Why Even Buy A Dslr?

[The Vulcan]

There's quite an active thread referring to "what DSLR to buy" and my thought are - why even buy a DSLR?

The current mirror-less micro 4/3rds are amazing in IQ, adaptability to use all legacy lenses, discreet, light and very cost effective. (cheaper)

Even though I've just lashed out for a Canon 5D MKII I find myself shooting more and more with my Panasonic GF1 AND getting the images I want. And that's directly attributable to the fact that I take it everywhere - it weighs nothing!

Lugging 20 kilo's of DSLR ain't conducive with ease of use. Especially over here with this heat!

OK, currently the Canon comes into it's own when I'm shooting theatre/art stuff but only because of the extensive prime lens range available.

Frame rate is also a plus with DSLR's but I'm sure they'll sort that as well

And ISO isn't an issue. Due to the lack of vibration (no mirror) I can handhold at much lower speeds and hence adopt lower ISO.

Soon I imagine Panasonic and the like will address the limited lens range and then I'll really have to ask...........

......... Anybody wanna buy a Canon?

IMHO DSLR's as we see them today are doomed. The micro 4/3rds is the route all the big guns are adapting with rumours of Nikon and Canon soon to announce their version.

Your thoughts?

[eurasianthai]

That seems to make sense to remove the mirror when you're using sensors instead of films.

And it indeed makes the camera body much lighter.

But the big obstacle for the 4/3 rds to take over the DSLrs will indeed be the availability of lenses.

Developing new lenses and manufacturing them is pretty expensive and the SLRs camera have a huge headstart on this aspect.

So they will probably be for quite some time an alternative for entry-level DSLRs, if you consider the Canon 450D or 500D, or the Nikon D60, with the kit lens, and have no other lenses, and do not want to buy any,it seems to make sense to consider a 4/3rd instead.

Edited February 28, 2010 by eurasianthai

[aeon]

I don't own a micro 4/3 camera so I can't say a proper opinion, this is what I found as general information on wiki, that makes quite sense.

Advantages of Micro Four Thirds over DSLR cameras

Smaller and lighter cameras and lenses

Contrast detect autofocus can be more accurate than the phase detect systems usually employed in entry-level DSLRs

Shorter flange-focal distance means that practically all manual lenses can be adapted for use

Brighter electronic viewfinder in low light

Electronic viewfinder can provide real-time preview of exposure, white balance and tone

Absence of mirror eliminates "mirror slap" noise and vibration

Smaller sensor size allows for cheaper, smaller and lighter telephoto lenses

Shorter flange-focal distance allows for cheaper, smaller and lighter normal and wide lenses

Disadvantages of Micro Four Thirds compared to DSLRs

Fewer dedicated autofocus lenses available (so far)

Due to the absence of a mirror and prism mechanism, there is no ability to use a through-the-lens optical viewfinder. The electronic viewfinder or a separate optical viewfinder must be used instead.

Changing lenses can expose the sensor to dust, compared to DSLRs which have both a mirror and a closed shutter protecting the sensor (although all Micro Four Thirds cameras include an effective dust reduction system)

Image sensor located closer to lens mount and not protected by a mirror/shutter, thus more susceptible to accidental damage

Contrast detect autofocus is generally slower than the phase detect systems used in most DSLRs

Advantages of Micro Four Thirds over compact digital cameras

Greatly increased sensor size (5–9 times larger) allowing improved low light performance and greater dynamic range

Interchangeable lenses

Shallower depth of field possible (e.g. for portraits)

Disadvantages of Micro Four Thirds compared to compact digital cameras

Physical size (camera and lenses are both larger due to increased sensor size)

Extreme zoom lenses available on compacts (such as currently available 30× models) are not available on large sensor cameras due to physical size, cost, and practicality considerations

Edited February 28, 2010 by aeon

[eurasianthai]

And so far, they're not cheap, the cost is about the same as an entry-level DSLR camera.

Here is what Cameralabs says about it (Panasonic GF1).

Panasonic GF1

[The Vulcan]

And so far, they're not cheap, the cost is about the same as an entry-level DSLR camera.

Here is what Cameralabs says about it (Panasonic GF1).

Panasonic GF1

That's what's called cheap!

