SmokedGouda
Active member
14362678:Jems said:
I geek out on that shit. My bad
How much do you think the camera is worth that zootspace was filmed on.
- Thread starter weastcoat
- Start date
I geek out on that shit. My bad
Christian_Bale
Active member
14362616:Biffbarf said:
Somewhat true. Older cameras definitely have an appeal to some people (me) because they're older technology. But a lot of people just like the way SD looks.
vibe.crudo
Member
14362664:Jems said:
Old cameras fuck, I was just saying I don’t think a market exists where zootspace camera is worth a billion dollars like those rare baseball cards
GrapeHunter
Active member
you're the type of guy to think cam girl bathwater is worth $150 a vial
paulgenovese
Member
14362699:Jon_McMurry said:
What you mention here relates to the HVX200P (original hvx), the HVX200A has the exact same chipset/sensor as the HPX170, if anyones looking to buy an hvx go with the 200A if you can..I've owned both and it's a nice little upgrade.
OHoblitzelle
Member
I'll sell my whole setup with my color settings for 15 racks. Another 1000 ill tell you where t-bonds pool jump spot is.
Schoess
Active member
I guess I would assign more value to the artist than the tools they used to create the art. There's nothing intrinsically special about any items one uses other than the sentimental value we assign to them as we grow in the activity we use them for. If you wanted to really acquire a camera that was a part of ski history, who's the the rigs they filmed 1242 on???
SmokedGouda
Active member
14363687:Schoess said:
Not really. Even today, while mirrorless is showing camera advancements in video, face detection, and more powerful EVF(Electronic Viewfinders) along with downsizing the bulk of the gear, you're still met with poor battery life compared to DSLR's and if you own a sony for example, most middle of the road cameras don't have the shutter door drop when the camera is turned off to change lenses, exposing the sensor to dust. That's not to say that newer mirrorless cameras from both Sony, Canon, & Nikon have such a feature and in most of the canon mirrorless except for the RP if you're only comparing RF gear. DSLR's today will still have an accurate viewfinder(prism) and higher battery life. Its why they have a higher resale value compared to mirrorless 95-98% of normal compared to 85-90% respectively(with the same sensor wear). I think the way the market is going is with mirrorless however mainly because of the cheaper amount of materials needed to produce because you don't require the pentaprism or mirror inside of the camera. This allows for example, the Canon R to sell at 1600 while the Canon 5d MkIV sells at 2700 while both use the exact same 30.4 MP sensor. The demand nowadays for DSLR stems mostly from the photography community while those looking to do video or both will get a high end APSC DSLR or in a lot of cases, move on to mirrorless. The market is now, however, fully saturated by mirrorless which can make owning a DSLR today, a challenge.
Schoess
Active member
14363712:SmokedGouda said:
My EOS R gets way better battery life than any DSLR I had before it with the same battery lol. Sony has continually released updates to their batteries and camera to the point there the battery problem across the market isn't really a thing anymore. On top of that, the actual hardware continues to get more and more efficient just like the rest of the computer hardware industry. There's a reason you don't hear reviewers babbling on about it anymore.
The sensor protection door isn't that big of a deal. My camera has it and even if others don't, your sensor is going to get dust and crap on it no matter what.
Also, EVF's are an advantage compared to OVF's in most scenarios. It opens the door for more data in the VF as well as image playback and 100% viewfinder coverage unlike 99% of DSLR's. Beyond that it gives you a real-time preview of your image and you can use it while you are shooting video (A huge advantage in todays world where everyone is a hybrid shooter). OVF's are definitely superior if you do night photography, but even then that's not exactly a fast shooting style where you are required to shoot and line up your shot in a fraction of a second.
Mirrorless also offers a host of game changing advantages that DSLR's will physically never be able to compete with, such as extremely robust AF systems (remember having like 10 AF points in the center of the OVF?), lenses closer to the sensor which offers a huge optical advantage and is why there has been a huge outpouring of new super sharp glass, adaptability to any lens that predates the mirrorless age as well as the birth of IBIS.
To say that the market is moving to mirrorless strictly because it's cheaper to produce is definitely inaccurate. The market WANTS mirrorless because of all the advantages I just listed and more that are on an individual basis.
If you strictly do photography and want a DSLR, there are definitely still options out there, it's not like all of the bodies and lenses magically disappeared. That being said, going that route isn't advantageous in almost any way other than your own familiarity and comfort with the product. If DSLR's genuinely had a number of legitimate advantages, there would still be a market for them and camera companies would at least still produce a model or 2 for that market. Look at something like tilt shift lenses. Not everyone needs or wants one, but for the people that do that kind of work, they exist for those people. Canon isn't paying the bills with those lenses, but they're servicing the customer.
