# Are SLR cameras dying?



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

I've heard people say this, but I also know next to nothing about photography. 

Thoughts?


----------



## zdogma (Mar 21, 2006)

I think not yet. I have a decent quality digital SLR (a Nikon D5500) and a decent point and shoot (a Sony RX 100 IV) both from about the same generation (2014-2015) Both are very well rated mid priced cameras, at the top the class for their price range. Despite significant improvements in the P&S, the SLR is still has better image quality and more consistent/predictable autofocus. I think the big sensor is still a significant advantage for the SLR. Certainly the point and shoot is my grab and go camera for most situations, but if image quality is important I take the SLR, despite the size and weight.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I used be in the camera business working for a little chain in NS. I used to think that SLR's were the way to go but as digital photography started gaining ground, I eventually sold my Nikon SLR and got a point and shoot. Now, all I use is my Smart Phone but I do miss the SLR. For the best in photography that is what you will want to use.There is just so much more you can do when you can control the exposure process at the camera. 

The point zdogma made above about the larger sensor is something point and shoot and smart phones can't copy but the technology is getting closer.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Probably, but not overnight.

Here's a pretty good article describing the differences between DSLRs and the mirrorless cameras that will probably eventually push DSLRs off the market.

https://photographylife.com/mirrorless-vs-dslr


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

It seems to me that SLRs might even be making a comeback. Phone cameras now rival point-and-shoots for image quality but can't compete with SLRs for control of the final image. To me, it's the point-and-shoots that are disappearing.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I use the smart phone where once I may have used a point and shoot. I have a Sony Z3 and the image quality is miles above the previous phone well under 5 years later. But for the good work, I still use the DSLR. My DSLRs are 6 and 10 years old and still do the job for me even if they are trailing edge technology and beyond. I paid $200 for used DSLR two years ago that was four years old - it's my main camera. For me it's all about what I do in Photoshop or similar program. And I still have a few auto-focus lenses from the old film cameras - backwards compatibility. Despite the advantages of mirror-less, I am not ready to front cash on replacing everything I have that's still works well. Film to digital was a very different transition.


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

Who wants to lug a DSLR these days? My canon s90 then s100 are great cameras, can count bad shots on my digits.. I was told it was due to a much larger light censor than even some DSLRs, so I'll go on that. Regardless, unless your a pro shooting weddings or have the time and money to risk bringing your huge case and lenses abroad, P&S are more than fine.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

In our house, we either use our iPhone cams, or my DSLR for more "artsy"stuff, or where different lenses are required.
So IMO,it's the little point and shoot cameras that are obsolete. They're a half-assed version of the other 2. Not as versatile or convenient as a phone, and not as capable as a full dslr.

To me, a dslr is almost infinitely uogradeable through lenses and external flashes, that IME, have a more profound effect of photo quality than just buying the newest version of the camera with a few more megapixels.


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

I have so many cameras to choose from. We have 36 cameras and oh yes a DSLR! We inherited everything from the FIL. He was camera crazy!

Too lazy to learn about the other cameras and how to use them. My I phone camera is just perfect for me! Click and snap!


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

DSLR's are great, but like a lot of digital tech, it is outdated almost immediately after release. My wife and I received a DSLR camera when we got married. Given, it was an entry level DSLR, but within 5 years the average point and shoot camera took better quality pictures. Nowadays, my cell phone's camera takes a better picture.

I don't think they are on their way out, but they certainly have competition with the new mirrorless stuff coming out. Plus, many of the more pricey point and shoot cameras rival the quality of similar priced DSLRs but at a fraction of the size to carry around. Sony's RX100 series comes to mind.


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

Diablo said:


> In our house, we either use our iPhone cams, or my DSLR for more "artsy"stuff, or where different lenses are required.
> So IMO,it's the little point and shoot cameras that are obsolete. They're a half-assed version of the other 2. Not as versatile or convenient as a phone, and not as capable as a full dslr.
> 
> To me, a dslr is almost infinitely uogradeable through lenses and external flashes, that IME, have a more profound effect of photo quality than just buying the newest version of the camera with a few more megapixels.



Have to agree to an extent. But if your lets say traveling and want a more memorable shot, the p&s comes out. Everyone has different needs though.

That being said, my old Pentax FILM xlr still takes the cake. Even with the light meter battery dead and a little skill, you get great crisp shots. TBH haven't used it in years though!


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

I still, on occasion, use film.....35mm and if it's a point and shoot shot I will use the phone or the simple point and shoot ones but I have cameras to take pics with when I have the time. Phones don't take a time lapse or night shots worth a damn and a lot of times the videos are not that good.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I know some serious photographers--and they love their SLRs...


----------



## Chito (Feb 17, 2006)

IMO the main difference between DSLRs and P&S cameras is the ability to change lenses. Being able to shoot from up close to long distance is one thing that that I like to be able to do. Also, DSLRs are much better in low light conditions. Their sensors are bigger extracting more light. Which is another huge difference for me. I very seldom use flash when I take photos, unless I am at home with all the studio set up. Otherwise, no flash. Try that with your P&S or camera phones. They will never be like the DSLRs because the sensors are smaller. There are full frame mirrorless cameras made by Sony now but they lose their advantage of being smaller and lighter once they get into the biggers sensors like the fullframe or even the APC sized sensors. As for changing technology, it's not just the changing of technology that makes cameras 'obsolete' faster than their old counterparts, I'm sure very few people know that shutters on digital cameras don't last forever. For instance, most entry-level_ DSLR cameras_ are only rated at 100,000 shutter actuations. Its still a lot but for some that doesn't take a long time before they reach that point where they would need to replace it. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Smartphone technology has grown exponentially giving the world the best pocket cameras ever, however serious enthusiasts will be using DSLRs for some time to come


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Chito said:


> IMO the main difference between DSLRs and P&S cameras is the ability to change lenses. Being able to shoot from up close to long distance is one thing that that I like to be able to do. Also, DSLRs are much better in low light conditions. Their sensors are bigger extracting more light. Which is another huge difference for me. I very seldom use flash when I take photos, unless I am at home with all the studio set up. Otherwise, no flash. Try that with your P&S or camera phones. They will never be like the DSLRs because the sensors are smaller. There are full frame mirrorless cameras made by Sony now but they lose their advantage of being smaller and lighter once they get into the biggers sensors like the fullframe or even the APC sized sensors. As for changing technology, it's not just the changing of technology that makes cameras 'obsolete' faster than their old counterparts, I'm sure very few people know that shutters on digital cameras don't last forever. For instance, most entry-level_ DSLR cameras_ are only rated at 100,000 shutter actuations. Its still a lot but for some that doesn't take a long time before they reach that point where they would need to replace it.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


