Author Topic: Farewell to the DSLR camera  (Read 10538 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bassman59

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2501
  • Country: us
  • Yes, I do this for a living
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2022, 09:49:45 pm »
Isn't it harder to judge the quality of modern lenses, since much of the 'quality' comes from in-camera compensation, rather than outright optical quality?

Surely the fact that the lens can be detached from the camera body makes it somewhat straightforward to test on an optical bench?
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline nightfire

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 587
  • Country: de
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2022, 10:04:52 pm »
Yes and no- due to the nature that some parts are present in todays lenses that were not present in the mechanical lenses we had till the 80ies, it is harder.

For example, in modern days lenses the aperture control is digitally controlled in most lenses. Nikon F Mount is one of the manufacturers that did not do this due to downwards/upwards compatibility of the whole system. But in the Z system, they are also electronically controlled.
Same goes for the VR system, that lots of lenses have.

Apart from these things, a comparison on an optical bench would be really interesting, as camera manufacturers are able to remedy in software the known kinks of their lenses to a certain degree.
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline Zucca

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
  • Country: it
  • EE meid in Itali
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #27 on: July 15, 2022, 02:13:07 am »
FUUU now I want a mirrorless and need to sell my DSLR.. I hate you all.

Because you think that's actually better? :-DD

WYSIWYG

As bd said, mainly exposure control....
No more bad surprises after you took the shot. Plus all the mechanical mirror system jazz circus is gone....

I am pretty much sold on the Canon R6, R5 is a nice horse but it is an expensive warm battery killer. No bueno senor.
Plus I am starting to hate the CF cards...
Can't know what you don't love. St. Augustine
Can't love what you don't know. Zucca
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline Zucca

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
  • Country: it
  • EE meid in Itali
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #28 on: July 15, 2022, 03:52:39 am »
Good example here. Contrast of this was extremely difficult to capture without reviewing it during the shot.



You rocks!
Can't know what you don't love. St. Augustine
Can't love what you don't know. Zucca
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7453
  • Country: pl
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #29 on: July 15, 2022, 07:29:01 am »
I don't think any manufacturer has been caught doing lens correction to raws yet. That's what lens reviewers use to test their "raw" (hehe) performance. With JPEGs, such tests would be screwed by many other factors too, like sharpening.

Some cheap wide angle zooms do exhibit quite a bit of barrel distortion which is corrected by the JPEG engine.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2022, 07:32:18 am by magic »
 

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23099
  • Country: gb
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #30 on: July 15, 2022, 07:35:08 am »
Nikon Z does correction to the raws in camera. You can turn it off though.

I leave it on though. Because I don’t give a crap. More interested in composition and subject. My father was obsessed with technical camera stuff but couldn’t take a decent photo if he tried.
 
The following users thanked this post: magic

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6586
  • Country: nl
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #31 on: July 15, 2022, 08:00:18 am »
Yes interesting developments and a lot coming I guess.
I like to hike now and then and love to spot wildlife with my Swarovski boinoculars 10x42
Then when I see a bird , fox, dear whatever I like to take a nice picture as "souvenir".
But I am  always too far away.
So I came across the P1000 from Nikon, pro photographers laughed at it since it is a small 6mm sensor and AF etc is not at par with the current tech etc. But for me it is great, it has a 125x optical zoom which is equivalent of 3000mm. I can shoot from hand and to show you just an example, this is from May holiday I spent in south Germany.
Sitting on my balcony I saw a bird landing on top of that small christmasstree in the middle. With the naked eye you could not see it, this is what 3000mm handheld can do. And the pictures with 1500mm were much better.
Just as an example. I had to compress the pictures for the forum so the originals are better but it gives a good id.
 
The following users thanked this post: voltsandjolts, Fgrir, bd139

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23099
  • Country: gb
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #32 on: July 15, 2022, 08:13:03 am »
Oh now that's very impressive  :-+ :-+

I get max 375mm equivalent with my 250mm zoom on a crop sensor.  That gets me this without being headbutted:



Yours is the equivalent of taking a photo of a ladybug on top of the deer's head though  :-DD
« Last Edit: July 15, 2022, 08:14:59 am by bd139 »
 
The following users thanked this post: Fgrir

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6586
  • Country: nl
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #33 on: July 15, 2022, 08:20:06 am »
Indeed, how did you get that dear to stay standing still so close? Is it tame? If I come within a 800m they already start running  :)
Another picture of what we call a mountain marmot, it would stay at distance to see what we were up to. It was off season no other people around.
 
The following users thanked this post: Fgrir, bd139

Online voltsandjolts

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2549
  • Country: gb
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2022, 08:38:55 am »
Isn't it harder to judge the quality of modern lenses, since much of the 'quality' comes from in-camera compensation, rather than outright optical quality?
Surely the fact that the lens can be detached from the camera body makes it somewhat straightforward to test on an optical bench?
Straightforward for those who have an optical bench at hand.
Surely the fact that 99.99999% of SLR owners don't have one would be somewhat obvious, and we make do with what we have.
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23099
  • Country: gb
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2022, 08:41:03 am »
Indeed, how did you get that dear to stay standing still so close? Is it tame? If I come within a 800m they already start running  :)
Another picture of what we call a mountain marmot, it would stay at distance to see what we were up to. It was off season no other people around.

They're pretty chilled as they are used to people being around. Location was Richmond Park which is a major in-city park in London.

Liking the marmot photo  :-+
 

Offline magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7453
  • Country: pl
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2022, 09:09:35 am »
I have played with those megazooms. A problem with the concept of focal length equivalence is that you get the field of view equivalence, but you don't get the resolution equivalence. In practical terms, there is plenty of pixels on this bird but not that many feathers. I have no practical experience with big boy telephoto lenses to offer, but going by maths alone I suppose a true APS-C or hi-res FF equivalent would be 1000~1500mm plus appropriate digital zoom to narrow the angle of view.

Not in terms of price and portability, though ;)
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Online Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6586
  • Country: nl
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2022, 09:46:58 am »
Yes I never said it could keep up with the big boys  :)
Esp. With flying birds this camera can not hold up.
The focus is also extremely difficult in the bird picture you see that the focus is more on the green tipends than the bird. It was just an example standig hand shot.

Even with a Z9 and 600mm with 2x objective weighing what 12kgs and costing what my car is worth, I would not been able to take this shot that fast because the bird sat there for three seconds, I would have also need a tripod setup  ;)

So no discussion, quality AF etc. is nowhere near the big boys toys but for my application it is more a low weight scope replacement I can carry with me on hikes without braking my back, with the foto as souvenir.
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7453
  • Country: pl
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #38 on: July 15, 2022, 10:01:05 am »
You can also do macro with megazooms, here with Raynox DCR-250 +8D close-up lens.

Verdict: somewhat usable, but there are better pics out there, even ignoring the out-of-focus corners due to tilt. Not much texture on the thing and the sharp edges of metal traces must be a heroic work of in-camera sharpening ;)

The die was some 1.5x1.5mm.
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline Fgrir

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Country: us
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #39 on: July 15, 2022, 12:25:53 pm »
Nikon Z does correction to the raws in camera. You can turn it off though.

I don't think this is quite true - you can turn on/off the settings for lens corrections in the camera, but the image data in the raw file doesn't actually get corrected in-camera.  If you load the raw file into nikon software, the corrections will be applied then based on the camera settings, but you can still turn the corrections on/off in the viewer.  Well most of them, it doesn't seem to want to let you turn off the distortion correction - probably so you can't see how bad it really is sometimes.  But if you load the raw into a third-party software you can see that the actual image data in the file is completely uncorrected, to the extent that other raw viewers need to apply their own lens corrections to approximate the results from the nikon software.
 
The following users thanked this post: magic

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23099
  • Country: gb
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #40 on: July 15, 2022, 12:43:15 pm »
Sorry you are correct there. My bad. The NEF embeds the lens corrections and they are carried out in LR or whatever using the embedded profile. If you use JPEG then it applies the corrections in body.

I'll now make everyone puke here by saying that I mostly shoot in JPEG fine because I don't want my family to have to sift through 4TB of raws when I drop dead ;)
 
The following users thanked this post: Fgrir

Offline Fgrir

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Country: us
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #41 on: July 15, 2022, 12:49:33 pm »
I won't judge you for shooting jpeg - I am accumulating terabytes of raw files that I will never get around to converting because I am more interested in shooting than post-processing.  Maybe I need to turn on RAW+JPEG mode  :-//
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23099
  • Country: gb
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #42 on: July 15, 2022, 01:05:12 pm »
I was going down that route as well. I worked out that I was only really doing light edits on 90% of the photos. The last 10% I was trying to undo shitty shooting where raw came in as beneficial. Figured if I hit myself with the clue stick enough I won’t need to shoot raw  :-DD

This is a hobby for me. If it was commercial I’d see it as a operating cost.

My workflow did involve Lightroom but I now shoot JPEG, import into Apple Photos on my iPad directly and edit on that or the mac. Also the phone feeds into that as well and it’s not bad on the edit front (80% as good as lightroom).
 

Online mawyatt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4119
  • Country: us
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #43 on: July 15, 2022, 01:07:15 pm »
When your images are going to be published by a museum like the Huntington Gardens Museum mentioned earlier (image of 2 page spread shown again for convenience, can't show actual image as it's owned by Gardens now, so phone image of book pages), they demand no alternations to camera RAW files. They don't want any PS either and even JPEG wasn't good enough because of limited DR range (faint banding in the sky background), so we supplied RAW and Lossless TIFF to them. The colors must be spot on and the contrast as one would see if present, very demanding without any post processing, and the old Nikon 24-70 F2.8 and D800 were good enough at the time.

Best,
Curiosity killed the cat, also depleted my wallet!
~Wyatt Labs by Mike~
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Online TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9003
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #44 on: July 15, 2022, 01:48:32 pm »
I won't judge you for shooting jpeg - I am accumulating terabytes of raw files that I will never get around to converting because I am more interested in shooting than post-processing.  Maybe I need to turn on RAW+JPEG mode  :-//

In my digital cameras that can shoot RAW, there is always an accompanying JPEG file in RAW mode.
 

Offline nightfire

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 587
  • Country: de
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #45 on: July 15, 2022, 02:03:03 pm »
The colors must be spot on and the contrast as one would see if present, very demanding without any post processing, and the old Nikon 24-70 F2.8 and D800 were good enough at the time.


That was a top-of-the-line combo back then, if you wanted better technical quality, you had to go for medium format!
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline AndyBeez

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 858
  • Country: nu
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #46 on: July 15, 2022, 02:44:51 pm »
I'll now make everyone puke here by saying that I mostly shoot in JPEG fine because I don't want my family to have to sift through 4TB of raws when I drop dead ;)
Make that petabytes for some snappers. Also, in the future, jpeg readers will still exist. Viewing granddad's raw files might not be possible. Even if you wanted to view 10,000 high dynamic range photos of ducks on a pond,

Modern Jpeg algos are very good; given a good piece of glass and low ISO, they will match any 35mm slide in dynamic range - even Fuji RDP (which was the best film ever). Yes there are 'artefacts' at 16x12 inches, but who the hell prints anything over A4 - or even prints?

Puke mode = true ; RAW is for professional photographers who have a team of colorists who have the need and resources to match every pixel to a target gamut. Otherwise it is used extensively by (male) photographic club poseurs who talk loudly about "mastering on RAW" whilst dismissing cracking images taken on smart phones.
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline Zucca

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
  • Country: it
  • EE meid in Itali
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #47 on: July 15, 2022, 02:59:16 pm »
In my research about the Canon R6, I discovered this format

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format



seems to be a successor for the jpeg format...

:popcorn:
Can't know what you don't love. St. Augustine
Can't love what you don't know. Zucca
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23099
  • Country: gb
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #48 on: July 15, 2022, 03:07:32 pm »
My phone shoots HEIC by default...

« Last Edit: July 15, 2022, 03:17:46 pm by bd139 »
 
The following users thanked this post: Zucca

Offline bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 23099
  • Country: gb
Re: Farewell to the DSLR camera
« Reply #49 on: July 15, 2022, 03:12:14 pm »
I'll now make everyone puke here by saying that I mostly shoot in JPEG fine because I don't want my family to have to sift through 4TB of raws when I drop dead ;)
Make that petabytes for some snappers. Also, in the future, jpeg readers will still exist. Viewing granddad's raw files might not be possible. Even if you wanted to view 10,000 high dynamic range photos of ducks on a pond,

Modern Jpeg algos are very good; given a good piece of glass and low ISO, they will match any 35mm slide in dynamic range - even Fuji RDP (which was the best film ever). Yes there are 'artefacts' at 16x12 inches, but who the hell prints anything over A4 - or even prints?

Puke mode = true ; RAW is for professional photographers who have a team of colorists who have the need and resources to match every pixel to a target gamut. Otherwise it is used extensively by (male) photographic club poseurs who talk loudly about "mastering on RAW" whilst dismissing cracking images taken on smart phones.

That's a good point about RAW files. The NEF format is not an open standard with an open specification for example. Every spec and open source codec out there is reverse engineered. JPEG is open.

Agree with JPEG quality. It's fine :)

I was actually talking to an actual professional photographer the other week. He does event stuff for press at Wimbledon, with a D850. He shoots JPEG because turnaround is the important thing for them. It takes less time to shift that to the agency so he can get cash.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf