer to my earlier comment). But if you were to measure the number of well exposed, in focus, properly composed, less rushed, etc. shots from the same photographer on a DSLR vs. Mirrorless, statistically, you will have a greater number of keepers from the latter (your 90% vs your 98% with a mirrorless). When you can take your time and walk through a shoot, agreed the difference is negligible, and I actively recommend DSLRs to those that are budget conscience or don't have time sensitive shooting needs.
However, anybody who has ever shot in dynamic lighting conditions like weddings, events, concerts, galas, etc. (where the lighting can be different from one second to the next) would agree that knowing what your exposure will always be more fool-proof than guessing what your exposure is. My current kit is 2 APS-C/Full-frame DSLRs and 1 mirrorless, and the work product from the latter is handily less labour intensive with a greater success rate (aka what most professional photographers are gunning for).
To those who shoot on DSLRs and film, absolutely keep doing so and don't ever stop. If your goal is to execute a creative vision and the gear you have does that for you, then absolutely disregard everything I'm saying. My opinion does not trump your reality (and vice versa, your opinion does nothing to dissuade my experience of enjoying mirrorless). I'm simply stating that for a new photographer, if you had the budget to go mirrorless or DSLR and objectively asked "Which one offers a greater range of benefits with regards to focus, exposure, photo review, for a fast-paced and dynamically lit environment?" I'm leaning towards mirrorless for most cases.
just more people over thinking photography tacking the fun out of tacking pictures
May be for the elite, DSLR cameras aren't relevant but for some people like me in a third world,so to speak, your topic for now is ridiculous..
My 5 pro DSLRs have hundreds of thousands of shutter life remaining. Therefore, won't waste money on unnecessary gears. Rather spend it visiting places and creating images. Sorry mirrorless, I don't need you.
Come from film to dslr and all kinds of cam is ok
id say mirrorless users are irrelevant, they be coming here in yosemite national park looking like they taking photos with a smartphone with the way they use their live view. like bruh how tf you taking so long to take the damn photo when you literally have a camera that does everything for you while us dslr dinosaur users have already taken the shot minutes ago and enjoying coffee while we watch you struggle to take an hdr photo that you're gonna end up photoshopping later anyway just to get roasted in a photo group on facebook when you post it.
DSLRs will never die
BBC Documentary, Green Planet(2022), second episode, part of the documentary at the end, about plants and photographing the plants life, camera that is used for shooting-Nikon D800.
Nope, not a z9, no leica, no sony a7, a9...no no canon r5 or r3...yeah, good old Nikon D800.
I will never switch from DSLR to mirrorless until they come up with something you can zoom and shoot with your eyes, or change apperture by blinking, or something with voice operation on a walking trypod, "hey camera, go out and take some nice pictures here and there, and come back home, and draw the pictures you took on the wall with your built-in lazer"
Enjoy being left behind I guess 🤷♂️
@@kpopfanphotos i have both, but i prefer dslr.
As a rule of thumb a person who makes a living from selling you some thing cannot be unbiased about whether older versions of what they are selling you is relevant.
SLRs have been around for a long time and no one ever asked for a mirrorless, whoever made the first mirrorless pretty much tjought that out on their own.
DSLRs will always be relevant even long after they are not sold anymore. A proper photographer does not need all these new fangled stuff mirrorless advertises to sell itself. They just want it and that is a totally different thing.
Jist like cellphones have given us a generation of retards that can't do maths or rmember their own telephone number, in the same way these new mirrorless cameras are going to mean the end for REAL photographers
I love that in your delusional elitism, it's obvious that someone was saying the exact same thing about Film when digital came out. A film elitist could just as easily create an arbitrary definition of "real photographer" that excludes you. Believe it or not you can prefer something without hating the alternative.
I know, what a mind blowing concept these days right?
disagree, there are some fields where DSLR are just better... end of story. Lenses, battery usage etc. and to be honest I like that sound.
There's definitely something reassuring about that Clunk ..
If it weren't so, why frequently do fully electronic ( no mechanical shutter) cameras ( and phones with inbuilt cameras ) go to the trouble of synthesis the sound 🙃