Reading mode: Light Dark

"The last days of the DSLR", before you yell, that's the name of the article...

Go to last post
Ontario Gone said:
Josh152 said:
Considering the major MILC players aren't making any money selling them and in fact are hemorrhaging money trying to, I would not be surprised at all if Canon and Nikon who are the only ones truing a profit selling cameras theses days really aren't investing much into MILCs. Why would they? The Market has spoken and it prefers the product they already make.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing Josh. It's not like the world, and in this case DPR specifically, isn't rampantly overrun with Fanboyism. Go to any brand forum here and you will find guys who defend their brand to the death. Ive heard people say they wouldn't leave the brand even if there was something clearly better, and not bc of glass or any good reason. They just like the brand.

I would bet the farm there are people who don't need DSLRs and would be more than willing to buy mirrorless if it only had a Canikon badge on it. I personally believe, and have stated, i think Canikon will go mirrorless but they are procrastinating. I don't think the majority of consumers PREFER a mirror or no mirror, i think they prefer that badge. If only the big two would stop playing the waiting game, we could see a lot of these keyboard warriors eat their feet.
Click to expand...
 
Ontario Gone said:
Midwest said:
As of now, for all his many posts, the OP has a total of five votes. Probably all were given by himself to himself.

All the other posters votes come to 131. I guess we can see who the skunk at the picnic is.
Click to expand...
So in your last three posts, you have called me annoying twice, called me a skunk once, and pointed to the fact that i have half a dozen vote ups, which were not mine by the way. I have stated my opinions, however unpopular, based on things like sensor development that is taking place as we speak. I offer some semblance of data,

--
Click to expand...
Finally, we can agree on something. :)
 
MichaelKJ said:
What do you mean by going mirrorless? Nikon went mirrorless with the 1 series and Canon has the EOS-M. (If you'd bet the farm on the success of those cameras, you'd be bankrupt.) While neither has done well, they are clear proof that both companies have been devoting R&D effort to mirrorless for some time. In view of the fact that no one is making money off of mirrorless at the present, I think the big two are taking the right approach in not bringing out mirrorless models that compete with their market leading DSLRs.
Click to expand...
That is not offering the same thing that is offered in a DSLR. Even if a person, like myself, doesn't need predictive tracking, most people like the comfort and controls of their rather large DSLR. Canikon offered two tiny little cameras, one with a much smaller sensor, that is not a replacement. Going mirrorless means to offer the equivalent options without a mirror, the only exceptions to "equivalent" being it has an EVF and on sensor AF. When this happens, we will see the fanboys flock by the thousands.

EDIT: Josh, you may as well read this too, your post was the same as michelle's.

--
"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"
 
Last edited:
Ontario Gone said:
MichaelKJ said:
What do you mean by going mirrorless? Nikon went mirrorless with the 1 series and Canon has the EOS-M. (If you'd bet the farm on the success of those cameras, you'd be bankrupt.) While neither has done well, they are clear proof that both companies have been devoting R&D effort to mirrorless for some time. In view of the fact that no one is making money off of mirrorless at the present, I think the big two are taking the right approach in not bringing out mirrorless models that compete with their market leading DSLRs.
Click to expand...
That is not offering the same thing that is offered in a DSLR. Even if a person, like myself, doesn't need predictive tracking, most people like the comfort and controls of their rather large DSLR. Canikon offered two tiny little cameras, one with a much smaller sensor, that is not a replacement. Going mirrorless means to offer the equivalent options without a mirror, the only exceptions to "equivalent" being it has an EVF and on sensor AF. When this happens, we will see the fanboys flock by the thousands.

EDIT: Josh, you may as well read this too, your post was the same as michelle's.
Click to expand...
Does this mean that mirrorless doesn't exist yet, and won't exist until technological advances make the EVF "equivalent" to the OVF and on sensor AF "equivalent" to PDAF? If so, then how can you accuse Canon and Nikon of procrastinating?
 
