Does the DSLR still have standing in the modern world?

[Mmichaelhh1234]

I have done a regression of sorts, whereas I started with Lumix mirrorless and at some point became interested in Nikon DSLR lore. The economics both in cost and size of the F mount eco system along with older sensors which are purported to have some kind of magic and the low megapixel noise that seems to have a more filmic appearance.

Then there's the battery life. My power hungry mirrorless cameras require a watchful eye and a spare if you want to wander around for more than a couple hours. I know this may be a reasonable tradeoff for all that mirrorless offer, but certainly some of the bells and whistles are suspect, like...
Autofocus. With the old manual F mount lenses, I find; for photography at least, that I rather like a the analog feel and I have had as many failures with the autofocus as I have had success. The smooth focus throw on my Nikkor 105 f.2.5 pre-AI is beautiful. (as well, I'm not even convinced that the autofocus is that much better)


Despite all of this, is there any reason to bring back an optical viewfinder and a mirror; battery life and affordable lenses? Are DSLR cameras becoming popular again? Did they ever go out, or was that new technology marketing itself into a position?

 

[CharlesH]

I lived through the DSLR glory day, all Canon. I was very happy to move on to mirrorless, first Sony and then Lumix, and would not consider going back. For one thing, I always struggled with DSLR autofocus - you always need to micro adjust each lens, and for long lenses I could never get it as good as I wanted, and would often end up using manual focus. I have never had autofocus issues with mirrorless. Eliminating the mirror has been a godsend. And I've never seen any magic about DSLR sensors - they are the same old same as mirrorless as far as I'm concerned.

 

[xaviergut]

Last week I saw a photo shooting session of a model for a mode agency made with a Nikon d850... Not to mention the last NASA mission, Artemis II, where the astronauts carried several cameras, but the Nikon D5 served as the primary camera for capturing high-quality still photographs. The mission also carried a Nikon Z9, but it was used primarily to evaluate its performance for future Artemis missions, while the Nikon D5 remained the reference camera for the mission's most important still photographs.

I always thought that for pure photography the DSLR cameras are enough for all the reasons that you mentioned before, and the mirrorless market is aimed to hybrid shooters who want to be able to make high quality videos and photos...

By the way, I still have my beloved Nikon Df, the camera that I keep because it serves me as my Leica M camera (I don't like rangefinder cameras...).

 

[xaviergut]

By the way, I still have my beloved Nikon Df, the camera that I keep because it serves me as my Leica M camera (I don't like rangefinder cameras...).

 

[Travis Butler]

I always thought that for pure photography the DSLR cameras are enough for all the reasons that you mentioned before, and the mirrorless market is aimed to hybrid shooters who want to be able to make high quality videos and photos...

Possible, but I really doubt it.

Of course, for me, size and weight are very important, and done right a mirrorless has significant advantages there. (Even the much-maligned Pentax K-01, which kept the same exposure box and flange distance so K-mount lenses would work without an adapter, was smaller and lighter than contemporary DSLR bodies like the K-50.)

As someone who loves using vintage film lenses, mirrorless has DSLR beat so badly it isn’t even funny. You can adapt almost any film lens to a mirrorless body; flange distance defeats many, if not most, adaptors for DSLR. And focus magnification/peaking is a huge improvement over even split prism.

And mechanical simplicity from removing the mirror is a big deal for me. I’m a big believer in KISS from a mechanical engineering standpoint; any mechanical bit is something that can break, and any Murphy factor that can reasonably be removed, should be.

 

[Mmichaelhh1234]

I lived through the DSLR glory day, all Canon. I was very happy to move on to mirrorless, first Sony and then Lumix, and would not consider going back. For one thing, I always struggled with DSLR autofocus - you always need to micro adjust each lens, and for long lenses I could never get it as good as I wanted, and would often end up using manual focus. I have never had autofocus issues with mirrorless. Eliminating the mirror has been a godsend. And I've never seen any magic about DSLR sensors - they are the same old same as mirrorless as far as I'm concerned.

I suppose there is a lot of folklore when it comes to any trade. I recently picked up a D850 that is under 22,000 shutter count for 1,150.00 and it seems like a good value even if it can’t autofocus, eat batteries, and over heat the way the 3,200 S1Rii does (jk).
I have had issues with autofocus on my mirrorless (the S1R for obvious reasons) but it’s more than likely user error as I have yet to decipher the 6k variations for auto focus in the settings. I’m learning, but it makes my head hurt!

