Hasselblad Is Reportedly the Latest Camera Maker To Bail On DSLRs (engadget.com) 92
Hasselblad is discontinuing its H-series medium format DSLRs to focus exclusively on mirrorless models. "The move leaves Pentax and Ricoh as the biggest remaining names in the rapidly diminishing DSLR space," notes Engadget. "Hasselblad's last H series launch was the H6D system in 2016." From the report: "While we have been feeling this sting for over the last 18 months with lack of product, today we received official notice that the full product line of the Hasselblad H system has been officially discontinued," Capture Integration wrote. "All [H system] products are now officially out of stock and Hasselblad will no longer take orders for anything in the H line." The article continued, "The H system is still very strong and working in so many studios today. However, it's time to look at replacements. We can't even order new battery grips today." The vendor notes that future repairs will likely take longer and grow in difficulty.
Film (Score:4, Funny)
We need to go back to film. The whole transition to digital was a mistake. Never should have been allowed to happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No Film in DSLR (Score:5, Informative)
For those of you unfamiliar with cameras, a DSLR doesn't use film. The "D" in the name stands for digital.
The SL stands for Single Lens. In some early camera, there where multiple lenses for where the preview of the picture would be slightly offset from what the imaging lens would capture. A Single Lens camera used a prism and mirror so the preview was exactly the same as the photo. When the shutter button was pressed, the mirror would pivot out of the way and the shutter would open (or roll or snap two curtains). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
With digital cameras, there is no advantage to use a mirror to direct the image to a second viewing sensor and then move the mirror out of the way to allow the main sensor to capture the image. Most medium format cameras are the mirrorless type so Hasselblad is stopping production of the DSLR models. The mirrorless models will continue to be produced.
Re:No Film in DSLR (Score:5, Insightful)
With digital cameras, there is no advantage to use a mirror to direct the image to a second viewing sensor and then move the mirror out of the way to allow the main sensor to capture the image.
What do you mean by "second viewing sensor"? My DSLR's mirror directs the incoming image through some optics into my eye. The speed of light is high and my eye's dynamic range is better than most/all camera displays. EVIL cameras will have a lag as the electronics transfers the image from the sensor to the display. Certainly modern EVIL designs are good but saying there's "no advantage" for DSLRs is going too far.
Re:No Film in DSLR (Score:4, Funny)
The second sensor is the classic often-imitated, never duplicated Mark I eyeball.
CaptQuark may not know that DSLR camera flip up the mirror and use the main sensor when you switch the back-of-camera display to viewfinder mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the DSLR truly is the best of both worlds. Mirrorless mode when you want it (for video) and reflex mode when you want it (for accurate composition). I can focus on anything I want in frame faster than any camera I've ever used, and the idea that a video viewfinder is going to let me do that as well as my actual eye is bonkers (not least because I have to choose a metering point or pattern to accomplish that.)
Re: (Score:3)
DSLR is definitely *not* the best of both worlds. Compared to mirrorless:
- It is heavier
- It is bulkier
- It is *way* more fragile (moving parts)
- You don't see the result but something else, notably every lens opens up to the maximum aperture for the viewfinder and autofocus. But moreover, you don't see clipping, colors histogram, etc. On a mirrorless you see the end result. Granted it depends on the price of the mirrorless.
But, on the other hand:
- It consumes less battery since there is no screen on when y
Re: (Score:2)
But moreover, you don't see clipping, colors histogram, etc. On a mirrorless you see the end result. Granted it depends on the price of the mirrorless.
You can see literally all of that on a DSLR in display mode, where the shutter flips up. I have all of that on my T2i. Maybe I only get some of that because of ML, I don't know, but then that's why I bought a Canon. I got it used, I'm a slightly educated amateur and didn't need to shoot a huge cash wad. (This was the least camera that would shoot 1080p video, even if it does only do 30 fps, which is fine for my use cases.) There's a button for toggling between mirror up and down modes, and another button fo
Re: (Score:2)
The reason DSLR was superior to mirrorless was an optical viewfinder.
