Tfw you fell for the DSLR meme

I want to believe you, but this is Jow Forums so I'm a little skeptical. If DSLR offers no advantages, then why do professional photographers use it?

Mirrorless looks like it's more consumer oriented than for professional use. Is my assumption wrong? Please explain.

then theres the issue of flangeback distance. lenses are designed to focus at one specific flange back distance. if the lens is mounted too far away from the image sensor, it will not be able to focus at infinity. if it is mounted too closely, you will not be able to focus at closer distance. flange back tolerances are measured in thousandths of a millimeter, specs can be anywhere between +/- 0.01mm and 0.06mm depending on how shitty the camera is, but anything over 0.020mm is generally considered not good.

anyway, since dslr lenses are designed for flangeback distances of generally about 44mm, and mirrorless about 18mm; you can adapt a dslr lens onto a mirrorless using a simple adapter that reliably spaces the lens to its appropriate 44mm (or whatever the brand in question is using)

however, a mirrorless lens, which works at about 18mm, can NOT be made to work on a dslr, since you cant subtract distance

then there is the issue of reliability. the numbr one things to fail in cameras are the mechanical part. so the mirror mechanism is an obvious one. the shutter is the other obvious one. mirrorless often have electronic shuters, eather first curtain only or fully electronic, thus minimizing mechanical wear and tear further

again, dslr has NO advantages, other than as a blunt force trauma weapon

>tfw switch to milc 2013

No regret beside shitty battery and top lel af.

Pro don't want spend more to change whole thing, so still stuck with old gear, lenses, studio equipment, speedlite etc.

just like why people stick to any obsolete technology, theyre invested in it and thats what they are used to

Sony full frame cameras are being used by A LOT of professionals now..

>No regret beside shitty battery and top lel af.

look for models that have phase detection af, which is going to be pretty much everything new now. thats what dslrs use, so there is no difference. the mirrorless is actually better since the phase detect af points are at the exact plane as the image sensor (since theye integrated onto it), whereas a dslr is a separate sensor reflected onto by a mirror. dslrs will always have a little natural front focus or back focus. this can be calibrated out electronically, but it is not naturally in sync like a mirrorless is

also, you dont have to believe me if you dont want to, but, ive probably repaired over 10,000 cameras in my life, and several thousand lenses as well. ive torn down dozens of models of dslrs completly and dozens of models of mirrorless. the build quality on a lot of mirrorless is lacking, so that can be an argument for dslrs, since even the low end models tend to have good build quality. but, its not really a natural benefit of dslrs, its just oems producing most mirrorless as low cost cameras. but, all the full frame mirrorless cameras have good build quality

sexiest camera ever right here

Attached: D3S_0851-1200.jpg (1200x848, 263K)

followed by a sexy another nice setup
note, this one has an adapted canon fd lens. ironically, you can not mount this lens on a canon ef body, since fd is designed for a shorter flange back distance

Attached: D3S_0489-1200.jpg (1200x981, 227K)

>18 posts
>8 IPs

Attached: 1424468009474.jpg (519x576, 21K)

I agree that DSLRs are a dying breed. The only people who I can think of that would be better off with a dslr are war correspondantes because some DSLRs are rugged as fuck.
Everyone else is better off with a mirror less.

I don't like the digital viewfinders

Come at me

Attached: derf.jpg (1280x720, 162K)

DSLR look better.

I'm with you.

that a7x whatever the newest one is, is an amazing camera. there is a pro photographer locally that does events and portraits and such, that has one. he was showing me at a car show about how it takes pics that can pick up the fines detail work and engraving on the show cars. its expensive, but for a guy that can make use if it, its a killer camera.

>How is a Mirrorless any better?
It's not. It's about the same. The advantages DSLRs have had as far as battery life are starting to disappear. Then you can mention some things about Canon and Nikon's lens lineups, but between Sony, Tamron and Sigma it's hard to argue that "E mount has no lenses" still.

>quality video
Sony is great as far as video, but Panasonic is straight amazing. If you can live with a Micro 4/3 sensor, that's the place to go for that.

a7 III

It's a top sensor

This is how all the RGBT lights in contemporary hardware happened

Attached: 1281821473414.jpg (555x448, 37K)

I'm not really a camera guy, but his can take a very natural looking picture with his skills. there was a car there that was all done up that had multiple layers and thousands of hours of pinstriping. you could see it all in his pics with the sony. the nikon and his canon were 7/10 compared.

if I win the lotto I want that or the fuji.

mirrorless don't have an optical viewfinder retard

Attached: 3Q7iXtQ.png (645x729, 51K)

same as in the d850

A lens on an adapter does not behave the same as on the mount it was made for.
Plenty of reviews of Canon glass on Sony bodies where it's just not worth it.

a7 II here. Best camera I ever owned.

Or very close at least. When you're choosing top of the line bodies like that you should almost let the glass choose for you.

What lenses do you sport?

im with you both but the the REAL FACT no one here has bothered to explain to luddites is that all the width an girth from an SLR come from the PRISM and VIEWFINDER.. its nice but not worth 8 times the volume

shit i have a 5d II and my vintage nikon D70... the d70 is just so fun to use even though my iphone 6 takes better photos

no, a7r3 and d850 really are the same sensor, nikon has been using sony sensors for years

Oh yeah the SLR system clearly needs a little more room inside the body for mirrors to go "ka-floing" and whatnot.
I care more about weight than volume though. There are bodies I wouldn't personally go up to, even if I had the dosh.

>nikon has been using sony sensors for years
I know, but usually they tweak them a little themselves and call them Nikon. It's like monitor brands or something.

Way to many. I got hooked on old lenses because they are quite cheap and often of very high quality. Old Yashica and Leica, even some GDR lenses. Bought some of them for 20 bucks.

>Old Yashica and Leica, even some GDR lenses. Bought some of them for 20 bucks.
I love this hobby so Goddamn much. Being bankrupt because of photography is so much better than those timepiece fags.

Attached: 1281470024843.jpg (126x121, 4K)

boards.Jow Forums.org/p/thread/3297145

He posted it there too.

You have just proven the point, thanks.
The main and only DSLR advantage is battery life. Secondary advantage is better balance with bigger objectives.
Go fuck yourself.

Attached: Fuji GFX50S.jpg (241x209, 8K)

oh look, how special OP is. he takes pictures. that won't stop you from being bullied though, faggot

Girls dig the shutter clicking sound when you take their picture. Also dslr just look more manly and less like a toy. The sole aim of photography is to get your models naked and dslr just do a better job of exactly that.

Canon and Nikon have the best selection of native lenses. They also work best (AF) on their DSLR bodies.

Battery life is light years better on a DSLR with the ability to use an additional grip

No matter how good EVFs get, an OVF will always be faster and better because it's just some glass and your eye.

DSLR have better accessory compatibility (flash guns etc)

MUCH better build quality on DSLR and far superior weather sealing. Will withstand much more abuse than a mirrorless body.

Far better handling with pro grade (larger, heavier) lenses

DSLR is not made for namby-pamby girlboys

mirrorless is better for video, better autofocus

>The sole aim of photography is to get your models naked and dslr just do a better job of exactly that.

Attached: 1376960523534.png (1239x712, 201K)

>MUCH better build quality on DSLR and far superior weather sealing. Will withstand much more abuse than a mirrorless body.
Adding mirror does not make the body more sealed. Mirrorless cameras were first affordable consumer ILCs with weather sealing after Pentax K-30.

If the only tool you have is penis everything looks like a vagina to you.

bp

also, not everyone has manlet hands like OP

mirrorless is new and only very recently became "mostly equal or better" than DSLRs. professionals are moving onto mirrorless to some extent but the DSLRs they already have are still quite capable of course.

>paying $2,000 for $150 worth of camera

No thanks. You seen the sensor in these mirrorless things? Makes an iPhone look like the Hubble. LOL

sony actually puts fantastic sensors inside crappy cameras

I need a camera that can operate at low temperatures.

I need a camera large enough and with large enough controls that I can still use it while wearing gloves.

I need a camera that uses very little power, because batteries are shit in the cold.

Attached: DSC_5731.jpg (1920x1280, 139K)

>TFW both SLR and Mirorless
Very comfy imo

Attached: A77SLTmirror.jpg (1280x827, 125K)

worst of both worlds

You mean best

>shit battery life
>no optical viewfinder
>translucent mirror literally steals iso performance off the sensor
>as bulky as a slr
no wonder they dropped that concept so damn hard the moment they could make the phase detect AF on the sensor plane kinda work

>no optical viewfinder
Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

>OVF
>infinite resolution
>infinite refresh rate
>0 input lag

Lads, serious question. Should I buy a film camera, or just save up for a used Sony A6000?

Serious answer: don't waste your money on shit you don't need and won't use after a couple weeks

Right, that's why I figured a used Sony A6000 would be better since at least if I used it I wouldn't get screwed by having to go develop film

even micro 4/3 is way bigger than an iphone sensor, dumbass

Mirrorless Full Frame Sensor appeals to me.

Are there any truly amazing lenses available yet?

This arguments don't works. This is a camera, not a telescope. You better have a preview of what the photo will really be.
>EVF
>menu navigation in the viewfinder
>real exposure, shutter speed and WB preview with histogram and shit
>you have a quick preview of the photo without quitting the VF
>Actually fast and reactive liveview, because it's better for some shooting angles

At the price tag you can find an a6000 for these days it's a good buy.

