Will DSLR be replaced by mirrorless?

"PRE-BURST" is nothing new, there were cameras doing it already ten years ago I think.

And there is no reason DSLR won't be able to do all that is possible with a ML, except of course the EVF itself, but in liveview.

It is not the fact to have a evf that prevents from using exactly the same technology when the mirror is up. The only difference is the evf, that exists since twenty years on all non DSLR cameras, not a real reason to roam in the streets at night with a gong shouting at people that the end of the DSLR has come :-D

PhotoTeach2 said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Sybil Enders said:

Jonsi said:

But I won't be spending my time trying to convince people online how much better my camera is than theirs.

Click to expand...

Do any people really need convincing anymore? I thought it's pretty much settled that MILC offers significant advantages. Now, a few people don't need those advantages, but that doesn't mean those advantages don't exist.

Click to expand...

Your linguistic logic is flawed. Something is only an advantage if someone wants or needs it - so if they don't need it it isn't an advantage.

PhotoTeach2 said:

I think the issue arises when a few people claim MILC isn't better, which is an inaccurate assessment.

Click to expand...

No; it's perfectly true. Mirrorless and DSLR are different but neither is better or worse than the other.

Click to expand...

Completely disagree,

Click to expand...

Your prerogative ...

PhotoTeach2 said:

especially potentially for the future.

Click to expand...

What has the future to do with my statement about the present?

Click to expand...

But I suggest additional options and features (on ML) NOT POSSIBLE w/ dSLR does indeed make them "better", even today.

Click to expand...

I know you think that but it isn't anything to do with what you said earlier about the future.

And the fact that you put "better" in quotes shows that you can't categorically demonstrate that mirrorless is objectively better. Indeed, no one can because the characteristics that differentiate mirrorless and DSLRs have different importance to different people: the question of "better" or "worse" is always subjective.

PhotoTeach2 said:

Both equivalent dSLR and ML may even have the same sensor, so inherently the "same" (IQ), BUT ... with (live) histogram/zebras and resulting easy/quick ETTR, the IQ can be better on ML.

Click to expand...

No. That's a matter of user technique not of the camera. Used properly in skilled hands the form of the camera is irrelevant. And, in any case, the claimed advantage of mirrorless is hard to realise when shooting raw.

PhotoTeach2 said:

And frame-rate is faster on ML, (again "better").

But the OP is SPECIFICALLY about the FUTURE, ("When Will ML 'outsell' dSLR ???")

Click to expand...

I know that. But I was responding to Sybil Enders who was talking about the present: "... people claim MILC isn't better, which is an inaccurate assessment" - isn't is present tense, not future.

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Seriously how much have "basic" spec's, (fps, shutter-speed, flash-sync, AF, etc) of SLR/dSLR's w/ FP-shutter progressed in the last 50-years -- compared to ML (w/ leaf/electronic shutter) in only the last 5-years ???

Click to expand...

I'm describing how they are now, not how long it's taken to get to now.

Click to expand...

But they are already "better" (NOW).

Their historical (PD) AF advantage has slowly eroded ...

Battery-Life and "0" EVF-lag is the only serious remaining "difference" (advantage).

PhotoTeach2 said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

But most important ... what can dSLR's do in NEXT 5-years -- compared to ML in next 5-years w/out "mirror" limitations (and possibly "global" shutter) ???

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The QUESTION is still a valid one, (that you are so obviously ignoring and evading).

Click to expand...

Not at all. The answer selected by the OP is I have no idea when it will happen, but it definitely will happen. Probably later than sooner. I am one of the 14 who gave that answer. This is, of course, a prediction about sales and not directly about technical improvements; but sales tend to depend on what the technology can deliver.

As I'm not a specialist in electronics or camera design I can't answer your specific question - but, of course, neither can you. Refusing to give an answer to a question that is beyond my scope is neither to evade nor ignore it.

Jonathan Brady said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

Mackiesback said:

DSLR top ML is manual transmission to automatic.

Click to expand...

Good point ... when was the last time you saw a new car w/ "manual" transmission ???

Click to expand...

Yesterday. Outside the US there are still more manual boxes sold than automatic. You should try to base your ideas on evidence rather than your localised personal feelings.

Click to expand...

C'mon. I think you're being a little harsh.

Click to expand...

No I'm not.

Jonathan Brady said:

We all live in the world we experience and not all of us are fortunate enough to experience much of the world beyond a few miles of our home.

Click to expand...

The fact of posting here demonstrates literacy - and that means it's possible to read about the world beyond our immediate experience.

Jonathan Brady said:

On top of that, there's SO much information available now that no one could be expected to know everything. And what one may consider to be "common knowledge" another may not be interested in at all and have only their experience to guide them.

Click to expand...

But the to present ones limited knowledge as somehow universal is just lazy.

Jonathan Brady said:

Also... you misspelled "localized".

Click to expand...

No. I didn't try to spell localized; I correctly spelt localised. This is the same phenomenon - both words are used but in different areas. I don't claim that localized is wrong; you have no right to claim that localised is wrong.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Also... you misspelled "localized".

Click to expand...

No. I didn't try to spell localized; I correctly spelt localised. This is the same phenomenon - both words are used but in different areas. I don't claim that localized is wrong; you have no right to claim that localised is wrong.

Click to expand...

You localized the spelling of localized. Nothing wrong with that!

MarshallG said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Jonathan Brady said:

Also... you misspelled "localized".

Click to expand...

No. I didn't try to spell localized; I correctly spelt localised. This is the same phenomenon - both words are used but in different areas. I don't claim that localized is wrong; you have no right to claim that localised is wrong.

Click to expand...

You localized the spelling of localized. Nothing wrong with that!

Click to expand...

I doubt that he localised anything; it was probably like that before he was born.

agukha said:

"PRE-BURST" is nothing new, there were cameras doing it already ten years ago I think.

Click to expand...

Yes ... the Casio EF-X1

(it was mirrorless)

agukha said:

And there is no reason DSLR won't be able to do all that is possible with a ML, except of course the EVF itself, but in liveview.

Click to expand...

There are many differences between LV and (true) ML.

agukha said:

It is not the fact to have a evf that prevents from using exactly the same technology when the mirror is up. The only difference is the evf, that exists since twenty years on all non DSLR cameras, not a real reason to roam in the streets at night with a gong shouting at people that the end of the DSLR has come :-D

Click to expand...

Gerry Winterbourne said:

The fact of posting here demonstrates literacy - and that means it's possible to read about the world beyond our immediate experience.

Click to expand...

Of course, it's possible. But you somehow missed the point I was making. There's too much information for any one person to know everything.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

On top of that, there's SO much information available now that no one could be expected to know everything. And what one may consider to be "common knowledge" another may not be interested in at all and have only their experience to guide them.

Click to expand...

But the to present ones limited knowledge as somehow universal is just lazy.

Click to expand...

Lazy? Seriously? I think you misspelled "realistic".

Do you know everything about everything? Do you know of anyone who knows everything about everything? Unless you can provide an example, what you call "lazy" is "realistic".

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Also... you misspelled "localized".

Click to expand...

No. I didn't try to spell localized; I correctly spelt localised. This is the same phenomenon - both words are used but in different areas. I don't claim that localized is wrong; you have no right to claim that localised is wrong.

Click to expand...

A winky face (meaning: I'm kidding), a laughing face (meaning: I'm laughing), and a hugging emoji (meaning: let's hug it out, bro, because I'm not taking things too seriously and I'm hoping you wouldn't either).

Sorry, I just sort of expected that people who communicate via the Internet would have knowledge of emojis and understand how they're used, or at least that they wouldn't be lazy and avoid looking them up. (see what I did there? <-- to save you some Google'ing time, that is a rhetorical question commonly used on the Internet when one pats themselves on the back for obvious humor.) <-- SEE WHAT I DID THERE?

Jonathan Brady said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

The fact of posting here demonstrates literacy - and that means it's possible to read about the world beyond our immediate experience.

Click to expand...

Of course, it's possible. But you somehow missed the point I was making. There's too much information for any one person to know everything.

Jonathan Brady said:

Jonathan Brady said:

On top of that, there's SO much information available now that no one could be expected to know everything. And what one may consider to be "common knowledge" another may not be interested in at all and have only their experience to guide them.

Click to expand...

But the to present ones limited knowledge as somehow universal is just lazy.

Click to expand...

Lazy? Seriously? I think you misspelled "realistic".

Click to expand...

If one wants to present something as a fact it's a good idea to check that it is. To be aware that's one's knowledge is limited and stick to what one actually knows is realistic. To blurt out something without bothering to find out if it's true or not is lazy.

Jonathan Brady said:

Do you know everything about everything? Do you know of anyone who knows everything about everything? Unless you can provide an example, what you call "lazy" is "realistic".

Click to expand...

No. I am aware that there is a great deal that I don't know. But see my point above.

Jonathan Brady said:

Jonathan Brady said:

Jonathan Brady said:

Also... you misspelled "localized".

Click to expand...

No. I didn't try to spell localized; I correctly spelt localised. This is the same phenomenon - both words are used but in different areas. I don't claim that localized is wrong; you have no right to claim that localised is wrong.

Click to expand...

A winky face (meaning: I'm kidding), a laughing face (meaning: I'm laughing), and a hugging emoji (meaning: let's hug it out, bro, because I'm not taking things too seriously

Click to expand...

I understood what you were doing; but making a joke of it doesn't make it right.

Jonathan Brady said:

and I'm hoping you wouldn't either).

Click to expand...

We don't always get what we hope.