Here's a man who might have some answers to some questions.....non digital questions. 120 black and white film....still available? Same with b&w darkroom supplies. 
As far as p&s cameras go, I have one in the truck and one on the bike. Sort of a modern version of this








for when you only have enough time to point the camera and shoot.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

I don't think the SLR is fading for actual photographers, it's just the trend of people buying SLR's to shoot photos ad a hobby has been superceded by iPhone and Instagram


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Scotty said:


> Smartphone technology has grown exponentially giving the world the best pocket cameras ever, however serious enthusiasts will be using DSLRs for some time to come


Not too sure if I'd go as far as saying, 'the best pocket camera ever.'. Which brings up an interesting question. What happens when you are taking a picture or a video and some one calls you or sends you a text or an e-mail ot what ever? Does it default to whatever and screw up your shot? Hasn't happened to me because I don't get that many phonecalls or texts.


----------



## GWN! (Nov 2, 2014)

The advances in camera phone sensors have been quite rapid in the last few years. I would say it has replaced the P&S camera for people that are casual photographers. If you only look at your photos on your phone or pad and never do large prints than it satisfies most people and is certainly more convenient and always available.

Some areas that camera phone cannot touch an SLR are for sports photography where fast shutter speeds and tracking ability are required or wildlife photography where you need a long reach for safety or magnification. Although some camera phone can do close-ups they cannot compete with a true macro lens. Large sensors are still king when it comes to low light, no flash photography.

My Nikon D3 is quite long in the tooth as far as recent offerings by Nikon, Canon or Sony but it is still miles ahead of anything a phone can produce especially if you intend to show your photography in print on a wall. I have yet the ability to mount my 300 f2.8 or a true macro lens on my phone.

When I travel I have adopted a smaller package because I find it harder to lug around a large camera bag. I normally bring a mirrorless system like my Fuji X100 and my Fuji X-T1 because of the weight reductions. Both newer cameras than my D3 but I still prefer the files on the D3. I also take pictures with my phone.

So for someone into the hobby it will be a while before phone cameras replace an SLR. Inexpensive Point and Shoot on the other end a declining rapidly.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Electraglide said:


> Not too sure if I'd go as far as saying, 'the best pocket camera ever.'. Which brings up an interesting question. What happens when you are taking a picture or a video and some one calls you or sends you a text or an e-mail ot what ever? Does it default to whatever and screw up your shot? Hasn't happened to me because I don't get that many phonecalls or texts.


I disagree. The world has never seen such a huge amount of camera use since the invent of the digital camera/smart phone. Memory is cheap and you don't have to print. That and the technology in these phones allows the user to take great photos without having to know anything about camera settings. I think it took a massive step forward.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Thanks everyone for this thread. Now I went on a tangent by looking into mirror-less cameras. I have been a Nikon user for over 40 years - I still have an FTn and 20mm to 105mm lenses. Many years ago I had a Leica M4 and a nice set of lenses I was forced to sell during a period of unemployment in the early 80s. I currently have three "older" DLSRs , a D70s, a D80 and a D80 IR converted. They still do the job. But I digress,....

Fuji seems to be going full into mirror-less camera, both interesting RF and SLR style,... and ones don't have a viewfinder, just an LCD screen which are not relevant to me. Interesting part of the software in these cameras, is modelling the colour features after their films types, Velvia and such. Still one of the biggest and long-lasting film companies in the world. The size and light weight of these cameras and lenses is a nice thing

But I will never have the $$$ to invest in a new system unless I win a small lottery or something. And I really have no travel plans. So,...


----------



## Wileyone (Jul 23, 2011)

TheYanChamp said:


> Who wants to lug a DSLR these days? My canon s90 then s100 are great cameras, can count bad shots on my digits.. I was told it was due to a much larger light censor than even some DSLRs, so I'll go on that. Regardless, unless your a pro shooting weddings or have the time and money to risk bringing your huge case and lenses abroad, P&S are more than fine.


That's the key people are lazy. They want everything done for them. It's sad when a grown Man has a problem carrying around a Camera that weighs more than 3 lbs.. Or might have to make a Lens or Shutter adjustment to get the best possible Photo. I am glad I learned on 35mm gear it gives you more of an appreciation on what actually happens when you click the Shutter.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2016)

We were into SLR about twenty years ago. Even had a dark room and a
B/W enlarger. Bought a Canon for my wife which she used for one roll 
of film. Hasn't been used since. We have two Practica bodies (one broken) 
and a bag full of lenses. 

Does anyone collect this old stuff anymore?


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Talking about dark rooms. Back then when you walked outside in the middle of the summer and (assuming you are a white person) you suddenly notice that you are pale white and everyone else is sporting a tan,......


----------



## Chito (Feb 17, 2006)

Robert1950 said:


> Thanks everyone for this thread. Now I went on a tangent by looking into mirror-less cameras. I have been a Nikon user for over 40 years - I still have an FTn and 20mm to 105mm lenses. Many years ago I had a Leica M4 and a nice set of lenses I was forced to sell during a period of unemployment in the early 80s. I currently have three "older" DLSRs , a D70s, a D80 and a D80 IR converted. They still do the job. But I digress,....
> 
> Fuji seems to be going full into mirror-less camera, both interesting RF and SLR style,... and ones don't have a viewfinder, just an LCD screen which are not relevant to me. Interesting part of the software in these cameras, is modelling the colour features after their films types, Velvia and such. Still one of the biggest and long-lasting film companies in the world. The size and light weight of these cameras and lenses is a nice thing
> 
> But I will never have the $$$ to invest in a new system unless I win a small lottery or something. And I really have no travel plans. So,...


You might want to look at the Nikon 1 line which is the Nikon Mirrorless Series.. You might be able to use your old lenses too although I believe they will have to be manual focus. I have an older V1 and it still works great. Has a viewfinder. Some of the Nikon CX lenses (for these models) like the 18.5 f/1.8 which is the equivalent 50mm on a fullframe are excellent. The 70-300mm although expensive, is one of the best for long distance shooting and it's equivalent to a 189-810mm on a fullframe but a lot smaller in size and weight.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Scotty said:


> I disagree. The world has never seen such a huge amount of camera use since the invent of the digital camera/smart phone. Memory is cheap and you don't have to print. That and the technology in these phones allows the user to take great photos without having to know anything about camera settings. I think it took a massive step forward.


