Nikon tax?

[Progenix Oj101]

DSLR's are over-priced, inferior cameras to mirrorless alternatives anyway. And Premium Brands (Nikon SA) are scurrilous price gougers.

Hmmm, yes and no. When I moved from SLR to DSLR I contemplated going mirrorless as I was hoping to get away from the carrying 500 tonnes of camera and lenses around with me, but it didn't feel as solid/stable in my hand as something bulky. I might have been able to get used to it, but I'd rather stick with a design/shape I KNOW I'm comfortable with than something that might end up not being used due to not being comfortable with the equipment.

Another is the viewfinder. While they're pretty damn good today, EVFs still lag behind optical - in low light they can exceptionally bad. It's not all doom and gloom for the EVF, it's pretty neat the way pretty much any info can be overlaid and rotate when flipping the camera 90 degrees.

Lens choices are rather limited for mirrorless cameras at the moment when compared to DSLRs. The main selling point for mirrorless cameras for most people is the compact size, and using adapters with full size DSLR lenses seems counter-intuitive.

Lastly is ruggedness. A high-end DSLR is generally more up to knocks, bumps and drops than mirrorless cameras... Although my old Minolta X-700 could quite easily be used to bludgeon a mugger AND still take his photo as he lies on the ground

 

[noxibox]

I know for a fact that you cannot import a camera any longer, as it will cost you more than just buying it locally. One example I looked at was the Canon 7D Mark II.

It averages for about (R20,000). Import charges is (about R5100) and shipping fees between and The camera works out about R28000 at the end of the day while you can get it locally for just over R20k.

You're complaining that prices in South Africa have come down to the point where it is cheaper to buy from a South African shop than to import it yourself?

DSLR's are over-priced, inferior cameras to mirrorless alternatives anyway.

I'd be looking for one that is at least the same sort of size as a chunky DSLR. I want a good grip on the camera. Even some DSLRs are made too small (and I don't even have huge hands).

 

[Visser]

You're complaining that prices in South Africa have come down to the point where it is cheaper to buy from a South African shop than to import it yourself?

I was more actually referring to cameras, rather than lenses. Yes, it is much cheaper buying camera body here in SA than abroad. Lenses are a different matter as there are no import duties if you import a single lens.

 

[Pixual]

Hmmm, yes and no. When I moved from SLR to DSLR I contemplated going mirrorless as I was hoping to get away from the carrying 500 tonnes of camera and lenses around with me, but it didn't feel as solid/stable in my hand as something bulky. I might have been able to get used to it, but I'd rather stick with a design/shape I KNOW I'm comfortable with than something that might end up not being used due to not being comfortable with the equipment.

Another is the viewfinder. While they're pretty damn good today, EVFs still lag behind optical - in low light they can exceptionally bad. It's not all doom and gloom for the EVF, it's pretty neat the way pretty much any info can be overlaid and rotate when flipping the camera 90 degrees.

Lens choices are rather limited for mirrorless cameras at the moment when compared to DSLRs. The main selling point for mirrorless cameras for most people is the compact size, and using adapters with full size DSLR lenses seems counter-intuitive.

Lastly is ruggedness. A high-end DSLR is generally more up to knocks, bumps and drops than mirrorless cameras... Although my old Minolta X-700 could quite easily be used to bludgeon a mugger AND still take his photo as he lies on the ground

You have no idea how wrong you are on all these counts because you obviously don't know anything beyond what you read about mirrorless on forums populated by equally ignorant luddites. DSLR's are inferior in every respect to professional mirrorless cameras now. There are more micro four thirds lenses than you can shake a stick at. Sony have full frame sensors for mirrorless.

There is no advantage to using DSLR's at all anymore.

 

[bwana]

You have no idea how wrong you are on all these counts because you obviously don't know anything beyond what you read about mirrorless on forums populated by equally ignorant luddites. DSLR's are inferior in every respect to professional mirrorless cameras now. There are more micro four thirds lenses than you can shake a stick at. Sony have full frame sensors for mirrorless.

There is no advantage to using DSLR's at all anymore.

Having just had a look at Sony's latest offering - the a7 II I can say for certain that it wouldn't cut it for me. The frame rate is far to slow at just 5fps and their lens offering, with and/or without an adapter, is mediocre and expensive… really expensive. Their 70-200 f/2.8 is $700 more than my canon one and they don't have a 400mm f/2.8 which is one of my bread and butter lenses.

That said I like the idea of mirrorless cameras, up to a point at least, and I have one myself. Good image quality for a crop sensor in a compact form… but definitely not a replacement for my dSLR (even though it can take my existing glass).

 

[Progenix Oj101]

You have no idea how wrong you are on all these counts because you obviously don't know anything beyond what you read about mirrorless on forums populated by equally ignorant luddites. DSLR's are inferior in every respect to professional mirrorless cameras now. There are more micro four thirds lenses than you can shake a stick at. Sony have full frame sensors for mirrorless.

There is no advantage to using DSLR's at all anymore.

Then correct me on comfort. I held a few and none felt as comfortable as even a tiny DSLR without being the size of a DSLR - size is often pushed as the main selling point of mirrorless cameras. I also found the EFV to be laggy and blurry when panning in very low light.

Find me a very fast super telephoto lens, everything that I'm finding is either lacking in focal length or speed. Something like a 300mm f/2 or 400mm f/2.8. Maybe even something with a lot more reach - how about 800mm? I had a look on Adorama and B&H, I can't find anything that comes close without dropping to f/6.3 or even f/8.

Find me a mirrorless camera that has a full frame sensor and can shoot at 14 FPS?

Show me a setup that can shoot at 400mm f/2.8 at 14 FPS with an EVF that works really well in low light and gets at least 1,000 shots from a single battery charge? Yes, it's extreme, but until mirrorless can at least equal that you can't say that there is NO advantage to DSLRs anymore.

 

[Pixual]

Please go and have a look at Olympus' E-M1. It will beat the pants off any DSLR in the same price league on everything. 10 frames per second. High ISO capability. Fast AF. Fast glass. Touch screen. Tilting LCD. Wifi.

Until you guys learn what the term "full frame" actually means you should refrain from using it as some sort of advantage that 35mm (135) based DSLR systems might once have had. Micro four thirds lenses are "full frame" to their sensors. There is nothing "cropped" about the system, unlike Nikon and Canon's APS-C systems that are a kludge from days gone bye.

DSLR's are dinosaurs.

 

[Pixual]

Then correct me on comfort. I held a few and none felt as comfortable as even a tiny DSLR without being the size of a DSLR - size is often pushed as the main selling point of mirrorless cameras. I also found the EFV to be laggy and blurry when panning in very low light.

Find me a very fast super telephoto lens, everything that I'm finding is either lacking in focal length or speed. Something like a 300mm f/2 or 400mm f/2.8. Maybe even something with a lot more reach - how about 800mm? I had a look on Adorama and B&H, I can't find anything that comes close without dropping to f/6.3 or even f/8.

Find me a mirrorless camera that has a full frame sensor and can shoot at 14 FPS?

Show me a setup that can shoot at 400mm f/2.8 at 14 FPS with an EVF that works really well in low light and gets at least 1,000 shots from a single battery charge? Yes, it's extreme, but until mirrorless can at least equal that you can't say that there is NO advantage to DSLRs anymore.

What are the photographic advantages to those "features" that you have actually proven to be useful in real world photography? They don't exist, mate. If you can't get a good sports shot at 5FPS then you ought to pass on the genre. Batteries for mirrorless cameras are so small that you could carry several of them and still be carrying less weight than one pro DSLR battery. 300 shots out of one tiny MFT battery is standard.

Olympus have a 90-250mm f/2.8 lens that works on the E-M1 with an adapter. That's equivalent field of view to a 180-500mm f/2.8 on a 35mm sensor. Who makes 500mm f/2.8 lenses? Or 600mm f/2.8 lenses (which is what you'll have if using a 300mm f/2.8 Oly lens)?

EVF in low light is the main advantage of using one in the first place. You can't see in the dark with an OVF, but with an EVF you can.

Trust me, I was a PRO DSLR owner for many years, including both Canon and Nikon models. They don't cut the mustard anymore. Not in the slightest...

 

[bwana]

If you can't get a good sports shot at 5FPS then you ought to pass on the genre.

It only takes one frame to get a good shot but more often than not the interesting stuff happens just after the shot you've anticipated and that's where the 12/14fps comes in.