Entry level DSLR's are just that - entry level hence cheap.

And I'd choose my GF1 against any entry level DSLR.

[The Vulcan]

Currently the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 pancake lens is receiving similar accolades to the famed Contax Zeiss 45mm F2 which is widely regarded as the finest 35mm ever made!

And that's their starter kit lens!

[eurasianthai]

And I'd choose my GF1 against any entry level DSLR.

For a guy looking for a new camera, I understand it can make sense to buy the GF1.

But you have plenty of Canon lenses, why don't you buy a cheap entry-level DSLR if weight is a concern?

I'm sure the weigth won't be that much different...

[The Vulcan]

And I'd choose my GF1 against any entry level DSLR.

For a guy looking for a new camera, I understand it can make sense to buy the GF1.

But you have plenty of Canon lenses, why don't you buy a cheap entry-level DSLR if weight is a concern?

I'm sure the weigth won't be that much different...

The mind boggles!

[eurasianthai]

The GF1 is about 300g and the 450D is about 500g, don't tell me 200 g is what makes the difference.

And well, besides the weight factor, I do not really see many advantages so far.

Except if you have plenty of money and can afford a compact for the weight, a DSLR for the versatility, and a 4/3rd for anything in between.

Edited February 28, 2010 by eurasianthai

[Abrak]

Actually I think that where the Ops point is a very good one is that he asks 'why buy a DSLR?'. Many people I am sure know why they do or do not but many people (basically me) didnt even realize this option - micro 4/3rds - existed. Reading the specs it doesnt just seem to be a compromise but what might in the future be the best of both worlds although it is not now.

If you are starting from scratch and want a new decent kit, it seems very worthwhile considering.

[eurasianthai]

For people wanting more than the compact cameras but not ready yet to go to DSLRs cameras, it is sure one of the best options.

The only one actually.

But as said before, you actually go into DSLR territory with a 4/3rd and lenses start to be the main factor...

Edited February 28, 2010 by eurasianthai

[The Vulcan]

Hey soft lad did you read the rest of my post?

Weight is ONE factor

"The current mirror-less micro 4/3rds are amazing in IQ, adaptability to use all legacy lenses and discreet, "

Further, as a rangefinder user I find the OOF and DOF control on the micro 4/3rds very in synch with my shooting style.

This shot would never have been allowed with a DSLR. They were doing a sound/acoustic test session and the "clunk" from a DSLR mirror would have seen me outside very quickly!

GF1 - 20mm pancake and a mere "click"

Edited February 28, 2010 by The Vulcan

[hughden]

I will admit to be among the converts. Panasonic GF1 with the unbelievably good 20mm F1.7, and the very good 14-15 (and pining after the 7-14).

I do a lot of sports/action photography, and for that a DSLR can't be matched, mainly because of the increased speed and accuracy of tracking focus. But for everything else, the GF1 gets the job done. It's discrete, light and fun to shoot with. On a recent trip for week to the north of Thailand, I left the DSLR at home and took the GF1. Never for a moment regretted leaving the large gear at home, and many times I was grateful for the smaller kit.

Love using the electronic viewfinder where I can see the histogram and adjust exposure if required before I shoot. The manual focussing support is genius, and the whole package exudes quality in the way that entry level DSLRs don't.

As electronic viewfinders improve (so that not only your subject is clear, but you can see exactly how the shot is going to look after you have adjusted white balance, exposure etc), focusing becomes faster and more accurate, and smaller size sensors increasingly improve their higher ISO performance; then the idea of having a mirror in your camera to increase size, weight and noise will become an increasingly ridiculous proposal. I have no idea if the future is Micro 4/3, but I am sure it will decreasingly be a DSLR with a mirror.

[astral]

Whilst I can see all the advantages you are putting forward, I fear it would not work for me.

Checking http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicGF1/ the viewfinder is the screen on the back?

I shall be 63 in 2 weeks time and simply cannot hold a camera steady at arms length.

I have tried with friend's point and shoot jobs, and also my mobile phone. I cannot do it.

The DSLR, pressed against my eye, and head, is no problem.

[Sunny Valentine]

The GF 1 has an electronic viewfinder, which actually is not bad, but still nowhere as accurate as any SLR viewfinder. But it is large, and takes the space of the external flash. The Olympus viewfinder for the EPL2 just sucks.

