dolina wrote:
My 2002 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM cannot be serviced anymore as early as during COVID times. A dozen years ago its USM stopped focusing properly and I forgot to send it in for servicing. Now I have to deal with 3rd party repair people if I want to resurrect it.
FWIW those third party shops are quite capable--my copy of this lens broke about a year ago--the flex cable snapped and got caught into the helicoid path keeping the lens from retracting. I brought it to Sun Camera here in Toronto and it was fixed for $230 Canadian, tax in! Certainly a lot cheaper than a replacement, as much as I'd like the RF model with IS.
It's my understanding at one point Canon Camera offloaded repairs to this shop, and I've had lots of good experiences with them.
I went from 5d iv to r5ii and 5d ii. R5 ii is an incredible feature loaded machine, but when not under the pressure to get the shot, I prefer 5D ii over it. It’s such a classic simple design, easy to operate, beautiful viewfinder, replaceable focusing screen, enough resolution, key modern features like liview and mfa. I wouldn’t be surprised if eventually there’s a small revival of users enjoying dslrs again - for its simplicity and optical viewfinder.
There's inherent benefits that each come from the mirrorless or DSLR architectures...nostalgia aside, those individual design benefits explain a lot of the comments here:
The higher resolution and sensitivity of newer mirrorless models likely could exist on an updated DSLR. It's just the manufacturers chose to stop developing sensors for DSLRs and focused their investment on mirrorless. Most of the folks here are happy because they bought the higher end DSLRs like 5Ds/5D4 and that's enough for them to keep using them...for now.
The faster and more accurate focusing of newer mirrorless cameras on the other hand--that's due to the new sensors in plane, something that was a big weakness in the DSLR architecture. I will not miss the MFA adjustment process for lenses and the potential for misalignment between the mirror, submirror and focus sensor. Nor sensor block shims, USB adjustment docks, sending both lens and camera into the shop for calibration together and all that craziness.
One benefit of DSLRs I absolutely miss is the battery performance. Just yesterday morning I spotted a coyote and without thinking, opened my trunk to retrieve my trusty SL1/EF400mm f5.6L. I knew it'd have plenty of battery to get a shot or two off. It'd been in there for a month in sub freezing weather and still at half capacity! Mirrorless cameras just eat battery--I don't think if I had one of those I'd even start with same capacity because it'd been eaten by previous shoots.
I don’t think that manufacturers “ chose to stop developing sensors for DSLRs.” While features have been added to newer sensors to support mirrorless AF, there would be nothing to keep manufacturers from using those sensors in DSLR designs if they felt that there was a market for them. It isn’t much about sensors — it is about economies of design and manufacturing, coupled with the industry solving a number of the issues that plagued earlier mirrorless cameras. Also, as you point out, the fact that mirrorless cameras are not subject to the problems maintaining AF adjustment that plagued DSLR designs.
Short answer: It isn't that they stopped building sensors that could go in DSLRs. It is that they simply stopped building DSLRs that would use those sensors.
The point about battery capacity or, more accurately, mirrorless cameras battery drain rates is true, though becoming less of an issue than it was early on. (Those of use who still use a DSLR and shoot in live view mode know just how fast older cameras drained batteries when using the electronic display and having the sensor constantly on.)
tsangc wrote:
There's inherent benefits that each come from the mirrorless or DSLR architectures...nostalgia aside, those individual design benefits explain a lot of the comments here:
The higher resolution and sensitivity of newer mirrorless models likely could exist on an updated DSLR. It's just the manufacturers chose to stop developing sensors for DSLRs and focused their investment on mirrorless. Most of the folks here are happy because they bought the higher end DSLRs like 5Ds/5D4 and that's enough for them to keep using them...for now.
The faster and more accurate focusing of newer mirrorless cameras on the other hand--that's due to the new sensors in plane, something that was a big weakness in the DSLR architecture. I will not miss the MFA adjustment process for lenses and the potential for misalignment between the mirror, submirror and focus sensor. Nor sensor block shims, USB adjustment docks, sending both lens and camera into the shop for calibration together and all that craziness.
One benefit of DSLRs I absolutely miss is the battery performance. Just yesterday morning I spotted a coyote and without thinking, opened my trunk to retrieve my trusty SL1/EF400mm f5.6L. I knew it'd have plenty of battery to get a shot or two off. It'd been in there for a month in sub freezing weather and still at half capacity! Mirrorless cameras just eat battery--I don't think if I had one of those I'd even start with same capacity because it'd been eaten by previous shoots.
I'm keeping the faith. I just bought a new Nikon D850. I just find the feel in hand better, feels more like a camera and less like a computer and I still like optical viewfinders. I'm old school digital. Very old school.
