[HN Gopher] Canon Confirms We've Seen Its Last Flagship DSLR
___________________________________________________________________
Canon Confirms We've Seen Its Last Flagship DSLR
Author : conductor
Score : 49 points
Date : 2021-12-29 17:23 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (petapixel.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (petapixel.com)
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| The writing has been on the wall for awhile.
|
| I picked up a nikon z5 after a long haiatus from using dslrs.
| (for the last 5 years, I made due with just a google pixel)
|
| #1 thing you notice is the camera is much more compact. Video
| feed from the viewfinder is close to flawless. (on rare
| occasions, it lags)
|
| #2 exposure is wysiwyg. I can get an instant preview of the
| exposure of the image. Its like going from film to dslr in terms
| of feedback
|
| #3 autofocusing is SOOO MUCH BETTER. I can ove around a autofocus
| pin anywhere on the screen. its just a green square on a video
| overlay. I can also take advantage of eye tracking in real time.
| this is a game changer when shooting difficult subjects. Its not
| perfect but I can easily see it being flawless in a few more
| generations.
|
| #4 this one is specific to nikon but mirrorless gave them the
| opportunity to rethink the lens mount and lens ecosystem. The
| lenses sit much closer to the sensor so wide angle lenses can be
| made MUCH lighter. It also means larger theoretical aperture
| sizes. Nikon has a new manual focus lens that stops down to
| f0.95!
|
| Additionally, a lot of the things that were downsides of
| mirrorless have been mitigated as technology has caught up.
| Battery usage for instance has been an issue with mirrorless
| systems as they are always on to power the viewfinder. DSLRs by
| comparison sip power since they only draw a lot of power while
| taking the photo. I can easily get a full day out of one battery
| and they are easy to swap so I always walk around with 2-3
| backups. Never needed to use them. When I flick it on its pretty
| close to instant. I wont say its as good as a dslr but Im not
| using their flagship either. I hear their new z9 is insanely
| fast.
|
| All in all, I'm very happy with switching to mirrorless
| squarefoot wrote:
| Any recommendations for a model better than my little old Nikon
| S9100? I'm neither a photography expert nor a hobbyist but never
| liked using phones for photos, and the above old camera most of
| times does pretty much all I want in the Automatic position, so I
| certainly don't need a DSLR or anything professional, but the
| Magic Lantern software capabilities intrigue me, so I'd consider
| buying one, or a mirrorless one, possibly used. I'd happily trade
| megapixels with faster shutter and less noisy sensor,
| particularly in low light conditions. Any suggestions? Thanks!
| Saris wrote:
| A modern mirrorless from Panasonic/Sony/Olympus likely does
| basically everything that magic lantern does. They're so far
| ahead of DSLR bodies at this point.
|
| Sony full frame mirrorless is generally the go to if you want a
| large sensor with good low light capability, but they are
| pricey.
|
| Oly/panasonic both have a bunch of 4/3 sensor options, and
| lenses are interchangeable, although optical image
| stabilization doesn't work as well when mixing lens and body
| brands.
| ekianjo wrote:
| it's a shame but the market has clearly shifted there, and
| mirrorless bodies bring technical advantages too.
| dwohnitmok wrote:
| The convenience of mirrorless with no reduction in image quality
| really made this change basically inevitable.
|
| But there is something rather sad for me about this eventually
| spelling the end of the EF lens line. There was something really
| magical about being able to use any EF lens on pretty any Canon
| SLR camera body, even going back to 1987 for either the lens or
| the camera, with at most a reduction in the automatic feature
| set. You could get an old hand-me-down and mix-and-match with the
| newest equipment and keep using it. (There was also the dark side
| of this, where Canon intentionally kept the electronic connection
| proprietary to make it more difficult for third-party lens makers
| to compete)
|
| You can still use lens adapters, but nothing quite beats the
| psychological satisfaction of picking up a 30-year-old lens and
| sticking it on a brand-new dSLR with no modifications required at
| all, or taking a modern lens and sticking it on an old-school
| film SLR.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| For the uninitiated, does this have an implication in terms of
| quality of photo or video? Do DSLRs have some insurmountable
| advantages compared to mirrorless cameras?
