Gotta listen to that album sometime. Thanks!
2 Likes
Not quite the end of DSLR’s!! Pentax in the 1950’s invented the instant return mirror, the microprism focussing screen, the film rewind crank and the right hand film advance lever which meant for the first time photographers could spend far more time looking through the viewfinder rather than staring at the body making setting changes. Theirs was the template that defined SLR design for the next 70 years but the Asahi Pentax (1957) was the first. The firm have recently declared that they intend to continue making DSLR’s, not mirrorless and their recently released flagship APSC model the K3 MkIII is an absolutely outstanding example of the breed.
I’m not blind to the benefits of mirrorless - indeed I run a Fuji XE3 for its compactness but for me no electronic viewfinder will ever be as enjoyable to use as a good pentaprism. Ergonimically the Pentax K1 and K3 are some of the best handling most intuitive cameras of all time.
There’s something appropriate about the fact that the company who invented the SLR will end up being the very last to still make them…
Jonathan
5 Likes
D300 wasn’t full-frame. It’s a DX.
2 Likes
Well I derive a small income from my photography ‘hobby’ business, and I have traded my Nikon DSLR for a Nikon mirrorless, specifically a Z7-2 (though still keep my F5 SLR, Nikon’s iconic film SLR camera). For my uses of travel, landscape and some portrait photography the mirrorless is great. The camera is smaller and lighter, yet equivalent to full 35mm frame, the lenses are smaller and lighter than their DSLR equivalents and provide better optical quality*
I can still use my Nikon SLR D lenses like my telephoto primes with an adapter… but tend to lose the size and weight advantage. The newer Z zoom lens are superior to the older zooms… even my trusty AFS 17-35 f2.8 has finally been usurped, but my AFS 300mm f4D prime now appears sharper and better fine contrast resolution that I have ever previously been able to get from it.
One thing that is quite interesting is how the bar has been raised… I have an iPhone Pro 13 Max… it is quite good for snaps and street photography as well as preparing for a proper shoot, the best ‘phone’ camera I have had, but for anything else … even displaying just sRGB on a large computer monitor it is usually night and day to a ‘proper’ camera such as a mirrorless, and even more so when you print. Imaging is just like Hi-Fi… the consumer average quality has increased significantly, certainly with assistive technology for imaging, however the quality and results of what can be achieved with purpose made or more specialised equipment has developed to be significantly more capable and rewarding. Also the commercial market for phone based imaging is very limited compared to camera based imaging.
I do really love my Nikon mirrorless… and going back through my archives I can see the quality of my Nikon digital camera picture quality improving through the generations (and yes resolution is only part of the story, more crucially is noise, dynamic range, sensitivity, colour gamut, as well as sensor stabilisation, reflection, and anti aliasing). The Z7-2 mirrorless and lenses ars a significant jump in quality, image pop and rendition, as well as being smaller to carry around… love it.
The one area my mirrorless is perhaps less capable is high speed 3D focus tracking… but if that was my line like with some action sports and action wildlife photography I would invest in a Z9(but lose the camera size advantage) which seemed quite visible at Wimbledon this year.
‘*’the optical quality is additionally achieved yet keeping lens size down by using in camera profiles for lenses to reduce distortion and colour aberration… this ultimately is technically destructive, but I have found very little if any downside/compromise unless I pixel peep to the extreme which is irrelevant for almost all conceivable photography purposes.
10 Likes
A good summary there Simon.
3 Likes
I know, David. It was not a question. I sold had a dozen of it. Just tongue in cheek.
I know. I was agreeing with you!
1 Like
Typo correction D700
1 Like
That sounds like a diehard vinyl lover’s declaration against digital! Will not ever means there must be something about what a pentaprism does that electronic will never be capable of achieving. What is that, other than the fact that it is not a pentaprism?
Personally I find the electronic viewfinder is indistinguishable in viewing in all but one aspect - and in that aspect, certainly for me, the electronic has a distinct advantage, because its brightness and colour balance apply the camera’s settings - which is particularly advantageous in very low light where a pentaprism can lose all but the brightest parts of the image. And that feature is also invaluable for anyone shooting only in non-visible parts of the spectrum (you can ‘see’ the IR or UV image).
5 Likes
No EVF I have yet used even gets close to the clarity, fluidity or subtlety in terms of shadows/lighting that real life viewed through a pentaprism offers.
I accept that for beginners the EVF makes it easy to see their picture is underexposed etc, but anybody even slightly experienced in photography can tell that from the metering in a DSLR. To me part of the joy of photography is looking at a scene in real life and instinctively knowing what settings I want to use to capture the image in my head so underexposing at sunset to emphasise the colours etc or isolating a portrait from the background with aperture.
I see what you are saying about the analogue v digital debate being similar and it’s true that part of the joy of analogue is in the user interface and experience rather than using a streamer which is really just an ‘appliance’.
In most cases and technically the streamer is ‘better’ but that isn’t the case in DSlR v mirrorless where the finished picture should be equal in quality assuming the same sensor.
Jonathan
1 Like
Very happy with my Canon 1DX and 5D Mk4, and associated EF glass.
The industry has always got to sell us something new.
6 Likes
Although in the limit an electronic view finder can’t match, or at least don’t currently match, the fidelity of a traditional SLR view finder - I do feel you adapt quite quickly and becomes equally enjoyable - and being able to see the effects of depth of view without loss of brightness, being able to zoom into parts otherwise image - occasionally useful, manual focus contrast edge heads up display, and seeing good detail in very low light conditions is extremely helpful… so I find the advantages out weigh the disadvantages of view finder loss of subtle fidelity where there is fine detail or subtle colour contrast … and that’s not to mention the more optimised path to the sensor that mirrorless provides and allows the better more efficient lens / camera coupling.
To a certain extent - however the main investment is in lenses as opposed to cameras - and the new more optimised mirrorless cameras - at least with Nikon - support nearly all Nikon lenses going back decades - although non AFS will be manual focus. All my previous film and digital SLR Nikon lenses I own I can still use on my mirrorless- I call that first class. It would have been unacceptable if my lenses were not backwards compatible… but it does show the improvement in quality for the same lens between DSLR and Mirrorless
To be honest my biggest bug bear with good DSLRs was their size and relative bulk especially with their lenses - and that now has been addressed whilst still providing full frame and backwards compatibility - I call that looking after the customer. The downside is they are all so much in demand now - there can be lengthily wait times.
3 Likes
DSLRs are not born equal in that respect. I’ve owned a few SLRs, some had very poor viewfinders.
And EVFs are improving all the time - definition, fluidity, etc.
Absolutely true Christopher - battery life too is a big consideration with mirrorless when your 1D and my K1 would still be firing away most mirrorless cameras would be out of juice.
The only really compelling arguments I have heard in favour of mirrorless are weight/size and superior autofocus in video. Against that must be set the gigantic cost of possibly needing (basically anybody except Nikon users) an entirely new system of cameras and lenses and because mirrorless is the latest thing you can expect to pay dearly for those!
Jonathan
3 Likes
When I’m using my Nikon D5, anything which requires precise focusing, I use the rear lcd screen. All viewfinders have there problems and dslr is definitely not perfect. Hasselblad can be a nightmare too.
1 Like
Not Pentax, but:
A Hungarian (Duoflex?) for the first instant return mirror, and I believe a prototype with a pentaprism.
Contax S for the first production pentaprism
And I believe the Contax Rapid for the film advance crank.
None of these are Pentax inventions!
1 Like
Contax - now that is a a name form the fairly recent past - I seem to remember them having impressive optics in the 90s at least.
2 Likes
Completely agree. I ditched my Nikon kit in favour of a RX10 Mk iv before a birdwatching trip to Oz.
A very versatile camera without the weight or bulk of long lens.
1 Like
They always did have very good optics until bought out, I think it was by Yashica in the late
90’s.
I seem to recall Contax being a trade name of Zeiss.
1 Like