Mirrorless (and Sony) forced the hand of companies like Canon and somewhat Nikon to step their game up in terms of video specs in photo style cameras (DSLR's and mirrorless cameras). Before the mirrorless age, we were getting 720p 60fps 8 bit and 1080p 30fps 8 bit for years and years as the standard video specs in almost every level of camera. The mirrorless revolution changed all of that and now we got homies shooting full raw 6k in camera straight to an SD card with IBIS LOL.
All of that said, I LOVED my canon 6d and enjoyed shooting with it every moment. It was so simple and such a joy to work with, but all of the things I miss about it have nothing to do with it having a mirror box (actually the mirror box broke twice
...) and everything to do with what I was shooting and how simple it was as a tool.
SmokedGouda
Active member
14363736:Schoess said:My EOS R gets way better battery life than any DSLR I had before it with the same battery lol. Sony has continually released updates to their batteries and camera to the point there the battery problem across the market isn't really a thing anymore. On top of that, the actual hardware continues to get more and more efficient just like the rest of the computer hardware industry. There's a reason you don't hear reviewers babbling on about it anymore.
The sensor protection door isn't that big of a deal. My camera has it and even if others don't, your sensor is going to get dust and crap on it no matter what.
Also, EVF's are an advantage compared to OVF's in most scenarios. It opens the door for more data in the VF as well as image playback and 100% viewfinder coverage unlike 99% of DSLR's. Beyond that it gives you a real-time preview of your image and you can use it while you are shooting video (A huge advantage in todays world where everyone is a hybrid shooter). OVF's are definitely superior if you do night photography, but even then that's not exactly a fast shooting style where you are required to shoot and line up your shot in a fraction of a second.
Mirrorless also offers a host of game changing advantages that DSLR's will physically never be able to compete with, such as extremely robust AF systems (remember having like 10 AF points in the center of the OVF?), lenses closer to the sensor which offers a huge optical advantage and is why there has been a huge outpouring of new super sharp glass, adaptability to any lens that predates the mirrorless age as well as the birth of IBIS.
To say that the market is moving to mirrorless strictly because it's cheaper to produce is definitely inaccurate. The market WANTS mirrorless because of all the advantages I just listed and more that are on an individual basis.
If you strictly do photography and want a DSLR, there are definitely still options out there, it's not like all of the bodies and lenses magically disappeared. That being said, going that route isn't advantageous in almost any way other than your own familiarity and comfort with the product. If DSLR's genuinely had a number of legitimate advantages, there would still be a market for them and camera companies would at least still produce a model or 2 for that market. Look at something like tilt shift lenses. Not everyone needs or wants one, but for the people that do that kind of work, they exist for those people. Canon isn't paying the bills with those lenses, but they're servicing the customer.
Mirrorless (and Sony) forced the hand of companies like Canon and somewhat Nikon to step their game up in terms of video specs in photo style cameras (DSLR's and mirrorless cameras). Before the mirrorless age, we were getting 720p 60fps 8 bit and 1080p 30fps 8 bit for years and years as the standard video specs in almost every level of camera. The mirrorless revolution changed all of that and now we got homies shooting full raw 6k in camera straight to an SD card with IBIS LOL.
All of that said, I LOVED my canon 6d and enjoyed shooting with it every moment. It was so simple and such a joy to work with, but all of the things I miss about it have nothing to do with it having a mirror box (actually the mirror box broke twice
Well you are going from just a 6d to a R. The R is a big upgrade from the 6d but if you compare it to the 5d mark iv, they’re basically the same camera but one is mirrorless and much cheaper. Canon doesn’t make a mirrorless camera that is comparable to the 6d. The most would be the RP which is comparable to the 6dii which the RP is also cheaper than it’s counterpart. People do want mirrorless and it is newer tech, but I still stand on the fact that they’re much cheaper to produce.
Schoess
Active member
Not trying to smoke anyone, only making the point that there are these tools we have available to us to make better art more easily and I don't think we need to cling to old technology to do the same job in basically the same way.
That being said, in the spirit of much of the discussion here, everyone should shoot with whatever gives them the look they want... Regardless of specs or cost. Cheap camera doesn't equal bad camera and I love seeing what people can do with unique setups.
That being said, in the spirit of much of the discussion here, everyone should shoot with whatever gives them the look they want... Regardless of specs or cost. Cheap camera doesn't equal bad camera and I love seeing what people can do with unique setups.
14363994:Mr.Mitten said: