Why DX mirrorless will replace FX DSLR (for most photographers)

Started Nov 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
Grevture Veteran Member • Posts: 4,188
Agree with blue_cheese
2

WD wrote:

blue_cheese wrote:

You bring up a lot of benefits that mainly have to do with mirorless rather than sensor format. my prediction of the future:

ALL DSLR will die off, FX will remain in large bodies (camera won't shrink) but once EVF gets there and on sensor phase detect matches the dedicated AF units today, then the need for mirror is completely gone.

DX will move downmarket

I disagree. What significant gains are there in image quality with FX? Really.

Twice the light gathered. Really

However, with DX there is a physical downsize which is desirable for many users.

Many keep saying that. Buying patterns in the past ten years do not provide with much evidence of that assumption. What there is ample evidence of is that we buy within our price limits, and that we want "as much as possible for our money". And that FX is generally considered to be "more" then DX. And that DX is considered "more" then Four Thirds.

There is a pricing advantage due to lower sensor cost for the manufacturers.

The bigger cost advantage probably comes from going mirrorless regardless of sensor size - actually, it is an even larger advantage the larger the sensor is. Optical and mechanical contraptions like OVF's and mirrors are more expensive the larger they get. I agree with blue_cheese that the main advantages we will see comes from going mirrorless, while the sensor size rather will be used for segmenting the market.

A new market also exists for smaller, faster DX lenses plus the adapters which allow a HUGE variety of glass to be used.

And this new market exists ... Where?

The adapters should also be easier to design and implement for the smaller sensor.

Why?

(As an alternative, let's not rule out m4/3 rather than DX. A smaller sensor with more nearly "square" dimensions than the 2-3 of DX and FX.) Surely there will be FX mirrorless, but it will ultimately retain its small percentage of market share purely because....who REALLY needs it or can afford it?

As noted elsewhere, you make the classic mistake of believing we buy cameras according to actual need - if that was really true, few people would buy a camera at all. We buy cameras because we want to, because we enjoy them and what they produce. We are no more rational in these decisions then we are when buying golf clubs, art and jewellery, or sports cars.

If someone managed to convince large groups of consumers that Four Thirds sensors really were better (regardless if the advantage is real or perceived), then they would sell like hotcakes. Now the general perception is (and evidence support that perception, but that is a minor factor) that larger sensors are better, and as long as the price stays within acceptable limits (these limits vary between people) larger sensors sell better. If FX cameras cost the same as DX cameras, FX would greatly outsell DX. Not for any rational reason, but simply because the common perception is that a FX sensor is more desirable.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
WD
WD
MOD Mako2011
WD
WD
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
WD
WD
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow