Don't buy a DSLR

satanboy

Psychonaut seven
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
112,536
Reaction score
28,574
Location
Gods are Digital
nikon%20d3x.jpeg


You want to get more into photography. You've got somewhere between a few and several hundred dollars to spend on a camera. You want to learn a little bit about how this stuff works, so you can tweak some settings to get better shots, but mostly you just want your pictures to look good. You want a nice background blur. You want sharp focus, accurate colors. You want shots taken in low light to have a minimum of noise and blur. Great! This is exciting for you.
Here's what you shouldn't do: you shouldn't buy a DSLR.

Photokina 2012, going on this week, might be the moment when the DSLR loses its ascendancy among aspiring amateurs. Two years ago, DSLR was the obvious best option. Alternatives (which I'll get into) were in their infancy, still too expensive and too limited to really recommend, and entry-level DSLRs were starting to get really good, so if you wanted to jump into photography, you bought a DSLR. That's what everyone's always said (well, "always" meaning in the digital age). Want to get into photography? DSLR. But that's no longer true. DSLRs have serious weaknesses for the entry-level photographer, and suddenly there are options without those weaknesses.

Photokina this year has been, in large part, about making tiny, easy-to-use cameras with startlingly good image quality. Here's what you should buy instead of a bulky, difficult DSLR.

THE INTERCHANGEABLE-LENS CAMERA

The ILC needs a decent name, and quick, because for a category that's so well-suited for so many mainstream photographers, it has a name that's simultaneously arcane and vague, intimidating and uninformative. ILCs, also called mirrorless cameras, consist of a very thin, very small body, the size of a medium-sized point-and-shoot. But they have sensors bigger than any point-and-shoot, and tons of advanced options, and if you want, you can swap out lenses (hence, "interchangeable lens"). Here's what's important about them: they're only marginally bigger and more complicated to use than point-and-shoots, and they take photos in the same league as entry-level DSLRs.
Normal folks don't carry around two pounds of misshapen camera with them. A slim, 350-gram camera like the Sony NEX-6 slips into a jacket pocket or purse--or, if you don't wear especially tight pants, into a pocket. And the NEX's lens is tiny, a little 30-mm pancake lens, meaning this is one of the first ILCs that will in fact slip into a pocket.
Another great advantage to ILCs that often gets overlooked is that their navigation is informed much more by point-and-shoots than by DSLRs. The Sony NEX-C3, an interchangeable-lens camera, has a clickwheel, shutter, movie button, play button, and two context-sensitive buttons. That's it. It looks pretty much like the crappy point-and-shoots everyone's used to.

THE INTERCHANGEABLE-LENS CAMERA

The ILC needs a decent name, and quick, because for a category that's so well-suited for so many mainstream photographers, it has a name that's simultaneously arcane and vague, intimidating and uninformative. ILCs, also called mirrorless cameras, consist of a very thin, very small body, the size of a medium-sized point-and-shoot. But they have sensors bigger than any point-and-shoot, and tons of advanced options, and if you want, you can swap out lenses (hence, "interchangeable lens"). Here's what's important about them: they're only marginally bigger and more complicated to use than point-and-shoots, and they take photos in the same league as entry-level DSLRs.

Normal folks don't carry around two pounds of misshapen camera with them. A slim, 350-gram camera like the Sony NEX-6 slips into a jacket pocket or purse--or, if you don't wear especially tight pants, into a pocket. And the NEX's lens is tiny, a little 30-mm pancake lens, meaning this is one of the first ILCs that will in fact slip into a pocket.

