Is that a 'mirrorless' DSLR? If so, did you have a std DSLR before and how do they compare?
Basically it is the same as a DSLR but because it doesn't have a mirror it isn't technically a DSLR, if that makes sense? It's a Sony A6000 which is cropped sensor but as good as the basic level DSLRs. The view you get through the viewfinder is the same as you get on the screen at the back so it has all the info bits on there too and gives a more accurate impression of what the final photo will look like. It also has a feature that you can select part of the image and it will zoom in on it as you focus which really helps get macro shots perfectly crisp (as long as the subject isn't moving about anyway). A professional photographer friend was giving me some pointers and the view finder features amazed him.
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
I assume the image in the viewfinder must be digital. How does is cope with moving subjects? I tried a compact with digital viewfinder many years ago and it was virtually unusable for anything other than static subjects.
My first camera, more than half a century ago, was an SLR camera (Single Lens Reflex), the Praktica Nova model. That was soon replaced with a more "modern" camera, a Nikon Nikkormat. I'm currently using a DSLR, the Pentax K5 model, with a small range of lenses, including my beloved Tamron 90mm macro lens.
I am yet to be convinced with the ergonomics of the mirrorless cameras although I'll admit that considerable progress has been made in this field. What I like with a(n) (D)SLR camera is that when you look at your subject through the viewfinder, what you see is reality, you feel as if you were really inside your subject, especially when taking macro shots (of flowers or insects). You lack that immediacy feeling with other types of cameras. It's even worse with your smartphone.
That being said, the photographer is the main factor, not the equipment. Lousy photographs are taken with costly cameras and great shots made by great photographers on smartphones.
Our friend @wild edges expressed quite well the difference between "taking photos" and practising "photography". Taking photos is a mass hobby pracised by millions of people daily; "photography" is an art.
I assume the image in the viewfinder must be digital. How does is cope with moving subjects? I tried a compact with digital viewfinder many years ago and it was virtually unusable for anything other than static subjects.
Electronic viewfinders have progressed enormously. I still prefer a real viewfinder but EVFs are now really good, and support very useful autofocus modes like eye-AF. Some examples shot through an EVF here.
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour".
I have toyed with the idea of getting a lensless camera, the biggest advantage for me would be the viewfinder not blacking out during the exposure, which would make taking photos in burst mode for image stacking much easier. However, my present lenses would only work with an adapter, and the viewfinder has limited brightness, which apparently can be a problem in sunlight, especially as I wear glasses.
I've considered many times getting a better camera like a DSLR etc , the practically of carrying one around is putting me off though ideal if am in the garden though , I may go for a walk latter over the hill last thing I want to do is lumping a large camera round with expensive lens . I use my phone its not the best but does a job , I do have a little compact camera Sony RX100 V which is fine with me but I don't know what half the stuff on it does , its probably overkill for limited skill with a camera but its easy to carry and its better than my phone
I don't know whether its worth keep the Sony and getting a new phone instead in the future, the new phone are very good for the size of the sensor , multiple cameras with different apertures some have depth of field camera and extreme good software. I don't believe a phone camera will get close to the large sensor size in terms of detail but they are much more practical and you always have your phone on you .
I use a DSLR but when I can’t be bothered to mess about with it I just use my phone and actually, in good light, it’s getting harder to tell them apart - unless zoomed right in.
When the lighting is suboptimal though, a phone camera just can’t cope, that’s when a more advanced camera really shines.
I suppose it's what you get used to. I find using a phone camera a pain - but I'm a luddite and grew up without a phone at all (not even landline). Carrying my DSLR, even with a 16-300 lens is not great issue at all. I tend to carry it by the grip, rather than around my neck on the strap and it just feels like 'an old friend'. And there's something about being able to 'snap' a shot as well as setting a 'photograph' up. I spend[t] hours trying to get the colours and feel I like in sunsets! I walk up on the Downs and it normally goes with me wherever I go. But the Downs are mole hills and don't pose an issue when walking where the camera would be put at risk per se.
All it really comes down to is whether you're happy with the results you get (in your environment - what I mean there is that there's no point in having a resolution that will blow up to 3ft square, if you only ever view the shots on a screen that 5"), how easy you find getting the shots you want and how practical the device is for you isn't it?
Posts
I don't know whether its worth keep the Sony and getting a new phone instead in the future, the new phone are very good for the size of the sensor , multiple cameras with different apertures some have depth of field camera and extreme good software. I don't believe a phone camera will get close to the large sensor size in terms of detail but they are much more practical and you always have your phone on you .
When the lighting is suboptimal though, a phone camera just can’t cope, that’s when a more advanced camera really shines.