How quickly I’ve become obsolete!

[BrianSmall]

I would beg to differ with some of the answers on this thread. Sony mirrorless has made me a better photographer. I'm capturing difficult images now much more consistently than I did with DSLR gear. My focus is often more accurate than with DSLR. My exposure is often more accurate than with DSLR. I shoot primarily with a 600 f/4..............with DSLR my gear was pretty much married to my tripod. With mirrorless I now shoot the 600 hand-held when I feel the need and can capture images I wouldn't have dreamed of before. One other thing to consider is that your DSLR equipment is losing a lot of it's value every day you wait to switch. If you like your DSLR gear you probably still like your VCR

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

............. Now, I feel banished to a backwater bayou with the equivalent of two-string banjos. Somehow, I’ve managed to capture some decent images with my rusty old equipment...........

I am sorry but I don't know who you think banished you to the backwater and why your equipment is no longer good enough.
The equipment is every bit as good as it was when it was launched - and everyone raved about it. And many many still do. And plenty still shoot with a D500 too.
Whatever you decide and whatever you do - the 6" behind the camera brings the joy of shooting into the equation, not the gear. And thats a choice.

 

[Doug Herr]

I feel the feeling.
A photographer invests allot of money to have a capable system to earn money. He/she thinks the investment will pay itself for years to come. Suddenly they find out they have to invest again in order to stay current! Why? Not because a D850 can’t get the job done, it’s the customer who interprets latest equipment = better quality. Which is true in a certain sense.
Last time I did an event with the Z9, the advanced AF produced better sharper images.

Worse than that, a photographer works a lifetime to build a stock library of images that is supposed to carry him/her through retirement, only to find that the images produced with newer technology eclipse the older work in nearly every way so the painstakingly built bank of images is nearly worthless.

The customer isn't interpreting the images based on the equipment used to produce them, the customer sees a difference in the images and chooses the better quality images. Each iteration of technological advances might result in only an incremental improvement in quality but those increments add up. Compare a BIF image made with current high-end equipment with a BIF image made 40 years ago.

Personally, I don't upgrade with each incremental change in technology. I'm currently using Sony equipment and when I was using the a7rIII the a9 was the Shiny New Toy. I skipped the a9 because while the AF was much improved, the resolution was a step backwards for me. OTOH the a1 checked all my boxes so that upgrade was a no-brainer, and the difference in the image quality (technical and aesthetic) is quite noticeable.

 

[Doug Herr]

I would beg to differ with some of the answers on this thread. Sony mirrorless has made me a better photographer. I'm capturing difficult images now much more consistently than I did with DSLR gear. My focus is often more accurate than with DSLR. My exposure is often more accurate than with DSLR. I shoot primarily with a 600 f/4..............with DSLR my gear was pretty much married to my tripod. With mirrorless I now shoot the 600 hand-held when I feel the need and can capture images I wouldn't have dreamed of before. One other thing to consider is that your DSLR equipment is losing a lot of it's value every day you wait to switch.

Same for me. My work was hampered by the DSLR's limitations, the vast majority of which were taken for granted until I switched to mirrorless and the limitations evaporated. For what I'm doing there's no way I'd consider a DSLR unless it was the only camera available.

 

[Garam Masala]

Two days ago, a friend and I spent the day a two hour drive away to photograph large numbers of Western Grebes. I had my "bird photography gear" with me and shot over 1100 images. ( A D500 with the 300PF and 1.4TC) None of them were particularly good. I deleted all but a handful.
The limiting factor by far was the lighting on a bird with a red eye surrounded by black feathers. And it was difficult to get low to the bird because of the placement of docks and wharfs. I learned a lot about my shortcomings as a photographer and the challenges of shooting Western Grebes. It wasn't my gear!
And in subsequent emails, my friend and I both commented on what a great day we had.

I have a Z6 that I use for landscape, micro and portrait photography. I think working with the Z6 has made me a better photographer on my D500. If I was in the position to get a Z8 I think I would have got a few more keepers from our trip and I suspect the experience would have been even more fun.

 

[Doug Herr]

.... While the tracking and eye autofocus are great, they are not magic. Mirrorless does nothing to improve composition or change the creative eye of the photographer. Lighting, capturing a creature doing something interesting and composition are still ”king”.

I find that I can better concentrate on composition and the animal's activities when the camera does the drudgery of focusing the lens accurately on the subject's eye. For me this was one of several game-changers the a1 delivers for me.

For example: this encounter between a shrike and its intended meal was made with the a1 & 600 GM hand-held. To focus I kept the bird in the field of view and push the back button. The camera found the bird and locked focus on it. This sequence was made at 20 frames/sec and it's possible I'd have missed the sequence entirely with a slower frame rate and AF that didn't look for 'bird' and lock onto it.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

​

These photos are numbered 3202, 3203, 3204 and 3205 meaning this all happened within a quarter second. It is highly unlikely I'd have this sequence with older technology.

 

[jeffnles1]

I find that I can better concentrate on composition and the animal's activities when the camera does the drudgery of focusing the lens accurately on the subject's eye. For me this was one of several game-changers the a1 delivers for me.

For example: this encounter between a shrike and its intended meal was made with the a1 & 600 GM hand-held. To focus I kept the bird in the field of view and push the back button. The camera found the bird and locked focus on it. This sequence was made at 20 frames/sec and it's possible I'd have missed the sequence entirely with a slower frame rate and AF that didn't look for 'bird' and lock onto it.

View attachment 61142

View attachment 61143

View attachment 61144

View attachment 61145
​

These photos are numbered 3202, 3203, 3204 and 3205 meaning this all happened within a quarter second. It is highly unlikely I'd have this sequence with older technology.

I think we were kind of using different words to share essentially the same concept. I was saying a camera is a tool in the hands of the photographer. Like a power saw makes a carpenter more efficient and faster to complete the job (time is money) it does not make the measurement or cut the board on the right angle without the skill of the carpenter. Your very excellent Loggerhead Shrike and the snake photos(not sure what kind of snake that is. first thought was timber rattler but I don't think it is one of the pit vipers.) and your explanation are what I was trying to say. The newer camera gear made you more efficient. The autofocus allowed you to concentrate on those things the camera cannot do such as composition, finding the creatures engaged in some interesting activity, being in the right place at the right time. Doug I've seen some of your work on other posts. You're being modest, you do great work and I believe you could with just about any camera gear that happened to be in your bag at that moment.

Jeff

 

[Anjin San]

(not sure what kind of snake that is. first thought was timber rattler but I don't think it is one of the pit vipers.)

Heck…what kind of a snake it is is easey peasey…it is alive so it is bad…there is no such thing as a good snake. (Source…cruised timber for a summer in college…which requires walking a compass line for xx feet in the woods with no deviation allowed. Our 3 man crew suffered over 200 strikes that year from various rattlesnakes, cottonmouths, and copperheads. Thank goodness for thick leather pants. )

 

[JoPoV]

I think it is the one who wants to make believe some people are obsoletes.
He didn't catch the bird.

Nice shots anyway !!!

 

[Doug Herr]

... not sure what kind of snake that is. first thought was timber rattler but I don't think it is one of the pit vipers.

Gopher snake, possibly Great Basin gopher snake. This is at Antelope Island State Park in Utah. The island has no venomous snakes.

 

[jeffnles1]

Gopher snake, possibly Great Basin gopher snake. This is at Antelope Island State Park in Utah. The island has no venomous snakes.

Thanks. They don't live around here. I've not seen one before. A very interesting sequence of images by the way.
Jeff

 

[RichF]

First the Sony A1, then the Nikon Z9, and now the Z8 - what’s a guy (or gal) to do in this tidal wave of mirrorless technology? Just two years ago, I considered myself reasonably current and capable with my two D850s, and a smattering of quality F glass. Now, I feel banished to a backwater bayou with the equivalent of two-string banjos. Somehow, I’ve managed to capture some decent images with my rusty old equipment, but I wonder about all that I’m missing by not spending my daughter’s inheritance on shiny new camera equipment. Surveying all of the recent posts on this forum, it’s hard to find many that aren’t about the new mirrorless cameras. Is there still room for meaningful discussions about “old” technology, or am I just whistling in the wind?

I would not say you have been obsolete (as your title suggests), just that you don't have the latest and greatest hardware. But there are number of excellent photographers still using film .. are they dinosaurs? or just found a technique that works for them?

 

[Patrick M]

… and remember film was making a comeback !!!

 

[jeffnles1]

Oh, I asked my wife and she confirmed I am obsolete but it has nothing to do with my camera equipment. Hmm, wonder what else she may have been talking about?

 

[Rassie]

I think there are a couple more things to throw into the discussion here. In this case I speak for myself.
Photography for me is my number one hobby, and the more time I can spend doing it, the happier I am exercising that hobby. I've been at this for years, and over time I started focusing more and more on wildlife photography. I always used to use prosumer Nikons, certainly not the flagships. Initially it was APS-C cameras because they were lighter, smaller and cheaper. Started with D70S, then the D90, D7000, D7100, and ended up with the D7500. Until the D7500 I didn't have much interest in fast action wildlife shots - I was happy with more sedate, portrait-type images of the wildlife.

At that point Sony knocked the ball out of the park with the subject tracking and frame rate built into their A1. This then woke a desire in me for animal action images, BIF shots, etc. I guess I was ready to evolve my wildlife photography to a new level. Then came the Z6. It was as small and light as the D7500, it was full frame, and I decided to get one of those (traded the D7500 in in the process). The Z6, and subsequently the Z6II, were not really better for tracking fast movers than the D7500, so that was a disappointment. BUT - I was very pleasantly surprised by the image quality of the full frame Z6/Z6II. Such smooth, colour-rich, creamy, noise free images compared to my prior APS-C cameras.

Then came the Z9 that had everything I needed except it was large, heavy and way too expensive for my hobbyist budget. I waited, fully expecting Nikon to eventually launch a replacement for the D850, which was a very capable wildlife camera in its own right, at an affordable price. The Z8 is that camera and I immediately ordered one.

In summary:
1) The subject tracking technology incorporated in the more pro-level mirrorless cameras is way better than what exists in any DLSR. Is that a reason to move on from DSLR? Only if that subject tracking is something you need for your style of wildlife work. Five years ago I would not have seen a need for subject tracking, but now I need it because that's where my hobby is taking me.

2) Hand in hand with subject tracking goes a high frame rate. Shooting many shots of a moving animal affords one more chances of capturing that perfect pose and wing position.

3) The focus accuracy in mirrorless cameras is better than that of DSLR's. All my F-mount lenses are sharper on the mirrorless camera than on the DSLR.

4) The benefits of the EVF in the mirrorless camera are numerous. I like the fact that I can see and do almost everything in the viewfinder than what is possible on the monitor on the back of the camera. The ability to see and judge exposure live in the viewfinder before taking the shot almost makes the need for test shots obsolete. And I can leave my reading glasses at home when I go shooting.

The above four points are my reasons for upgrading to mirrorless. If these are not important to you, I don't think there would not really be much reason for you to jump to mirrorless now. I'm pretty sure there are many folks on these forums who still use DSLR's, and they will still be there to help with advice on any technical matters related to DSLR cameras. Every time a new, capable camera is launched, that steals the limelight for a while until something new comes along again. The way of the world......

 

[jhallettbc]

First the Sony A1, then the Nikon Z9, and now the Z8 - what’s a guy (or gal) to do in this tidal wave of mirrorless technology? Just two years ago, I considered myself reasonably current and capable with my two D850s, and a smattering of quality F glass. Now, I feel banished to a backwater bayou with the equivalent of two-string banjos. Somehow, I’ve managed to capture some decent images with my rusty old equipment, but I wonder about all that I’m missing by not spending my daughter’s inheritance on shiny new camera equipment. Surveying all of the recent posts on this forum, it’s hard to find many that aren’t about the new minrrorless cameras. Is there still room for meaningful discussions about “old” technology, or am I just whistling in the wind?