I wandered into a camera store a while ago while I was killing time and had a chat with one of the sales guys. I tried a few of the latest mirrorless models, and the electronic viewfinders have improved a lot, but they're still not as good as an optical viewfinder.
For most people that doesn't matter. A mirrorless gives you interchangeable lenses and a functional viewfinder if you want to step up from a phone.
Hasselblad's customer's aren't
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I did not know that. Thanks for the info.
Re:No Film in DSLR (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to think that too, and only recently made the jump to a Nikon Z. But I'm fully converted.
The dynamic range of the eye is a misnomer. Your eye isn't recording the image, a sensor is. There's real benefit to limiting your vision to the dynamic range of the sensor. I find myself taking far less over exposed images with my mirrorless.
The lag in the sensor is still ever so slightly a thing, however... the shutter lag is far improved. Catching a fast moving scene seems to also be easier on the mirrorless, but then whenever timing is critical I have always kept both eyes open anyway (DSLRs have shutter blanking effects, and for fast moving scenes it's usually important to see what's going on outside the field of view of the lens).
Honestly I resisted for years and I'm hating myself for doing so... but maybe the technology only just now got to this point, I don't know. I don't regret for a moment switching away from the DSLR and the singular negative I experience is battery life (~350 photos per charge rather than the ~1000).
But holy crap do the benefits outweigh downsides. Focus peeking far better than even old split prisims making it a great choice for old lenses, the ability to see in the dark... there are days I couldn't see what my DSLR was pointed at through the viewfinder which acts more like night vision on a modern mirrorless, the previous flagship cameras had a small fraction of the focus points of even midrange mirrorless cameras to say nothing of features such eye identification and focus, sensor based VR (which works in conjunction with lens VR to give you steadiness you wouldn't have even dreamt of).
Other than carrying a battery less I, as someone who owns 5 DSLRs agree with the GP, there's no advantage for DSLRs. Not anymore, and if there are, they certainly don't outweigh the downside. Speaking of weigh and downside, god it's great that digital cameras are going back to the size of film cameras again. The fat DSLRs have had their day.
Re:No Film in DSLR (Score:4, Interesting)
With how much use of the viewfinder? I mainly do bird photography and I suspect that in most other genres the photographer doesn't regularly stare down the viewfinder at the subject for several minutes in order to take a shot when it moves. If two batteries would suffice me for a day's shooting then I might consider switching to the Z series when I decide to replace my D5300, but if I'd get through a battery in two hours then it wouldn't be very practical for multi-day trips. 350 photos would be pushing it anyway, because on a good day I can shoot 1000, but 200 with heavy use of the viewfinder would be a showstopper.
Re: (Score:2)
I shot a racing event recently which very much involves staring down the viewfinder. That's a *good* scenario for the camera. It's far lower battery consumption than having the screen on. I've not tried it but apparently I can record 2hours straight at 4K with the screen on as far as the stats say. With that alone you'll get far more than 2 hours staring through the viewfinder.
That said it is still worse than a DSLR there's simply no way around that. However... batteries are light and cheap. Bird photograph
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so much concerned about how much batteries weigh: I typically carry two spares anyway (on the assumption that I'll only need one, but the other is a backup in case I stupidly brought an uncharged one). Recharging multiple batteries when I might not return to the hotel during the hours of daylight is a bigger issue. It's not insurmountable, but ideally it wouldn't be the thing I have to coordinate everything else around.
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, across the R5 and R6 that I own, and the R7 my domestic partner has, we generally find that our mirrorless cameras are usually good for between 200 and 250% of Canon's rated capacity. I might take 900 photos on my R6 (i.e. the one with the smaller battery) on a single charge. I'm not sure how estimated shots/charge is calculated but it seems extremely pessimistic to me.
None of my cameras have a perceptible blackout during a shot.