 

[Mmichaelhh1234]

Possible, but I really doubt it.

Of course, for me, size and weight are very important, and done right a mirrorless has significant advantages there. (Even the much-maligned Pentax K-01, which kept the same exposure box and flange distance so K-mount lenses would work without an adapter, was smaller and lighter than contemporary DSLR bodies like the K-50.)

As someone who loves using vintage film lenses, mirrorless has DSLR beat so badly it isn’t even funny. You can adapt almost any film lens to a mirrorless body; flange distance defeats many, if not most, adaptors for DSLR. And focus magnification/peaking is a huge improvement over even split prism.

And mechanical simplicity from removing the mirror is a big deal for me. I’m a big believer in KISS from a mechanical engineering standpoint; any mechanical bit is something that can break, and any Murphy factor that can reasonably be removed, should be.

Yes, I shoot my fully manual on the mirrorless for the focus peaking.
Is there any reason to keep the DSLR? Battery life?

 

[CharlesH]

Is there any reason to keep the DSLR?

If you enjoy shooting with it and you get good results, of course keep it.

 

[Pete_W]

Despite all of this, is there any reason to bring back an optical viewfinder and a mirror; battery life and affordable lenses? Are DSLR cameras becoming popular again? Did they ever go out, or was that new technology marketing itself into a position?

If you like and prefer the optical viewfinder, then I say go for it!

I completely skipped the DSLR era but I did shoot with film SLRs for a good number of years before digital cameras became a thing.

My last SLR was a Nikon F90x with a few kit zoom lenses and a speedlight. It was a heavy kit, needing its own little fleet of AA batteries. When DSLRs began to appear, a combination of the high entry price and the fact that I was getting tired of the size and weight of the kit saw me drop down to using compact point-&-shoot digital cameras for many years. So I became used to not having a viewfinder or a mirror but enjoyed using the rear LCD.

With my children having now grown up and therefore having more time for photography, I've gone back to using an ILC and find the modern mirrorless cameras to be the best of both worlds, i.e. lighter and more compact than DSLRs, a rear LCD and an EVF that I like better than an OVF.

 

[Travis Butler]

Yes, I shoot my fully manual on the mirrorless for the focus peaking.
Is there any reason to keep the DSLR? Battery life?

I use the totally pragmatic approach. Keep it for a little while and see if you shoot much with it. ^^;;

Seriously, that’s been a major guide for me for a very long time. Give something a try, and see if you use it or if it ends up sitting on a shelf. Then use the results to guide future actions.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

I used DSLRs for ten or eleven years as my main cameras, both Pentax (K200D then K-3), and there are plenty of reasons why I'm happier now with mirrorless. The biggest headache, as already mentioned by others, was the quantity of AF problems. Front and back focus requiring AF fine-tuning which might or might not work, AF confirmation but you later discover it focused on something else... AF sensors as a proxy for focusing correctly on an imaging sensor is a crappy system for digital, which is far more sensitive than film for these things.

Battery life was maybe somewhat better and I know DSLRs score better in all the tests but that's not the whole story. With my S5, and even usually with my X-T20, when I take a shot it's properly focused and properly exposed, I don't need to bracket focus or exposure, so with one shot, maybe two, it's done. With DSLRs you might need to bracket focus (especially with manual lenses) and maybe exposure too, given that they generally use older sensors with lower DR that respond worse to pushing or pulling. So you end up taking several shots to later pick out the best one and that eats into battery life. So if a mirrorless has half the battery life of a DSLR but you need to take half the number of shots then it works out the same.

There are still plenty of people who swear by OVFs, don't like looking at screens (which EVFs are) or claim they give them headaches. Some people claim that DSLRs are cameras but mirrorless are just soulless computers, that they lose the connection with the subject using an EVF instead of OVF. Personally, given the much higher keeper rate and much higher quality I get from my S5, the resultant images give me a connection to the subject and the moment that was rare in DSLRs because DSLRs would so often c*ck it up in some way.

Mirrorless is definitely the future.

Having said that, around two years ago I bought myself a lightly used 6D because I'd never owned or used a FF DSLR and I wanted to experience one. I have a few lenses for it though the ones I have for the S5 are better, but the sheer number of Canon and Nikon lenses available on the used market mean you can get a lot of quality for very little money. The experience is different and I enjoy them both but when I want great quality and spot-on focusing then it's mirrorless all the way.