DSLR are dead. Long live the new kings... Mirrorless cameras.

[El Profe]

Remember when I said that the future of DSLR was in full frame sensors, and that the future of APS-C sensors was in Mirror less cameras? That there is no longer a reason to carry anymore a big and heavy SLR camera with just an APS-C sensor inside. That the future of DSLR cameras is in FF sensors... Well seems like Popular Science Magazine also agrees with me.

A quote from them "Sensor size war is the new megapixel war," and it's a war we all want, because bigger sensors equals better photos (unlike megapixel count)"

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2012-08/dont-buy-dslr

 

[MiamiDolphin]

You actually forecasted all this? Wow, that’s great. Kudos to you. Then this article is for you.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-therapist-is-in/200910/use-your-ego-wisely-humble-men-and-confident-women-are-more-successf

 

[007peter]

Perhaps in another 5 years when the price comes down. A $2000 for a FF body without lens is simply ridiculous. Unless you really need the thinner DOF of a FF, you get Faster Performance + Better Values with camera like Canon 7D, Canon 60D, Nikon D300s, D7000.

Keep in mind that APS-C can be as cheap as $499 with a kit lens. Asking any buyers to send:

• A low end FF that cost $2000 without a lens, or
• A $499 APS-C that cost $499 with a free kit lens

90% of the buyer would just pickup the APS-C. While FF is technically better ( greater dynamic range, better bokeh, etc...) the difference isn't worth a whopping $1500.

Remember when I said that the future of DSLR was in full frame sensors, and that the future of APS-C sensors was in Mirror less cameras? That there is no longer a reason to carry anymore a big and heavy SLR camera with just an APS-C sensor inside. That the future of DSLR cameras is in FF sensors... Well seems like Popular Science Magazine also agrees with me.

A quote from them "Sensor size war is the new megapixel war," and it's a war we all want, because bigger sensors equals better photos (unlike megapixel count)"

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2012-08/dont-buy-dslr

 

[aman74]

Remember when I said that the future of DSLR was in full frame sensors, and that the future of APS-C sensors was in Mirror less cameras?

No, you're some dude on the internet and nobody really cares, just like the rest of us. Besides, obvious prediction is obvious.

 

[kapanak]

Why must there always be winners and losers in this world? I don't understand why DSLRs can't just exist alongside mirrorless cameras and emphasize their own usefulness, especially in professional uses, such as sports and weddings?

People declared Film dead for ... 20 years now ... every year more cries for its dead. Yet, it still lives and is being used, perhaps not nearly as widely used as before, but it is still here, still lingers in the photographers' cameras.

Co-existence is key. Not dominance.

 

[GaryW]

Why must there always be winners and losers in this world? I don't understand why DSLRs can't just exist alongside mirrorless cameras and emphasize their own usefulness, especially in professional uses, such as sports and weddings?

Fewer users means less development and thus fewer new features, accessories, etc., and a higher price. Plus, there is a certain aura about having the "best" camera. So, I can see where there might be some resistence to the newer camera designs. For now, there will be uses that are better suited for DSLRs, but a lot of people bought into SLRs not because they liked that particular design with the mirror, but because it gave them higher quality photos. If we can get higher quality photos from a smaller, cheaper design, most of us are going to switch. If that causes DSLRs to look like a failure, it's not something to lose sleep over. They will exist in a niche market if there are areas that they are more suitable for.

People declared Film dead for ... 20 years now ... every year more cries for its dead. Yet, it still lives and is being used, perhaps not nearly as widely used as before, but it is still here, still lingers in the photographers' cameras.

Really? Harder to find places to get it developed. Fewer film choices. Kodak? Film is not dead, but not looking too good.

I have film cameras, but I'm finding it difficult to justify using them.

Co-existence is key. Not dominance.

Vinyl records are not dead either, but CD have completely dominated them. What about cassette tape? Where's the co-existence? ;-) Sometimes it's OK when old formats are replaced.
--
Gary W.

 

[GodSpeaks]

And let's not forget that $2800 FF fixed lens joke.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

 

[ProfHankD]

In case you forgot, the 24MP FF Sony A850 was under $2000 in 2009.

What's changed? Suddenly, there's a mass market for FF. I fully expect some cameras with FF sensors to be under $1500 in 2013 and the first sub-$1000 will probably be no later than 2014.

The question is: do old lenses designed for FF do better on FF or APS-C crop when captured at the same total MP? Even 24MP FF is a much higher target resolution than most lenses were designed for. I'm starting to think that most legacy lenses do so much better in the center than at the edges that a 24MP APS-C crop might actually obtain corner-to-corner resolution and IQ in general that is better than the same lens on a 24MP FF .

I recently started a thread asking if anyone has done side-by-side tests of old lenses:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1042&message=42547382

Modern lens tests show some lenses designed to cover FF are better on APS-C and some are better on FF.... I don't have a 24MP FF, but I know that virtually every FF lens that has IQ trouble on my NEX-7 only has the trouble near the edges -- and more than half a FF sensor's pixels are that far away from the center.

Ok, I know larger pixels tend to have less noise and no 1.5X crop means old lenses give the view angle and "look" they gave on film, but are old FF lenses really matched to high-res FF?

 

[El Profe]

I agree 100% with you regarding that price of FF cameras still too high and that you can buy an entry level APS-C SLR for $499... But the point is that you can use a mirror less cameras like the NEX cameras with an APS-C sensor inside instead of having to use a big SLR camera. In fact did you know how many photos I have taken with my A700 since I bought my NEX-5 (which was replaced with the 5n and soon is going to be replaced with the 5r and its new 16-50mm lens)... Only 10 photos. Why? Because my NEX is always in the glove compartment of the car (No my A700 don't fit there not even without a lens attached). To use my A700 means taking the monster camera bag out of the closet to carry the camera, battery grip, lenses, filters, and flashes. For that I take out my Pentax 645 and at least have a reason to have to carry a big camera. And yes, I am thinking about selling the A700 and buying a FF body to use my A-mount lenses.

 

[pede59]

i think it is about choices. If the majority of customers choose mirrorless cameras then there will be a smaller market left for companies to sell SLR.

If you are preferring to choose a product that has become a niche product you are not necessarily a looser. Likewise if you buy a MILC and it turns out that MILC will have the biggest market share you are not a winner. You are just using a mainstream tool.

Why must there always be winners and losers in this world? I don't understand why DSLRs can't just exist alongside mirrorless cameras and emphasize their own usefulness, especially in professional uses, such as sports and weddings?

People declared Film dead for ... 20 years now ... every year more cries for its dead. Yet, it still lives and is being used, perhaps not nearly as widely used as before, but it is still here, still lingers in the photographers' cameras.

Co-existence is key. Not dominance.

 

[Mirfak]

Why must there always be winners and losers in this world? I don't understand why DSLRs can't just exist alongside mirrorless cameras and emphasize their own usefulness, especially in professional uses, such as sports and weddings?

Agree fully.

Yet, it still lives and is being used, perhaps not nearly as widely used as before, but it is still here, still lingers in the photographers' cameras.

Can't disagree more. The death of the biggest film company in the world is testament to the contrary.

I have three film cameras that have been gathering dust for years. The only brick and mortar shop that processes film around these parts is Costco.

I see absolutely zero advantage in shooting film today.

Co-existence is key. Not dominance.

Agree fully.

 

[chironNYC]

Agree with GaryW. The direction of development is toward FF MILC and that will compete dramatically against DSLR.

The only questions I have at this point are: When will Sony introduce a FF NEX ILC?

And, when is Canon going to realize that MILC is a big future item and dramatically ramp up their MILC development and offerings?

A well-done Canon FF MILC wit dedicated lenses that also used EF or EF-S lenses via an adapter would have a lot of appeal. But they are such a conservative company these days (after having been the radicals who introduced EOS and a brand new mount 25 yrs ago) that they will be probably be slow to the new game in town.

Why must there always be winners and losers in this world? I don't understand why DSLRs can't just exist alongside mirrorless cameras and emphasize their own usefulness, especially in professional uses, such as sports and weddings?

Fewer users means less development and thus fewer new features, accessories, etc., and a higher price. Plus, there is a certain aura about having the "best" camera. So, I can see where there might be some resistence to the newer camera designs. For now, there will be uses that are better suited for DSLRs, but a lot of people bought into SLRs not because they liked that particular design with the mirror, but because it gave them higher quality photos. If we can get higher quality photos from a smaller, cheaper design, most of us are going to switch. If that causes DSLRs to look like a failure, it's not something to lose sleep over. They will exist in a niche market if there are areas that they are more suitable for.

People declared Film dead for ... 20 years now ... every year more cries for its dead. Yet, it still lives and is being used, perhaps not nearly as widely used as before, but it is still here, still lingers in the photographers' cameras.

Really? Harder to find places to get it developed. Fewer film choices. Kodak? Film is not dead, but not looking too good.

I have film cameras, but I'm finding it difficult to justify using them.

Co-existence is key. Not dominance.

Vinyl records are not dead either, but CD have completely dominated them. What about cassette tape? Where's the co-existence? ;-) Sometimes it's OK when old formats are replaced.
--
Gary W.

 

[Dennis]

Between the foul language and a D5100 owner advising people on why they should or shouldn't buy a DSLR, I can see that Pop Sci is a useless rag.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com