Maybe one day these viewfinders will produce acceptable results, also in low light, and then maybe become a replacement for SLRs.

So far, the viewfinder is an unresolved issue, speed is another one, sensor size (an APS-C sensor is massively larger!) and Autofocus (Again, Panasonic is getting quite good at it, but these results would be considered unbearably slow in any but the most basic beginners DSLRs.)

Don't get me wrong, I would fancy a GF-1 or EP-2, but not as a replacement for my DSLR. Maybe as a replacement for my Pana LX3 though, but not for the price.

[tw25rw]

Samsung have recently brought out a competitor system with an APS size sensor. Long term, the 4/3rds sensor size might prove too restrictive and they'll bring out a larger super 4/3rds format.

I think this is a concept that is just about to take off with the big guns being unable to ignore it. Cameras are becoming more and more consumer electronic devices with lenses, giving an advantage to companies like Panasonic and Samsung, so I think it's a matter of time before Sony jumps on board in a big way.

[Nordlys]

Whilst I can see all the advantages you are putting forward, I fear it would not work for me.

Checking http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicGF1/ the viewfinder is the screen on the back?

I shall be 63 in 2 weeks time and simply cannot hold a camera steady at arms length.

I have tried with friend's point and shoot jobs, and also my mobile phone. I cannot do it.

The DSLR, pressed against my eye, and head, is no problem.

They provide optional EVF. But micro 4/3 camera + EVF is almost as big as Olympus E-520/420 class 4/3 SLR, only thinner (and if not more expensive in total cost). I'm not sure between micro 4/3 + EVF and Olympus E520/420 if I want to buy the former simply because it's mirrorless.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicGF1/page6.asp

Edited February 28, 2010 by Nordlys

[aeon]

I never used a micro 4/3 but I would like to know how they behave in low light conditions, as being smaller sensor should be noisier, am I right?

For me if I have to carry more than one lenses I prefer dslr.

[katana]

http://craigmod.com/journal/gf1-fieldtest/

http://craigmod.com/journal/gf1-fieldtest-video/

Came across this. Seems to also take video.

[The Vulcan]

I never used a micro 4/3 but I would like to know how they behave in low light conditions, as being smaller sensor should be noisier, am I right?

For me if I have to carry more than one lenses I prefer dslr.

Up to ISO 640 is fine - 800+ is not so good. But as I said earlier, fast lenses, mirror-less enables me to handhold at LOWER Iso. If I want sharp I wouldn't attempt anything below 1/50th with my Canon fitted with say a 50mm F1.4. Conversely I'm comfortable at 1/15th with the equivalent setup on 4/3rds. That's 2 stops in my favour, or 1600 ISO down to 400 ISO!

As for carrying a couple of lenses - have you seen how small the 4/3rds lenses are?

You might be pleasantly surprised

Edited March 1, 2010 by The Vulcan

[endlessimage]

Isn't there another thread on here called "Horses for Courses"?

I shoot with a 1DS MK111 with all the ooh ahh lenses but also have a G11. They each have their own function and even though there is a cross over where both can perform a similar function they are completely different cameras/systems.

You cannot directly compare.

[aeon]

I am curious now, I will take a look as I have a chance.

[hughden]

New lens announced today 50mm F0.95!

http://noktor.com/index.php

[aeon]

it seems that nikon is coming with a misterious new product http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/01/mysteri...on-speculation/

[Abrak]

New lens announced today 50mm F0.95!

http://noktor.com/index.php

It could be a pisstake of course - especially with that name.

[The Vulcan]

No, it's real but a crap lens

Here's a link to a thread with images

I think I'll give this one a miss !

Noktor 50mm 0.95

[astral]

What focal length does the 20mm or the 50mm equate to, in real money?

[tw25rw]

No, it's real but a crap lens

Here's a link to a thread with images

I think I'll give this one a miss !

Noktor 50mm 0.95

Seems to be a modified cctv lens.. Should appeal to the kind of people who like Holgas.

[hughden]

What focal length does the 20mm or the 50mm equate to, in real money?

Multiply by two.

[astral]

What focal length does the 20mm or the 50mm equate to, in real money?

Multiply by two.

Thanks.