My 20D quit last year, but probably due to moisture, no fault of the camera. I used it in gyms didn't have any problems. If the cover falls off, its really not that big of a deal, I usually dont bother, but I have older bodies I could probably grab one off of, these aren't very expensive
There are probably millions of CF cards in closets, and 32gb goes pretty far back i believe and thankfully I'm stocked up on small ones right now. Probably need to get batteries rebuilt or use 3rd party, still using old ones , not unsolvable.
Yes, they stopped developing sensors for DSLR'S, can pretty much guarantee. Mirrorless hasn't really left DSLR iq behind yet, even though they presumably haven't spent DSLR R&D in quite some time, and has, in some cases, regressed. They've presumably spent it largely on video and af improvements
Outside of the optical viewfinder on DSLRs, I don't believe there is a fundamental difference (to the user) between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera. I can understand why manufacturers moved away from DSLRs: removing the mirror and optical path makes them simpler and less expensive to build and sticking to one format reduces SKU proliferation and the associated design and inventory costs.
Like anything else, technology evolves over time. Whether those features matter to someone is a personal decision. For me, the better low-light/high-ISO performance and dynamic range of the the R5 alone made it a worthy replacement for my 5DSR. I like being able to put the histogram in the viewfinder and the improved autofocus, but I wouldn't have bought it for those alone. I also like the flexibility of being able to use my existing EF lenses as well as RF lenses that do something I can't do now.
Since new DSLRs aren't being developed any more, if you want new features, those will necessarily be in mirrorless bodies.
Danpbphoto wrote:
Canon has not shown me a mirrorless body (FF) worth my interest at this time.
I’m in the same boat. I’ve used Canon (though not quite exclusively) for two decades, and my natural inclination would be to continue with the brand. But for my particular purposes, there’s nothing that is as good of a fit as my 5DsR was a decade ago or as options from other brands are today. (I’m leaning toward either a Sony FF system or a GFX system, though the lack of certain lenses I rely on still holds me back on the latter.)
- - -
I agree Dan! The GFX is "in addition to" not replacing....
I was out with the brilliant sun on the snow today with a 5DSR and EF28-300mm IS and it was a joy to use.
Dan2
kylebarendrick wrote:
Outside of the optical viewfinder on DSLRs, I don't believe there is a fundamental difference (to the user) between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera. I can understand why manufacturers moved away from DSLRs: removing the mirror and optical path makes them simpler and less expensive to build and sticking to one format reduces SKU proliferation and the associated design and inventory costs.
Like anything else, technology evolves over time. Whether those features matter to someone is a personal decision. For me, the better low-light/high-ISO performance and dynamic range of the the R5 alone made it a worthy replacement for my 5DSR. I like being able to put the histogram in the viewfinder and the improved autofocus, but I wouldn't have bought it for those alone. I also like the flexibility of being able to use my existing EF lenses as well as RF lenses that do something I can't do now.
Since new DSLRs aren't being developed any more, if you want new features, those will necessarily be in mirrorless bodies....Show more →
I think that there are arguably several technical advantages of mirrorless cameras, and I write this as a personal who still uses a DSLR for half of his photography.
1. As pointed out earlier, the AF system on mirrorless cameras is not subject to the mechanical variables that can cause DSLR AF systems to be less accurate and to require readjusting over time. Rather than focusing on a reflection (from a moving mirror) of the image projected on “ground glass,” mirrorless cameras literally focus on the image that is projected on the sensor.
2. While each arguably exceeds the other’s performance in some ways, the balance has shifted to favor EVF displays. DSLRs, of course, have the advantage of no visual latency — though they do have greater electro-mechnaical latency than mirrorless systems.
3. EVFs can display all sorts of additional useful information, including histograms, manual focus aids, and so forth.
4. EVFs display 100% accurate frame edges, while DSLRs are at least to some extent an approximation.
5. EVF displays can work better in very dark conditions. When I did long-exposure night photography with DSLRs, focusing was always tricky — we resorted to tricks like pre-focusing before it got dark, placing a light in the scent to focus on, guessing. EVF displays can show a bright image of dark scenes, bright enough to better see subjects and composition and to focus.
6. The elimination of the mirror and the mirror-based AF system arguably makes camera construction less expensive and more reliable by eliminating mechanical components.
7. The speed of burst mode shooting is no longer constrained by the physical limitations of the mirror, nor even by the mechanical shutter on some newer designs. In addition, it is possible to design a system that does not black out as the exposure is being made.
8. Mirrorless cameras can be smaller and lighter.
9. DSLRs are (were) a pretty mature technology, without much room for radical improvement. Mirrorless designs* are a new technology and we continue to see a rapid rate of progress and improvement.
None of this is to say that DSLRs are no good or that great photography cannot be done with them. My DSlR still makes fine photographs. But the writing is on the wall…
All I know is that when I went from my Canon 6D to a Sony A7R3 in late 2017, I thought I’d died and gone to heaven. A beautiful EVF that showed me exactly what my image would look like and all the functions I could ever need that Canon denied me at the time (like being able to use auto ISO in manual mode) were wonderful. Now whenever I look through a dim dslr viewfinder indoors, I rejoice I no longer have to. The viewfinder on the A7R5 (and other brands) is worth every penny. I’ll never go back to a dslr.
tsangc wrote:
FWIW those third party shops are quite capable--my copy of this lens broke about a year ago--the flex cable snapped and got caught into the helicoid path keeping the lens from retracting. I brought it to Sun Camera here in Toronto and it was fixed for $230 Canadian, tax in! Certainly a lot cheaper than a replacement, as much as I'd like the RF model with IS.
It's my understanding at one point Canon Camera offloaded repairs to this shop, and I've had lots of good experiences with them.
True but I wish Canon would explicitly state that they were winding down after sales service support for specific SKUs so owners could have actual repairs and Preventive Maintenance Service (PMS) done while possible. You can double the life of the product if they did.
Canon likely has stats on what is most likely to break and email end users about the potential of their 1-2 decade old body/lens/accessories needing replacement.
gdanmitchell wrote:
That highlights one of the issues with keeping these older cameras running — stuff does simply start to wear and decay eventually, especially if you use the camera a lot. Cameras are surprisingly durable things if you treat them well, but eventually it becomes less worthwhile trying to keep an older camera running.
I agree with you but given how popular MF film cameras like the 1992 Fuji GW690 III 6x9, 1998 Pentax 67 II 6x7, 1999 Mamiya 7 II 6x7 & 2009 Fuji GF670 6x7 because MF digital's 44x33mm isn't big or economical enough. If they had 6x9 MF digitals at current Fuji or even Hasslblad price points I'd be all over it.
dolina wrote:
I agree with you but given how popular MF film cameras like the 1992 Fuji GW690 III 6x9, 1998 Pentax 67 II 6x7, 1999 Mamiya 7 II 6x7 & 2009 Fuji GF670 6x7 because MF digital's 44x33mm isn't big or economical enough. If they had 6x9 MF digitals at current Fuji or even Hasslblad price points I'd be all over it.
"Popular" is a relative thing, though. I see darned few of those old-school film MF cameras around, and even the folks I know who shot them for years and moved to other systems now. On the other hand, those old cameras and lenses are definitely cheaper now —though that's more a result of supply exceeding demand.
Some people don't like hearing this, but your point about the size of the 33x44 miniMF format is correct, though. I don't think everyone realizes how small the miniMF format is by comparison to old-school film medium format, nor how small the increment is between 24x36 FF and 33x44 miniMF. The size of miniMF lies about midway between FF (35mm film format) and the smallest traditional film medium format, 645. The difference between FF and miniMF is much smaller, for example, than the difference between APS-C and FF.
There's no question that the miniMF format offers some advantages for certain kinds of photography and certain photographers, but...
dolina wrote:
I agree with you but given how popular MF film cameras like the 1992 Fuji GW690 III 6x9, 1998 Pentax 67 II 6x7, 1999 Mamiya 7 II 6x7 & 2009 Fuji GF670 6x7 because MF digital's 44x33mm isn't big or economical enough. If they had 6x9 MF digitals at current Fuji or even Hasslblad price points I'd be all over it.
I bought the GSW690III in 1992 and an M7 and M7 II 1999-2001. Eventually I had all 6 of the M7 lenses including the "mountain" uncoupled 210mm which required me to fabricate a circular focusing scale and use a laser rangefinder to get accurate focus. I tried the Pentax, like a massive brick with a hugely mirror and super-slow shutter. The grip did not really help anything. It was just not practical for outdoors hiking around.
All of that MF gear was the most massive PITA to use, carry film, process, and scan. Some weird neuralgia or artistic purpose must compel people to want to photograph like that.
tsangc wrote:
FWIW those third party shops are quite capable--my copy of this lens broke about a year ago--the flex cable snapped and got caught into the helicoid path keeping the lens from retracting. I brought it to Sun Camera here in Toronto and it was fixed for $230 Canadian, tax in! Certainly a lot cheaper than a replacement, as much as I'd like the RF model with IS.