To each his own. For the person who wants average pics then a phone is ok. For anything more than that they fail imo. On average when I use my phone to take some pics I download them as soon as I can. I think that picture taking per capita now is about the same as it was 50 years ago or more.


----------



## ga20t (Jul 22, 2010)

For me, since the iPhone 4s, the point and shoot hasn't even existed. It's either the DSLR for pics or the iPhone for snaps of things I need to document/share quickly.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Robert1950 said:


> Talking about dark rooms. Back then when you walked outside in the middle of the summer and (assuming you are a white person) you suddenly notice that you are pale white and everyone else is sporting a tan,......


Not exactly pale white but sometimes my eyes would hurt like hell.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Don't know where camera tech is going (I have a feeling we'll end up with cameraphones and pro-SLR's eventually, squeezing out the midrange), BUT.........

I'm thrilled beyond belief everyone did not carry around a still or movie camera everywhere they went in the 70's and 80's, just waiting for opportunity to strike. I have distant, fuzzy memories of some embarrassing things and my mates have lots of stories. But no proof. No substantiation. Just rumors and innuendo.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> Don't know where camera tech is going (I have a feeling we'll end up with cameraphones and pro-SLR's eventually, squeezing out the midrange), BUT.........
> 
> I'm thrilled beyond belief everyone did not carry around a still or movie camera everywhere they went in the 70's and 80's, just waiting for opportunity to strike. I have distant, fuzzy memories of some embarrassing things and my mates have lots of stories. But no proof. No substantiation. Just rumors and innuendo.


Unfortunately some people did carry cameras to places they went and took pictures. Then showed those pics to other people like wives. At least the pics didn't go around the world a few times...just to the lawyers office. The rumors and innuendos did hit the grapevine tho. It's amazing how clear those pictures were.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

That was the exception and not the rule back then. The guy with the camera stood out (I assume he was hiding in your case or you would have straightened up and flew right). 

Now it's the rule - and severely punished if you don't take at least 100 pics of yourself every day as well. Oh yea, and your most recent meal. And your cats. And that outfit in the window. And, 'look, a squirrel'........


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

Just to expand a little. To over-simplify, there are 3 types of customers: casual users, enthusiasts, and professionals.

When budget DSLRs hit shelves in the early 2000s, casual users started getting into the market that used to be exclusively for enthusiasts and professionals. However, the majority of those casual users would just leave the camera on auto-mode, which completely defeated the purpose of owning such a camera. As time has gone on, casual users have gravitated towards smaller and simpler equipment. Point & Shoots got better and better, and now cell phone cameras rival (and even surpass) most budget P&S cameras. So yes, DSLR sales are on a decline (as are budget P&S). But that is because the casual users are dropping out of the market.

There's no argument that the ease of use and connectivity of cell phone cameras make them the perfect camera for the casual user. But for true enthusiasts and professionals, high end P&S/bridge cameras and DSLR/mirrorless are still the only way to go. Camera phones are useless when it comes to any manual features like aperture, shutter speed, exposure, focus, etc. Plus, all the megapixels in the world means nothing with a small sensor and a poor lens. Camera phones make up for those shortcomings by artificially expanding the megapixels and adding software-based automatic image correction, which creates all sorts of unnatural colours and funky image artifacts that only "pixel peepers" (the "tone snobs" of the camera world) notice and/or care about.

It is an interesting shift in the market. A similar shift is happening with budget camcorders losing casual users due to smarphone cameras being as good (actually in most cases better) for use as a home video camera.

I'm interested to see if someone will release a phone that has a bigger sensor, nicer lens, and more manually adjustable camera features. The "photographer's" smartphone so to speak. They have smarphones that are sort of geared towards audiophiles, so why not? I think it'd be cool. Although I don't know how they'd keep the size reasonable.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> That was the exception and not the rule back then. The guy with the camera stood out (I assume he was hiding in your case or you would have straightened up and flew right).
> 
> Now it's the rule - and severely punished if you don't take at least 100 pics of yourself every day as well. Oh yea, and your most recent meal. And your cats. And that outfit in the window. And, 'look, a squirrel'........


Nope, not the exception. At least not in B.C. or Ab. in the 50', 60's, 70's and on. At most of the motorcycle runs and events and at other times there were always cameras and nobody hid except the ones who had stripes on their pants, shiny shoes and carried guns openly. People took pics of the bikes, the games, the music and people. And wet t-shirt contests. You were just careful of who you took close ups of, if there was a patch. As far as "straighten up and flew right" goes, I'm still laughing over that one. Maybe in your world but not mine. 
The only difference between now and then is now you take a pic and send it out to the world then have that "oh shit" moment when you realize that the pic you thought you sent to your sig other has now gone out to everyone on your mailing list,


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

> ...It is an interesting shift in the market. A similar shift is happening with budget camcorders losing casual users due to smarphone cameras being as good (actually in most cases better) for use as a home video camera....


 and DSLR's as well. A friend of mine has a business on the side doing videowork....a few years back he switched entirely over to using a DLSR.
between our smartphones and dslr, we never use our minicamcorder either.


----------



## GWN! (Nov 2, 2014)

Diablo said:


> and DSLR's as well. A friend of mine has a business on the side doing videowork....a few years back he switched entirely over to using a DLSR.
> between our smartphones and dslr, we never use our minicamcorder either.


Absolutely. DSLR are being used more and more in TV shows and movies.

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls059550382/


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I've been away from SLR cameras for quite a while, my last one was a programmable 35mm (Cannon T70). Do any of the new DSLR's use the same lens/flashes/accessories as the old 35mm SLR's they replaced?

Dreaming right? It's what I do best.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Lincoln said:


> I've been away from SLR cameras for quite a while, my last one was a programmable 35mm (Cannon T70). Do any of the new DSLR's use the same lens/flashes/accessories as the old 35mm SLR's they replaced?
> 
> Dreaming right? It's what I do best.


yup. My Canons have had the same lens mounts, flash mounts etc as my film EOS did. The batteries/chargers change though.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Video. My smart phones has that and I have only tried it once. Something I have never really gotten into. My Nikon D80 doesn't do video. That wasn't introduced until the D90. And I just found out my D80 is over 9 years. My D70s was released 11 years ago this coming May. Don't really want to spring for a camera with video right now. Might do the used thing - has worked so far with all my cameras since the 1970s, except for the D70s which I bought new when I decided to abandon film and go digital in May 2005.


