[swanlefitte]

(I could come close to quoting them without looking).

I bet I could do the same with the article without looking based on what comments I read.

I don't plan to read it.

[RobA_Oz]

At least, living in England, I am sure that there is no taint of commercial or political bias in any of the newspaper articles that I read.

I wish I hadn’t been drinking coffee when I read that.

[luftfluss]

I didn't read anything in that article that wasn't true.

[Rondec]

I didn't read anything in that article that wasn't true.

There is a narrative going on here that is a little problematic.

(1) The main reason to purchase an MILC is simply that old mounts are being abandoned. This is true across the board. What remains unstated in the article is that the main reason why the old mounts were abandoned was because brands hoped to convince photographers to buy new (more expensive) lenses for the new mounts. Yes, you can use your old lenses, but they use adapters and often features are somewhat crippled with those adapters. I'm a bit cynical when I think about corporations "doing what's best for their consumers."

(2) SLRs have come a long way. It may be that SLRS do not have auto focus points to the extreme edge except in live view or that they don't have as much information in the viewfinder, but they are pretty capable. The K-3 III can do 12 fps and does pretty well at AF-C -- there were SLRs that were better at tracking than the K-3 III. Most people simply don't need a million auto focus points or 20 fps.

(3) There is a price to pay for MILC technology. The price is primarily paid in shorter battery life and artifacts that have to be masked from the PDAF points. These are seldom mentioned in reviews, but are really there. Many MILCs have struggled with astro photography in the past due to aggressive noise reduction algorithms with long exposures.

(4) Most people's images look exactly the same regardless of whether they are using MILC or SLR technology. The limitations are not due to the presence of a histogram in the viewfinder or too few auto focus points, but rather what lies a few inches behind the viewfinder.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 12-05-2022 at 06:36 AM.

[jersey]

From typical client PoV there really is no reason to get DSLR unless there are eye issues (screen in EVF) or simply nostalgia. All current development goes toward and DSLR like Pentax just benefit from leftovers when they are cheap enough to use in their cameras.

It is like getting cassette instead of MP3. You can, some do it but why should you unless you want a cassette?

@Rondec - Point number 4.

“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.” Ansel Adams

I presume he was referring to the human brain and not when shooting from the hip.

[pepperberry farm]

I didn't read anything in that article that wasn't true.

agreed - but the article was self-limiting in its scope....


I have nothing against either platform - I love my DSLR's (not all Pentax), but also love my mirrorless systems for their adaptability...

[35mmfilmfan]

<snip>

It is like getting cassette instead of MP3. You can, some do it but why should you unless you want a cassette?

Cassette ? My dear fellow, I still collect, listen to and enjoy 78rpm shellac records.

There is a tendency, which seems to go hand-in-hand with the current 'disposable consumer items' trend, to buy something new as soon as it comes along, and then to disparage older but still fully functional items. This of course is exacerbated by the perpetual advertising campaigns assuring you of a better job, loss of weight, more fashionable address, more attractive SO et standard cetera. OK, they are employed to sell items - it is surely up to consumers such as ourselves to treat these inflated claims with a measure of caution. Remember the 'unsinkable' Titanic ?

[Rondec]

From typical client PoV there really is no reason to get DSLR unless there are eye issues (screen in EVF) or simply nostalgia. All current development goes toward and DSLR like Pentax just benefit from leftovers when they are cheap enough to use in their cameras.

It is like getting cassette instead of MP3. You can, some do it but why should you unless you want a cassette?

I don't know how to quantify these things. To me, film is more like vinyl -- something that connoisseurs can probably appreciate and gives a particular look. I would say more that dSLRs are the equivalent of CDs -- a bit more clunky, but offering some very good quality and MILCs are like MP3s. That said, there MP3s and MP3s -- not all of them are encoded at high enough bit rates to make them the equivalent of either CDs or vinyl.

[jersey]

Cassette ? My dear fellow, I still collect, listen to and enjoy 78rpm shellac records.

There is a tendency, which seems to go hand-in-hand with the current 'disposable consumer items' trend, to buy something new as soon as it comes along, and then to disparage older but still fully functional items. This of course is exacerbated by the perpetual advertising campaigns assuring you of a better job, loss of weight, more fashionable address, more attractive SO et standard cetera. OK, they are employed to sell items - it is surely up to consumers such as ourselves to treat these inflated claims with a measure of caution. Remember the 'unsinkable' Titanic ?

I am buying CDs and still have 20 years old "mid-tower" player (already 3 or 4 times repaired after laser died) with cassette slot and have cassette player that works so I keep it in garden house for summer plays. Even old lamp-based FM radio But I would not buy new cassette player or new lamp radio cause there is no reason to.


I was not saying, that people should throw away DSLR and get MILC only cause MILC are available. But for people who are thinking about getting new gear there is little, very little reason to get DSLR.

[luftfluss]

There is a narrative going on here that is a little problematic.

(1) The main reason to purchase an MILC is simply that old mounts are being abandoned. This is true across the board. What remains unstated in the article is that the main reason why the old mounts were abandoned was because brands hoped to convince photographers to buy new (more expensive) lenses for the new mounts. Yes, you can use your old lenses, but they use adapters and often features are somewhat crippled with those adapters. I'm a bit cynical when I think about corporations "doing what's best for their consumers."

(2) SLRs have come a long way. It may be that SLRS do not have auto focus points to the extreme edge except in live view or that they don't have as much information in the viewfinder, but they are pretty capable. The K-3 III can do 12 fps and does pretty well at AF-C -- there were SLRs that were better at tracking than the K-3 III. Most people simply don't need a million auto focus points or 20 fps.

(3) There is a price to pay for MILC technology. The price is primarily paid in shorter battery life and artifacts that have to be masked from the PDAF points. These are seldom mentioned in reviews, but are really there. Many MILCs have struggled with astro photography in the past due to aggressive noise reduction algorithms with long exposures.

(4) Most people's images look exactly the same regardless of whether they are using MILC or SLR technology. The limitations are not due to the presence of a histogram in the viewfinder or too few auto focus points, but rather what lies a few inches behind the viewfinder.

1. Same-brand adapters generally work quite well, as do pricey third-party adapters. There's a person on DPR and Fred Miranda that shoots wildlife - including BIF - with Canon lenses adapted to his Fuji.

I don't think Canikon specifically moved to MILC in order to get existing users to buy new lenses. You can keep offering new iterations of traditional lenses (such as 24-70/2.8 or 100-400/5.6) as sensor resolution and AF performance increase. That's a formula that worked for many years. The real impetus (IMO) is that Sony MILCs ate Nikon's lunch and were making Canon nervous. That's why Canon and Nikon entered the MILC market so late - they thought DSLR's were the performance cameras,but Sony's performance in the marketplace proved them wrong.

2. I agree DSLRs have come a long way, but MILC has advanced further, faster. The development curve was accelerated because camera manufacturers moving to MILC were able to start with a clean slate, not having to worry about natively supporting legacy compatibility.

3. Yeah, astro is an area where DSLR's still seem to rule, and Pentax IMO has the best combination of ease of use, features, and image quality. MILC counters, though, with video performance, silent shooting, shutter-shock mitigation, greater variety of bodies with IBIS, and more possibilities for reducing kit size.

4. Totally agree. I realize the article in question was meant to be a surface-level bit of writing and not a deep-dive, but the author really should have mentioned that the image quality from DSLR is just as good as a same-tier MILC, and that DSLR performance is just fine for the majority of photographic needs.

[luftfluss]

agreed - but the article was self-limiting in its scope....


I have nothing against either platform - I love my DSLR's (not all Pentax), but also love my mirrorless systems for their adaptability...

+1 to this. Both flavors are fine, but when it comes to suggesting how folks should spend their money on a burgeoning photography hobby, it is difficult to recommend a technology that has been mostly abandoned, versus one that is seeing development. Hopefully anyone offering advice will ask the right questions of the counsel-seeking individual.

[swanlefitte]

I am surprised the NYT didn't just write why they don't recommend buying a camera when you could just get a better phone?

as for the comparison to dvd's and cassettes, I think headphones to speakers is more like it. I basically don't listen to music anymore because I listen to it off my phone with crappy speakers or not at all as I can't recommend buying speakers anymore. Therefore, I can't recommend listening to music anymore except live in person. My life used to be much more enriched.

[Waffles]

or why you should drink tawny port to reduce your chances of ovarian cancer

But tawny port reduces the chance of all disease and illness. And, overall, increases the chance of living a happier, more fulfilling life.

[StiffLegged]

But tawny port reduces the chance of all disease and illness. And, overall, increases the chance of living a happier, more fulfilling life.

I hesitate to say this, but I noticed your username and smiled to myself…. quite apart from my chances of contracting ovarian cancer being precisely nil.