Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Move to Digital - Manual Controls


redhed17 9 726 England
6 Jul 2013 4:01AM

Quote:All of which is a bit off-topic, so I'll stop there.


It's your thread, you can talk about what you want. Wink lol


Quote:I saw some market data a few months back and the results shocked me. If you read photography sites you would sometimes gain the impression the DSLR sales were down and mirror less up, but in fact the data I saw indicated that DSLR sales were still rising while mirror less had plateaued and dipped in some markets.


I've saw something similar. It is to the photo industry, and the media that follows it's benefit to put forth new market sectors. The CSC market may have ballooned initially, but it is not as big or as healthy as you would believe from the media.

It is the same with Full Frame and Cropped sensor DSLRs. The perception is that the FF sector is very healthy, and it probably is with the mid range cameras like the 6D and D600 to add to the 5DIII and D800, but they are outsold by the cropped sensor DSLRs. Not everyone wants FF DSLRs, and not everyone wants CSCs, but most people who are bit serious, and spending £100s want a DSLR. And if video was a main reason for buying for most people, Sony would be running away with their SLT cameras, but I don't think they are. For most people, video is nice to have, but they are buying a stills camera first, with added video imho.


Quote:Video`s getting very popular now and every one wants to be a film maker me included, its pretty amazing what can be done now.


I agree, it is amazing what you can do with the tech available now. Smile

However, again the hype would have you believe that video is being used by everyone, everywhere. Through work and friends, I currently interact with about 20+ DSLR users, and only two of them regularly use video. And the people on the Photo sites I visit, hardly ever talk of video. :-/ It's getting more popular, but not by as much as you would think. Wink

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

strawman 11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
6 Jul 2013 10:30AM

Quote:But I do like getting out with my little body and three lens package that only weighs 600 grams
And that for is where the m4/3 and similar cameras get interesting, as a compact, light and portable good quality camera is an advantage sometimes. Me I am glad we have so many choices, and with film still on the go this could be a golden era for photography.

So if I was not worried about money I would have a m4/3 camera like the OMD and a selection of compact lenses for it, probably primes, and a full frame camera from Nikon or Canon as well (a mix of primes and zooms) plus a compact similar to my S95. Each will have their moments of being the best.
Paul Morgan Plus
14 17.1k 6 England
6 Jul 2013 10:12PM
Yes its not easy to always find the money, I simply cut my losses and sold all my DSLR stuff to finance the change.

It was still quite upsetting though realising how much they had all devalued in just a few years Sad
redhed17 9 726 England
7 Jul 2013 12:24AM

Quote:It was still quite upsetting though realising how much they had all devalued in just a few years Sad


The cameras lose their value a lot, and quickly. :-( Lenses keep their value pretty well. Unless they are replaced. Wink

I kept my D200 because it was an import, and would have been worth even less value than all the other used D200s on the market. :-/ I'm glad I did, as I'm starting to get into Timelapses and I don't want to put that many shutter activations on my main camera. I took 3000 in one day recently. Smile
Steppenwolf 3 1.2k
7 Jul 2013 1:28PM

Quote:
SLTs are the SONY's creation and were a happy hybrid of superzoom and DSLR technologies. I reckon it came from SONY's main strength with video hardware, and limits OVF did impose on it.



No. The pellicle mirror was invented by Canon. Sony revisited the idea because, rightly or wrongly, they saw video as a marketing requirement in their stills cameras (which were then DSLRs) and decided that implementations of video involving the OVF were pointless. But they also decided (this was a few years ago) that they needed the separate PDAF sensor. The pellicle mirror was a nice solution.


Quote:
I really do not believe that a display ( no matter with an ocular lens in front of it or not) will ever match human eye dynamic range and resolution. Maybe, the amateurs who see no difference will be happy with EVFs, as well as some professionals who mass-produce wedding series, etc.



The EVF shows the image that the camera will capture. Whether that will ever match the dynamic range/resolution of the eye is, I agree, very unlikely - but maybe it's more important to see what the picture's going to look like.


Quote:But rumors of OVF death are strongly exaggerated I think . As for me, at the moment EVFs are perfect match to smaller format cameras - where mirrors get too dim, and final image quality does not get too far from what one sees in the EVF. Well, except the manual mode - the one who tried to use it with EVF will know what I am telling of.Wink But honestly, how many people use Nikon D800 in auto?Sad


I'm wondering when was the last time you used a "smaller format" camera - or an EVF. Modern smaller format cameras deliver astonishing quality. I've got a Nikon V1 (CX sensor) as a pocket camera which has superb IQ - the new Sony RX100 has the same size sensor and the output from that is even better. Also modern EVFs (i.e. in the last couple of years) have moved the game on. I recommend you try a new Sony OLED HD EVF and experiment with the focus peaking and image magnification features - you might find that it's easier to get accurate manual focus than with an OVF screen.
Steppenwolf 3 1.2k
7 Jul 2013 1:41PM

Quote:
The cameras lose their value a lot, and quickly. :-( Lenses keep their value pretty well. Unless they are replaced. Wink



Yes, cameras are throwaway items because the new digital technology moves on so quickly - and they're often uneconomic to repair when they break. Lens technology "plateau'ed" some time ago and good lenses just keep getting more expensive. Most of my Sony/Minolta lenses were bought either in internet sales or imported from the USA or s/h on ebay. All of them have gone up in value - the best bargain was the 300mm f2.8 G bought in the USA for £800 which is worth more like £2000 now. Good glass is an investment.
redhed17 9 726 England
7 Jul 2013 3:07PM

Quote: the best bargain was the 300mm f2.8 G bought in the USA for £800 which is worth more like £2000 now. Good glass is an investment.