----------



## GWN! (Nov 2, 2014)

Lincoln said:


> I've been away from SLR cameras for quite a while, my last one was a programmable 35mm (Cannon T70). Do any of the new DSLR's use the same lens/flashes/accessories as the old 35mm SLR's they replaced?
> 
> Dreaming right? It's what I do best.


My old manual focus Nikon and Zeiss work on my Nikon DSLR. I also have an adapter that allows me to mount them on my Fuji mirrorless. My older flash units also work.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Interesting to read this on a guitar forum. I think there are interesting parallels. For the record, I just yesterday purchased a very expensive full-frame DSLR.

High-end cameras are to photography what tube amps are to guitarists.

Saying that a smartphone camera is as good as you'll need is like saying that a Roland Cube amp is good enough for all guitarists. Technically, it's true. If all you want is a picture, the smartphone will do. If all you want is to hear yourself play guitar, the Cube will do. But for those who appreciate the finer points, they will want more.

As guitarists, we think we have an ear for tone. We want to replicate that sound that's in our head. There are tube amps of different wattage, heads, cabs, speakers, pedals, digital processors, you name it. We even get into debates over which tubes sound better in a specific amp. Same for guitars. A well-built Squier is pretty much the only guitar any of us should ever need, right? We spend tons of money on our rigs. And not just the professionals. The enthusiasts do the same. 

Photographers are no different. If you are that type of person, you want to make an image of what you see in your mind's eye. It may be different from what the smartphone captures, in the same way a Squier into a Roland Cube is going to be different from what you hear in your head. If that's your creative outlet, professional or otherwise, you're going to demand tools that allow you to express yourself. 

I actually see a resurgence in enthusiast gear, both in music and in photography. We're seeing an explosion of boutique pedals and fantastic tube amps including some great low-wattage stuff aimed at the non-professional. In the same way, in photography, there's an expansion of the market for mirrorless cameras, and enthusiast P&S cameras, with full manual controls. Look at stuff like the Fuji X70 / X100, or the Panasonic Lumix LX100, or the Sony RX100. These are large-sensor cameras in P&S packages, aimed at professionals or enthusiasts that want something small. They're the equivalent of the Vox Lil Night Train or the Fender Blues Junior. At the same time, we're now seeing full-frame DSLR's aimed at what they call the "pro-sumer" market, where the features are professional-grade, while they make some concessions to get the pricing into the reach of consumers.

I actually think we're in a golden age for creative equipment of all kinds. Never before have even amateur artists had access to so many great tools for expressing themselves. And it's only getting better...


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

Wileyone said:


> That's the key people are lazy. They want everything done for them. It's sad when a grown Man has a problem carrying around a Camera that weighs more than 3 lbs.. Or might have to make a Lens or Shutter adjustment to get the best possible Photo. I am glad I learned on 35mm gear it gives you more of an appreciation on what actually happens when you click the Shutter.


Wow. You must be fun at parties. Ive done the slr thing. Not my idea of convenience and my pride doesnt suffer. Ive always assumed the guys with giant bags and lenses hanging everywhere at your over-visited tourist sites were compensating for something. Your comment seems to validate my point.

How big is your guitar rig. I bet mine is bigger!

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Robert1950 said:


> Video. My smart phones has that and I have only tried it once. Something I have never really gotten into. My Nikon D80 doesn't do video. That wasn't introduced until the D90. And I just found out my D80 is over 9 years. My D70s was released 11 years ago this coming May. Don't really want to spring for a camera with video right now. Might do the used thing - has worked so far with all my cameras since the 1970s, except for the D70s which I bought new when I decided to abandon film and go digital in May 2005.


As far as video (and pics go) just one word.....GRANDPA.....Doesn't matter what you use to take the pics, you'll just take the pics.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Electraglide said:


> To each his own. For the person who wants average pics then a phone is ok. For anything more than that they fail imo. On average when I use my phone to take some pics I download them as soon as I can. I think that picture taking per capita now is about the same as it was 50 years ago or more.


I never said they were superior to DSLR's. There's no comparison. They are superior to the disposable box cameras, the old compact cameras and even the p&s digis of only 10-15 years ago. For the average user, they are adequate and then some


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

A little post production always helps...


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

You point them and snap a pic.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

There are snapshots and there are photographs. Most people take snapshots. I take a lot of snapshots. But I also make photographs. There are few people out there that can make good photographs with a smartphone, but they are few and far between. I guess around 99.8% of people use the smart phone for personal use (selfies, friends puking) or documentation (real estate, car damage). You need good digital "negative" to start before you can create a good photograph or you just have a snapshot. By good I am talking about more than just technically good.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Robert1950 said:


> There are snapshots and there are photographs. Most people take snapshots. I take a lot of snapshots. But I also make photographs. There are few people out there that can make good photographs with a smartphone, but they are few and far between. I guess around 99.8% of people use the smart phone for personal use (selfies, friends puking) or documentation (real estate, car damage). You need good digital "negative" to start before you can create a good photograph or you just have a snapshot. By good I am talking about more than just technically good.


You forgot taking pictures of their thumbs and fingers. My one camera has a TIF setting. 2592x1944 pix. Not the highest quality setting but is a damned good negative. HQ goes to 3264x2448 pix. Sort of like a large format sheet camera. Problem with that is that it can take more than 15 sec to get the shot onto the card and the camera ready to take another shot. The average pic is around 14 to 15 mb. Your average Joe would find this camera a bit more than he wanted.


----------



## Wileyone (Jul 23, 2011)

TheYanChamp said:


> Wow. You must be fun at parties. Ive done the slr thing. Not my idea of convenience and my pride doesnt suffer. Ive always assumed the guys with giant bags and lenses hanging everywhere at your over-visited tourist sites were compensating for something. Your comment seems to validate my point.
> 
> How big is your guitar rig. I bet mine is bigger!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


I guess you didn't understand my post... These Days "guys with giant bags" are a thing of the past. One good quality zoom Lens is all you need. At least with a DLSR you have the option of using other Lenses. The main thing with a DLSR is you have creative control that, means you can do things yourself without something or someone doing them for you... 

But I understand why "you" might want to keep things simple.


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

Wileyone said:


> I guess you didn't understand my post... These Days "guys with giant bags" are a thing of the past. One good quality zoom Lens is all you need. At least with a DLSR you have the option of using other Lenses. The main thing with a DLSR is you have creative control that, means you can do things yourself without something or someone doing them for you...
> 
> But I understand why "you" might want to keep things simple.


Fair enough. With my canon s100 I can still adjust shutter speed etc. Even have a wheel around the lens that you can assign to any function. Id argue that knowing how to use it you take better shots than someone that doesnt know how to use their dslr. Or only uses it on auto. To each each their own though.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

boyscout said:


> Probably, but not overnight.
> 
> Here's a pretty good article describing the differences between DSLRs and the mirrorless cameras that will probably eventually push DSLRs off the market.
> 
> https://photographylife.com/mirrorless-vs-dslr


 I have been using an Olympus 3/4 micro (epm2) for the last year and absolutely love it. And it's not even a higher scale model. I do a lot of hiking where I take landscape photos and I generally have a little pancake wide angle on it. It's a perfect portable rig for that. People more into photography than me love the photos from it. 

Some of the point and shoot cameras are pretty amazing now (Fuji and Sony especially). But even the 3/4 micros have larger sensors in them and are better for low light. Mine has a huge sensor (though aging already). 

As far as point and shoot, the camera in my galaxy s6 is pretty incredible on its own. For anything other than low light, it can take amazing photos. It's still going to be awhile before a cell phone can really pull off low light well. But for landscapes with nice lighting, I am blown away by what my phone can take.

I took this with my phone earlier in the fall.


----------



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

I'd like to have an SLR, indeed I did have one in days of yore but my P&S G7X is a better fit in the back of my bike jersey and I take a lot of pictures while riding and I mean while in motion.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

WCGill said:


> I'd like to have an SLR, indeed I did have one in days of yore but my P&S G7X is a better fit in the back of my bike jersey and I take a lot of pictures while riding and I mean while in motion.


I am glad I learned on an SLR. I am 39, so when I was in high-school photography class I learned on SLR and learned to develop film and make prints. The process was cool.

But... the fact that my mirrorless rig almost fits in my palm, my cell phone is even smaller, and that I can take unlimited photos on either basically kind of outweighs that for me.

The mirrorless technology is moving so fast. I kind of wish I had waited one more year to buy my camera, but I got a pretty crazy deal at the time.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

A quick snap on the smartphone last Thanksgiving. Some digital editing...


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Robert1950 said:


> There are snapshots and there are photographs. Most people take snapshots. I take a lot of snapshots. But I also make photographs. There are few people out there that can make good photographs with a smartphone, but they are few and far between. I guess around 99.8% of people use the smart phone for personal use (selfies, friends puking) or documentation (real estate, car damage). You need good digital "negative" to start before you can create a good photograph or you just have a snapshot. By good I am talking about more than just technically good.


I still think an eye for composition is one of the biggest aspects of photography. I mean, the photo that I posted earlier if I hadn't have said that was taken with my phone rather than my main camera rig, would you know? Or would it matter? I am willing to hike 2 hours through crazy terrain somewhere to get one good photo and doing the design work I do I have a pretty good eye for composition. As mentioned, as good as my phone is it won't do really low light well. But it can be set to shoot in RAW mode at the same resolutions as my camera. It's completely possible to get a good 'negative' for processing using it. It's just not as versatile as my camera so I only use it for some shots.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

torndownunit said:


> I am glad I learned on an SLR. I am 39, so when I was in high-school photography class I learned on SLR and learned to develop film and make prints. The process was cool.
> 
> But... the fact that my mirrorless rig almost fits in my palm, my cell phone is even smaller, and that I can take unlimited photos on either basically kind of outweighs that for me.
> 
> The mirrorless technology is moving so fast. I kind of wish I had waited one more year to buy my camera, but I got a pretty crazy deal at the time.


I learned on older than slr cameras. My first camera was a used Brownie Target Also learned on older Kodak bellows cameras and very old, large format sheet film cameras. Cell phone cameras etc. have their places but for me, to take good, proper pics needs a camera. WG, Robert and you posted some good pics but to me they're limited. Cell cameras don't do good in low light or bright light and from my experience have almost no depth of field. 
Everything being said, it seems a lot of people posting on this thread seem to still use some sort of SLR/DSLR camera and use cell phone cameras and the like as a back up/p&s camera.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Electraglide said:


> I learned on older than slr cameras. My first camera was a used Brownie Target Also learned on older Kodak bellows cameras and very old, large format sheet film cameras. Cell phone cameras etc. have their places but for me, to take good, proper pics needs a camera. WG, Robert and you posted some good pics but to me they're limited. Cell cameras don't do good in low light or bright light and from my experience have almost no depth of field.
> Everything being said, it seems a lot of people posting on this thread seem to still use some sort of SLR/DSLR camera and use cell phone cameras and the like as a back up/p&s camera.


Only one point RE my photo. That's a compressed JPG from facebook. My phone camera takes photos and saves in RAW format when I set it to. And the photos from it under anything but low light are frankly very very impressive. I have used SLR, I have used, DSLR, I still use my mirrorless camera a ton. The RAW versions of the photos from my phone in situations with decent light compare very favourably to anything I can take on my good camera. I quite often take the exact same photos on both (I upload to instagram on my phone while I am out taking photos sometimes). Side by side.... I am quite happy with both.

Also, the phone camera on my S6 is an exceptionally good camera cell phone wise. It's the main reason I got that phone in fact. I take photos for work at times, and it super convenient to use it.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

torndownunit said:


> Only one point RE my photo. That's a compressed JPG from facebook. My phone camera takes photos and saves in RAW format when I set it to. And the photos from it under anything but low light are frankly very very impressive. I have used SLR, I have used, DSLR, I still use my mirrorless camera a ton. The RAW versions of the photos from my phone in situations with decent light compare very favourably to anything I can take on my good camera. I quite often take the exact same photos on both (I upload to instagram on my phone while I am out taking photos sometimes). Side by side.... I am quite happy with both.
> 
> Also, the phone camera on my S6 is an exceptionally good camera cell phone wise. It's the main reason I got that phone in fact. I take photos for work at times, and it super convenient to use it.


My phone sits in my pocket. If I didn't need it for the grand daughters I wouldn't have it. I suppose I could adjust the camera to take better pics but I ask myself why. I went out this after noon to take a side by side pic with the phone and the camera and wouldn't you know it, the battery in the phone was almost dead. Now it's topping up the charge it got in the truck. I'll keep on using my cameras....maybe even buy a roll or two of 35mm film. B&W probably. 
I'm still wondering what happens when you're taking a picture and your phone rings.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Weil, .... I learned to shoot on a totally manual everything Russian Zenit 35mm SLR film camera. Manual stop down. Ground glass focus screen. No exposure metre. My guide to exposure was on the Ilford or Kodak film box.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Electraglide said:


> My phone sits in my pocket. If I didn't need it for the grand daughters I wouldn't have it. I suppose I could adjust the camera to take better pics but I ask myself why. I went out this after noon to take a side by side pic with the phone and the camera and wouldn't you know it, the battery in the phone was almost dead. Now it's topping up the charge it got in the truck. I'll keep on using my cameras....maybe even buy a roll or two of 35mm film. B&W probably.
> I'm still wondering what happens when you're taking a picture and your phone rings.


it will sound odd to you I am sure, but the thing my phone get's used for the least by a long shot is the phone lol. It's for my work. Email, text, photos, and some work related apps. It's a computer that sits in my pocket more than a phone when it comes down to it. And as far as changing the settings on my phone to take photos in RAW mode or a different aspect ratio, it's literally 2 button presses. I wouldn't really call it an adjustment even.

I get a lot of joy out of instagram and sharing photos with people on there and getting and giving feedback. So yes, I take photos with both devices while out on a photo trip. It makes my hobby 10 times more enjoyable for me.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

torndownunit said:


> it will sound odd to you I am sure, but the thing my phone get's used for the least by a long shot is the phone lol. It's for my work. Email, text, photos, and some work related apps. It's a computer that sits in my pocket more than a phone when it comes down to it. And as far as changing the settings on my phone to take photos in RAW mode or a different aspect ratio, it's literally 2 button presses. I wouldn't really call it an adjustment even.
> 
> I get a lot of joy out of instagram and sharing photos with people on there and getting and giving feedback. So yes, I take photos with both devices while out on a photo trip. It makes my hobby 10 times more enjoyable for me.


My total phone usage is maybe 3 phone calls and 3 texts a month. The only app is Hangouts that the grand daughters put on for me. All I know about the camera is how to change it from photo to video. If I share photos it's downloading pics to a computer and going from there. To me it's a phone that can take pictures and once in a while I use it as a hotspot for my tablet. I know as much about the camera in my tablet as I do about the one in my phone. RAW? That's a digital thing right?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

for me, the main reason I will always have a DLSR (famous last words), are the ability to hot shoe an external flash and swap lenses.
Sorry, but the built in flash thats maybe 1/50th as powerful as a Speedlite doesn't always suffice. And "digital zoom" is not really zoom, and the tiny lens on a phone/P&S will not compare to a Canon L 200-300 lens. its basic physics.
As musicians, weve been through this all before back when people were saying we could throw away our pedal boards, a $200. Line 6 POD is all we will ever need. although for some, it may be.
horses for courses.

as for dslr's being obsolete, well, I see more of them than ever...whether im travelling to the Grand Canyon or at the school Christmas concert. Whats even more interesting is, it isn't just the photog nerds with them....I see housewives almost as frequently carrying them. I think when the T3I came out, it was a huge step towards mainstream-ism.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Electraglide said:


> My total phone usage is maybe 3 phone calls and 3 texts a month. The only app is Hangouts that the grand daughters put on for me. All I know about the camera is how to change it from photo to video. If I share photos it's downloading pics to a computer and going from there. To me it's a phone that can take pictures and once in a while I use it as a hotspot for my tablet. I know as much about the camera in my tablet as I do about the one in my phone. RAW? That's a digital thing right?


RAW relates back to Robert's comment about a good 'negative' even in the digital world:

"A camera *raw image file* contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, image scanner, or motion picture film scanner.[1][2] Raw files are named so because they are not yet processed and therefore are not ready to be printed or edited with a bitmap graphics editor. Normally, the image is processed by a raw converter in a wide-gamut internal colorspace where precise adjustments can be made before conversion to a "positive" file format such as TIFFor JPEG for storage, printing, or further manipulation, which often encodes the image in a device-dependent colorspace. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of raw formats in use by different models of digital equipment (like cameras or film scanners).[3]"

Some of the better cell phone cameras will save RAW files now.


----------



## ed2000 (Feb 16, 2007)

Way back in the 60's I received a Kodak Instamatic. I was able to get decent snaps that sometimes were a little blurry. In the mid 70's I treated myself to a Minolta SR(?) 101. I found at least another 100 new ways to screw up a picture. At least with today's digital SLR's you can delete your mis - takes.


----------



## GWN! (Nov 2, 2014)

ed2000 said:


> Way back in the 60's I received a Kodak Instamatic. I was able to get decent snaps that sometimes were a little blurry. In the mid 70's I treated myself to a Minolta SR(?) 101. I found at least another 100 new ways to screw up a picture. At least with today's digital SLR's you can delete your mis - takes.


 That brings back memories. My first SLR was also a Minolta SR-T 101.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

ed2000 said:


> Way back in the 60's I received a Kodak Instamatic. I was able to get decent snaps that sometimes were a little blurry. In the mid 70's I treated myself to a Minolta SR(?) 101. I found at least another 100 new ways to screw up a picture. At least with today's digital SLR's you can delete your mis - takes.


I used an Instamatic to take pictures at the first Beatles and first Stones concerts in Toronto. I could say that tiny blur is John at the electric piano and that is George. And that little fuzzy round light blur is Brian Jones's hair.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

torndownunit said:


> RAW relates back to Robert's comment about a good 'negative' even in the digital world:
> 
> "A camera *raw image file* contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, image scanner, or motion picture film scanner.[1][2] Raw files are named so because they are not yet processed and therefore are not ready to be printed or edited with a bitmap graphics editor. Normally, the image is processed by a raw converter in a wide-gamut internal colorspace where precise adjustments can be made before conversion to a "positive" file format such as TIFFor JPEG for storage, printing, or further manipulation, which often encodes the image in a device-dependent colorspace. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of raw formats in use by different models of digital equipment (like cameras or film scanners).[3]"
> 
> Some of the better cell phone cameras will save RAW files now.


Basically like a roll of film that hasn't been developed yet. Do you have any control over the developing or does a "computer" do it for you?


----------



## albert (Apr 15, 2009)

I still prefer my Pentax K5ii DSLR. I bought quite a few lenses for it when i first got it (darn GAS) but it still works great. I am going to get back into macro photography this summer.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Electraglide said:


> Basically like a roll of film that hasn't been developed yet. Do you have any control over the developing or does a "computer" do it for you?


As with film, the quality of the developing would depend on where you get the developing done. Some things never change in that regard.

As far as editing on a computer, you can keep them in a RAW format while editing.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

torndownunit said:


> As with film, the quality of the developing would depend on where you get the developing done. Some things never change in that regard.
> 
> As far as editing on a computer, you can keep them in a RAW format while editing.


I shot a lot of black and white and developed probably 90% of that. I'd buy 35mm in bulk and make up my own rolls of film, usually 10 shot rolls. Did a lot of experimenting in the dark room.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

This thread reminds me that I like taking pictures, enjoy photography, and despite taking decent pictures (if I say so myself) and need to do it more often.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

I wasn't expecting this many responses. 

I'll have to read through all of this.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Electraglide said:


> I shot a lot of black and white and developed probably 90% of that. I'd buy 35mm in bulk and make up my own rolls of film, usually 10 shot rolls. Did a lot of experimenting in the dark room.


Yes, that is how I learned in school. Developing my own film and prints was fun. But, there are some really fun parts of digital photography as well. I just don't feel one is 'better' than the other. They are both great.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Black and white is what I'm interested in.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

My comments about RAW, cell phone etc etc are only to point out how fast the technology is moving and how much it's improving. It's really interesting. To me the most interesting aspect of it is the mirrorless digital cameras by far. So much in a small package. With my unit you can get an adaptor for it to take full sized lenses as well. But for anyone wanting a rig that can be really portable, they are just amazing. The quality these cameras can shoot at for the technology being relatively new still is impressive as well. 

Between mirrorless and improving cell phones, and DSLR on the top end (and legacy users), it's really hard to see where P&S cameras will fit in in the next 5 years. They can already be replaced by cell phones and mirrorless at this point. You can get up into the really high end expensive ones... but then you might as well just get a mirrorless 3/4 and have the ability to change lenses. I tried out a couple of the nice Fuji and Sony P&S's but then made that same decision. I got a nice Olympus 3/4 mirrorless with 2 decent lenses for kit lenses on sale for only about $100 more then the P&S's I was looking at.


----------



## GWN! (Nov 2, 2014)

torndowunit you mean an Olympus Four Thirds (4/3) or Micro Four Thirds (m4/3) not 3/4 right?


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

GWN! said:


> torndowunit you mean an Olympus Four Thirds (4/3) or Micro Four Thirds (m4/3) not 3/4 right?


Yes, just waking up. If that's the only error in that post I will be surprised lol.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Diablo said:


> for me, the main reason I will always have a DLSR (famous last words), are the ability to hot shoe an external flash and swap lenses. Sorry, but the built in flash thats maybe 1/50th as powerful as a Speedlite doesn't always suffice. And "digital zoom" is not really zoom, and the tiny lens on a phone/P&S will not compare to a Canon L 200-300 lens. its basic physics. <snip> as for dslr's being obsolete, well, I see more of them than ever...whether im travelling to the Grand Canyon or at the school Christmas concert. Whats even more interesting is, it isn't just the photog nerds with them....I see housewives almost as frequently carrying them. I think when the T3I came out, it was a huge step towards mainstream-ism.


First, lets be sure we're talking about the same thing. In my mind, a DSLR has a flip-up mirror and pentaprism to allow you to see the subject through the same lens as the sensor does, instead of an LCD that may also show you the image through your lens.

It sounds as though you may be equating non-DSLRs with the countless point-and-shoot models that exploded onto the market about 8-10 years ago. However recently some non-DSLR systems have appeared that are already worth looking at - tordownunit has been writing about one. Some include hot shoes, interchangeable lenses, easy complete control of exposure, sophisticated noise reduction, RAW capability, and other features for which we love our DSLRs. LCDs for viewing your image before shooting - a big issue with me - are getting better and better. Further development of these and expansion of their systems is on the near horizon.

At the following link there's an overview from PC Magazine, not because it's a great review but simply because it shows an array of mirrorless cameras that are in some cases more capable than you seem to believe they can be, and includes a breezy explanation of the growing phenomenon that will, I think, eventually move even hardcore DSLR users to acceptance.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364044,00.asp

Do I own one? No, I still love what I can do with my older-model monstrous Nikon DSLR and the heavy suitcase (literally!) of lenses and stuff I haul around with me on my journeys. I have a couple of good older Canon p&s cameras (G10 & G11), and an iPhone 6S which has the same resolution as my Nikon. None of them come even close in image quality to what the Nikon can do - I can easily identify every photo in my library made by them - but other recent mirrorless offerings probably can. And they're going to get better.

I'm about ready for an upgrade - I have a D3 DSLR, several models back - and was for a while salivating over information about the Nikon D5 that should be released next month. However at this point I'm not sure I'll make that (expensive) leap into furthering my DSLR commitment. I'll probably wait another year or so, and see if the mirrorless market is ready to meet all my needs. It might be, and I'll be willing to lighten my load by ~25 pounds!


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

boyscout said:


> First, lets be sure we're talking about the same thing. In my mind, a DSLR has a flip-up mirror and pentaprism to allow you to see the subject through the same lens as the sensor does.
> 
> It sounds as though you may be equating non-DSLRs with the countless point-and-shoot models that exploded onto the market about 8-10 years ago. However recently some non-DSLR systems have appeared that are already worth looking at - tordownunit has been writing about one. Some include hot shoes, interchangeable lenses, easy complete control of exposure, sophisticated noise reduction, RAW capability, and other features for which we love our DSLRs. Further development of these and expansion of their systems is on the near horizon.
> 
> ...



Yes as mentioned, I bought mine a little earlier than I wish I did. Mine has a hot shoe that can take a viewfinder OR a flash. But, some of the newer models are managing to cram in a viewfinder as well, leaving the hot shoe free for a flash if needed. In general these smaller mirrorless models include the same sensors and feature sets of full sized DSLR's at this point. And not only do they have their own lenses, you can get an adaptor for them to use other lenses as well.

My model is not even close to top in it's line, never mind top in it's class. The technology is moving at a crazy rate.


----------



## GWN! (Nov 2, 2014)

On the left full frame DSLR, on the right APS-C sized Mirrorless. Both interchangeable lens cameras. The removal of the optical prism and mirror box creates a major reduction in size. A full frame Sony mirroless is about the same size as my Fuji.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

GWN! said:


> View attachment 18266
> View attachment 18265
> On the left full frame DSLR, on the right APS-C sized Mirrorless. Both interchangeable lens cameras. The removal of the optical prism and mirror box creates a major reduction in size. A full frame Sony mirroless is about the same size as my Fuji.