Another great advantage to ILCs that often gets overlooked is that their navigation is informed much more by point-and-shoots than by DSLRs. The Sony NEX-C3, an interchangeable-lens camera, has a clickwheel, shutter, movie button, play button, and two context-sensitive buttons. That's it. It looks pretty much like the crappy point-and-shoots everyone's used to.

sony-nex-6-mirrorless-camera-0.jpeg


The argument every photographer will make is, well, DSLRs are laid out that way for a reason--for speed when you need to change settings on the fly. But you know who doesn't need to save two seconds while adjusting the auto-exposure lock? Pretty much everybody. The NEX series, one of the best in the ILC category, has a menu system that's "pretty similar" in featureset to Sony's Alpha DSLR series, says Pop Photo's Stan Horaczek, a definite pro and DSLR user himself. "Though," he said, "it can seem easier for a novice to navigate ILC menus because there are fewer buttons and knobs all over the place." And that's great, because by removing the camera as a technical object to be mastered, budding photographers can focus on what's arguably more important--the photo itself, and skills like composition and timing. Many of these cameras, like the Olympus Pen Mini, have modes to help you do just that.

But the most important thing? The images you can take with these cameras are amazing. I've completely switched from my big ol' Nikon to a combination of the Olympus PEN E-PM1 and miscellaneous Sony NEXes, which are half the size, as little as half the cost (in the case of the Olympus), and do very, very few things worse. They do everything I need, and I'm so much more excited to use a tiny sleek camera than my old DSLR. It's a flat-out more pleasant experience.

lowlightclose.jpg
An ILC in Low Light
Dan Nosowitz
I took this shot of my friend Mollie while in a dark, low-ceilinged basement comedy venue, with a Sony NEX-C3. I might have been holding a large plastic coconut filled with alcohol in my other hand. And it turned out great!


ILCs have tradeoffs, of course. DSLRs have a dedicated sensor for autofocus, one completely separate from the sensor used to take a picture. ILCs are too small for that, so they use the same sensor. That means autofocus is slower. The sensor in an ILC is a bit smaller, which limits the amount of light it takes in, which in turn means worse performance in low light. The lenses are more expensive and fewer in number. There's often no electronic viewfinder, so you have to use the live-view screen, like you would with a phone or lesser point-and-shoot, which can be hard to see in sunlight and may make it hard to keep the camera steady.
That's all true, and every photographer will go on at length about it, but here's the thing: it doesn't really matter. Because ILCs are small, attractive, increasingly inexpensive, and take great pictures. They offer manual control when you want it and simplicity when you need it. That's what matters.

EVEN SMALLER

You can even go down a step from the ILCs to, well, non-interchangeable-lens cameras, a category name somehow even more cumbersome than the ILC. (Some folks are calling them "advanced compacts.") Essentially, these are tricked-out point-and-shoots. The big boys in the category are the Canon S100-series (the S110 will come out soon) and the Sony RX100. The S100 is a great point-and-shoot with tons of manual options that turns out great pics. The RX100 is, well, we're not really sure what it is yet. It looks like a point-and-shoot, but it has a monster sensor for that category, and the test shots we've seen are astounding. And that's the direction compacts are going. Stan quipped "Sensor size war is the new megapixel war," and it's a war we all want, because bigger sensors equals better photos (unlike megapixel count).

And that's why, if you don't really care about stocking up on multiple lenses, you might want to look to this category. Brian Lam, proprietor of the no-nonsense gadget-recommendation site The Wirecutter, says "Most people who buy entry-level DSLRs don't get a second lens, typically. The RX100 is a great replacement for that." If you have a DSLR and your only lens is the 18-55mm that came with it? You made the wrong call.

rx100sample525.jpg

Sony RX100 Sample Shot
Dan Bracaglia
To really get a sense for how great this photo is--taken with a camera the size of a point-and-shoot--.




cont...

popsci.com
 
If you want a look at the future, check out the Sony RX1--kind of like the RX100, which is expensive at $650 but also a great option for lots of people, taken to an extreme. At $2,800 and with a non-interchangeable prime lens (meaning, no zoom at all), the RX1 is definitely not for the beginner; though we haven't seen final image quality yet, Lam said, "The RX1 is right for someone who is a pro and wants a specific backup camera, or someone who makes over $250,000 a year." But it's a sign of things to come. It's got a full-frame CMOS sensor, the same sensor as in giant DSLRs that cost thousands of dollars, and the image quality to match. And it fits in your pocket.