The EVF always shows my current exposure and Canon R, unlike Nikon
Re:No Film in DSLR (Score:5, Informative)
A bit of digital camera history on why dSLRs were a thing.
First, digital cameras were very power hungry - you needed an optical viewfinder if you wanted to take photos for any extended length of time. So the digital point and shoot cameras often did that - you looked through an optical viewfinder, snapped a photo, then viewed it on the screen.
dSLRs took this to the next level because of superior lenses and sensors enabling you to take much better photos. The viewfinder was through the lens (TTL) so what you saw there was what you took, no parallax issues like with a point and shoot. The optical sensor also allowed for far higher resolution than could be achieved with LCD displays so you still had traditional autofocus strips for sensors while the camera was down.
This also had the advantage that the sensor could remain OFF while you were previewing and adjusting - camera sensors get noisy when they got warm.
Then later generations of dSLRs improved on it - you started getting sensors which didn't get so hot so you could do "live preview" and video recording, though early generations limited themselves to a few minutes at a time. However, the viewfinder still remained as a way to compose the shot and check focus because the back screen hides a lot of details.
Eventually it got to the point where the rear display got much higher resolution, camera sensors stopped being power hogs and remained relatively cool that it was possible to have them active all the time, and the mirrorless cameras started coming out. They still had electronic viewfinders for "traditional" use, but fewer people used them because why squint with one eye through a tiny viewfinder when you could use the large LCD display and both eyes to frame and compose, and with enough resolution that focus could be verified as well.
These days, dSLRs make little sense because you can have mirrorless using the same lenses and sensors, but without the artificial limitation of a flipping mirror. The sensor need not be protected anymore, and framing and composition can take place on high-res LCD screens and focus doesn't require extensive alignment as it did in the past.
Effectively, a digital camera is just a camcorder that is optimized more for photos rather than video.
Re: (Score:2)
"why squint with one eye through a tiny viewfinder when you could use the large LCD display and both eyes to frame and compose"
For far-sighted people, a viewfinder is great, because you can adjust its focus to your naked eye, while you'd have to pull out reading glasses or squint to use the back screen for precision focusing (assuming you're doing manual focusing and focus peaking isn't good enough, which alas it's not on my A7R2). I expect a lot of camera users are like me in aging into this.
Re: (Score:2)
Ehh, the EVF is higher resolution, and a lot easier to handhold stabilize than with the LCD and holding it out in front of you - also easier to see outside in bright sunlight. The only reason to use the LCD is if it's fully articulated and you need to do a different angle shot, or you've got it stabilized on a tripod.
Re: (Score:3)
A few years ago, NASA rescanned the Apollo photos, inlcuding all of theHasselblad medium format images. [asu.edu]
Apollo scans are acquired with a Leica DSW700 photogrammetric scanner allowing for very high geometric and radiometric fidelity. In addition, the films are scanned at very high spatial resolutions up to 200 pixels/mm (5 microns) and an extended bit depth (14-bit A/D) (16,384 shades of grey) in order to ensure that as much of the information content of the film is preserved.
The DSW700 was modified from the original 12-bit A/D to a 14-bit A/D because the Moon is a very high-contrast target and the original film is capable of capturing a very wide range of grey scale variation. The combination of small pixels (5 micron) and the 14-bit gray scale results in a very detailed scan and, of course, very large raw scan files. Metric film scans are approximately 1.3 GB each and panoramic film tiles are 1.9 GB each and require eight tiles for a single panoramic image.
That's 60x60mm at 50 micron/pixel, is 12,000 x 12,000 pixels (144 Mpx) at 14 bpp.
Only in the last few years has anyone started to produce cameras that come close: the Hasselblad X2C has 11656 x 8742 pixels on a sensor that's 44x33mm, or 3.7 micron/pixel, and a 16-bit depth.
Re: (Score:3)
That's 60x60mm at 50 micron/pixel, is 12,000 x 12,000 pixels (144 Mpx) at 14 bpp.