I've got an Olympus, OM-D EM10 MKIII, D5600, and D850. Mirrorless is fine for shooting family photos, normie shit, and videos, but the DSLR's trump it in every other category. Olympus' only trump card feature is active sensor stabilization.
at $3000, why the fuck would I buy a Sony A7R III with shit for lenses and bad battery life when I can have a D850 that works with literally every F-mount lens ever made, has a grip I can actually hold, can get 5140 exposures on a single EN-EL18 battery, and has a XQD slot for dat 150 mb/s write speed.
And beyond that, if I want live view, I flip the fucking mirror up for live view

>having such pathetic manlet onions-hands that mirrorless abominations aren't ridiculously uncomfortable to use
>implying anyone here shoots anything other than Program Auto
>not shooting bracketed exposure when there's any question about your settings in manual
>sacrificing the pure erection-provoking sound of 7 FPS CLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK
OVFs are exponentially better for manual focus because unless you have shit eyesight, you'll be limited by whatever shit resolution your EVF is playing at

>>implying anyone here shoots anything other than Program Auto
If you spend a thousand dollars on a camera you better spend some time in aperture and shutter.
I know I do, I'd have to assume some of these other posters do to. Particularly OP.

>battery life

>better to have a preview

If you know what you’re doing, you don’t need a preview.

I walked around Colonial Williamsburg on Memorial Day weekend - saw tons of Sony A7, Canon 5D, 6D, Nikon D810, D750's and not one person doing anything other than taking snapshit photos of the back of their kids' heads.
I misspoke - the lowest common denominator that makes up 95% of camera sales shoot on JPEG Medium with a kit zoom on auto or P mode.
However, if you're shooting RAW or NEF or whatever the fuck, as long as you're close enough with your shutterspood and aperture, you can fix everything in Lightroom. However, you can't fix out of focus, and OVF isn't limited by resolution when you're trying to get a perfect focus

>what is RAW
you literally don't need a preview. just set sensible aperture and shutter speed. and you can snap a couple of sample shots if you need to fine tune for the environment you're in or use the live view.

Naked is pleb-tier.

Oh I agree fully about the OVF. I'm not that guy.
I just peddle these things for a living so the whole "They just shoot auto" upsets me.
I spend all Goddamn day telling them about shutter and aperture.

Implied comes out better if they actually are

Fair point.

>I spend all Goddamn day telling them about shutter and aperture.
iktfb

>tfw you realize that Jow Forums is the equivalent of a whole board of canon vs. nikon threads
It's sad. /p/ actually produces shit.

That's what I love about Jow Forums - it's nothing but edgy teenage trolls that know jack fucking shit about anything. Try shooting fast action like sports or moving birds with your faggy fucking mirrorless bullshit. You let me know how that works out. Not that any of you unemployed weebs could afford a real camera (or especially a lens) anyway.

Attached: 1440685018762-0.png (1375x1279, 154K)

The point about sports is legit, and I think I would pick a Canon or Nikon APS-C body for nature shit as well.
But that certainly doesn't make an a7 shit for portraiture or weddings or whateverthefuck.

t. amateur who was fired from a photo job because his liveview couldn’t react fast enough for him to see the moving object he’s photographing

what the fuck does raw have to do with anything?
exposure preview is an amazing feature. it allows you to shoot in situations that would be too dark for an optical viewfinder.

look, ill give it to you, that this is a matter opinion. this is one rare instance where it could be argued that a dslr would be the more desirable option for someone, but you are paying a huge price to have an optical viewfinder. you are sacrificing size, weight, reliability, focus accuracy, parallax, and lack of real time image exposure feedback, all just to have an optical viewfinder, which isnt even objectively better, just may be preferred by some

modern EVFs have practically no lag and are very high resolution, it is hard to argue any advantages of optical viewfinders over EVFs

ironically EVFs are far superior than OVFs for telescopes. A good low light camera like an a7s is one of the only cameras capable of actually displaying stars in real time

in body camera stabilization has nothing to do with dslr vs mirrorless. there are dslrs that have it, and there are mirrorless that dont, and vice versa.

every f mount lens ever made works on every mirrorless body ever made. and your argument about battery life isnt a great one since you can get battery grips and battery packs for mirrorless anyways.

your argument about manual focus being better on OVFs is objectively wrong. A dslr requires the mirror, image sensor, and OVF to be in perfect sync to achieve perfect focus, which is literally impossible to achieve. with an EVF, you see the exact same focus as the image sensor, and you even get focus assist options like focus peaking/highlighting

Why would you use that mode? If youre going to shoot in something other than full manual, you should be focusing in Aperture Priority mode. Letting the camera change something that affects your DOF would not be my first choice of a mode to use. honestly though i am replying to bait anyway, and every mode has a use case

>what the fuck does raw have to do with anything?
if you shoot jpeg it ruins the quality when you adjust anything in post

and not everyone shoots in ultra low light

OK fine, dslrs inherently have better battery life. you can still compensate with battery grips/battery packs, and newer mirrorless are coming with larger and larger batteries to address the issue. Also, carrying extra batteries with you is not hard. but yes yes you win this battle you are correct that is an inherent advantage of dslrs

so far dslrs have the following advatages

objective:
battery life

subjective:
evf

thats it so far as i can see, the list of advantages of mirrorless is incredibly longer

>what the fuck does raw have to do with anything?
with RAWs in Lightroom, you'd have to shoot either completely out of focus or wildly under/overexposed for the photo to be unsalvageable because RAWs are direct output from the sensor and have a wider range of values that you can use to edit over even JPEG L. In all but very unique cases, RAW editing allows you to over or underexpose and still get a perfect picture. Especially if you're exposure bracketing.
If you shoot in RAW, exposure preview is placebo because as long as you're close enough, it'll look fine in Lightroom.
If you so fundamentally misunderstand your camera that you can't eyeball a scene, chances are you're not composing a picture worth taking in the first place.

>focus accuracy
having infinite resolution in an OVF means your focus accuracy will be as good as your eyesight.
>Parallax
are you shooting with both eyes open? Bindon aiming? fuck off, Trijicon.
>Reliability
eating battery just by being on does not add reliability. Modern DSLR mirrors are rated for hundreds of thousands of exposures.
>lack of real time image exposure feedback
Take a picture, look at it, make your WB and setting adjustments, keep shooting
or just use fucking live view
>size
If you're carrying around any mirrorless or DSLR, you're already carrying something. Use your phone if you want something that fits in your pocket. a 28-300 VR is going to be just as fuckhueg regardless of whether its on a mirrorless or DSLR.
Also, pick yourself up some adult hands and you'll realize small cameras are annoying as hell to shoot with versus something like a D5

Reminder to not believe his lies.

Attached: lamboticketisascamranbychosis.jpg (1912x2436, 626K)

>OVF isn't limited by resolution when you're trying to get a perfect focus
I am sorry, but the chances of ovf achieving optimal focus are minimal. every lens and camera has a slightly different flangeback distance, due to manufacturing tolerances, and pentaprizms have positional tolerances as well. if you actually have a lens and camera that agrees with each other, you are lucky, or some repair tech went above and beyond what 90% of them do to sync everything up

many image sensors exceed the resolution the lenses are capable of. maybe the lenses do exceed what the human eye can pick up thru the evf, so you may have a point, but this really could go either way, and depends on way too many factors

I think today is more of an issue of Canon vs Sony...

I hope Nikon releases a killer mirrorless camera, I really do. It would help them be more relevant again. I hope Canon gets better at mirrorless too, because right now, having only one option for a full frame mirrorless camera, isnt optimal

Unless you're autistically obsessed with size (mirrorlesses are too big to fit in your pocket so you're going to have to carry them around your neck anyway) then just get a DSLR.
The only advantage some mirrorlesses have is better video autofocus. They're literally worse in every single other aspect.

What? Modern mirrorless have phase detection autofocus, so their focus speed is identical. being mirrorless vs dslr has nothing to do with mechanical shutter speeds. actually mirrorless with electronic 1st curtain and fully electronic shutters are starting to exceed what mechanical shutters are capable of. and the lag of modern evfs is imperceptible

i dont know what advantage you think dslrs have for fast action and sports, but there arent any, unless you wanna argue the 1ms lag advantage ovfs have

real time image preview allows you to see exposure in real time. this has nothing to do with raw. you seem incredibly confused.

you don't need WYSIWYG when you shoot raw. you're gonna adjust it in post anyway.

I dont know who the fuck you think you are, but the official tally so far is dslrs have only 1 objective advantage (battery life) and 1 subjective advantage (ovf).

A sony full frame mirrorless with a smallish lens can indeed fit in a pants cargo pocket. also, when given 2 choices of something to hang around my neck, one choice 3 times as heavy as the other, i would go with the lighter choice

i guess i see your point, but post will only take you so far. its better to get your exposure as close to proper in the original shot.

>falling for the SLR meme
should have got a TLR, lenslets

Attached: camera.jpg (2000x1092, 536K)

I have an a350. Really punched above its weight when it was new, easily as good as a Canon or Nikon that cost 30% more. I've noticed a lot of pros using Sony cameras in particular, but a few of them have had the a7 II in tow. Nice to hear that there's an awesome Sony camera I can pick up on the cheap in a few years.

>He doesn't know the joys of finding a Seiko 52 caliber for less than $100
>He doesn't know how awesome it is to come across a vintage Tissot at a yard sale for $15

Okay there buddy