How do these exist? For advanced compacts, camera manufacturers can put in any kind of weird sensor size they want, since the camera doesn't have to conform to a particular lens system. ILCs all have to work with the dozens, sometimes hundreds, of lenses in their lens system. But if you take away its ability to exchange lenses, the camera can have any size sensor at all, because you're creating the lens system individually for this camera and nothing else. So make it huge! Make the lens awesome, since there's only one! Then the photos are incredible, and what you've lost might not be something that many people need in the first place.

THE PROBLEMS OF THE DSLR

Size: DSLRs are enormous, problematically-shaped gadgets. There's no other portable gadget with such an unapologetically non-portable shape--your phone, tablet, laptop, gaming console, ebook reader, those are all flat. Hell, even giant headphones fold up into themselves. But DSLRs are bulky, heavy, roundish and squareish at the same time. They do not fit in a pocket, purse, or neatly in a messenger bag. They don't rest well against your back in a backpack. There's a reason there's a thriving economy of DSLR-specific bags.

I have a Nikon D5100, a low- to mid-range but quite nice DSLR. I love the photos I can take with it. And I never use it, because I never have it with me, because it is a giant lump of black buttons and screens and lenses. And the D5100 is small for a DSLR. But something like a Sony NEX? It fits comfortably anywhere. I take it with me everywhere. By downgrading my camera size, I've significantly upgraded the quality of my photos, because I actually use the nice fancy camera.

Approachability: Look at the back of this Sony A55 (above)--an excellent camera and winner of Pop Photo's Camera of the Year award. You've got: a shutter with an on/off switch, a ring with nine options, an unlabeled click wheel, a five-way directional pad (with each direction doubling as a secondary function), and and array of buttons scattered around the body, including Menu, Finder/LCD, D-Range, Movie, AV, AEL, Fn, Play, Trash, and one tiny unlabeled black button underneath the lens. Are you exhausted? That is exhausting.

If you're just getting into more serious photography, a DSLR's button layout is a major obstacle to overcome, and, more importantly, an unnecessary one. It's not that people can't learn, or even that they shouldn't--it's just that for many users, there's no need. To someone who's only used a point-and-shoot, you know what a DSLR looks like? A ****ing* airplane cockpit. A simpler layout lets a novice learn at his or her own pace, adding skill and expertise, feature by feature, without that initial wall to climb. There's no need for that type of user--which, it bears mentioning, we all were, once--to feel threatened. This isn't school. This should be fun.
Commitment: Buying a point-and-shoot is easy; the decent ones are pretty similar. But buying a DSLR is more like buying a smartphone. You're not just buying a camera, the same way you're not just buying a phone. You're buying into an ecosystem, where only certain accessories are available to you. Canon lenses don't work with Nikon bodies. A case made for a T3i won't fit a 5D Mark III. And like a smartphone, your first purchase is just that--the first of what is supposed to be many. You need apps for your phone, and you need lenses, different kinds of flash setups, bags, straps, tripods, microphones, and more for your DSLR. DSLRs are fantastically flexible, but they rely on modularity.

Someone who just wants to take their photography one more step, who may do it on impulse and not ever buy another lens, doesn't need that flexibility. DSLRs should be, and will be very soon, for experts. For pros, or passionate amateurs. Sports photographers, bird-watchers, people who want to build a multi-thousand-dollar collection of lenses. But for those of us who just want to take better pictures, dammit, there are amazing options just for us.

* Editors' note: We hear you, readers! Now excuse us while we go wash out our mouths with soap.

popsci.com
 
I have heard this before, an uncle I visited who used to be a professional photog showed me one, saying it was way better / easier for day-to-day use than any SLR.

The problem is the pricing is just whackadoodle, compare ORMs prices (which is obviously a bit more than US$, but not as much as you'd think) of these types of cameras to your basic DSLR

ILC
https://www.ormsdirect.co.za/cameras/digital-cameras/compact-mirrorless-cameras

DSLR
https://www.ormsdirect.co.za/cameras/digital-cameras/digital-single-lens-reflex-slr

Looking at the low to medium end, you can get 7 different DSLRs cheaper than the 1st ILC, 4 with a dual lens pack & more with a bag & SD Card. The 1st ILC dual lens combo is R8995 on special & that nets me 10 different SLRs.

I get that obviously that's not a great comparison, neither is the megapixel count (which the DSLRs win as well though) but if you're aiming for a casual market, the overwhelming favourite at the moment is a DSLR, all the courses are geared towards it, so is the beginner books market.

Not saying it's right, I wouldn't mind one of those Leicas on the ORMs site but when I pick up a digicam next year maybe, it'll likely be a DSLR unless the pricing equalises a bit.
 
I have heard this before, an uncle I visited who used to be a professional photog showed me one, saying it was way better / easier for day-to-day use than any SLR.
I tend to agree up to a point - though instead of day to day, which requires my dslr - I have one for my off-days that lives in the car most of the time. It's a great little camera - Canon's EOS-M - and I can use all of my existing Canon lenses. A couple of months ago Makro had them on special for R3k - I should have bought a spare!
 
I'd have to use one of the newer cameras to see how much they've progressed. I know my last foray into more compact cameras proved a waste of time and money. Sure I had the camera with me all the time, but it was really too small to hold easily and such a hassle to use compared to even a DSLR like the D5xxx, which already have a limited set of buttons. Those Nikons are in turn not as nice to handle and use as the better models.
 
I'd have to use one of the newer cameras to see how much they've progressed. I know my last foray into more compact cameras proved a waste of time and money. Sure I had the camera with me all the time, but it was really too small to hold easily and such a hassle to use compared to even a DSLR like the D5xxx, which already have a limited set of buttons. Those Nikons are in turn not as nice to handle and use as the better models.
Yeah - it took a while to get used to doing everything via the touch screen on my EOS-M and I still prefer the buttons/dials/joysticks on my DLSR.
 
I tend to agree up to a point - though instead of day to day, which requires my dslr - I have one for my off-days that lives in the car most of the time. It's a great little camera - Canon's EOS-M - and I can use all of my existing Canon lenses. A couple of months ago Makro had them on special for R3k - I should have bought a spare!

Geez, should pay more attention to those Makro pamphlets.
 
I am also using both an SLR and a mirrorless camera, and take along the one best suited to the situation. It turns out that the mirrorless has replaced my compact camera and not the SLR.

The professionals who seem to be embracing the mirrorless cameras are the portrait / wedding crowd with the Fuji line. Looks like these are well optimized for that sort of work.
 
I tend to agree up to a point - though instead of day to day, which requires my dslr - I have one for my off-days that lives in the car most of the time. It's a great little camera - Canon's EOS-M - and I can use all of my existing Canon lenses. A couple of months ago Makro had them on special for R3k - I should have bought a spare!
They're so cheap 'cos they totally bombed in sales. New camera tech doesn't always get adopted easily.
 
They're so cheap 'cos they totally bombed in sales. New camera tech doesn't always get adopted easily.
Yeah - the camera is certainly not without it's faults. My main gripe is that the AF is pretty slow. Hopefully they'll address this in the next model.
 
Yeah - the camera is certainly not without it's faults. My main gripe is that the AF is pretty slow. Hopefully they'll address this in the next model.

This seems to be an issue without the dedicated AF modules that SLRs use. The focus on my Nikon V1 is reasonably fast due to all the phase detect stuff happening on the sensor. This system is especially well suited to video even though I don't do video.
 
