How can the lenses be lighter and thinner just bc you remove the mirror box?
I can only say what I've already said:
the proof is out there.
* Four Thirds lenses to Micro Four Thirds equivalents.
* EF lenses (and EF-S) to EF-M equivalents.
etc.
Are they smaller or larger, in general?
Generally smaller.
Small enough for the average user to notice for sure. If you expect me to give you a scientific answer, I can't do that. Never designed a lens in my life. Most offerings show a trend for smaller lenses. Ask the engineers.
I can have the display off on my Nikon V1 and only get the viewfinder to turn on when my eye is on it. Good battery life.
Good? I have done this with all 4 EVF based cameras i had. Still didn't give "good" battery life.
Yes.
DSLRs simply have better battery life (now).
Mirrorless can have 'good' battery life today. Also poor (EOS M). If battery life is anything like the phone market, it will improve in future (electronics generally sip less juice as time goes on). People used to say their old NOKIAs could go for a week but we all know who is using old NOKIAs now. Same thing with older film cameras. All of a sudden, reduced battery life is OK for the benefits people are getting. I think battery life can range from poor to good in mirrorless today. This is no match for DSLRs but almost nobody cancels a purchase due to battery life concerns when in the camera store.
I love the battery life of my DSLRs, even when I forget to turn them off they don't noticeably drain the battery. But higher mirrorless battery use also gives many users higher functionality or convenience...again much like phones or tablets compared to that faithful NOKIA.
Even if the EVF is off, the sensor is still on the entire time. Conversely, i don't have to turn off my OVF to save battery, i can take my time composing and not worry about juice drain. This is one reason to me why DSLRs are funner to shoot.
I like getting more shots per charge too. But I can see
countless people in shops not even considering a DSLR due to size. These people are the ones that have & will drive mirrorless sales and all the new innovations along with it.
And I can choose not to as well. And I have a silent shutter that I can use when the mechanical dies or when it's undersiable to make noise. And that is the tip of the iceberg.
Silent mode is one advantage, some day DSLR MFG will get smart and offer it for their DSLR LV, then it's functionally similar to an NX500. Canon already uses EFCS, silent mode is probably on it's way.
when I bought the Panasonic G2 years ago I was let down that it didn't have an electronic shutter... I always assumed it would. A bit dumb of me, but there you go. I got the feature later, in another camera. I use the electronic shutter whenever I can get away with it. Guilt-free shooting without worrying about failing mechanicals & without waking up sleeping babies, just like the digital compacts I upgraded from. I just wish I could always use electronic shutter in every situation without compromise compared to mechanical. One day maybe. This is the area I hope sees a lot more innovation. To me this is a great one and
just one of many little things that your typical DSLR doesn't offer.
You are confusing correlaton with causation. ML companies use small as a selling point to draw people in, but there are compromises.
So you agree that small
does draw people in. It's always promising when you admit that
Sony is probably the leading ML brand right now, why do you think their newest GM glass (the good stuff) is so big and heavy? If ML can be smaller and lighter, why isn't Sony doing that?
'Cause Sony wants those pro dollars and the way to do that is to make the 'pro' feel like they are getting they are getting something big and impressive, and therefore more easily be considered 'pro'?
It also has the trickle-down effect of making the poor amateurs and enthusiasts get the impression that they are buying into some seriously good ecosystem, thereby having a positive psychological effect on their aspirational purchase desires while making them feel that their lower-priced current gear is still a relation of the 'good' SONY bloodline?
Actually that was only a half-joke and I don't know.
Maybe Sony can't make the pro stuff smaller. Maybe they can. But it seems to be the exception rather than the norm. I am not following Sony closely. Maybe you can tell me. When all is said-and-done, this is going into the niche levels. At the lower-end and middle-range it's fairly common to see smaller lenses. So there offerings are generally smaller lenses and bodies. I don't think this is always the case with lenses and not even always the case with bodies, but it is commonly the case.
Of course there are some exceptions. You are obviously drawn to the richer DSLR lens choices (so am I) while I am talking about wider market sales being driven by mirrorless offerings in the future, which I think will happen regardless of what is better for a niche of users.
An example, the newest Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II USM ($1999) is 3.28LB and 7.8" long, while the Sony 70-200 GM ($2598) is 3.26LB and 7.87" long. If ML lenses are smaller, what is up with Sony? That is one of countless examples we can cite. The reality is, ML brands know small size is their selling point, so they go out of their way to shrink many lenses.
some small lenses are also
better than their bigger mirrored parents; it goes both ways. As the mirrorless ranges increase, I think we will see more of that.
DSLR makers could too, they just choose not to most of the time bc pancakes often have optical compromises. ML is about convenience first. Small, compact, that's what they try to offer, it's not as much an innate quality. The mirror box and prism are gone, replaced with an EVF (which does need some space). Other than that, they are identical.
There is also the advantage of no chance of any dust getting stuck in the viewfinder when using mirrorless (at least far less chance).
I still prefer a DSLR's viewfinder for ultra low light work but what I don't like is that it doesn't show 100% what I will get. I wonder how long it will take for an EVF to catch up in the low light stakes...and I wonder how a 'dumb' otpical viewfinder will catch up with the richer informational displays EVFs are offering right now.
Rocket science indeed. Look through the VF, press button. Film must have been even worse, how did anybody manage a single photo?
It's called progress, even if you discount it with statements like that.
You can always compare today's usage to things people were stuck with in the past. You can always suggest that it is easy enough or was easy enough. You can also imply 'I'm smarter than that; I don't need that.' You can also get used to doing anything a certain way. You can always comapre and dismiss today's developments as unnecessary or irrelevant by making these kinds of remarks. But the fact is all these things add up to more pleasant and useful usage. Not for just the masses but enthusaists and pros. The ability to see what you're going to get before you shoot means a lot for a lot of people. Also, richer informational displays helping you focus or expose better. And just richer displays in gneeral (ability to go through the menus for some less-used settings too...all without having to take your eye from the viewfinder, for example). Some people want that. Some like it. Some need it. Some get used to it and notice it missing in some other cameras. It's progress. No it's not perfect yet in all areas. Nothing is.
It's these types of features can (and do) contribute to eating away at the market share of DSLRs.
I have almost no desire to buy a new DSLR these days. I bet these thoughts exist in millions of people that have experienced both mirrorless and DSLR and millions more that will make their first contact with interchangeable lens cameras (ie. they will be ignoring the obese models). As the mirrorless models improve, the rapid decline of DSLR will be ever more rapid, I think.
Again, I am talking about the
future as opposed to the now. Expectations are changing. We have a choice now. It is no longer that obese camera in the camera store that's attractive to the male enthusiast who doesn't mind lugging it around (mostly because he has had no other choice to get the performance he wants). Millions can carry smaller and lighter cameras and be OK with them. These changes in expectations and features will drive mirrorless (and the whole interchangeable lens market) forward while making DSLRs seem more primitive than they were.
So I'm standing with a camera (and lens) that weighs more and I am going to be more stable? Aching wrists and arms (and legs).
You must have some medical issues. Holding a camera makes your legs ache???
Sure it does. Those 2 spare lenses in the bag weigh more. So does the one on the camera. It all adds up. Even 300 grams more means heaps when you're walking for kilometres. Often it's more than that. Fat bags getting in the way versus small and unobtrusive bags too. Big weight versus small. Those types of things.
I hear this argument "again and again", each time it makes me laugh.
The fact that people keep heavier things at home makes you laugh?
I understand there is a difference but that difference only comes from 2 sources, the mirror box and the prism. That's it, two key differences between them that must exist.
The majority doesn't care why it's different. They see
fat cameras in the camera store; they are almost always fatter than mirrorless models. That's a major thing, but it might be minor to you. Lenses are often smaller too. Are these 2 facts up for argument?
DSLR users know DSLRs have a 'disconnected' approach to taking images and are generally unfriendly in this way (or new users are about to find out...). Certainly compared to what they are used to. They are 'different enough' to not be considered friendly compared with their phones or whatever. People want things that make that transition to higher quality as painless as possible. So it's not just size and weight.
What they NEED varies. Many also WANT and NEED lighter bodies and lenses that work much like the cameras they are used to.
Lighter lenses?
Yes. People want lighter weight. That's a big one.
Plus more friendly features that make photo-taking easier for the masses. I can't see typical DSLR usability winning anyone over (versus the typical mirrorless usability).
DSLRs (their size, their weight, the fact that a mirror has to flip and all the compromises that entails) might be in the same situation one day: bargain-baserment obese cameras for old men. (and hipsters). And collectors. And nostalgia buffs.
Or maybe people who prefer the advantages of DSLRs.
Yes, maybe that too. I still use both but I think DSLR's days are numbered (just based on my own usability preferences). Time will tell the story. I can't prove anything but I know it inside. You are free to call it delusion or arrogance. I know what will happen because it's happening as we speak.
Until ML makes EVFs a LOT better, im ok with what DSLRs offer, even if it means for the rest of my life.
How long is the rest of your life?
Well im approaching 40. Could be a day, could be 50 years.
My opinion: in 10 years, if the DSLR isn't dead it will be close to dead.
Much like VHS now: once undisputedly dominant video format but now just a footnote in history that almost nobody uses (and nobody stocks new). A bit like film cameras. I doubt many would have thought that VHS would almost completely disappear in such a short time, especially after enjoying undisputed dominance (and decades of refinement), but it was time to move on.
Video on DSLRs is just a few short years old. Hard to believe. We are moving fairly rapidly and in 10 years electronics is going to get so much cheaper (to manufacture) and so much more advanced. You only need to look back 10 years to see where we were then. I think the DSLR is due for retirement. Not because it's ready to go now but because it will be ready to go in the not-too-distant future. It will simply no longer be needed, except maybe in small niche applications. Whether it's still developed at that point is another story.
ie. typically makes thinner, sexier, lighter cameras (even those with a decent grip)
This is the hipster mentality.
Wanting a smaller, lighter camera is hipster mentality?
I bet if you asked anyone - even most pros - what they'd really want it's smaller and lighter gear. If they could get the same quality (or similar quality or performance) they'd go for it. We are seeing that very thing today. I fail to see how this is a hipster mentality. I think retro styling is most attractive to the stereotypical hipster, but I can't see how wanting a smaller lighter camera is a hipster mentality:
just about everyone would take that if they had half a chance.
Plenty are happy to sacrifice some quality but if they could get the same quality they'd go for it. That is part of what's happening now. Mirrorless today is in a far better position than when it was when Panasonic released the G1. If all of the market consisted of enthusiasts who thought: "
performance & obese cameras at all costs" (with a lot of mirrorless features missing at all cost too)...then there'd be no reason to make mirrorless or buy it. I think the market is quite different from that though.
Mirrorless is in a better position now because people are looking for alternatives or can see them in-store. Right in their faces.
Once they experience alternatives, their needs and expectations quickly change (or develop for the first time). They might find that they are not keen on lugging around bigger cameras any more. They might find that DSLRs suck in certain areas compared to what they are used to; how they like to handle and use a camera and so forth. Yes, a small percentage will not be satisfied with mirrorless
now: mostly performance enthusaists who make use of fast AF tracking on the typical DSLR. Also those who know that some DSLR lenses offer better value or choice than what is available in mirrorless land. Also those that prefer an optical viewfinder. I get that. I see that with my own usage too. These people might be an important niche but they won't stop heavy investment in mirrorless. Mirrorless is a train that can't be stopped. It's where we need to go now. I think it will overtake DSLR sales: it's just a question of when.
One thing you failed to explain is how being ML makes the lenses smaller?
Ask the engineers why. Seen the offerings available? Often smaller.
quality
There are some mirrorless lenses that are
better quality than the (roughly) equivalent lens in the DSLR range (of roughly equivalent price). Just as there are some that are worse than the roughly equivalent DSLR lens in roughly equivalent price. And this is when comparing line-ups that have had decades to mature versus the new mirrorless lines. How will it be 10 years from now?
DSLR sales
You say that DSLRs are declining faster. Why do you think that is?
A few years ago I would hear people on this very forum dismiss mirrorless as a
whole market segment. I had to laugh (on the inside). I can only assume it was because they tried mirrorless and it was lacking a feature they wanted (fast AF tracking? Battery life?)
while ignoring all the other benefits (or at least downplaying all the other benefits). I have so little incentive to buy a new DSLR these days, it's unbelievable. I simply don't like using them as much as a mirrorless body.
They are sort-of refreshing to go back to now and then just for fun (or when you have to) - you realise how massive DSLRs are and it's nice to occasionally switch-up cameras for fun and variety's sake. Then you end up leaving them alone when you're done...or not bringing them with you. At least I do. They simply aren't as nice to use.
At most, I think I'll see 6 years with my current DSLRs before I drop them completely. By this point, the megapixel imiprovements, focusing improvements & video improvements will probably be enough incentive to move up to the next mirrorless. I have zero desire to move up to another DSLR. I enjoy taking photos more on a mirrorless body. I enjoy making videos far more on a mirrorless body. I'm sure our Japanese friends have done their market research and they know which way the market is going, too.
