Getting back into photography. What do customers want these days?

Two features a stills camera designed for commercial photography should have are a fat buffer, & the ability to offload RAWs relatively quickly to a tethered computer. I hate tethering but it’s become standard procedure in the commercial world, & is expected from Clients, & Agencies.
 
morgan_moore said:
....and mirror is still apparently where it is at :)
Click to expand...

Not for the future according to Nikon
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?361256-Leaked-pictures-and-video-of-the-new-Nikon-mirrorless-full-frame-camera&p=1986761828#post1986761828

and that is ignoring the inroads being made by Fuji in many areas.

Similar arguments are made against all new technologies in photography.

I recall seeing a letter "from the past" to the RGS bemoaning the lowering of standards in photography by using rolls of film rather than proper glass plates. the Photographer could not make his own roll film and ensure quality as he could with glass plates. Also the latter suggested with a roll of 12 frames the photographer would be a lot less careful with his composition as he could always take another one.... This was for the less that optimum medium format cameras. (toy cameras using 35mm film were not around then :) )

So whilst mirror is where it was at yesterday today if you take a vote I have no idea what the result would be. In a year or two I think we can safely say that mirrorless will be "it".
DSLR's won't disappear overnight... I mean there are still some pro's using wet film 35mm cameras and even some with glass plate field cameras.

However time and innovation marches on.

BTW I type this on a proper manual typewriter and my secretary transcribes it to this interweb thing you are on. :)
 
The thing about mirrors is “simple” that they are within a stop or two of the brightness of the actual subject- an Evf is of fixed NITs of brightness.
Yes a mirror can be superseded but only by a really bright Evf
Just like film can be superseded or any analogue tech.

I just don’t think it is happening yet.

I’m not enough of a pedant to say it can happen :)
 
We work with EVFs everyday for motion cameras. But when I pick up a still camera, there is nothing like a big, bright, clear viewfinder. The one thing I really love about my (now older) mirrorless (!) Leica M9 is the big, bright finder. My 1DX has a big, beautiful optical finder too. My A7RII...it's like watching a TV. Personal preference, I think...although once again, in extremes I wonder how that svelt mirrorless will do. Cold plays havoc on EVFs. Heat is bad for sensors, too...but the 1DX has such a big heat-sink in that body that you can shoot in the desert all day long and still bring home the goods. Anyone know a photographer in the Middle East using a mirrorless for their daily work? Sony is pushing the ultra-fast A9 as a competitor to the 1DX and Nikon's D5...but all their advertisements show them mid-court at Wimbledon...not in the Arctic, in the jungle, in the desert, etc. Also, those big dSLR batteries last a LONG time, even in cold temperatures.

So, again, my opinion is that mirrorless can make as good, if not better technical image as a mirror-prism dSLR, but is anyone trusting it out in the real world, away from air conditioning and Starbucks?
 
just got this https://www.parkcameras.com/nikon-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-announcement


However this thread was not about mirrorless or DSLR it was about what the OP should use for getting back in to still photography. It does depend what sort of photography the OP wants to do. Photographing Tennis is my idea of hell, so is cat walk fashion.


The OP mentioned 4K video.... you need the evf for the video anyway. Though I don't like DSLR's for video. I use video cameras for that as the ergonomics (and the audio ) are very different.
 
morgan_moore said:
The thing about mirrors is “simple” that they are within a stop or two of the brightness of the actual subject- an Evf is of fixed NITs of brightness.
Yes a mirror can be superseded but only by a really bright Evf
Just like film can be superseded or any analogue tech.

I just don’t think it is happening yet.

I’m not enough of a pedant to say it can happen :)
Click to expand...

But an EVF(a good one) is going to show you the actual image as the sensor sees it, which is more important.
 
Run&Gun said:
But an EVF(a good one) is going to show you the actual image as the sensor sees it, which is more important.
Click to expand...

Not really - if your eye needs to be at 'T2' to see the EVF and 'T64' to see the outside world then it becomes straining very fast as your eye has to 'rack iris' all day.

Yes - seeing what the sensor is seeing is important but that is mainly done by 'chimping' before or after the shot.
 
David_Manning said:
We work with EVFs everyday for motion cameras. But when I pick up a still camera, there is nothing like a big, bright, clear viewfinder. The one thing I really love about my (now older) mirrorless (!) Leica M9 is the big, bright finder. My 1DX has a big, beautiful optical finder too. My A7RII...it's like watching a TV. Personal preference, I think...although once again, in extremes I wonder how that svelt mirrorless will do. Cold plays havoc on EVFs. Heat is bad for sensors, too...but the 1DX has such a big heat-sink in that body that you can shoot in the desert all day long and still bring home the goods. Anyone know a photographer in the Middle East using a mirrorless for their daily work? Sony is pushing the ultra-fast A9 as a competitor to the 1DX and Nikon's D5...but all their advertisements show them mid-court at Wimbledon...not in the Arctic, in the jungle, in the desert, etc. Also, those big dSLR batteries last a LONG time, even in cold temperatures.

So, again, my opinion is that mirrorless can make as good, if not better technical image as a mirror-prism dSLR, but is anyone trusting it out in the real world, away from air conditioning and Starbucks?
Click to expand...

I dunno, I just today shot around 1200 photos in heat ranging (depending on
who you believe) from 106-111 degrees at the west regionals of the little league world
series. With a Sony mirrorless. As for cold, I use it every winter in Alaska. Not
sure if that is extreme enough conditions for you, but I've never had a single hiccup....
and even if they are not extreme enough, the conditions I use Sony mirrorless cams
in are certainly not 'air conditioning and a Starbucks.'
 
alaskacameradude said:
I dunno, I just today shot around 1200 photos in heat ranging (depending on
who you believe) from 106-111 degrees at the west regionals of the little league world
series. With a Sony mirrorless. As for cold, I use it every winter in Alaska. Not
sure if that is extreme enough conditions for you, but I've never had a single hiccup....
and even if they are not extreme enough, the conditions I use Sony mirrorless cams
in are certainly not 'air conditioning and a Starbucks.'
Click to expand...

yes.... but... if you are not shooting Wimbledon are you really a pro ? :)

The question is what sort of photography does the OP want to shoot?
I can understand that 14 8 hour days with your eye on the viewfinder for 95% of the time it might make a difference. but for most other photography I think not.

Then it comes down to what else the OP wants to do. Video was mentioned and you have to use an EFV for that. (for fixed position I tend to use a secondary 7inch screen tather than the EFV.)
 
morgan_moore said:
Not really - if your eye needs to be at 'T2' to see the EVF and 'T64' to see the outside world then it becomes straining very fast as your eye has to 'rack iris' all day.

Yes - seeing what the sensor is seeing is important but that is mainly done by 'chimping' before or after the shot.
Click to expand...

Old trick and old NFL Films guy said: When you're shooting and you take your eye away from the VF, close it. Open it back up when you put it back up to the VF. Then your pupil isn't constantly adjusting and you don't have to wait for it to re-adjust from the bright ambient to the VF level.

But then you're right back to your argument, is THAT screen bright enough to show you a true image in ambient light.

You know this as well as anyone, if evf's aren't good enough, then how have most of us been coming back with properly exposed video for all these years. The only real advantage I see to an optical VF is that you can look through the camera/lens and compose/frame a shot without the camera being turned on. A good EVF is going to show me what the sensor is actually seeing and you're going to know what is and isn't exposed properly or what is blown out before you take the picture, no "chimping" required. ; )
 
I still like rangefinders for documentary photography, but even Leica has transitioned to using an EVF (from Panasonic’s GH5) in their medium format ‘S’ cameras.

On a related note: EVFs are often considered less than, but last time I used an optical viewfinder on an Alexa I was a bit shocked how dark it was with all the ND needed to tame the ISO 800 in broad daylight. Luckily I had a AC pulling focus as I wouldn’t have been confident doing it myself.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'd like to see something 5D size with the top prism/OVF replaced with something along the lines of a Zacuto Eye that could swivel up and down(at least 90 degrees vertical and maybe a few degree negative from horizontal. I don't need teeny-tiny cameras most of the time. I think the Sony a7 series are too small to actually actively shoot stills with. I don't have big hands, but I actually thing the grip on the 5D could be a little larger. When your hand is gripping something like that for extended periods of time, the smaller the grip the harder it is on your fingers/joints, etc.
 
Getting back (sort of to topic)

I still think glass is best and probably will be for some time. I think our eyes are much more sensitive to refresh rate and strobing and the like than we realise.

In terms of video monitoring.. I (having come from a Hasselblad to video) have never really enjoyed any monitoring experience. My DP502 is OK, my sony finders useless, and most screens way too shiney out in the sun.

I would therefore pick for stills a DSLR until there was a good reason not to.

The rotating EVF mentioned above could be that (although proper (film) DSLRs did have a range of prisms including top down!)
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/f3manual/detail/findergroup.jpg

Back to what customers want today.. Im sure its a quick way to get pics on to social media - they dont care about how you monitor the image.

As I said before I think silent shooting and fast flash synch are cool too. Id consider any stills camera with a fast flash synch.
 
Last edited:
Clients can't tell when photos are full frame vs say a crop sensor. Many people who shoot full frame will swear they can, but they can't. I will admit though, every once in a while a client who has no idea what he is talking about comes along and will require a full frame, but the truth is he would not be able to tell the difference if the project was shot on crop. I mention this, because isn't this the entire point of pro photography?... what your clients can notice. Again, even pro photlgraphers can't tell the difference between crop or full frame unless it is low light. If you do a lot of low light without lighting, then FF becomes much more appealing.

There are a lot of the best lenses going full frame, but you can go crop and use the sigma 18-35 and 50-100 and you will lose nothing, and gain quite a bit of money into your pocket.

camarade said:
Apart from a big bulky camera that looks expensive (people seem to like that... it adds to the sensation of "getting your money's worth"), what things to consider if getting back into the game?

- 4K video ability (because why not)

- HDR... these days it grabs multiple exposures in a single shot I would assume? Used to be static, tripod-only multiple exposures last time I had a DSLR.

- Full frame for that extra IQ

Anything else I should consider? Wifi used to be a thing for a while but it ate batteries... is that still around? Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
d90123 said:
Clients can't tell when photos are full frame vs say a crop sensor. Many people who shoot full frame will swear they can, but they can't. I will admit though, every once in a while a client who has no idea what he is talking about comes along and will require a full frame, but the truth is he would not be able to tell the difference if the project was shot on crop. I mention this, because isn't this the entire point of pro photography?... what your clients can notice. Again, even pro photlgraphers can't tell the difference between crop or full frame unless it is low light. If you do a lot of low light without lighting, then FF becomes much more appealing.

There are a lot of the best lenses going full frame, but you can go crop and use the sigma 18-35 and 50-100 and you will lose nothing, and gain quite a bit of money into your pocket.
Click to expand...
A lot of people claim they can tell a difference in color between full frame and crop. They say the colors are richer or something.
 
sgttom said:
A lot of people claim they can tell a difference in color between full frame and crop. They say the colors are richer or something.
Click to expand...

That is total BS. It depends on:
The Sensor (they are NOT all equal)
The light
The lens
The processing (mostly the processing)

Also I have no idea what "full frame" is. If you mean the same size as a 35mm negative? I believe that is a half frame size. It has absolutely no bearing on digital sensor sizes and in any case not all sensors are the same.
IF you are that worried you would be only shooting a digital medium format camera.


On the internet a lot of people claim they can tell the difference at 10 decimal places where 99.99% of humans can't resolve past 5 decimal places. Yet still the "know" the difference.

As since this thread has started Nikon have just release two new professional mirrorless cameras (with a new lens mount) you could look at those unless you are shooting at Wimbledon.
 
I note that since this thread started both Nikon and Canon have announced professional Mirrorless cameras as replacements for some of their high end DSLRs.
The day of the mirror (as with film and glass plates) is drawing to a close.

Though as Scott Kelby said a year or two back (when he said he liked and used the Fuji mirrorless cameras) clients still expect you to turn up with big, heavy, expensive DSLRs even if the latest mirrorless will out perform them.

It will take 5-10 years but the mirror is going.

Edit (28 September 18) I have just seen a ZEISS newsletter re their high end mirrorless cameras. So that is Fuji, Nikon, Canon. Zeiss. IF you are starting still photography now that is the way to go. small and light, Especially if you want to do video as a side line.


EDIT (5th August 2019) I was talking to a friend about mirrorless recenty and whilst looking for some information came across this article. Fascinating and puts a new perspective on things... However it is swimming against the tide. (it was published in 2016 and the last three years have shown it to be right but whose's listening....) I think part of the problem is the cross over stills/video market. The mirror is inthe way for video and those shooters raely use the viewfinder.
https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top