Then again, if you're only going for a good shot then you're in the wrong game.

Batteries for mirrorless cameras are so small that you could carry several of them and still be carrying less weight than one pro DSLR battery. 300 shots out of one tiny MFT battery is standard.

I get 3000+ from one battery. The same battery I've been using since I got it back in 2009.

I think if it was viable you'd see a lot more of it on the sidelines/trylines instead of, well none tbh. I don't know any sports photographer who actually enjoys schlepping that much gear around.

 

[Progenix Oj101]

Please go and have a look at Olympus' E-M1. It will beat the pants off any DSLR in the same price league on everything. 10 frames per second. High ISO capability. Fast AF. Fast glass. Touch screen. Tilting LCD. Wifi.

Just because it CAN go up to ISO 25,600 doesn't mean you get good quality shots at high ISO. It has similar ISO performance to the cheapest Canon DSRL available (the 1200D), slightly worse than the 600D and around a QUARTER that of the 1D X.

Until you guys learn what the term "full frame" actually means you should refrain from using it as some sort of advantage that 35mm (135) based DSLR systems might once have had. Micro four thirds lenses are "full frame" to their sensors. There is nothing "cropped" about the system, unlike Nikon and Canon's APS-C systems that are a kludge from days gone bye.

Full frame is a reference to 24x36mm sensors and you know it, no need to act smart

What are the photographic advantages to those "features" that you have actually proven to be useful in real world photography? They don't exist, mate.

Yeah they do. Sport photography for one would rely on all of the above. There's a reason Getty had photographers shooting with close to a million Rands worth of equipment each instead of compact cameras. If you want to freeze action in low light you need a large aperture and high ISO performance.

If you can't get a good sports shot at 5FPS then you ought to pass on the genre.

If you want the perfect shot you need a high framerate. If someone else gets a better image cause they were able to take three shots between two of yours, guess who's being paid for their shot? And if you think your reaction times are good enough to get a shot with a cushion of around 80ms (eg the hockey stick hitting the puck) then I'm going to call your bluff.

Batteries for mirrorless cameras are so small that you could carry several of them and still be carrying less weight than one pro DSLR battery. 300 shots out of one tiny MFT battery is standard.

Changing batteries means you're missing out on shots. That's not acceptable to many who rely on being able to shoot at all times to be paid.

Olympus have a 90-250mm f/2.8 lens that works on the E-M1 with an adapter. That's equivalent field of view to a 180-500mm f/2.8 on a 35mm sensor. Who makes 500mm f/2.8 lenses? Or 600mm f/2.8 lenses (which is what you'll have if using a 300mm f/2.8 Oly lens)?

Sigma has a 500mm f/2.8... But fair enough, I didn't find the Olympus on either B&H or Adorama when looking at their mirrorless lenses. That being said, I gave a large spec sheet and asked for something that ticks ALL of the boxes.

EVF in low light is the main advantage of using one in the first place. You can't see in the dark with an OVF, but with an EVF you can.

If the subject is motionless or moving slowly, sure. As soon as there is fast panning the EVF became a blurry mess and I could see less than I'd have been able to see with an OVF.

Trust me, I was a PRO DSLR owner for many years, including both Canon and Nikon models. They don't cut the mustard anymore. Not in the slightest...

FOR YOU. You didn't need a pro DSLR, there are PLENTY of people who rely on them for a living. Just because something doesn't suit YOU doesn't mean it is an inferior product to the rest of the world.

 

[Progenix Oj101]

Somehow I read right past bwana's posts. I know he does paid work shooting cricket.

bwana, could you do your work without more than 5 FPS? Could you do your work with only 300 shots out of one battery, and could you afford the time it takes having to change batteries? Could you do your work if you had to drop to a shutter speed of 1/200 because the ISO 10,000 images were too noisy to use?

 

[bwana]

Somehow I read right past bwana's posts. I know he does paid work shooting cricket.

bwana, could you do your work without more than 5 FPS? Could you do your work with only 300 shots out of one battery, and could you afford the time it takes having to change batteries? Could you do your work if you had to drop to a shutter speed of 1/200 because the ISO 10,000 images were too noisy to use?

I could, but not as well.

And fwiw I don't just shoot cricket - it just happens to be cricket season atm.

 

[Progenix Oj101]

I could, but not as well.