Maybe we all should be investing in Sony lenses to make money with values changing like that. Grin




Although always remember, as with all investments, lens prices can go down as well as up. Wink lol
keith selmes 11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
7 Jul 2013 4:51PM

Quote: cameras are throwaway items because the new digital technology moves on so quickly

I bought a used Eos D60, launched in 2002, when it was about 3 or 4 years old, for about a quarter the price.
About 3 years ago I gave it to a young relative.
Samples of recent work here http://www.flickr.com/photos/dantcf/9168204570/

The price does go down rapidly, but I wouldn't call them throwaway items.
It just means there is now some good kit available pretty cheap, for anyone who has the ability to use it.

I do wonder sometimes how many digital cameras actually break down, rather than being damaged, or lost, or simply abandoned in favour of a newer model.
StrayCat Plus
11 16.6k 2 Canada
7 Jul 2013 6:34PM
I've always sold my old cameras, and always got a decent price for them. I think with my present camera kit, the Olympus OM-D, I've finally found what suits me. They could greatly improve on the focus tracking, and put out another camera, but I don't need that. It's like computers, I'm only on my second one right now, and I don't feel I need to add to this 31/2 year old, or replace it.
7 Jul 2013 9:12PM

Quote:...
I'm wondering when was the last time you used a "smaller format" camera - or an EVF. ...


I thought of inviting you to have a look in my portfolio - but then again maybe not. Because I have already looked in yoursSad
Steppenwolf 3 1.2k
8 Jul 2013 8:57AM

Quote:Also sales data surprised me. I saw some market data a few months back and the results shocked me. If you read photography sites you would sometimes gain the impression the DSLR sales were down and mirror less up, but in fact the data I saw indicated that DSLR sales were still rising while mirror less had plateaued and dipped in some markets.


Can you provide a link for that data. One thing I've learnt in my job is that data can be misleading. For example, does it refer to camera units or revenue from camera sales. Does it include accessories. Etc. When talking about DSLR sales you're basically talking about Canon and Nikon. Sony (who are third in most sales tables) don't make any DSLRs and the DSLR sales from Pentax and 4/3 are low. So it means that Canon and Nikon DSLRs are selling "more" than Sony NEX, Micro 4/3 from Olympus and Panasonic and Nikon Series 1 put together.

It's entirely possible of course. It's very early days for the mirrorless systems and the lens ranges available are pretty sparse so far - also it's only the latest versions that have decent EVFs and most don't have on-sensor PDAF (only Sony NEX6 and Nikon Series 1 so far) . So there are still good reasons to get a DSLR.


Quote:I really hate the word "shutter shock" that gets banded around some sites, some people have some very strange ideas.


Yeah, some manufacturers have strange ideas too. Like providing mirror lock up and telling people to use it - when it makes no difference.
Steppenwolf 3 1.2k
8 Jul 2013 9:13AM

Quote:I don't know what DSLRs you had, or how you were using them, but the AF in DSLR's lighting fast and accurate 99% of the time in my experience.




Set up a focus testing chart and then stick a 300mm f2.8 (wide open) on your camera and test the focus at, say, 20 feet. Then stick a 2XTC on and do the same thing. Then do it at about 30 feet. This is the kind of test the camera needs to pass to reliably focus on, for example, a bird's eye. The DOF is minimal and if the spot focus doesn't accurately pick out the eye the shot's probably not going to be usable. Maybe your DSLRs can do this - none of mine could.
keith selmes 11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
8 Jul 2013 12:16PM

Quote:Can you provide a link for that data.
You could start here http://www.43rumors.com/camera-slaes-history-from-2011-till-today-mirrorless-hype-is-over-dslr-rules/

No raw data offered there, but several sources give a similar view.
keith selmes 11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
8 Jul 2013 12:27PM
Some financial analysis here, http://fstoppers.com/examining-fiscal-year-2012-sales-for-olympus-sony-nikon-and-canon
Which places Canon as market leader in interchangeable lens cameras.


Quote:Canon reported that “the advanced-amateur models, EOS 5D Mark III and EOS 60D, as well as the entry-level EOS Rebel series drove sales beyond the previous year’s level both in volume and value terms.” They also reiterated their stranglehold on shipping the most interchangeable-lens digital cameras.

8 Jul 2013 12:37PM
Here ,bird's eye, fish's eye... and there is many more like this in the galleries. This is kingfisher - one should be incredibly lucky to come closer than 30 feet from it. They may have closed the aperture, true, but the separation from background - perfect. That's skill Wink

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.