This seems to be an issue without the dedicated AF modules that SLRs use. The focus on my Nikon V1 is reasonably fast due to all the phase detect stuff happening on the sensor. This system is especially well suited to video even though I don't do video.
I probably wouldn't have bought one if I hadn't been able to use all of my existing lenses. I was looking for a travel camera and with it's APS-C sensor it fit the bill nicely. I can pack it, along with one or two lenses, and it weighs less than my DSLR body.
 
That does seem to be the big advantage of this type of camera, namely the amount of gear that goes into a small and light bag.

Apparently the main update with the EOS M2 was to increase the autofocus speed through covering the sensor with a lot of phase detect points. Don't know if this will be available locally but it looks like a really nice camera.
 
That does seem to be the big advantage of this type of camera, namely the amount of gear that goes into a small and light bag.

Apparently the main update with the EOS M2 was to increase the autofocus speed through covering the sensor with a lot of phase detect points. Don't know if this will be available locally but it looks like a really nice camera.
I think canon said it wouldn't be released in the US/European markets and so far it hasn't been. :o

On the plus side I'm using my EYE-Fi cards again finally. :)
 
And as luck would have it I just received email that my new DSLR has arrived at the shop & will be delivered tomorrow :o

:D
 
This seems to be an issue without the dedicated AF modules that SLRs use. The focus on my Nikon V1 is reasonably fast due to all the phase detect stuff happening on the sensor. This system is especially well suited to video even though I don't do video.

All things being equal, I would expect on-sensor phase detect AF (like V1, NX1, 70D, 7DII, etc) to perform just as well as the dedicated PDAF module in a DSLR. I do not know how the on-sensor PDAF and SLR PDAF compare in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) --- but if we assume that the on-sensor PDAF photosites gather the same amount of light as those in the dedicated DSLR PDAF modules, I would expect that in theory the two should perform identically in the long run.

There are a few engineering questions I have regarding with the on-sensor PDAF. For example, do the on-sensor versions have dedicated read-out so that only the PDAF photosites can be read out, instead of having to read out the entire image sensor (this does not seem to apply to the 70D, or 7DII, but I am just speculating here). Another question: Does on-sensor PDAF performance degrade as the sensor heats up? My guess would be that these engineering problems can be solved (mostly), if they have not already been solved.

On the flip side, the main advantage of on-sensor PDAF would be that the optical path is identical for both imaging and AF; one of the trickiest things in SLR design/construction is to ensure that the image is in focus on the main sensor when your PDAF module tells you the image is in focus (at the AF sensor). This makes the SLR expensive to build, since every body must be calibrated in the factory (or so I would hope).

Other differences are questionable: Sure, you can decrease the distance between the rear lens element and the sensor, producing a thinner camera body. This might make wide angle lenses easier to design (and hopefully cheaper). The downside is that the shorter rear focus distance implies that the light hits the sensor at more oblique angle (compared to a system with a larger rear focus distance) --- this more oblique angle complicates microlens design, and causes increased cross-talk between adjacent photosites (e.g., light passing through green Bayer filter actually reaches a red (or blue) photosite).


Either way, I think ILC/mirrorless will soon surpass (or have already in many respects) many DSLRs, provided you are looking at a fair comparison (i.e., only sticking to APS-C designs to keep things simple).

What I find troubling is that the mirrorless cameras appear to be even more expensive than DSLRs (especially at the entry level end of things). Given that a mirrorless camera is significantly cheaper to build than a DSLR (no mirror box, no costly AF calibration, far fewer components, etc.), one can only conclude that the manufacturers are trying to capitalize on the early-adopter mark-up to artificially increase their profit margins. I would hope that the savings (in manufacturing) will be passed on to the consumer in the long run, but given how much pain the traditional manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, the whole lot) are suffering because of the collapse of the compact camera market, one can hardly blame them.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X