Nikon doesn't think DSLRs are dead yet?

No surprise with a username like I have, that I love Nikon.  But reading this article from Thom Hogan makes me think.  Especially if there is any truth to this.   dslrbodies.com/newsviews-2/how-to-lose-customers.html   He comments that Nikon doesn't think DSLRs are dead.  If that is the case, Nikon really is going to slip and fall.  I think everyone brushed off mirrorless in the early days, well except Sony.  Now Canon is in full steam forward trying to catch up.  I thought Nikon would be doing the same as well.  I hope this remark from Thom isn't correct, if so, Nikon is in deep poo poo.  

Dead?  No.  Dying?  Probably.

In the days, I had to choose between the range finder and the
SLR. I choose the later from F, F2, F3HP, F4E to F5.

Ten years ago, dSLR has evolved to DSLR. I went for it and that
was the way to go but only when it reached the 12MP mark with
the D3S. The same year, I jumped on the D3X (24MP). Both are
still in my arsenal and the back bones of my operations.

Then the D800E, the D810 and the D850 got in my bag. The first
was sold to a student but still own two D810s and the D850. 

Now comes the EVF. I approach the choice — OVF vs EVF —
the same way I did with range finder and the SLR… a possible
way to go.

At this point, EVF doesn't even rock the boat… too much to lose
taking that way at this point in its evolution. If DSLR is dying, then
I'll die with these most accomplished tools.

Mirrorless is not a suitable substitute for dSLR.

While mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter than dSLRs, that doesn't extend to their lenses, which are just as big and heavy as their dSLR counterparts. So the size and weight advantage quickly diminishes as your collection of lenses and accessories grows. Also, the shorter Flange Focal Distance of mirrorless cameras requires their lenses to bend light more in order to project an image over the entire image sensor,

... so those lenses are more prone to vignetting, chromatic aberration, distortion, and field curvature (soft corners). That is not to say that those flaws can't be overcome, but in order to overcome them, lenses must use more advanced and more expensive designs. Thus, most mirrorless camera manufacturers opt instead to process images in the camera to "compensate" for some of those image flaws. Unfortunately, that processing often simply replaces one image flaw with another, and worse, there is no compensation for the field curvature, and the compensation for distortion actually makes the corners softer. Further, mirrorless cameras are comparatively new, as are their lenses, whereas SLRs and their autofocus lenses have been around for decades, so a new dSLR can use many of the excellent lenses available on the used market at a greatly reduced price. And while dSLR lenses can be adapted to work with mirrorless cameras, use of adapters often introduces other problems in terms of both functionality and image quality.

Another important consideration is that dSLRs have optical viewfinders, while mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders which usually lack an equivalent resolution. In addition, the electronic viewfinder has a built-in lag time necessary to form the image, so much so that mirrorless often just show the last image captured instead of the live image to be captured. This can be a real handicap for sports/action/wildlife shooting.

G'day all - esp me ol' mates NS and TCav

As I have mentioned in earlier posts - after 40+ yrs with film SLRs and their OVFs, I went digital in 2003 with fixed-lens superzoom cameras with their EVFs.  Back then with EVFs in their infancy, I had to have a bit of a prayer that the end result would be what I expected - and for the most part, it was

These days I am still using fixed-lens superzoom cameras and still with their EVF viewfinders - and (with no offence to my 2 mates above) I will never use a clunker OVF again ~ real crappy horse 'n buggy stuff

The EVF shows me heaps and heaps of data not possible with the OVF - and via the Display button I can alter the screen display into any of 4 options.  As to response times, well I am shooting at 6fps with full auto-focus / follow-focus and live view operation.  From my perspective, there would be very few occasions where the photographer would need double this fps along with full screen response .... and when that happens the dSLR camera offers (needs?) mirror lock-up and you need a second viewfinder!  Better? Really?

Phil from the great land Downunder
www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/

TCav wrote: Mirrorless is not a suitable substitute for dSLR… dSLRs have optical viewfinders, while mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders which usually lack an equivalent resolution. In addition, the electronic viewfinder has a built-in lag time necessary to form the image, so much so that mirrorless often just show the last image captured instead of the live image to be captured. This can be a real handicap for sports/action/wildlife shooting.

I have a Sony A77 II so I know the extras that an electronic viewfinder can provide, but I must say that many of those options are available in my Nikon D7200 and my Pentax KP as well, both of which have optical viewfinders.

Further, a friend asked me to photograph one of her last rides on her horse that would soon be retiring. I recently hurt my left shoulder, and have been anxiously awaiting a shoulder replacement that was delayed because of the COVID lockdown, so I couldn't use my Nikon D7200/Tokina 100-300 F4 combo (~7.5 lbs that I must hold with my left hand), so I had to use my Sony A77 II/Minolta 70-210 F4 combo(~4 lbs that I can support with the strap). I rarely shoot anything faster than 3 fps, so I was disappointed when I found that as bursts got longer, the subject creeped further out of the frame.

And, btw, another favorite pastime of mine is shooting airshows in and around the Washington DC area, and using an optical viewfinder is the only way to go for that. The subjects just move way too fast to trust an electronic viewfinder to frame a shot.

TCav wrote: I recently hurt my left shoulder…

Sorry to read that. 

Though I have no problem with my upper members, I had a domestic
accident that got me limping since. So I can carry all my DSLR gear
all day… but not everywhere and not very fast.

Perhaps my confusion in reading this thread results from using the Fuji system which has been involved in mirrorless for a lot longer than the DSLR makers.  My lenses are smaller and lighter than those of any DSLR regardless of format and they are made with metal barrels, not plastic ones.  I have never experienced any EVF lag.  I prefer EVF because I can see how the image will look after exposure.  I don't have to press anything to see depth of field.  It shows automatically in the EVF.  I sense no difference at all in viewfinder "resolution." My system has bodies available that have both optical and EV finders.  It even includes medium format cameras and lenses.  I can't help but think that the DSLR adherents are talking about Nikon mirrorless cameras which make no sense to me either.

 Well that wouldn't be good for them, sorry just don't believe they would be that naive.  

fmw wrote: ... I sense no difference at all in viewfinder "resolution." ...

A person with normal visual acuity (20/20 vision) can detect detail as small as 1 arc minute (1/60th degree).

Eye-level viewfinders are spec'd with the magnification, coverage, and the angle of view of a 50mm lens focused at infinity.

Nikon's Mirrorless 'Full Frame' bodies all have magnifications of 0.80x, 100% coverage, and a 39.6° horizontal angle of view, which would result in a horizontal resolution of 1900 arc minutes through an optical viewfinder for a person with normal visual acuity. Unfortunately, the electronic viewfinder Nikon has a horizontal resolution of only 1400. Therefore, the electronic viewfinder isn't as sharp as an optical viewfinder would be.

Canon's top-of-the-line Mirrorless 'Full Frame' R5 body has a magnification of 0.76x, 100% coverage, and a 35.5° horizontal angle of view, which would result in a horizontal resolution of 1619 arc minutes through an optical viewfinder. Canon's R5 happens to have an electronic viewfinder with a horizontal resolution of 1600, very close to what an optical viewfinder in a body with the same specs would have. Canon has other Mirrorless 'Full Frame' bodies, but the specs give no indication of the resolution of the electronic viewfinder.

Fujifilm's Mirrorless APS-C X Pro3, which has both optical and electronic viewfinders, but with very different specs. The optical viewfinder has a magnification of 0.52x, 95% coverage and a horizontal angle of view of 27°, resulting in a horizontal resolution of 900 arc minutes. The Electronic viewfinder has a magnification of 0.66x, 100% coverage, and the same 27° horizontal angle of view, which would result in a resolution of 1069 arc minutes for an optical viewfinder, but the X Pro3's electronic viewfinder has a horizontal resolution of 1400, surpassing the resolution necessary to render detail discernible by a person with normal visual acuity. FujiFilm's other Mirrorless APS-C bodies do too, though not to the same level as the X Pro3.

My own APS-C Sony A77 II has 0.71x magnification, 100% coverage, and a 27° angle of view, which would result in a horizontal resolution of 1150 arc minutes with an optical viewfinder, but its electronic viewfinder only has a resolution of 1024, falling short of the detail a person with normal visual acuity could see through an optical viewfinder.

On a personal note, I happen to be farsighted with a visual acuity of 20/15, so this is frustrating for me, and is why I frequently choose my Nikon D7200 or my Pentax KP for certain applications.

FYI, all the specs I quoted here are direct from the respective manufacturer's websites.

fmw wrote: I have never experienced any EVF lag. 

That suggests you're shooting only — or near to — static subjects?

TCav wrote: FYI, all the specs I quoted here are direct from the respective manufacturer's websites.

... or calculations performed on those specs.

TCav wrote: Nikon's Mirrorless 'Full Frame' bodies all have magnifications of 0.80x, 100% coverage, and a 39.6° horizontal angle of view, which would result in a horizontal resolution of 1900 arc minutes through an optical viewfinder for a person with normal visual acuity. Unfortunately, the electronic viewfinder Nikon has a horizontal resolution of only 1400. Therefore, the electronic viewfinder isn't as sharp as an optical viewfinder would be.

CORRECTION: Nikon's Mirrorless 'Full Frame' bodies all use electronic viewfinders with horizontal resolutions of 1280, not 1400, so the resolution of their electronic viewfinders is WAY less than would be available with an optical viewfinder.

Addendum: Sony's Mirrorless 'Full Frame' bodies also have electronic viewfinders whose resolution falls WAY short of what an optical viewfinder would provide, including the A1, A7R IV and A7S III, though they're closer than its stablemates, including the APS-C A6X00 bodies.

TCav wrote: ... but the X Pro3's electronic viewfinder has a horizontal resolution of 1400 ...

CORRECTION: The electronic viewfinder in the X Pro3 has a horizontal resolution of 1280, not 1400. It still exceeds the optical resolution though.