I have written before about me needing to avoid getting caught up in the excitement about the latest technology. I’ve come to the conclusion for me, I need to focus on what my needs are guided by finances. This primarily means buying used DSLR cameras at good prices. I recently purchased a used D6 and can’t imagine a better camera for my needs. This in addition to the used D850 I bought several years ago. I have bought almost all my F-mount lenses used.
I just skip over all the posts about Z9 and 8’s and look at what interests me. Thankfully there are lots of them.

 

[jeffnles1]

I think there are a couple more things to throw into the discussion here. In this case I speak for myself.
Photography for me is my number one hobby, and the more time I can spend doing it, the happier I am exercising that hobby. I've been at this for years, and over time I started focusing more and more on wildlife photography. I always used to use prosumer Nikons, certainly not the flagships. Initially it was APS-C cameras because they were lighter, smaller and cheaper. Started with D70S, then the D90, D7000, D7100, and ended up with the D7500. Until the D7500 I didn't have much interest in fast action wildlife shots - I was happy with more sedate, portrait-type images of the wildlife.

At that point Sony knocked the ball out of the park with the subject tracking and frame rate built into their A1. This then woke a desire in me for animal action images, BIF shots, etc. I guess I was ready to evolve my wildlife photography to a new level. Then came the Z6. It was as small and light as the D7500, it was full frame, and I decided to get one of those (traded the D7500 in in the process). The Z6, and subsequently the Z6II, were not really better for tracking fast movers than the D7500, so that was a disappointment. BUT - I was very pleasantly surprised by the image quality of the full frame Z6/Z6II. Such smooth, colour-rich, creamy, noise free images compared to my prior APS-C cameras.

Then came the Z9 that had everything I needed except it was large, heavy and way too expensive for my hobbyist budget. I waited, fully expecting Nikon to eventually launch a replacement for the D850, which was a very capable wildlife camera in its own right, at an affordable price. The Z8 is that camera and I immediately ordered one.

In summary:
1) The subject tracking technology incorporated in the more pro-level mirrorless cameras is way better than what exists in any DLSR. Is that a reason to move on from DSLR? Only if that subject tracking is something you need for your style of wildlife work. Five years ago I would not have seen a need for subject tracking, but now I need it because that's where my hobby is taking me.

2) Hand in hand with subject tracking goes a high frame rate. Shooting many shots of a moving animal affords one more chances of capturing that perfect pose and wing position.

3) The focus accuracy in mirrorless cameras is better than that of DSLR's. All my F-mount lenses are sharper on the mirrorless camera than on the DSLR.

4) The benefits of the EVF in the mirrorless camera are numerous. I like the fact that I can see and do almost everything in the viewfinder than what is possible on the monitor on the back of the camera. The ability to see and judge exposure live in the viewfinder before taking the shot almost makes the need for test shots obsolete. And I can leave my reading glasses at home when I go shooting.

The above three points are my reasons for upgrading to mirrorless. If these are not important to you, I don't think there would not really be much reason for you to jump to mirrorless now. I'm pretty sure there are many folks on these forums who still use DSLR's, and they will still be there to help with advice on any technical matters related to DSLR cameras. Every time a new, capable camera is launched, that steals the limeligh for a while until something new comes along again. The way of the world......

Your first 3 points are good ones and accurate. It was your 4th point that put me over the edge to get into mirrorless. I went with the Canon R7 because it was as close as anything out there to compare with the D500 which I used since shortly after it became available. You made a well reasoned and logical post,
Jeff

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

It is disconcerting when something new and shiny shows up just after we plunked down our money. I am still getting used to the rate of technology change. I've been through a lot of upgrades over the years aand most of the time there was a really good reason. I suspect many of us have followed a similar upgrade ropute over a lot of years. A long way from my Canon FTb in 1975.

- Dabbled my toe in digital with a Nikon D5300. Learned a lot but it didn't fully replace film for my studio business.
- D600 almost got it right but the oil spots on the sensor were too much maintenance. Handed off to grand daughter.
- D610 eliminated the oil spot problems and the then new f/1.8 primes were perfect for studio and portrait work.
- D750 added when I needed a second body for weddings and events and added 70-200 f/4 for flexibility.
- D5 added and upgraded to 70-200 f/2.8 for runway fashion with lower light levels. Sold the D610. Equipment was paying for itself.
- D850 added and Sigma 150-600 sport so I could try my hand at wildlife (3 bodies at this point)
- Retired (mostly) from professional photography and accepted that future upgrades were from "want" not professional need.
- Sold the D5 and Sigma to fund a 500 PF so I could carry the *$#@ thing for more than a short distance and get better image quality
- Z6ii replaced the aging, high shutter count D750 for reliability.
- Z7ii added but it did not replace the D850. It did become my primary landscape camera lightweight and excellent S series prime lenses available.
- Two Z bodies and the D850, now witha shutter count near 180,000 and happy for quite a while while slowly added Z glass.
- Z9 seduced me as an upgrade from the D850 for wildlife and birds higher frame rate and better autofocus. With a tear, I sold the D850.
- Told my children and grand children they were on their own when the 400 TC 2.8 arrived followed by a 100-400 4.5-5.6 The limit on early morning shooting is now my alarm clock setting. For the past year, I had everything I ever wanted. The limit is my skill and experience, not my equipment.

Now there is a Z8, 600 TC, 400 and 800 primes. Has technology pased me by? Surprisingly, I don't have that feeling. I may someday get all of the Z9 settings settled but for now I keep trying something new almost every outing and not shooting to satisfy customers is the best reward ever.

 

[splatbass]

The bottom line: if you were able to get good shots with the old gear you are STILL able to get good shots with it. I still use my D850 a lot, even though I have a Z7.

And the truth is if you look at my photos from both cameras without knowing which camera was used for which image I don't believe you could tell. I certainly can't. I have to look at the EXIF if I can't remember which camera I used.

 

[DavidT]

Just like buying a car, new TV or computer at some point the new model comes out. For me you have to time it as best as you can but like my phone, TV, truck, computers etc. I don't upgrade each time a new model comes out. I do try and future proof purchases as best as I can. For example I wouldn't buy a TV that wasn't 4K and I haven't for years.

Cameras moving to mirrorless is like TV's that went from 1K lb boxes with tubes or rear projection to LCD. The leap was significant but for the most part for most people have aged well. I went from D850 to Sony a1's so that was a huge leap which if going from D850 to say a Z7 wouldn't be. A D850 to a Z8/Z9 is a significant leap and to me worth it.

I have been shooting Sony a1's for over 2 years now and I am not obsolete and in fact I am still at the top of the tech on what a camera can do. Sure I am missing a couple features which would be nice to have such as pro capture (it is the only newer feature I would actually use) but cameras with that feature haven't obsoleted my cameras.

They continue to serve me well, they continue to blow me away and will likely continue to do so for a long time. This is why it is hard to endorse someone buying into older DSLR tech as the juice for the squeeze just isn't there anymore. I highly recommend someone get a Z8 or Z9 (Z8 makes a lot more sense for 99% of people now) and adapt their lenses before continuing to buy more D body Nikons. I would say the same for Canon users as well.

The real benefits of the newer mirrorless cameras is really worth the upgrade. I suspect someone who buys a Z8 will be well served for a very long time. Someone who buys a D body likely won't. Now that is assuming the user shoots a lot, has high expectations from their gear and values capturing a challenging moment. If you aren't one of those people than maybe you won't see the benefit of mirrorless as much but for me I shoot often, I travel and spend money for photography, and I have high expectations of my equipment. So yes for me spending the money on tech that makes my job easier is well worth the money. Your mileage may very.

 

[BlackRockArt]

I find that I can better concentrate on composition and the animal's activities when the camera does the drudgery of focusing the lens accurately on the subject's eye. For me this was one of several game-changers the a1 delivers for me.

For example: this encounter between a shrike and its intended meal was made with the a1 & 600 GM hand-held. To focus I kept the bird in the field of view and push the back button. The camera found the bird and locked focus on it. This sequence was made at 20 frames/sec and it's possible I'd have missed the sequence entirely with a slower frame rate and AF that didn't look for 'bird' and lock onto it.

View attachment 61142

View attachment 61143

View attachment 61144

View attachment 61145
​

These photos are numbered 3202, 3203, 3204 and 3205 meaning this all happened within a quarter second. It is highly unlikely I'd have this sequence with older technology.

Doug, these are fantastic shots, love each one.

Oliver

 

[KimM]

I find that I can better concentrate on composition and the animal's activities when the camera does the drudgery of focusing the lens accurately on the subject's eye. For me this was one of several game-changers the a1 delivers for me.

For example: this encounter between a shrike and its intended meal was made with the a1 & 600 GM hand-held. To focus I kept the bird in the field of view and push the back button. The camera found the bird and locked focus on it. This sequence was made at 20 frames/sec and it's possible I'd have missed the sequence entirely with a slower frame rate and AF that didn't look for 'bird' and lock onto it.

View attachment 61142

View attachment 61143

View attachment 61144

View attachment 61145
​

These photos are numbered 3202, 3203, 3204 and 3205 meaning this all happened within a quarter second. It is highly unlikely I'd have this sequence with older technology.

WOw...really great moments! Did he get the snake???

 

[David Burns]

I agree with everything Koos has said but would add three more reasons that a Z8 or Z9 might have specific advantages. I speak as someone who has yet to even touch a Z8 or Z9!

The first one is noise. In my case, not because of disturbing the wildlife but other people. Rapid fire DSLRs do disturb and annoy other people, for instance in hides. They also get you noticed and this is not always desirable. In my experience of shooting wildilfe, very few species are alarmed by shutter noise but it does happen very occasionally. I am hoping that a mirrorless camera body will solve these problems.

The second one is the central spacing of focus points on DSLRs. Yes, there are several ways around this but none are perfect and I have definitely lost a lot of wildlife and sports shots because of this.

The longer service life of a Z8 may also have some relevance. No mirror box or mechanical shutter to wear out or malfunction.

My D850 and D500 DSLRs are superb and I will probably not sell the D850 for a long time. The D850 in particular continues to amaze me and I love using it. However, for very specific reasons as outlined by Koos and added to here, I have just ordered a Z8. I am certain that it will make my wildlife photography less hit and miss and less frustrating. It may be a long wait though!

I do understand Abinoone's increasing feelings of isolation but would suggest that what we do, with whatever gear we use, and how much we enjoy using it, is the main thing.

 

[BlackHorsePhotos]

The longer service life of a Z8 may also have some relevance. No mirror box or mechanical shutter to wear out or malfunction.

There's no comparison between the replacement of a $350 shutter, and the replacement of a imaging control board that Nikon has priced around $1,200.

If Nikon had a decent warranty with their camera of 3-5 years, then your statement would have merit but they do not.

Mirrorless is not more reliable in terms of technology. Heat kills control boards, and the processors and chipsets running on these Z8/Z9s are absolutely prone to overheat and self-destruct.

The Z8 may be the worst candidate for potential failures given the smaller body size, and reports of it already having heat issues.

 

[EricBowles]

I'm working with a photographer that upgraded from a D810 to a Z7ii last week. HE's a very good photographer, and we explained the move was like going from a Jetta to a Porsche. His response - No, it was like moving from a Model A.

One of the biggest changes in moving from a DSLR to a modern mirrorless is the EVF and all the things it does. I use the EVF in place of binoculars when leading birding activities. It provides a heads up display for virtually all settings during a shoot. The view and exposure is WYSIWYG - the image you see is recorded to the card.

There is a trend with action photos - especially bird photos - for images with increased action. This started nearly 20 years ago with improved AF - and has continued to accelerate with fast frame rates. Subject detect AF and faster frame rates are the next step in that trend. The number of peak action photos in a major contest was nearly 70% of the bird photos - up from 50% just three years earlier. Photographers are upping their game when it comes to peak action, the number of photos taken, and how to select keepers and discard inferior images. But action alone does not make a good photo - and there are still a lot of photos that should be discards rather than shared.

There is subject matter where I've seen a new camera increase my keeper rate from 65% to 95% overnight (the D800E compared to the D500 for my equestrian photos) - but subsequent cameras have had no impact.

It all depends on how you use your camera. I don't expect to go from 0% keepers to 100%. But if I can go from 20% to 50%, that's a big jump.