When will new dSLRs no longer be sold?

 Recently, I've seen a few Japanese quarterly sales listings where the Nikon D7500 is still fairly popular.  Everything else listed is a mirrorless camera or the latest version of the Ricoh GR.

It's interesting to me that things have changed so much in 16 years.

When Panasonic introduced the G1, no one was sure what to think.  For me, Panasonic had only recently got into interchangable lens cameras with the DMC-L1 that was announced with the Leica Digilux 3 and the Olympus E-330.  They had no real history in stills photography before 2007.

I waited until 2012 to trust them with my money and I wasn't completely satisfied.  By 2014, Olympus' E-M1 arrived and I could see mirrorless cameras pushing out dSLRs eventually.

Being that Pentax doesn't have any mirrorless cameras now, and those they tried were awful, will they go away?

Nikon and Canon seem to have a new model or two every few months.  Their first 135 Format models were setbacks for mirrorless cameras in general, they are finally finding their way with third generation models.  They both have a few dSLRs available, mostly in the bargain basement.

I don't believe I'd used a dSLR since 2016 and that was a necessity because the Olympus E-M1 did not cooperate with my Four-Thirds lenses and micro Four-Thirds didn't have the focal lengths I needed.

Imagine people from the 1970s, when ASA(ISO) 400 film was new, being shown a modern camera body that is huge in contrast to the typical SLR of the time.  Leica users, though, will probably be at home for the most part because of the M-series.  Don't show them the L-mount bodies.

Do you think by 2030 that dSLRs will only be part of the used camera sales?

Choosing the right camera for the job

 I've been around quite a while.  I sold cameras in the 1970s, photographed sports, did graphic design, and made videos at skate parks.

How do you choose the best camera for you?

• Decide what you want to do with it.
• See if there are lenses within the system that will do what you want.
• Choose must-have features and decide what other features would be helpful, but not necessary.
• Decide how much you can pay for equipment and software to support the equipment.
• Find videos on equipment both positive and negative.
• Don't fall in love at first sight.
• Don't be swayed by brand fanatics. 
• Who needs the latest and greatest?

Decide what you want to do with it

  If you're not sure what you want to do with it, you'll be wandering in every direction.  If you mostly want to take video, you shouldn't buy a dSLR because a mirrorless body will be more flexible.  If you want a great dSLR for stills photography, there may be several bodies within a brand that will meet your needs.

See if there are lenses within the system that will do what you want

 You must check to see if the best lenses for the job are available.  If you want to do wide landscapes, you'll want lenses with lower numbered focal lengths and bigger format sensors.  If you're trying to photograph wildlife, smaller sensors will help you cut the effective distance.

Choose must-have features and decide what other features would be helpful, but not necessary

Do you really need 8K video?  Can you live without In-body Image Stabilization?  Do you need 50+ MP?  Do you need weather-resistance?

Decide how much you can pay for equipment and software to support the equipment

You always have to look at every part of your workflow, not just the camera body.

If you're concentrating on stills photography, you'll need a good raw developer.  My favorite is Capture One Pro.  I've been using it since version 3.0.  Some people swear by Lightroom, which I tried when it was new, but like most Adobe software, I swore at it.  If you need something less expensive Affinity Photo by Serif works both as a raw developer and a Photoshop alternative. 

For video, you'll need something that will accept your camera's files.  You can use Da Vinci Resolve, Hit Film Pro, Premiere Pro, Vegas Pro.  Remember to figure the cost of your plug-ins, also.

Great lenses aren't cheap, either.  You'll have your lenses longer than your camera bodies.  Also, if you need to capture video and stills, you might want to have two less expensive bodies that can handle each function separately.

Find videos on equipment both positive and negative

Since there are so many video reviews, it's best to see what can be done.  Don't automatically trust them, though.  View them from a variety of sources.  Don't be surprised if they differ quite a lot.  Be suspicious of overly positive or overly negative outcomes.  I used to see magazines compare technology whether computers or cameras and they would complain about several problems and the product with the most advertising in the magazine would always win. 

Don't fall in love at first sight

It's easy to go into a store and find a camera body or lens presented in such a way that you cannot deny how great it is, even if it doesn't fit your needs.  Six months later, you could be regretting spending the money.

If you already have equipment, try it with something you own.  Capture photos or video on your own card.  Think before rushing into buying.

 Don't be swayed by brand fanatics

 I used to hear something like "My dad's cousin's niece's college roommate's boyfriend's dad uses CaNikon, so you should, also."

I've been to a few stores where I got "Oh, we don't know anything about those.  We only use CaNikon."

When I was selling cameras, I always explained the system and why the bodies were best for certain functionality.  I've met a few sales people who didn't know what they were selling.

Who needs the latest and greatest?

Who hasn't seen the latest technology and wanted it, not because it was necessary, but because it was new?

You can save yourself headaches and money by using something that's been in use for a while and has all the firmware updates to make it reliable.  If you're making money with your equipment, reliability is so important.

Lightly used equipment is also a good idea.  You won't likely have the manufacturer's warranty but you'll have the satisfaction that someone else was using it successfully.  Buy from a reputable company.  In the U.S.A., I can recommend Adorama, B&H Photo, Roberts Camera (Indiana), Mike's Camera (California and Colorado).

Remember that your choice is correct for you

Find what is the best for you and make the most of it.  Try every setting and learn from failure.  Keep the equipment manuals on your phone.  I've seen a load of people who will sneer at you for not using their brand.  Wedding photographers are like that, but hobbyists are worse.  Those who are ignorant of all the choices tend to sneer.  Just keep going and outdo them with better photographs.

Is a mirror-less body's viewfinder placement that important?

I've seen a huge number of comments about rangefinder-like placement versus SLR-like placement of the viewfinder.  Many turn to heated arguments, for reasons unknown to me.  I suspect that it has to do with a person's original comfort (warm and fuzzy?) zone.

I've used a bit of everything but I eventually used SLRs more than anything else.  The only time I was truly uncomfortable was using a point-and-shoot camera where you look through a blank viewfinder and hope that what you want will be in focus.

To this day, I don't care for working with the rear display of a modern digital camera, when a proper viewfinder and focusing mechanism is available.

I use the following camera bodies:

• Olympus E-1
• Olympus E-5
• Olympus E-M1
• Panasonic GH4
• Nikon D7200
• Panasonic GX8

I had the Panasonic GH3 as my first micro Four-Thirds camera body and later, traded it for the E-M1 to ensure the trade-in value didn't drop when the GH4 was available.

For the most part, the only difference working with the bodies is whether I use an optical viewfinder or an EVF (electronic viewfinder).  In good light, I appreciate the optical viewfinder but in the dark, any EVF is more helpful, even when the refresh rate drops.

I agreed when someone mentioned the nose up against the rear of the camera being inconvenient.  It seems as though I have changed settings on the E-M1 because there is no cover over the rear display.  Beyond that, I don't see an advantage to one position over the other.

I use the E-M1, GH4, and GX8 almost daily.  Sometimes, I use two of them together.  As far as I'm concerned, they're just camera bodies--tools, weapons, as people say.  I suppose I'm very different than most.

On the GX8, I find the tilt more important than the placement, which is a strong reason as to why I bought it.  There are times when I must tilt the rear display and with the bright sun, I can't see much of anything.  The tilting EVF works very, very well.  I find it interesting that the people who like the tilting EVF hate the articulated rear display.  I appreciate being able to set the display to all sorts of angles to take architectural photos or skate park video.

I suppose my only warm-and-fuzzy preference is to have a viewfinder that actually helps me focus.

Who will buy the Samsung Galaxy NX camera?

I've read recently that the Galaxy NX camera is available in the U.S.A. for about US$1600.

Make no mistake, I'm not a fan of Samsung products.  I think the company leaves a lot to be desired in the operation of their products.  It's as though they have a checklist of features and as soon as they add a feature, working correctly or not, they check that line as completed.

They've become better since Google takes care of the backend of a lot of their products.  Without Android, they'd be as craptacular as they were the last time I owned one of their products.  They had indicated a desire to do things on their own with Bada but that failed, although it's probably being fed some money to keep the project alive.  From my viewpoint, they're just trying to keep the overall business in line with Sony and Panasonic and of course, to crush LG at home.

I've seen in the past that a few people went with their re-branding of Pentax dSLRs to make their own GX line.  They did okay because Pentax gave them some base code and the hardware.  There wasn't much to go wrong with doing some tweaks.  When I would say something about the GX line, someone would raucously defend their purchase, as if it was a life-or-death situation.  I've recently seen the same thing with their NX line.

NX--like Sony's NEX--they couldn't even come up with a series name on their own it seems.  However, they went on their own because Pentax wasn't going to mirror-less system cameras yet.  They filled out their mighty checklist and added features one-by-one until they had the perfect specification for a camera.  It's not that unusual in the electronics industry, and even related more specifically to computers and tablets, it's not unusual.  Sony obviously works from a checklist.

Samsung has created NX-series cameras in several generations, but they don't have much in the way of sales compared to Olympus, Panasonic, or Sony.  I'm guessing that the majority of their buyers have Samsung phones, tablets, and phablets like the Galaxy Note series.

That makes the Galaxy NX camera all the more appealing to that group.  They can use the connectivity in the camera to avoid depleting the battery life on their phones, tablets, and phablets.

However, is US$1600 too dear for the ability to take a photo and massage it using some Android-based app and upload it using another app?  Is it so convenient that the extra cost doesn't matter?  I've recently seen the NX300 for US$700-$800, which seems consistent with other brands with more lenses and accessories.  It's odd to think that Sony's NEX line has more support, given that they have churned out body after body but still have few lenses.  The only mirror-less system camera with fewer lenses is the Canon EOS-M with two lenses.

The only thing that would make this situation more strange would be for LG to make an alliance with a camera maker and start producing an Android-based camera of its own.

Olympus, Fuji, and Style

I am one of the few people, it seems, who believes that the output from the camera has more importance than the way it looks to other people while I'm using it.

A few years ago, a friend in Singapore was telling me how great the new Sony dSLRs (new from Minolta at the time) looked and how he just had to have one.  I commented that they weren't very good technically and that Minolta was always a mediocre brand and it seemed that Sony was aspiring to mediocrity lately, so they fit.

It didn't matter--the camera body looked great to him.  He later bought the thing and, as he wasn't expecting much, it didn't disappoint.

More recently, when Olympus brought out the new Pen and OM-D series, they took bit styling cues from their film-laden past.  The film Pen series was quite popular and the OM series of SLRs was extremely popular, even with professionals.  I noticed a change in the forums I visited.  Suddenly, people were worried about cases and straps and the colour of the lenses that they bought more than they were worried about the photos.  Odd, that.

I suppose it's different coming from one box, a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye, and feeding it rather large film with small hands, looking through the viewfinder at an upside-down image and learning to compose a shot with thought.  Then, I had a Polaroid instant camera of some sort that took Type 88, 107, or 108 film (The Convertible, I believe) and I had control over the exposure.  My dad's heavy Polaroid Land Camera actually had the numeric exposure values that you could choose.  I'd be comfortable with those now, but the plastic Polaroid camera had it set to a medium setting and you could twist the dial in the light or dark direction.  I could never remember which did what, so I rarely messed with it.  The inbuilt light meter really didn't help much, but I suppose it kept me from ruining all 8 prints in the pack.

All this time, I was concerned with getting the shot right.  I walked forward and I walked backward.  I leaned and I would sometimes lie on my back in order to get the shot.  I was never concerned about how the camera (or I) looked.

So, I was also recalling people who would buy a dSLR because they wanted to look "professional", whatever that is.  They didn't know how to work it and they only had the kit lens and their photos weren't very good, but they felt no ridicule in using the camera completely on automatic settings because they looked professional.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Olympus' latest micro Four-Thirds camera, the E-P5 harkens (ha! I never have used that word) to a simpler time and the Olympus Pen F half-frame 135 format camera.  It has some good upgrades like the 1/8000th of a second shutter speed through better mechanicals and less time for shutter power saving to boost the performance.  It bodes well for the end of the year announcement of a professional body to replace the E-5.  This may or may not be a mirror-less body with some sort of modular lens mount that will allow both Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds lenses to be used.  (Update 2013.12.11: How reality can smack you when you've read too many rumors!  Rather than a modular camera body, the E-M1 is a micro Four-Thirds body than requires an adapter to use Four-Thirds lenses.)

In any case, the announcement seemed slanted more toward accessories with new leather half-cases and wood grips.  They even had a country club theme to the announcement venue.  Seriously odd, that.  However, people worried about image more than image quality might aspire to being seen as someone who should be recognised for whatever reason.

Fuji has been busy too, with their X-series of rangefinder cameras.  They even have a zoom lens.  If you remember how to use a rangefinder, you might remember making guesstimates of distance for focusing.  You had to take time to plan each shot.  It was a wonderful process that people are re-learning.  Considering that Fuji was having a terrible time with auto focus on their early releases, I'm sure that people were learning a lot about manual focus and taking time.  I had a chance to handle the Fuji X10 yesterday and it seems a fine piece of work.  It was next to a Canon Powershot G1X and I have no doubt that the X10 was better in most every way.  It wasn't enough for me to put money into it, though.  Given that I've seen Panasonic's GX1 body for sale for US$199 recently, why not spend less and be compatible with lenses I already have?

Given the dearth of lenses, many people have bought simple adapters and learned to use lenses from the deep, dark past when auto exposure and auto focus had not been available.  Two rather beloved (and expensive for the mirror-less cameras) lenses come from Cosina/Voigtländer and feature no electronic connection at all but the very lovely f/0.95 maximum aperture.  It's amusing that people will reject a camera body because of the auto focus speed but will use a very, very manual lens.  They must take the time to learn what works.  Maybe, they even work the numbers in their mind.  The thought of thoughtful photography and composition is wonderful.  Instead of the "professional" pointing at something and holding the shutter release for seconds, we have someone setting up a tripod, walking to and fro, moving the tripod, setting the distance, working out the aperture, and finally after minutes of work, taking the photo.  It's progress!

Update 2013.12.11: With some of the Fuji bodies succeeded with faster processors and newer sensors, FujiFilm keeps showing us the alternative viewpoint of how a digital rangefinder could be done.  I don't particularly care about the style, one way or the other, but the processing speed is better than adequate now, and the image quality is far better than average.  Still, I'm not that patient.

Instagram and something other than mobile phones

I saw a comment on a @getolympus post today.  The person was making a point about Olympus using Instagram to post photos relating to their users.

There are a huge number of iOS and Android users who have nothing else but mobile phones and some are quite good at capturing the moment.  Some even capture good photos that could be categorised as art.  I can envision the sneers at this time.  Great photographers can work with any equipment and produce good photos.  There are those who are too timid of stepping out on their own who must stay with a dSLR or rangefinder camera to produce their photos.  I count the majority of Canikon users among them.  After all, that's how they came to follow the followers.  However, I can imagine Ansel Adams picking up an iPhone and taking the time to make good photos.

It's not difficult to believe.  Digital technology has come a very long way since I first picked up a digital camera in 1997.  When I first decided to join the movement away from film in 2004, it still wasn't very good and the Canon 20D and Nikon D200 were not very good.  Now, they're really not good.  You say that I wouldn't want to make a poster with a photo from an iPhone 4S or Galaxy SIII?  You're right, but additionally, I wouldn't want to make a poster from 20D or D200 shots either.

The world doesn't care about huge shots and high resolution.  The world is more interested in sharing and that's where Instagram has made its mark.  Since it's been acquired by Facebook, who knows how its nature will change.

I've taken a number of my old shots and uploaded them to my phone and then, to Instagram.  They still look good but in such a smaller size.  At that size, you still notice a clarity from the lenses that my iPhone 4S just can't give.  I thought about adding the Schneider 2 lens and case kit, but at almost $200, that's a bit too dear, and could go toward dSLR equipment or a mirror-less system camera purchase.

The social implications of Instagram are as massive as they are with Twitter.  On the Popular page, you can see like-driven photos within a grid.  Perhaps unfortunately, One Direction and Justin Bieber seem to be getting most of the attention, just like on Twitter.  Providing something silly that people like can vault that image to the top and get you fans, even if it's not your image.

Yes, even if it's not your image--people tend to use images of others to catapult themselves upward.  Of course, you can report violations, but are they heard?  Does any social media service pay attention to violations?  I haven't seem much reaction.

While Instagram is important to a few, it could be gone in a few years, but it certainly signals a maturing of sharing media.

iPhoneography?

Adorama has sent me a couple of flyers and e-mails with some wild accessories for iPhone 4S.  iPhone 4S, seriously?  I was thinking that when I turned the page.

Here is the link to their page: http://www.adorama.com/iphonetoolshed

I was noticing a few things in particular:

• Holga has a lens filter kit $29.99
• Steadicam has a device for making smoother videos $179.95
• Schneider Optics has a case and 2 lens set $189.00
• Cineskates rolling tripod for video US$284.95

These aren't really cheap items, except the case/filter kit, and they're not toys really.  Can you imagine doing serious work by using 10 iPhones with various angles of view to record a scene?  I couldn't do it, but if people could work with Super 8 film, why couldn't they do it with 1080p recordings?

Add to these hardware products a number of enhanced still and video software products on iPhone itself, and you've got a capable on-the-go studio.  Once again, it's not for me, but if you're creative and lacking money but have several friends with an iPhone, it could work.  Who says you need US$5000 and up for video equipment?

As a long time (8 years) dSLR user and someone who has done a lot of photography since the 1970s, I wouldn't have an iPhone as my camera, but for people who want a snapshot, it's quite good.  I would imagine that the video capture is quite good, as well.  The head-to-head phone tests I've seen rate the iPhone 4S camera as one of the best.  Seeing What Digital Camera engage in such tests makes me laugh because I never thought phone cameras would be so good so early.  They're my go-to magazine and if they're taking it seriously, there could be something to it.  Maybe this digital revolution will continue.

The only trouble I see in using an iPhone 4S for serious photography/videography is that the phone needs a serious case and I'm not sure most of the special purpose cases will keep the glass from breaking.  There have been some faint rumours of an Apple camera, about the time Polaroid showed their Android-based camera, but I doubt Apple will get into that business again.  The QuickTake series died along with the Newton OS/Messenger/MessagePad lines but you should never count against Apple.  Who knew that they'd be the most valuable company (on paper, at least) in the world.

Photo surprise: iPhone 4S camera

I've done quite a bit of photography, including high school sports and food photography.  I never thought for once I'd be happy with what a mobile phone camera could do.  Point and shoot cameras barely work for me.

Since February, I've been working on Yelp, adding reviews and photos.  More than half the time, those photos come from the iPhone 4S I keep, instead of my Olympus E-5 or E-1.  After all, it looks a bit strange to pull out a large dSLR to take some interior photos of a restaurant or some photos of food, unless you're paid by the restaurant.

The iPhone 4S has been amazing.  Thankfully, they added an LED flash to the package, a faster (larger aperture) lens, and some intuitive software.  Touch to set a focus point is convenient.  I don't really give a !@#$ about the expanded number of pixels.  The sensor is tiny and it should be noisy, just like a crowded bus, full of uncomfortable passengers.

The photos are quite good and that's a huge surprise.  The exposures are usually good, but bright, bright sunlight is a problem.  I suppose the Camera+ app would help there.  I'm still learning to use it and with iOS 5.1, you can go from the lock screen to the Camera app with a tap, hold, and a slide.  Too bad that they don't let you use other apps with that.

It all works pretty well and you can choose the minimum and just capture a photo quickly or you can change some settings and work a bit more.  As mentioned earlier, the tap to focus functionality is easy.  If anything is not easy, it's positioning the phone to take a close up shot.  The lens is in an odd place (is there a camera on a mobile phone that's positioned well?) so my finger has been in the way.  If it's not that, I'm gripping the phone in such a way that I've pressed the Home button and the Camera app goes away.  The last phone had the camera in a more central location, which always ended up directly under my finger as I removed it from the holster.

I'm wondering what anyone could do to make the camera/software better.  If you're thinking Instagram-like effects, I'm really not thinking that those would be in the better category.  My E-5 has "Art Filters" and I still think they're only good for those who want to get attention.

Who knew that Apple would go from really poor digital photos to very popular (the mostest on flickr) to actually having a good sensor able to take good photos?  It's great to find a positive surprise.

2012.11.11: I'm still constantly amazed that they've done such a good job.  I've used my cheapo studio lighting and people are shocked at the quality.  Mind you, we're not looking at the individual pixels, but a full-sized print might not look bad at all.

24 MP Nikon D3200, greatest economy camera?

Having seen the announcement and some previews of the new Nikon D3200, I'm wondering why Nikon would bother with this model.

It seems a curious entry into the low end dSLR market.  When most people only see the pixel count, who in the masses would choose a smaller pixel count at a higher price?  I suspect that none of them would.

I'm not even convinced that an APS-C sized sensor can work with 24 MP well.  Canon proved that 18 MP was quite good for the size.  I read a comment where someone thought that it was the same imager from the Sony NEX-7 and if that's the case, I'm surprised since the NEX-7 is priced like a midrange dSLR and the D3200 is toward the bottom.  Still, the sample photos I've seen from the NEX-7 would suggest that the sensor belongs at the lower end, due to its poor image quality.

Of course, do the masses care about more than a 4x6 and sharing photos on the web?  If that's the case, does a clean photo matter?  Those who know more would probably go with the D7000 or higher models, since they would be more likely to display their photos at full size.

I was amused that Nikon has gone to the trouble of adding a helpful Guide application, similar to what Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic have already done.  It's a great idea to help the user achieve amazing (or at least better) results.  It shows them how their settings will affect their output, so that they can achieve a good depth to the sharpness of the subject area and not end up with some of it out of focus.  Since many people only have to hold a dSLR to become a photographer, Guide will help them produce photos more like a photographer would.

Is Nikon's plan to keep the D3100 alive good or will it just confuse the customer?  I recall Steve Jobs returning to Apple and during a speech, he laid out the number of computer variations, and said that they were cutting them to a minimal number.  I suppose that the number of bodies Nikon make are a small number with certain models using the same frame and some dumbing-down of the software to limit features.  I'm confused by the numbering schemes, especially where it seems that you multiply by 10 to get the less professional models.  That doesn't really work because the D90 still exists and the D300s is part of a line that's been around for many years.  The D90 or the D7000 may be the appointed descendent of the D70 but just looking at the model numbers, who could tell?  (Yes, this isn't particularly important, but it's strangely amusing.)

I'm still waiting to see what Nikon will do with the D400, but if the D3200 is any guidepost, I wonder if we'll be seeing some crazy pixel count, instead of incredible image quality.  I'd hope that they'd stick to 16 MP of the D7000 and not worry about the measurebators.

Update: the images I've seen from the D3200 (and D5200) aren't very good.  They aren't worse than those of the body they replaced but if I were a customer with the D3100, I certainly wouldn't switch for anything.  DPReview uses the images for comparison against mirror-less camera bodies and I don't see the D3200 or D5200 winning but they should.  No D400, is there?  The D7100 is almost completely about pixel count, but its images are great.