Erik Magnuson said:
Mike CH said:
The mechanical shutter is probably a hold-over from analog times, which - apart from its existence - perhaps has little or no advantages over an fully electronic shutter.
Click to expand...
The advantages of the mechanical shutter (at least for the closing curtain) are:

Curtain Speed - electronic fastest full open speeds run from about 1/15th (Panasonic) to 1/60th (Nikon 1). Mechanical shutters in modern cameras from about 1/160 to 1/320th.
  • fewer motion artifacts
  • flash sync speed (which is why the Nikon V1/V2 also have a mechanical shutter.)
Quality - the best quality is often when reading the pixels when not exposed to light. As an example, the GX7 when using the e-shutter:
  • ISO range narrows to 200 - 3200
  • the slowest shutter speed you can use is 1 second.
Click to expand...
OK, so there are one or two reasons why the mechanical shutter is still a good idea :-)

Are those current deficiencies in the electronic shutter inherent to the concept? Or do they just reflect a current (suboptimal) implementation?

Regards, Mike
 
Ontario Gone said:
That is not offering the same thing that is offered in a DSLR. Even if a person, like myself, doesn't need predictive tracking, most people like the comfort and controls of their rather large DSLR.
Click to expand...
"Most people"? Is this another factoid you found on the internets?

My opinion: A pro-body sized MILC with consumer level functionality (CDAF only, possibly with slow on-sensor PDAF, and a not-that-great-yet EVF) would be the laughing stock of the photographic community. I can only imagine all the "poser" comments on that press release. Good thing neither Nikon or Canon is dumb enough to build one. Sony, OTOH...
 
Mike CH said:
Are those current deficiencies in the electronic shutter inherent to the concept? Or do they just reflect a current (suboptimal) implementation?
Click to expand...
The issue is what is to be optimized? For example, you can build a global instant shutter that will have zero motion artifacts and flash sync at any speed, but at the cost of light sensitive area.

Will future designers come up with better tradeoffs for electronic shutters than we have now? Very likely.
 
joejack951 said:
Ontario Gone said:
That is not offering the same thing that is offered in a DSLR. Even if a person, like myself, doesn't need predictive tracking, most people like the comfort and controls of their rather large DSLR.
Click to expand...
"Most people"? Is this another factoid you found on the internets?

My opinion: A pro-body sized MILC with consumer level functionality (CDAF only, possibly with slow on-sensor PDAF, and a not-that-great-yet EVF) would be the laughing stock of the photographic community. I can only imagine all the "poser" comments on that press release. Good thing neither Nikon or Canon is dumb enough to build one. Sony, OTOH...
Click to expand...
Exactly. Canon and Nikon will only replace DSLRs with mirroless when the are better and/or just as good and significantly cheaper to produce. Otherwise it would be pointless and probably the beginning of their end. When you are running a business selling a well established, well liked product that is the professional standard and the only version of that product that is profitable you need a DAMN GOOD reason to change it so drastically.
 
Last edited:
Josh152 said:
Exactly. Canon and Nikon will only replace DSLRs with mirroless when the are better and/or just as good and significantly cheaper to produce. Otherwise it would be pointless and probably the beginning of their end. When you are running a business selling a well established, well liked product that is the professional standard and the only version of that product that is profitable you need a DAMN GOOD reason to change it so drastically.
Click to expand...
You are thinking concrete josh. Sometimes it's better to eat a loss at the beginning, to make sure you have a foothold in the segment when things start to get better. This is the advantage that MFT, Sony, and Fuji are going to have. Established lens lineups, established camera generations. I would agree if it were something that is risky and not a sure payoff in the end, don't take chances. But who are we kidding, mirrorless is only a matter of time from dominance. Canon could easily eat a loss now to make sure they already have full featured mirrorless cameras in the forefront of peoples' minds when buyer patterns shift.
 
Ontario Gone said:
David Hull said:
And another perfectly valid question would be... if mirror-less cameras are so compelling, why aren't those same pros using them? The answer to all of this mirror-less bologna is that as soon as something comes along that provides a more effective solution for photography than the DSLR, the DSLR will be supplanted, until then, we will have DSLR's. until then we will have all this stupid trolling, I guess.
Click to expand...
And another perfectly valid question would be... if other people being able to express their opinions bothers you, why are you here reading it all???? Nobody is forcing you to show up and post Davie, so either you like to argue or you are scared threads like these will actually convince somebody we are right. You are trying just as hard as the other mirror crusaders to prove us wrong, all the meanwhile calling us trolls and telling us we are wrong. Hey, if somebody insists the world is flat how long are you really going to argue with them? Your actions don't reflect what you claim to believe.
Click to expand...
Well neither do you it would seem. You defending your right to express your opinion and slamming me for expressing a different one. Not only that, I (along with quite a few others) suspect that you kicked off the thread for exactly that purpose. Why are you unhappy that I have given you want you clearly are looking for?

My post was in response to this comment: "I wonder.......assuming the sensor tech is better, and assuming EVF is as good, wouldn't many "hobbyists, and serious amateurs still want whatever the top pros use. " in the thread above. I thought my comment was perfectly clear (and reasonably non-confrontational), what is not clear is why you took such a personal offence to it?
Ontario Gone said:
Nothing you will say can make me stop posting. I am posting about the future of photography, what i believe the future of our technology holds. If you don't like it, too bad. If you are getting angry or sad because my opinions do not agree with yours, welcome to the grown up world. This is the place where men live, this is the place where you can't control what everybody else does.
Click to expand...
Naaa.. I think you are just trolling.

Maybe you might open an other thread with a title like this: "What improvements and features do mirrorless cameras need to provide to be a compelling alternative to the DSLR" it might be more interesting than the flame bait you have been posting.
 
David Hull said:
And another perfectly valid question would be... if mirror-less cameras are so compelling, why aren't those same pros using them? The answer to all of this mirror-less bologna is that as soon as something comes along that provides a more effective solution for photography than the DSLR, the DSLR will be supplanted, until then, we will have DSLR's. until then we will have all this stupid trolling, I guess.
Click to expand...
The above is what you posted, which i responded to.
David Hull said:
You defending your right to express your opinion and slamming me for expressing a different one.
Click to expand...
My opinions pertain to cameras and their developement. That is what all of my threads have been about. You on the other hand choose to convey your "opinions" in the form of "stupid trolling".
David Hull said:
Not only that, I (along with quite a few others) suspect that you kicked off the thread for exactly that purpose. Why are you unhappy that I have given you want you clearly are looking for?
Click to expand...
Neither of you can read minds. I could care less what you think my motives are, i need not prove anything to you. If you think it's flame bait, why are you here posting? Like i said before, either you guys like to argue, or you are scared i will convince others i am right. There is a bit of truth to the idea of a self fullfilled prophecy. The more people who believe mirrorless are sufficient, the more will buy them, which means less will buy DSLRs. I think this is what mirror aficionados are afraid of.
David Hull said:
My post was in response to this comment: "I wonder.......assuming the sensor tech is better, and assuming EVF is as good, wouldn't many "hobbyists, and serious amateurs still want whatever the top pros use. " in the thread above. I thought my comment was perfectly clear (and reasonably non-confrontational), what is not clear is why you took such a personal offence to it?
Click to expand...
So in response to my claim, you respond with "stupid trolling" and think that's non confrontational? If you were not calling me personally a "stupid troll", then why reply to my post?
David Hull said:
Maybe you might open an other thread with a title like this: "What improvements and features do mirrorless cameras need to provide to be a compelling alternative to the DSLR" it might be more interesting than the flame bait you have been posting.
Click to expand...
If im baiting you guys, and you are posting repeatedly, then im winning. Of course im not, but this isn't about what i say, it's about what you believe. If you really believe im flame baiting, why are you here?
 
Ontario Gone said:
MichaelKJ said:
What do you mean by going mirrorless? Nikon went mirrorless with the 1 series and Canon has the EOS-M. (If you'd bet the farm on the success of those cameras, you'd be bankrupt.) While neither has done well, they are clear proof that both companies have been devoting R&D effort to mirrorless for some time. In view of the fact that no one is making money off of mirrorless at the present, I think the big two are taking the right approach in not bringing out mirrorless models that compete with their market leading DSLRs.
Click to expand...
That is not offering the same thing that is offered in a DSLR. Even if a person, like myself, doesn't need predictive tracking, most people like the comfort and controls of their rather large DSLR. Canikon offered two tiny little cameras, one with a much smaller sensor, that is not a replacement. Going mirrorless means to offer the equivalent options without a mirror, the only exceptions to "equivalent" being it has an EVF and on sensor AF. When this happens, we will see the fanboys flock by the thousands.
Click to expand...
Isn't the Sony SLTs exactly that? They have good PDFAF, same controls as the DSLRs, but smaller in size, and EVF instead of OVF. They could not make a dent in the sales of DSLRs.

Ontario Gone said:
EDIT: Josh, you may as well read this too, your post was the same as michelle's.

--
"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"
Click to expand...
 
PerL said:
Ontario Gone said:
MichaelKJ said:
What do you mean by going mirrorless? Nikon went mirrorless with the 1 series and Canon has the EOS-M. (If you'd bet the farm on the success of those cameras, you'd be bankrupt.) While neither has done well, they are clear proof that both companies have been devoting R&D effort to mirrorless for some time. In view of the fact that no one is making money off of mirrorless at the present, I think the big two are taking the right approach in not bringing out mirrorless models that compete with their market leading DSLRs.
Click to expand...
That is not offering the same thing that is offered in a DSLR. Even if a person, like myself, doesn't need predictive tracking, most people like the comfort and controls of their rather large DSLR. Canikon offered two tiny little cameras, one with a much smaller sensor, that is not a replacement. Going mirrorless means to offer the equivalent options without a mirror, the only exceptions to "equivalent" being it has an EVF and on sensor AF. When this happens, we will see the fanboys flock by the thousands.
Click to expand...
Isn't the Sony SLTs exactly that? They have good PDFAF, same controls as the DSLRs, but smaller in size, and EVF instead of OVF. They could not make a dent in the sales of DSLRs.
Click to expand...
You are exactly right, which is why i put emphasis on fanboys. Lenses are important, so im not saying blind bias is the only reason, so many will stick with Canon or Nikon because they have money in the system. They are not going to just drop it all and buy Sony, especially when Sony doesn't have the selection. But, there are surely some out there who could go anywhere without much loss, and they just stick with the most popular. People in general like to follow the leaders, they do what seems safe which is to do what most others do.

I owned an a55, i actually just bought a used A33 a week ago for my wife to use. They are great cameras, and after going from an A55 to two Pentax OVF cameras, i miss what EVFs offer. I will likely never buy another reflex body and even if it's CDAF only, it won't bother me. I don't shoot jet planes racing at me so predictive tracking isn't a big deal. I prefer CDAF for the lack of focus errors and the low light ability. On sensor AF is going to really take over as sensor sensitivity increases.
 
Perl, incidentally when i had my A55 i would often take out the mirror to get the slight light increase. I was always a bit disappointed that sony didn't offer CDAF so i could use AF still. I understand that's the point of the mirror, to eliminate that need, but if you don't really NEED PDAF, the extra light would be more beneficial.
 
Ontario Gone said:
David Hull said:
And another perfectly valid question would be... if mirror-less cameras are so compelling, why aren't those same pros using them? The answer to all of this mirror-less bologna is that as soon as something comes along that provides a more effective solution for photography than the DSLR, the DSLR will be supplanted, until then, we will have DSLR's. until then we will have all this stupid trolling, I guess.
Click to expand...
The above is what you posted, which i responded to.
Ontario Gone said:
You defending your right to express your opinion and slamming me for expressing a different one.
Click to expand...
My opinions pertain to cameras and their developement. That is what all of my threads have been about. You on the other hand choose to convey your "opinions" in the form of "stupid trolling".
Ontario Gone said:
Not only that, I (along with quite a few others) suspect that you kicked off the thread for exactly that purpose. Why are you unhappy that I have given you want you clearly are looking for?
Click to expand...
Neither of you can read minds. I could care less what you think my motives are, i need not prove anything to you. If you think it's flame bait, why are you here posting? Like i said before, either you guys like to argue, or you are scared i will convince others i am right. There is a bit of truth to the idea of a self fullfilled prophecy. The more people who believe mirrorless are sufficient, the more will buy them, which means less will buy DSLRs. I think this is what mirror aficionados are afraid of.
Ontario Gone said:
My post was in response to this comment: "I wonder.......assuming the sensor tech is better, and assuming EVF is as good, wouldn't many "hobbyists, and serious amateurs still want whatever the top pros use. " in the thread above. I thought my comment was perfectly clear (and reasonably non-confrontational), what is not clear is why you took such a personal offence to it?
Click to expand...
So in response to my claim, you respond with "stupid trolling" and think that's non confrontational? If you were not calling me personally a "stupid troll", then why reply to my post?
Ontario Gone said:
Maybe you might open an other thread with a title like this: "What improvements and features do mirrorless cameras need to provide to be a compelling alternative to the DSLR" it might be more interesting than the flame bait you have been posting.
Click to expand...
If im baiting you guys, and you are posting repeatedly, then im winning. Of course im not, but this isn't about what i say, it's about what you believe. If you really believe im flame baiting, why are you here?
Click to expand...
 
Josh152 said:
Exactly. Canon and Nikon will only replace DSLRs with mirroless when they are better and/or just as good and significantly cheaper to produce. Otherwise it would be pointless and probably the beginning of their end. When you are running a business selling a well established, well liked product that is the professional standard and the only version of that product that is profitable you need a DAMN GOOD reason to change it so drastically.
Click to expand...
That sounds reasonable on all counts.

The Gizmodo BS is not hard to spot if read with an objective mind; there are quite a few statements that simply don't stand up to careful scrutiny. OP - take note.

--

Glenn NK
Victoria, BC
 
Last edited:
Ontario Gone said:
As i have said many times, and as i will say again, IMO, the biggest advantages to mirrorless are not in the form of size or weight. AFAIK, a DSLR won't have a fully electronic shutter (thanks to the presence of a mirror), and contrary to a few photos the pundits scour the internet for that show propellers and such, an electronic shutter is good for a lot. Want one? Gotta go mirrorless. For the record, i do want one bc i want to be able to shoot time lapse without killing my camera in two days.

Many other advantages i will not waste our time with, but size and weight are not on my list. I would actually love an A7 if it had the same features of a GX7.
Click to expand...
 
Ontario Gone said:
As i have said many times, and as i will say again, IMO, the biggest advantages to mirrorless are not in the form of size or weight. AFAIK, a DSLR won't have a fully electronic shutter (thanks to the presence of a mirror), and contrary to a few photos the pundits scour the internet for that show propellers and such, an electronic shutter is good for a lot. Want one? Gotta go mirrorless. For the record, i do want one bc i want to be able to shoot time lapse without killing my camera in two days.

Many other advantages i will not waste our time with, but size and weight are not on my list. I would actually love an A7 if it had the same features of a GX7.
Click to expand...
 
Bob_tracks said:
Ontario Gone said:
Richard said:
He has a biased opinion that is not base in fact. His opinion rests on that mirrorless manufacturers will advance faster than Nikon, Canon and other DSLR manufacturers which has just not happened.

From what they have shown me so far, I don't want an overprice unit that is less than a DSLR. Size and weight are only a problem for the old and feeble. If you absolutely need lighter weight and smaller size and are willing to give up the IQ of a DSLR, get a phone.
Click to expand...
Im with ya there, im in my prime. I am 35 and im 260. I work out 4 times a week, i don't "need" a tiny light camera, that's not why i like mirrorless. I like reduced in camera vibrations, i like electronic shutters, i like full control wifi, i like being able to use adapters, by the time i buy my next mirorrless it will likely be the size of a standard DSLR. Nobody said they have to be small, people just assume that's the goal because so many of them are.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of outdoors enthusiasts for whom size and weight are critical parameters. For instance, those of use who backpack in the wilderness for days at a time, or up mountain ranges are typically not "old and "feeble". We want telephoto lenses for wildlife photography, for instance. Yet many of us take delight in toting a mirrorless camera package, especially mFT, that is pounds lighter than an equivalent camera/lenses DSLR system.

Perhaps some of us aren't the brawny "he-men" type that DSLR owners are, as apparently portrayed by Richard, but many of us are in-shape backpackers and outdoors adventurers for which every extra pound of equipment is notably unwelcome.

Certainly mFT and other mirrorless cameras aren't purchased for size/weight alone by a number of photographers, but the information I've seen shows that it's one of the largest reasons for those photographers who desire IQ far above a cell phone or P&S.
Click to expand...
Choice is good, but please be careful when you say "pounds lighter than an equivalent camera/lenses DSLR system".

If you choose to go with "equivalent" then you need to go all the way, if you only want to talk about reach, then you should probably start looking into compact superzooms. (Or why not go Nikon V1 + adaptor + long nikon tele lenses for a 2.7X crop factor)

Far too often people spout off the F/2 = F/2 = F/2 mantra, but then with the same breath say that 100mm = 200mm. When called out, they will backpedal with the whole equivalent FOV, which then leads to them being called out on equivalent light gathering etc. to which they stubbornly respond with light intensity completely ignoring that total light gathered impacts the image.

There are pros and cons to all choices, e.g.:

Reach: buying m43 so that your 300mm becomes a 600mm. What about a D7100/5300/3300 user who buys a 300mm and crops out the middle part of the image to obtain the same framing? Given a similar pixel pitch, the images would be similar in resolution. The benefit then goes to the Nikon because if your framing was a bit off then you aren't stuck with the exact middle of the frame. As for lenses, lets stay reasonable here, Olympus 70-300 f/4-5.6 is 620g vs Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6 @ 505g so I'm not really seeing any weight savings on the lens here. Neither has optical stabilisation built in to the lens and so Olympus has an advantage in that many of their bodies has OS built in. But what if one day Nikon brings out a body with sensor stabilisation? The truth of the matter is that physics plays a massive role in how small something can be. If we go back to comparisons using the entire sensor area and require longer FL lenses on the APS-C/FF cameras then we start having to go into the whole equivalent aperture dance - for which the one advantage that a smaller sensor has with regards to the situation where a 50/2.8 on m43 gathers a similar amount of light to a 100/5.6 on FF is that of focus performance at higher light intensity in favour of the m43 offering, which is difficult to quantify given the differences performance of various AF modules.

In any case, enough rambling (especially as it is off topic given the thread is about mirrorless vs mirrored for which sensor size can vary), the main considerations when choosing a system is range of lenses that suit your needs. Don't buy a 50/2.8 mounted onto m43 and complain that the DOF is not as thin as a 100/2.8 on FF and likewise don't buy a 100/2.8 mounted onto FF and complain it isn't as small and light as a 50/2.8 on m43. Don't buy a mirrorless and complain that a battery doesn't last as long, and don't buy a DSLR and complain that you don't get instantaneous exposure/DOF feedback. Smart people will buy what has the fewest compromises to their needs/wants/constraints. These considerations change over time, as do market offerings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
A serious hobbyist's first impressions of the Z 8 - Five Days In
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
21K
sirhawkeye64
S
S
  • User review User review
** LUMIX G9 Mk2 Review. First Impressions? Excellent! **
2 3
Replies
52
Views
79K
Stevie Boy Blue
S
R
Finding Atlantis (2020 i9 iMac w/5700XT, Mushkin REDLINE, Delidded, vented, copper foam sinks)
Replies
0
Views
19K
RLight
R
G
  • User review User review
Canon R5 review coming from the 5d4 and R6
2 3
Replies
55
Views
15K
George Zip
G
F
APSC has better lowlight than FF/FF is more compact than APSC/APSC math is just a marketing gimmick
6 7 8
Replies
144
Views
40K
Donald B
D

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top