And fwiw I don't just shoot cricket - it just happens to be cricket season atm.

So if, hypothetically, I was standing next to you and commissioned to shoot the same shots as you by the same person as you and I ended up getting better shots than you by using my 1D X and 400mm f/2.8 while you used a 5 FPS camera that produced usable images up to ISO 1600 and we're shooting at dusk so you have to drop to 1/160 or even slower would you stand the risk of losing money to me? If my memory and calculations are correct, some of your shots would be at somewhere between 1/125 and 1/250 if you had to drop to ISO 1600.

If bwana's answer is anything but 100 % not (without factoring in that they know him and don't know me ), DSLRs have a use and are relevant.

When people are paying for shots, you have to not only produce good results but also better results than the next guy.

BTW I just used cricket as an example as I've seen your cricket shots posted around here.

 

[Pixual]

Whatever. There's no point arguing with ignorance.

 

[bwana]

Whatever. There's no point arguing with ignorance.

Why the animosity? Unless you have some sort of affiliation we don't know about I don't see the point - we all don't have to march to the beat of the same drum after all. Some of us don't like mirrorless, or even if we do we do not see them as a viable alternative at this time.

 

[bwana]

So if, hypothetically, I was standing next to you and commissioned to shoot the same shots as you by the same person as you and I ended up getting better shots than you by using my 1D X and 400mm f/2.8 while you used a 5 FPS camera that produced usable images up to ISO 1600 and we're shooting at dusk so you have to drop to 1/160 or even slower would you stand the risk of losing money to me? If my memory and calculations are correct, some of your shots would be at somewhere between 1/125 and 1/250 if you had to drop to ISO 1600.

If bwana's answer is anything but 100 % not (without factoring in that they know him and don't know me ), DSLRs have a use and are relevant.

When people are paying for shots, you have to not only produce good results but also better results than the next guy.

BTW I just used cricket as an example as I've seen your cricket shots posted around here.

I'm just saying what works for me, that's all.

Here are some stats from the last two cricket matches I shot. As you can see the majority were shot at 1/1000th, f/4 (due to the TC), at iso 6400 - that's my reality. It may change if I like the 7Dmk2 but we'll have to see.

 

[Pixual]

I get annoyed when people who don't have any actual experience with something start sprouting nonsense about a product that they have only read about online.

EVF technology is way, way better now than it was even 18 months ago. In the E-M1 there is no lag and there is no blackout when shooting at 10fps either. Of course one has to know how to set up the camera, which is something most amateur "reviewers" on the net couldn't be bothered with, so they write a product up as being incapable of doing something when in fact it is more than capable.

The EVF on the Fuji XT-1 is brilliant, even better than the Olympus one. I have not used the Sony's but I am sure that they are probably also pretty good.

 

[Progenix Oj101]

I get annoyed when people who don't have any actual experience with something start sprouting nonsense about a product that they have only read about online.

So you didn't read what I posted.

 

[Pixual]

Rugged? I wonder how high up the Canon/Nikon price ladder you have to go to be able to do this?

http://youtu.be/cia2dRP9cww

 

[Pixual]

Hmmm, yes and no. When I moved from SLR to DSLR I contemplated going mirrorless as I was hoping to get away from the carrying 500 tonnes of camera and lenses around with me, but it didn't feel as solid/stable in my hand as something bulky. I might have been able to get used to it, but I'd rather stick with a design/shape I KNOW I'm comfortable with than something that might end up not being used due to not being comfortable with the equipment.

Another is the viewfinder. While they're pretty damn good today, EVFs still lag behind optical - in low light they can exceptionally bad. It's not all doom and gloom for the EVF, it's pretty neat the way pretty much any info can be overlaid and rotate when flipping the camera 90 degrees.

Lens choices are rather limited for mirrorless cameras at the moment when compared to DSLRs. The main selling point for mirrorless cameras for most people is the compact size, and using adapters with full size DSLR lenses seems counter-intuitive.

Lastly is ruggedness. A high-end DSLR is generally more up to knocks, bumps and drops than mirrorless cameras... Although my old Minolta X-700 could quite easily be used to bludgeon a mugger AND still take his photo as he lies on the ground

I think I read this all just fine. You haven't looked into the right mirrorless systems if you believe what you wrote above is true.