| rwmj wrote:
| Another question from someone who knows nothing: What are
| professional photographers using, like the sports photographers
| who hang around at the edge of soccer pitches with those
| enormous telephoto lenses? Are there still "pro DSLRs" or are
| they using mirrorless or something else?
| regulation_d wrote:
| Only within the last year have Sony, Nikon, and Canon
| released their flagship mirrorless cameras (the Alpha 1, Z9,
| and R3 respectively, though the R3 might be semi-flagship if
| R1 becomes a thing). From what I gather, before this
| generation of "stacked" sensors there would have been too
| much warbling from the rolling shutter to be truly useful for
| things like sports photography.
|
| So most sports stuff is probably still shot with DSLRs, but
| that will likely change in the coming years, as (a)
| mirrorless cameras can ostensibly shoot more quickly (b)
| photographers replacing their gear won't have much of a
| choice.
| zinekeller wrote:
| DSLRs were introduced at a time where portable displays were,
| in charitable terms, not par to broadcast or photography
| standards. However, the advances brought by smartphones and the
| consumers' desire for realistic color-accurate small displays
| means that small displays now can actually simulate everything*
| that was previously handled physically. Some might grumble with
| this and might have reservations like how the transition from
| film to digital photography left some people stick to film, but
| considering that most of the time the pictures taken are being
| looked at the exact same screens as smartphones have, it's not
| surprising that more and more photographers have traded weight
| reductions rather than dealing with a physical viewfinder.
|
| > For the uninitiated, does this have an implication in terms
| of quality of photo or video?
|
| The quality of the photo or video doesn't depend on whether it
| has mirrors or not (since that the mirror is solely used for
| viewfinder) but on the sensor, lens and the internal algorithms
| (if not taking raw shots for further processing). So
| practically none.
|
| > Do DSLRs have some insurmountable advantages compared to
| mirrorless cameras?
|
| A bit lighter (no more mirrors) and a bit more reliable (the
| mirror system is a physical component that can shatter when the
| camera is dropped), although if someone is using a relatively
| heavier lens then there's nearly no difference on that front.
|
| Some might hate the fact that the viewfinder is now a screen
| though.
|
| * Technically it isn't, but does that have a real practicable
| difference? Some may get annoyed, sure, but most will just
| ignore small differences.
| guenthert wrote:
| > For the uninitiated, does this have an implication in terms
| of quality of photo or video?
|
| Not sure about the current generation, I guess the problems
| have been surmounted, but originally, if you wanted to forgo
| the mirror you had to use the main sensor as viewfinder,
| powering it on continuously, thereby heating it, which caused
| higher noise.
| elliottkember wrote:
| I think the original reason was that viewfinders were not very
| good, so you wanted to be able to look directly through the
| lens with a mirror.
| andi999 wrote:
| Brightness was also a problem.
| imagetic wrote:
| This is hardly news. We've all known this was coming, it just
| hadn't been formerly announced.
|
| I still don't find much functional advantage in Mirrorless, but
| technical improvements have made it really solid technology at
| this point. Video, low light autofocus and tracking has taken
| massive leaps forward. The sensor / image quality is relatively
| the same.
|
| Nikon removed the shutter from the Z9 (Disclaimer, I got mine
| last week). That's a huge leap nobody has been willing to take
| just yet.
|
| The biggest limitations at this point are codec/raw patent
| roadblocks for video and compression.
|
| It's a fun time for imaging technology. I completed my transition
| to mirrorless last week. Sad to see the old legendary hardware
| fade away, but the optics on modern glass are FAR superior to
| older F and EF mount lenses. It's just painful to move systems.
| peanut_worm wrote:
| Do supertelephoto lenses exist for mirrorless cameras?
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Yes. Although big prime telephoto lenses (think 400 f2.8 and
| 600 f4) have yet to be released for the RF mount. I think a
| couple do for Sony. Adapting DSLR lenses to mirrorless cameras
| works well at least for EF -> RF adapters.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| Yes, several. If you ask a more specific question I'm happy to
| help!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-29 23:02 UTC)