Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item The Online Resource for Sports Photography

 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Classified Ads
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions

Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.



|| Member Message Board

The end of DSLR ?
Michael Myers, Photographer
Miami | Florida | USA | Posted: 9:53 PM on 01.07.22
->> I started out with rangefinder cameras, then moved to SLR, and finally DSLR. Now this new world of "Mirrorless" cameras seems to be killing off the DSLR cameras - everyone seems to want mirrorless, and the DSLR camera seems to have reached a dead end.

Not sure whether to buy the "best" DSLR while I still can, or give up and join the crowd, and buy a Nikon Z camera.

To me, it's sad. I'm not convinced that I'll be as happy with a mirrorless as I am with a DSLR, because of the bright, big, clear, optical viewfinder, which is very important to me. I know the new cameras have better specifications, but I've never yet used a mirrorless that matched what my good DSLR cameras could do.

How permanent is this change going to be? Are people going to jump on the mirrorless train, only to come back their DSLR cameras later?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Andrew Nelles, Photographer
Nashville | TN | USA | Posted: 12:55 AM on 01.08.22
->> I was very resistant to a mirrorless transition. Like you, I didn't see how I could give up a true optical viewfinder. I had bad experience with older generation digital viewfinders that had lag, poor resolution, etc. It was a nightmare.

That said, after shooting one assignment with Sony A9II bodies that got issued to me, I knew there was no going back.

The viewfienders have got to the point where there is no real practical drawback. And having a live preview of your exposure, color balance, etc. is nice insurance.

The biggest change I noticed was the improved autofocus. It's really a game-changer in most situations. The technology in these cameras is still new, and there are definitely some annoying bugs that need to be hammered out, but I'm still pleased.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Myers, Photographer
Miami | Florida | USA | Posted: 7:14 AM on 01.08.22
->> Well, I'll accept the possibility that my worries and concerns are for nothing. As you wrote, my previous experiences with "Mirrorless" were not very positive. The best thing I can say is that my Fuji X100f lets me switch back and forth, but to be honest, the digital view doesn't appeal to me as much as the optical view. I usually appreciate all that additional data, but "something" is missing.

I can't believe how inexpensive the Z9 is for what it offers - if I was still shooting sports, I would already have one on order. I love all the features it provides, but at the same time, when Nikon's D750 came out, I decided it did everything I needed, in a body that was small and light. ....and that's a big one, as carrying around my D2h, then D2x, then D3, with the Nikon 80-200 got to be overwhelmingly uncomfortable. Now I'm 78, and I'm even more conscious of how heavy my gear is.

I've currently got two D750 cameras, and while I will certainly keep an open mind, I don't see how any camera would be better for me than the 750. I also enjoy my Leica gear, but that's "different".

If I was still active in sports, and for so many other reasons, I am so, so tempted by the Z9, but it's bigger and heavier than what I need/want for my new photographic world, where the D750 fits me so well.

There's more - I know I can get up to 50 or 60 meg images, but that will quickly overwhelm my computing gear. I know I can take an endless series of images, so I can pick the perfect one, but I remember how the D3 was so fast I was up all night selecting the better images, and didn't get much sleep before I had to go at it again the next morning. I don't feel anxious to start creating these giant images, and especially in such large numbers.

At the same time as this is going on, I've gotten my old workhorse, the Nikon F4 fixed up, I've sent out my Leica M3 to DAG Cameras where Don made it into essentially a brand new camera, and I've bought and learned how to use a Plustek film scanner. Maybe it's me, but now I tend to take a lot more time and effort before taking a single shot, rather than taking dozens or hundreds trying to capture one shot that is especially good. Shooting with a Leica M is a good way to cancel one's desire for "speed", and it reminds me of life with rangefinder cameras before I bought my first Nikon F SLR.

OK, back to 2022. Everybody talks about the benefits, but you mentioned "annoying bugs that need to be hammered out". If you ever get time, I'd like to know about those. All I know so far is my friend who bought a Z6 II for bird photography said shooting in burst mode was "annoying because of blackouts" whatever that means.

There's also the $$ that makes a difference, not only in the camera, but as a forum friend of mine put it, if I'm going to buy one, I owe it to myself to use the new lenses too. That's another question I will ask later, as it makes no sense to me whatever. I agree that technically, the new mount allows lenses to be improved, but nobody has yet written what is currently "bad" about the old lenses, as a good reason as to why I should replace them. They all work fine on my D750, and I can no longer afford to replace all my lenses - not to mention if I keep the D750, which I'm sure I will, I'll be buying additional lenses, not replacement lenses.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Myers, Photographer
Miami | Florida | USA | Posted: 12:12 PM on 01.09.22
->> An ex-Sportsshooter member, Douglas C. Pizac, sent me the following and gave me permission to post it. I never thought of things this way, but he does make a point, something to consider before we blindly follow the crowd:

I'm a former SportsShooter member and saw your
post about mirrorless cameras. Some manufacturers
are switching to mirrorless only, dropping their dSLR
line. Nikon and Canon "may" be doing the same
thing, but keeping their current flagship dSLR bodies.

As to pros/cons of mirrorless, everyone praises the
live viewfinder, but I haven't heard much about the
downside of it maybe because it is too early to tell.
For me, it causes eye strain. Think about it.

SLR, dSLR and rangefinder cameras have passive
viewfinders. What you see through them are the lit
subjects. Mirrorless viewfinders are active --
meaning it is like a mini-TV screen in your eye.
Think of all the little kids, teens and adults sitting in
front of TV sets and now computer screens who end
up needing glasses from eye strain. Having a
mirrorless lit image right in front of your eye for a
football game is like sitting in front of an 80-inch
television for hours at a time from only three feet

And then what will happen to one's vision when one
eye is fed active light (viewfinder) and the other
passive light for those who shoot with both eyes
open? I shoot that way with my shooting eye glued
to the viewfinder while my left watches what is not
seen in the viewfinder.

And then there is the cost like you said. Is your
business SO GOOD that new bodies and lenses will
quickly pay for themselves in a year or two before
the next line of sensor chips come up as must-have

And so on and so on.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steve Daggs, Photographer
Washington | IL | USA | Posted: 11:46 PM on 01.23.22
->> Pizac makes some good points. With little current interest in going mirrorless, I haven't shot with one other that in a camera shop. I have thought about renting one and shooting part of a game to see how I would like the viewfinder.

I think Nikon has the right approach with an adapter for F mount lenses. After paying $5,500 for a body, at least you can use your existing lenses.

The high frame rates are nice, but for sports, 10 fps is fine. Anything faster is just adding to the frames you need to edit. Hockey may be an exception if you are picky about having the puck strategically placed in your image!

There may be some improvements in AF function, but the current DSLR offerings are pretty good. I am still using D3s bodies at the 15 AF point setting and switch from single point to dynamic depending on the situation. I don't miss many shots due to focus issues.

When KEH or Roberts has the Nikon Z9 in their used inventory for about half the new price, I could be tempted.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: The end of DSLR ?
Thread Started By: Michael Myers
Member Login:

Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Copyright 2022,