Nice demonstration! How old is the Fuji? When I bought my camera a few years back they didn't really have much in the way of mirrorless on the market. I always loved the colour quality and the UI on previous Fuji cameras I owned.

I mainly do outdoor photos while hiking and exploring. I keep a pancake wide angle lens on mine 90% of the time so my rig is tiny.

I don't have an larger camera to compare with but here is in my hand:


----------



## GWN! (Nov 2, 2014)

The XT-1 was introduced in 2014. My D3 comes at 50 oz without lens and the XT-1 at 15 oz. Mind you the D3 could be used as a weapon and you could drive a truck over it and it would still work. The XT-1 is bigger than your Olympus but not much considering the viewfinder. Shown here without the vertical grip attached. My wife's camera. She loves it.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

If you're wanting to shoot in black and white, is it better to get a camera with a b&w setting, or shoot in RAW and convert it in software? 

What is a decent camera to start with anyway?


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

butterknucket said:


> If you're wanting to shoot in black and white, is it better to get a camera with a b&w setting, or shoot in RAW and convert it in software?
> 
> What is a decent camera to start with anyway?


question 1 is likely to open a can on worms lol. Personally I am ok enough with the results using option 2. As far as a camera recommendations, peoples answers are really going to vary based on which options discussed appeal to you, and what features you want. And bugdet of course. eg my olypmus is a budget friendly quality mirrorless I could recommend. But, with no view finder it could be missing a major feature you want.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> question 1 is likely to open a can on worms lol. Personally I am ok enough with the results using option 2. As far as a camera recommendations, peoples answers are really going to vary based on which options discussed appeal to you, and what features you want. And bugdet of course. eg my olypmus is a budget friendly quality mirrorless I could recommend. But, with no view finder it could be missing a major feature you want.


Why do you prefer shooting in RAW? I'm a noob and need to understand.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

This is what I use ATM. 2003 Olympus C-5060WZ. Adaptable lenses are available. Records on both CF and XD cards.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

butterknucket said:


> Why do you prefer shooting in RAW? I'm a noob and need to understand.


I personally don't most of the time. I was stating that it's an option that anyone who is beyond a hobbiest will want though. I am not taking photos professionally. I am ok with a high resolution photo with JPG compression. So most of the time that's how I shoot. I rarely make prints nowadays, and my photo sharing is done through social media. If I was doing more than that, I would shoot in RAW.


----------



## GWN! (Nov 2, 2014)

butterknucket said:


> Why do you prefer shooting in RAW? I'm a noob and need to understand.


Because using a separate program to transform your images to black and white will give you much more flexibility than using in-camera processing. Even though in-camera processing is getting better and better. A Program like Topaz B&W https://www.topazlabs.com/bweffects or Nik Software Silvereffects Pro https://www.google.com/nikcollection/products/silver-efex-pro/ allow just that.

A RAW file is the equivalent to a film negative. It allows you to do non destructive processing. That is if you do not like a change you can always undo it with no lost. Processing a Jpg file is destructive although some newer image processors allow you to do non destructive editing by having you work on a duplicate. But even then a RAW file offers much finer modifications to be produced. Once the image as been processed to your liking you then save it as a Jpg file or other format that is suitable for viewing or printing. The original RAW file you worked on remains unchanged.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

GWN! said:


> The XT-1 was introduced in 2014. My D3 comes at 50 oz without lens and the XT-1 at 15 oz. Mind you the D3 could be used as a weapon and you could drive a truck over it and it would still work. The XT-1 is bigger than your Olympus but not much considering the viewfinder. Shown here without the vertical grip attached. My wife's camera. She loves it.
> 
> View attachment 18267


That Fuji looks pretty damn sturdy too though! Have you been pretty happy with it?


----------



## GWN! (Nov 2, 2014)

torndownunit said:


> That Fuji looks pretty damn sturdy too though! Have you been pretty happy with it?


New acquisition for my wife. She was using a Fuji x100 but was missing the interchangeable lenses. She was using an Olympus e620 4/3 before that. Unfortunately due to illness we have not been out and about for photography but as you say the camera is very sturdy, weather sealed and is very confortable in the hand. Easy to use without having to dive into a menu on the screen to select different functions. She bought it with the 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4. For Christmas I traded some of my Nikon lenses and got her the 56mm f1.2 and the 10-24mm f4.0. But again no real chance to put the system to the test yet.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

GWN! said:


> New acquisition for my wife. She was using a Fuji x100 but was missing the interchangeable lenses. She was using an Olympus e620 4/3 before that. Unfortunately due to illness we have not been out and about for photography but as you say the camera is very sturdy, weather sealed and is very confortable in the hand. Easy to use without having to dive into a menu on the screen to select different functions. She bought it with the 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4. For Christmas I traded some of my Nikon lenses and got her the 56mm f1.2 and the 10-24mm f4.0. But again no real chance to put the system to the test yet.


Yes, the Fuji UI is really really nice. I miss it. Very under-rated in my opinion. That X100 is a super cool looking camera. I tried one out when I was shopping. But as you said, I it was really hard for me to justify paying for it when I could get a 4/3 for not much more money and have the ability to switch lenses.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Fuji seems to have gone almost all over to the mirror-less technology with their cameras. Anywhere from a few hundred $$$ to over $2000. They have their own line of interchangeable lenses. The sensor is the same size as the one in the Nikon DX line of DSLR cameras. The lower Fuji models don't have a viewfinder, just the 3" LCD screen which does that function. The higher models, in addition, have a viewfinder like your DSLR models, but it is electronic. Some have the viewfinder on the left, like rangefinder and some, the XT-1, have in the centre like an SLR - merely a user preference. All in all, they do the same thing with same level of quality.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Robert1950 said:


> Fuji seems to have gone almost all over to the mirror-less technology with their cameras. Anywhere from a few hundred $$$ to over $2000. They have their own line of interchangeable lenses. The sensor is the same size as the one in the Nikon DX line of DSLR cameras. The lower Fuji models don't have a viewfinder, just the 3" LCD screen which does that function. The higher models, in addition, have a viewfinder like your DSLR models, but it is electronic. Some have the viewfinder on the left, like rangefinder and some, the XT-1, have in the centre like an SLR - merely a user preference. All in all, they do the same thing with same level of quality.


If I upgrade in the next couple of years I think I will go back to Fuji. It's cool that they are really jumping on the mirrorless thing. I bought my camera almost 3 years ago at this point. It's amazing how quickly the mirrorless technology took off. My camera is totally fine for most stuff I do, but I definitely prefer their Fuji and Sony U.I..


----------