Only in the last few years has anyone started to produce cameras that come close: the Hasselblad X2C has 11656 x 8742 pixels on a sensor that's 44x33mm, or 3.7 micron/pixel, and a 16-bit depth.
This doesn't mean there's 144MP worth of data in the scanned image, film doesn't have infinite resolution due to film grain and optics used. I can't be bothered to do the actual math, medium format certainly does have a lot of resolution though.
Re: (Score:2)
The size of a single film grain is on the order of 1 micron, so the scanning process doesn't get close to that. The optics will be more of a limiting factor. Figuring out the resolution of a Hasselblad EL500 with the Biogon lens is giving me a headache though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely untrue. Filmm isn't "Molecular resolution", its grain resolution, silver halide crystals, or whatever the specific medium is. The highest end 35mm film tops out similar to where a 20 megapixel camera is at, For references the Hasselblad X2D is 100 megapixel. Modern CCDs also have a (significantly) higher dynamic range than film.
Its not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably, though, the relevant comparison to the X2D is 120 film. If 35mm film (36x24mm) is 20MP, then 120 film (56x56mm) is 73MP. Still short of the X2D, but not that far short.
Re: (Score:2)
What's good about film is its irregularity. What's good about digital is everything else, ironically including its regularity for a lot of purposes... but film really did look great.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Who is "we". Who should be responsible for not having it happen? Your mother?
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
The Clinton and Bush administrations.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to go back to film. The whole transition to digital was a mistake. Never should have been allowed to happen.
Maybe the Digital Generation will give it a shot for tchotchke's sake one day. You know, like they did with Polariod instant cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, vinyl is better than CD? (Score:5, Insightful)
We definitely don't need to go back to film:
_ Wait 2 weeks for shots
_ use 36 shots per film, when you run out it's a mess... assuming you put in the film correctly
_ so much waste on the environment
_ everything has gone digital, including the site you wrote your post on
_ even mediums are digital
_ if you compare the first digital cameras to today's, quality continues to improve exponentially
_ Digital has democratized photo taking to exerybody
What we really need:
_ Better optics
_ Better Software
_ Better lenses
_ Form Factors better adapted to Digital (not necessarily DSLR)
_ Better Storage
There is a reason a lot of the big film brands have stopped producing camera films, they had the same blurry vision of the future (pun intended)
Re: (Score:2)
I should have written Vinyl is Better than Uncompressed Digital but I stand by uncompressed CDs are better than Vinyl (So many long discussions/ tests for details)
But considering how Uncompressed Digital has the potential for more than CDs and CDs themselves are disappearing, I figured it was better to clarify
Re: (Score:2)
Why do dedicated cameras have software that is much, much worse than what smart phones have?
With a high end smart phone you just point it in the right direction, hand held, and press the button. Even at night to sorts out all the wobble, combines multiple exposures, and produces a usable image with zero effort from the user.
With a DSLR or mirrorless you need to set the shot up, configure the camera, if it's dark it needs stabilizing, and then you have to post process it in Lightroom.
They make cameras for vl
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
All that can be done with RAW output, but cameras don't even seem to capture the data needed to do what phones do. For example, to get a clear, unblurred shot, phones constantly take shots rapidly and select a clear one close to the moment the shutter was triggered. Some cameras have rapid shot mode, but nothing like that.
Same with night shots. On a Pixel you just tap the button and it automatically captures dozens of images over as long as it needs to get enough light in. The camera could do the same and s
Re: Let me guess, vinyl is better than CD? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
On my mirrorless cameras, I can if I so choose just leave everything in subject eye detection and as long as my lens is even roughly pointed at what I wanted to shoot, I'll get an acceptable photo. Mirrorless also means brain-dead easy subject tracking for video. Both my camera body and almost all my lenses can have image stabilization; I can shoot .5 second exposures handheld without any visible shake in the output. I have to work or accidentally be in the wrong mode if I'm really trying to screw up my sh
Re: (Score:3)
DSLR - Digital SLR ...
This is Mirror Digital vs Mirrorless Digital
Nothing to do with Film
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, that was my point, part of what I meant there are other form factors better adapted by digital.
Was replying to OP that said we should go back to film... which I really hope was a joke because I have seen people actually going around crying we should just stick to film and digital is blasphemy
Re: (Score:2)
Better optics
A not insignificant portion of optics on the market now exceed the capabilities of very high resolution sensors and are diffraction limited from as little as one stop from fully open. That was one of the big benefits of mirrorless.
Better Storage
My camera has effective a PCIe interface and can write to the card at over 2GB/s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] CF-x cards have existed for a while now.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, it will continue to be a hobby and have a cult following large enough to keep some companies alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. I'm all digital but nothing beats look of black and white film.
Re: (Score:2)
Photographer Jamie Windsor has a pretty remarkable set of LUTs and Lightroom Presets (that can be converted to LUTs if you're not an Adboe person) that that replicate or recreate film grain and color processing. He has Youtube videos that explain his technique. If you have a favorite film stock, there's a decent good chance that he's duplicated it. I get a lot of mileage out of his Ilford HP5 preset for portrait photos.
https://jamiewindsor.sellfy.st... [jamiewinds...llfy.store]
Re: (Score:2)
We need to go back to film.
What do you mean "go back"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Film (Score:2)
No film can get close of the dynamic range or the high iso quality given by digital cameras
Re: (Score:2)
Apollo 8 (Score:4, Informative)
It was Apollo 8 mission that made the Hasselblad camera world famous. Not the DSLR models, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
The inverted pyramid in the martini glass shot by Burt Stern for the Smirnoff ad didn't hurt, either.
Re: (Score:3)
Not the fact that famous photographers such as Ansel Adams used Hasselblad for serious art?
It took long enough (Score:1)
Re:It took long enough (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't process the image, and rather send the light directly to the viewfinder via the mirror, you don't have any delay and can pinpoint the camera to any fast movement, which is important for instance in Sports photography. But current sensor-display combinations are so fast, that the delay becomes unnoticeable. Hence the need for a DSLR has vanished.
Re: It took long enough (Score:3)
I donâ(TM)t find the displays too laggy. What I do find though is my DSLRâ(TM)s battery life is incredible. It basically doesnâ(TM)t waste any battery while youâ(TM)re just looking.
Re: (Score:2)
I wondered if anyone was going to get around to battery life. I've never run down the battery in my Nikon D6. OTOH, I've had "pro" people come with a mirrorless and have to stop halfway thru the shoot to change batteries, and she was only taking less than 100 shots of my house for sale. Probably didn't arrive fully charged, but still... I've taken nearly 500 shots (got carried away a bit at Tuscon's Pima Air and Space Museum) and the battery hardly noticed. Not sure how far I want to lug an array of
Re: It took long enough (Score:2)
I often go away without my charger, because I rarely need it. I got my Canon 80D in 2016, so the battery is hardly at its prime. I'm sure I can still get 600-700 photos on a fresh charge, although I don't normally take more these days (I don't seem to get in to that creative mode since having children⦠they interrupt my concentration too soon!)
Dpreview is still online and comparing Canon 80D against R6 mk. II, it's officially 960 vs 580 shots for battery life - 40% fewer for the mirror less cam
Re: (Score:2)
40% fewer for the mirror less camera.
Well given a mirrorless camera is significantly smaller than their DSLR counterparts you could throw 4 additional batteries in your camera bag instead and get 200% more photos for the same equipment size ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
If weight is your priority, then yes, this is true. It sounds like a faff though :). Yes, ok swapping lenses is a faff too if you in to that. Dealing with charging multiple batteries and remembering which ones need it and waiting for them to be done is resultant annoyance.
Re: (Score:2)
I've taken over 900 photos and ~15 minutes of video on a Canon R6 (mirrorless and using a smaller LPE6) and over 1100 photos on my R5 (LPE6NH, the "big" Canon battery), both on a single charge and during a single shooting day. If we're at the point where we're complaining about battery life at around 1000 shots, I think we're just picking nits.
Professionals, regardless of what camera they're using, probably have two or three spare batteries on hand. Pros probably also have a camera bag with at least a cou
Battery life (Score:3)
The major argument against mirrorless is battery life. Electronic viewfinders are power hungry.
Vampires. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're wrong. This is actually a secret plot to protect vampires. Vampires passing mirrors throw sparks, I shit you not. This exposes the vampires for what they really are, and takes away some of their powers, temporarily making them more corporeal, bound by physics, and therefore vulnerable to human hands. The whole "invisible in mirrors" thing is just astroturfing paid for by vampires.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're wrong. This is actually a secret plot to protect vampires. Vampires passing mirrors throw sparks, I shit you not. This exposes the vampires for what they really are, and takes away some of their powers, temporarily making them more corporeal, bound by physics, and therefore vulnerable to human hands. The whole "invisible in mirrors" thing is just astroturfing paid for by vampires.
Clearly, you've been brainwashed by the anti-vampire propaganda brigade. Vampires aren't that deeply magical. They are simply soulless humans. The body no longer decays without the never-ending pain of holding the soul in corporeal form. Their adjusted metabolism due to the blood infection that occurs when the soul is separated from the body causes them to appear dead to current medical technology, but they aren't technically dead. Simply running on such a different level of metabolism that we can't recogni
Re: (Score:1)
They just wanna make sure more cameras are able to capture Vampires. Mirror based cameras don't show em.
In the view finder. The actual picture doesn't use a mirror.
Pentax and Ricoh are dead men walking (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would I be correct to assume you haven't worked as a professional photographer? I have, and I can tell you there's some good reasons to believe Pentax and Ricoh will vaccuum up a lot of pros who want to stay with SLRs. They have advantages that almost certainly won't go away soon. SLRs are more rugged, and battery life is significantly better. Shutter lag isn't a problem, even in lower end full frame SLR's. Some mirrorless cameras are OK, even excellent, but your results will definitely vary. Perhaps m
Re:Pentax and Ricoh are dead men walking (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, there are still reasons for DSLRs, and I suspect that Pentax will fill that niche for a long time. But not all reasons you mention are real reasons. "SLRs are more rugged"? No, they are not. They have more points of failure. The mirror, obviously, and the latest and greatest mirrorless cameras even do away with the mechanical shutter. "Battery life", yes, indeed. And the "viewfinder" used to be a reason when EVFs weren't as good as they now are with regard to resolution, frame rate and true-to-life colors. With a current EVF, someone looking into it who doesn't know about different kinds of viewfinders wouldn't even suspect it was not an optical one. Their image is better now than what you see on an OVF screen, especially in low light. I agree that some might still want the 'direct' optical connection, but it isn't necessarily better, except for some peeple who have visual problems with EVFs that give them headaches.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought mirrorless would be more rugged. I have a number of friends in the community who tell me they're not. Maybe because they're smaller, lighter and sometimes made of less durable materials? Also, the sensor's a bit more exposed.
Re: (Score:2)
I sent a 30D bouncing down a mountain in Iceland once and it survived, so I can't really see the ruggedness of a DSLR as being an issue. I've never seen a mirrorless after being treated the same way, but if they're not as good then it's because somebody is cutting corners.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought mirrorless would be more rugged. I have a number of friends in the community who tell me they're not. Maybe because they're smaller, lighter and sometimes made of less durable materials? Also, the sensor's a bit more exposed.
I've heard of zero complaints about mirrorless cameras in the ruggedness department. They are made from the same materials too if you buy comparatively, i.e. a Nikon D750 and a Nikon Z6II are both made from magnesium bodies and both in the same class targeted at prosumers. YMMV, you can also get a much cheaper crapper camera with cheaper crapper materials, e.g. the 28-50mm cheap kit lens for the lower end Z30 even has a plastic mount. But then so were DSLR lenses in this price range.
Re: (Score:2)
Battery life yes
Re: (Score:1)
Based on what you've said, it would appear that you shine like the very sun when you're shooting images of things that don't move. Or maybe you're just completely full of crap, and shilling for one of the companies that have gone mirrorless.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny,you sound like you are shilling for the companies that still use mirrors.
Re: (Score:3)
How are SLRs more rugged. That makes no sense, they have more delicate moving parts.
I haven't worked as a professional photographer but I'm going to say that a lot of them are as dumb as any other group and will get stuck in the "the way it's always been done is best" trap that everyone does.
Re: (Score:2)
Shutter lag should be worse on a DSLR. It has to physically move a mirror every time.
With a mirrorless camera the software can even account for the time it takes your finger to press the button down, by continually capturing images and simply selecting one from a few frames ago when you started to move. Or save them all and let you pick one or combine them all later.
Re: (Score:2)
It has generated a good bit of interest....film has had a major resurgence last few years.
Hell, I shoot a good bit of film myself now...but mostly medium format stuff, soon to get into 4x5 large format.
The latest? What about Canon, Nikon, Pentax? (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I can see, Canon, Nikon and Pentax (Ricoh) still sell DSLRs, and while Nikon and Canon might stop any other day, it looks like Pentax has found their niche there. Even though mirrorless has become the better technology for most purposes, there still are valid reasons for preferring a DSLR.
Re: (Score:2)
Latest, not last.
Re: (Score:2)
Latest, not last.
Thanks. Embarrassed that I still mix that up sometimes.
Re:The latest? What about Canon, Nikon, Pentax? (Score:4, Interesting)
and while Nikon and Canon might stop any other day,
No one is talking about selling, they are talking about bailing. Nikon and Canon have already bailed. Neither company has any R&D in DSLRs and haven't for years now. Both have completely dropped their DSLR roadmap going forward. Canon still has a factory running for low end consumer EOS cameras, but Nikon completely ceased production of DSLRs this year both consumer and pro. You can still find their cameras on sale, but they have very much bailed.
Pentax has found their niche there
Being the last person hanging on to a dying trend doesn't mean you've found a niche. That said Pentax has always been a bit of an oddball. While seemingly ceasing development (like Hasselblad) their medium format DSLR the 645Z is still on sale despite being a decade old, and they are dabbling in weirdness such as the K3III Monochrome camera. But ultimately Pentax has always been a curious side company in this industry.
there still are valid reasons for preferring a DSLR.
I spent a decade saying that, and I feel foolish for waiting until this year to make the change. The only benefit I see of the DSLR is the ~1000 photo battery life which is now reduced to around ~350. Every other thing I thought was a downside turned out to be far superior than I imagined after making the switch.
Re: (Score:2)
I spent a decade saying that, and I feel foolish for waiting until this year to make the change. The only benefit I see of the DSLR is the ~1000 photo battery life which is now reduced to around ~350. Every other thing I thought was a downside turned out to be far superior than I imagined after making the switch
Depends on how you use it I guess, most of the benefits appear to be in automation. If you still shoot full manual exposure manual focus (a niche of a niche, I know) the benefits are lessened.
I have both mirrorless and mirrored, and still shoot full frame mirrored for everything serious. The mirrorless with a compact power zoom makes for a camera with great portability though. As soon you are putting f/1.2 glass on it, the camera size matters less.
For happy snaps in daylight, mirrorless all the way. For oth
Re: (Score:1)
Depends on how you use it I guess, most of the benefits appear to be in automation. If you still shoot full manual exposure manual focus (a niche of a niche, I know) the benefits are lessened.
Manual focus with focus peaking using a mirrorless camera is a huge advantage for mirrorless in a lot of situations. And makes old manual focus lens a lot of fun.