It's my understanding at one point Canon Camera offloaded repairs to this shop, and I've had lots of good experiences with them.
Back when Canon Canada was hit or miss with repairs, I got an EF 70-200/4L IS serviced by Sun. It came back with sharp center and soft edges. It took some back and forth for them to admit they didn't at that time have the ability to calibrate the optics to Canon factory specs and they ended up sending it to Canon... Maybe things are different/better now.
kylebarendrick wrote:
Outside of the optical viewfinder on DSLRs, I don't believe there is a fundamental difference (to the user) between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera.
(...)
Outside of the OVF you mention, I could think of just one thing: wide lenses can be designed smaller and lighter.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think that there are arguably several technical advantages of mirrorless cameras, and I write this as a personal who still uses a DSLR for half of his photography.
1. As pointed out earlier, the AF system on mirrorless cameras is not subject to the mechanical variables that can cause DSLR AF systems to be less accurate and to require readjusting over time. Rather than focusing on a reflection (from a moving mirror) of the image projected on “ground glass,” mirrorless cameras literally focus on the image that is projected on the sensor.
2. While each arguably exceeds the other’s performance in some ways, the balance has shifted to favor EVF displays. DSLRs, of course, have the advantage of no visual latency — though they do have greater electro-mechnaical latency than mirrorless systems.
3. EVFs can display all sorts of additional useful information, including histograms, manual focus aids, and so forth.
4. EVFs display 100% accurate frame edges, while DSLRs are at least to some extent an approximation.
5. EVF displays can work better in very dark conditions. When I did long-exposure night photography with DSLRs, focusing was always tricky — we resorted to tricks like pre-focusing before it got dark, placing a light in the scent to focus on, guessing. EVF displays can show a bright image of dark scenes, bright enough to better see subjects and composition and to focus.
6. The elimination of the mirror and the mirror-based AF system arguably makes camera construction less expensive and more reliable by eliminating mechanical components.
7. The speed of burst mode shooting is no longer constrained by the physical limitations of the mirror, nor even by the mechanical shutter on some newer designs. In addition, it is possible to design a system that does not black out as the exposure is being made.
8. Mirrorless cameras can be smaller and lighter.
9. DSLRs are (were) a pretty mature technology, without much room for radical improvement. Mirrorless designs* are a new technology and we continue to see a rapid rate of progress and improvement.
None of this is to say that DSLRs are no good or that great photography cannot be done with them. My DSlR still makes fine photographs. But the writing is on the wall…...Show more →
In the past, there were plenty of mirrorless cameras. For example the Nikon Coolpix 5700 (2002)
However in this era we did not know how to make on-sensor phase detect pixels. Contrast detect autofocus was used, and subject detection was limited to face detection, it was not good enough to find the eye.
As a result, DSLRs were better by a long shot. DSLRs allowed us to use a dedicated phase detect sensor array above the mirror, and the human brain was used to do the subject detection
What happened over time was that first on-sensor phase detect pixels was developed. However even in the A7Rii era, on sensor phase detect pixels was not as reliable as a DSLR, and eye-AF had a poor hit rate
In the A9iii era mirrorless cameras have blown past DSLR capabilities.
The 1DXIII's 191-point AF, 16fps (20fps electronic), -4ev AF is now eclipsed by the A9iii with 759 point af, 120fps -5ev AF and blackout free shooting.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Some people don't like hearing this, but your point about the size of the 33x44 miniMF format is correct, though. I don't think everyone realizes how small the miniMF format is by comparison to old-school film medium format, nor how small the increment is between 24x36 FF and 33x44 miniMF. The size of miniMF lies about midway between FF (35mm film format) and the smallest traditional film medium format, 645. The difference between FF and miniMF is much smaller, for example, than the difference between APS-C and FF.
There's no question that the miniMF format offers some advantages for certain kinds of photography and certain photographers, but...
To put simply to other photogs I point out that MF digital sensors are 4x APS-C. Makes me wish that Canon came out with that system I'd be buyer #1. Something similar to a 2023 Fuji GFX100 II with CFe B card slot or even a 2025 Fuji GFX100RF with UHS-II V90 card slot.
I can easily adapt EF lenses longer than 70mm without any vignetting or darkening of corners. Anything wider and the image circle isn't big enough.
EB-1 wrote:
I bought the GSW690III in 1992 and an M7 and M7 II 1999-2001. Eventually I had all 6 of the M7 lenses including the "mountain" uncoupled 210mm which required me to fabricate a circular focusing scale and use a laser rangefinder to get accurate focus. I tried the Pentax, like a massive brick with a hugely mirror and super-slow shutter. The grip did not really help anything. It was just not practical for outdoors hiking around.
All of that MF gear was the most massive PITA to use, carry film, process, and scan. Some weird neuralgia or artistic purpose must compel people to want to photograph like that.
Would've been so awesome to have a 1992 GW690 III the month of release and use it until 2009 when I replace it with a 2008 GF670. Using a roll of film weekly to get >7,000 frames of family, friends and event import to us.
Do so again with the GF670 until 2025 when getting the GFX100RF.
EB-1 wrote:
I bought the GSW690III in 1992 and an M7 and M7 II 1999-2001. Eventually I had all 6 of the M7 lenses including the "mountain" uncoupled 210mm which required me to fabricate a circular focusing scale and use a laser rangefinder to get accurate focus. I tried the Pentax, like a massive brick with a hugely mirror and super-slow shutter. The grip did not really help anything. It was just not practical for outdoors hiking around.
All of that MF gear was the most massive PITA to use, carry film, process, and scan. Some weird neuralgia or artistic purpose must compel people to want to photograph like that.
The counterpoint to what I wrote about the actual relative size of the 33x44 sensor is that better-than-full-frame quality is available from miniMF cameras that are much smaller and lighter than the old film MF gear, and which work with smaller and lighter lenses.
It turns out that the advantages of this new format are not that it “is medium format,” but that because it is smaller than medium format it is far less onerous to carry and use!
- - -
aCuria wrote:
In the past, there were plenty of mirrorless cameras. For example the Nikon Coolpix 5700 (2002)…
You caught me! I forgot to add the footnote that I intended to attach to the asterisk in “Mirrorless designs* are a new technology…” in #9.
I intended to make the point that being “mirrorless” has been the norm for cameras since the beginning of photography almost two centuries ago. I started my own photography using cameras with no mirrors — plastic Brownie cameras, foldable cameras, rangefinder cameras, and more.
So being “mirrorless” as a concept is actually more old school thatn having a pentaprism and a flipping mirror…
- - -
dolina wrote:
To put simply to other photogs I point out that MF digital sensors are 4x APS-C. Makes me wish that Canon came out with that system I'd be buyer #1. Something similar to a 2023 Fuji GFX100 II with CFe B card slot or even a 2025 Fuji GFX100RF with UHS-II V90 card slot.
I can easily adapt EF lenses longer than 70mm without any vignetting or darkening of corners. Anything wider and the image circle isn't big enough.
Another way to think of it is that APS-C (1.5x version) has a 2x crop factor compared to miniMF. That the same ration, roughly speaking, between full frame and micro-four-thirds format.
I think the problem for Canon (or Nikon or Sony) introducing miniMF cameras is that they would also have to generate a whole new range of lenses… for a market that would likely remain much smaller than the established full frame market. It is hard to see how that works out economically for the camera companies or for buyers.
I wish that Fujifilm would start to think of their cameras more as larger high resolution FF systems and less as smaller old-school MF systems. They have demonstrated some progress in that direction. The more recent GFX cameras are smaller than the originals (save the “R” version) and designed more to feel like the smaller format and less like old school film MF. But to really get there they need to speed up the operation of the cameras (things like AF and burst modes) and revise their thinking about the lens line-up. I can’t believe that they still have not managed to produce a zoom lens longer than 200mm. (Remember than in angle of view terms that is equivalent to a much shorter FF lens.)
If they did this, you can bet that a whole lot more folks who use FF for high resolution photography that doesn’t require optimum speeds (e.g. more for landscape and portrait folks and less for sports and wildlife folks) would be far more attracted to the somewhat larger format.
As to adapting EF lenses, saying that you can “ adapt EF lenses longer than 70mm without any vignetting or darkening of corners.” is overstating things a bit from what I’ve seen. There are a few EF lenses that work without significant vignetting, but most do vignettes. One prime example is the EF 100-400, which I understand is a popular work-around for GFX users. If you remove the rear baffle (!) the vignetting is minimized, but it is also visible, more at some focal lengths than at others. (The fact that quite a few people still do this is evidence that Fujifilm really needs to produce a 200-400mm or 200-500mm lens for the system.)
Yeah, I’ve thought a lot about this. In many ways, the miniMF systems would be ideal for a portion of my photography, and I’ve waited to see if Fujifilm would ever finally produce the lenses I need in order to make it work. So far, no…
The term "mirrorless" as currently expressed on this and other forums is totally in relation SLR's & DSLR's of the recent past.
The fact that there still are, and have been many camera types since the onset of photography that did not, and do not employ mirrors is hardly revolutionary, and a rather nonsensical subject for discussion.