I ultimately gave up on DSLRs and went mirrorless because software. With the advances in processing power, giving advanced software real-time access to the entire sensor opens up a lot of possibilities now (real-time level curve, etc.) and in the future. Battery life is still better on DSLRs, but the size of my Fujifilm system and lenses is just am
Re: (Score:2)
If you still shoot full manual exposure manual focus (a niche of a niche, I know) the benefits are lessened.
I can only disagree from my experience. I find the ability for sensor wide continuous focus peaking to be a game changer for my ancient manual focus lenses, better even than the old split prisms of the film days to say nothing of DSLRs which have always IMO really sucked for manually focusing. Exposure wise it's also good. There's no guessing how dynamic range is affected and different from the eye, you're looking into a screen and you get what you're given.
Not sure why you would pick a different type for s
Re: (Score:2)
Likely due to shooting situations, my most common shooting situation with the dslr is prefocusing the focal plane on an f/1.2 or f/1.4 85mm on a quite dark dance floor. Thanks to knowing the style I can predict their movements and expected speed of their immediate next movements to an extent and have everything lined up waiting for the appropriate parts of the dancer to be sufficiently within the focal plane.
Mirrorless auto detection/auto focus is good, but still hit and miss in such situations (even if it
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, Pentax would have to change their name if they completely dropped SLRs! (no more pentaprism) :)
The signs on the wall (Score:3)
"The H system is still very strong and working in so many studios today"
Soon to be replaced by AI, the studios, the lighting, the cameras AND the photographer and his manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
Ricoh-Pentax (Score:4, Interesting)
From TFA: "The move leaves Pentax and Ricoh as the biggest remaining names in the rapidly diminishing DSLR space."
Odd sentence. They make it sound like Pentax and Ricoh are two different companies both producing DSLRs. In fact, Pentax is a brand owned by Ricoh. Although Ricoh sell some cameras under their own name (such as the Theta and the very successful GR line), all the DSLR products are branded as Pentax. So, really, Pentax is the only player left in this space.
Reasons why I think Pentax may be viable for the long run: Their DSLRs have excellent pentaprism viewfinders that are particularly nice to use outdoors in bright sunlight, where EVFs can struggle. Pentax cameras are known for their weather sealing and physical ruggedness. They are good outdoorsy gear.
There is also an independent (not supported by Ricoh AFAIK) forum website, including an almost wiki-like product database, which is one of the best-designed anywhere. It's a highly useful resource for Pentax owners, and it puzzles me that other camera brands (even far bigger and more popular ones) don't seem to have anything to match it. This will be a bigger factor with DPReview shutting down. (Remember those DPReview jokes about "dying Pentax"?)
For those who think sticking with DSLR is the road to ruin. . . Kodak Alaris, Fujifilm and the new Polaroid company are all making film and making money today. Ricoh-Pentax may have learned lessons from watching what happened to (old) Polaroid, who abandoned instant film just when it was about to rebound and paid a terrible price for that decision.
Re: (Score:2)
particularly nice to use outdoors in bright sunlight, where EVFs can struggle.
When your EVF struggles so does your image. One of the benefits of seeing what you get is that you don't need to deal with the camera messing up the exposure in bright sunny scenarios. You know what the exposure is like looking in the viewfinder.
For those who think sticking with DSLR is the road to ruin. . . Kodak Alaris, Fujifilm and the new Polaroid company are all making film and making money today.
I just spat coffee on my screen. You think "making money today" is somehow countering "the road to ruin"? The companies you list are making a rounding error of profit on photography, and often a loss (Kodak just posted a $45m profit, they have a bit to go to make up
Re: (Score:2)
The companies that I listed are a rounding error of profit on photography? What do you think Pentax is today? It's not like sticking with DSLR is going to drag Pentax down from a huge corporation to a small niche. They're already a small niche. The only question is whether they're going to be a viable niche or whether parent company Ricoh will, at some point, shrug and shut them down entirely.
Also. . . Fujifilm are making more money off Instax film today than they are from their digital cameras. Does