Jonathan Brady said:

Sorry, I just sort of expected that people who communicate via the Internet would have knowledge of emojis and understand how they're used, or at least that they wouldn't be lazy and avoid looking them up. (see what I did there? <-- to save you some Google'ing time, that is a rhetorical question commonly used on the Internet when one pats themselves on the back for obvious humor.) <-- SEE WHAT I DID THERE?

Click to expand...

PhotoTeach2 said:

The BAD, (or GOOD), part of the low-cost dSLR vs ML debate is that there are no ML's with so FEW features as the D3xxx.

Click to expand...

What important features are missing from a $496 D3500 that are on a $500 MILC ?

Bonus question... name a $500 MILC.

PhotoTeach2 said:

I don't recall them all now, but lists's of their missing options/features have been printed and I was even surprised at (so) many of them.

Not insignificant is that their lowest-cost camera cannot use (admittedly older) lower-cost (used) lenses.

Click to expand...

How many old, used lenses can your Panasonic point & shoot use ?

The one you constantly brag about. None ?

PhotoTeach2 said:

There also have been (buyers) in the BEGINNERS forum that bought low-cost kits w/ a NON-VR 300mm (450 EFL) lenses.

I originally thought this was a low-ball tactic by a SCAM retailer.

BUT ... I now find out that NIKON ITSELF is selling that specific (in my opinion SCAM) kit.

Click to expand...

The only scam is you claiming Nikon sells a kit with a 300mm lens.

If you meant a 70-300 kit superzoom, then go back to the point of our exchange, which is the absolute importance of a low-cost entry-level camera, which is absolutely required before the topic of this thread will be achieved.

I have to say though, despite your lack of information, your through-the-roof, Jim Jones style devotion to mirrorless is admirable. I hope one day you actually convince someone.

Even if it's just you.

Jonsi said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

The BAD, (or GOOD), part of the low-cost dSLR vs ML debate is that there are no ML's with so FEW features as the D3xxx.

Click to expand...

What important features are missing from a $496 D3500 that are on a $500 MILC ?

Bonus question... name a $500 MILC.

Click to expand...

Olympus OMD E-M10II, under $500 with kit lens new. Includes, 5 axis in body image stabilization, real time exposure view through the EVF, Focus Peaking and magnification through the EVF, 8.5 fps,.. I could go on, and on.

https://www.getolympus.com/us/en/digitalcameras/e-m10-mark-ii.html

Jonsi said:

Jonsi said:

I don't recall them all now, but lists's of their missing options/features have been printed and I was even surprised at (so) many of them.

Not insignificant is that their lowest-cost camera cannot use (admittedly older) lower-cost (used) lenses.

Click to expand...

How many old, used lenses can your Panasonic point & shoot use ?

The one you constantly brag about. None ?

Jonsi said:

There also have been (buyers) in the BEGINNERS forum that bought low-cost kits w/ a NON-VR 300mm (450 EFL) lenses.

I originally thought this was a low-ball tactic by a SCAM retailer.

BUT ... I now find out that NIKON ITSELF is selling that specific (in my opinion SCAM) kit.

Click to expand...

The only scam is you claiming Nikon sells a kit with a 300mm lens.

If you meant a 70-300 kit superzoom, then go back to the point of our exchange, which is the absolute importance of a low-cost entry-level camera, which is absolutely required before the topic of this thread will be achieved.

I have to say though, despite your lack of information, your through-the-roof, Jim Jones style devotion to mirrorless is admirable. I hope one day you actually convince someone.

Even if it's just you.

Click to expand...

agukha said:

"PRE-BURST" is nothing new, there were cameras doing it already ten years ago I think.

Click to expand...

Correct.

That's part of the point & shoot technology that birthed the MILC.

A feature that is hardly ever used, just for the sake of adding to the features list.

agukha said:

And there is no reason DSLR won't be able to do all that is possible with a ML, except of course the EVF itself, but in liveview.

It is not the fact to have a evf that prevents from using exactly the same technology when the mirror is up. The only difference is the evf, that exists since twenty years on all non DSLR cameras, not a real reason to roam in the streets at night with a gong shouting at people that the end of the DSLR has come :-D

Click to expand...

gary0319 said:

Jonsi said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

The BAD, (or GOOD), part of the low-cost dSLR vs ML debate is that there are no ML's with so FEW features as the D3xxx.

Click to expand...

What important features are missing from a $496 D3500 that are on a $500 MILC ?

Bonus question... name a $500 MILC.

Click to expand...

Olympus OMD E-M10II, under $500 with kit lens new. Includes, 5 axis in body image stabilization, real time exposure view through the EVF, Focus Peaking and magnification through the EVF, 8.5 fps,.. I could go on, and on.

https://www.getolympus.com/us/en/digitalcameras/e-m10-mark-ii.html

Click to expand...

And that's far more camera than the garbage, crippled joke of a D3500.

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

gary0319 said:

I don't recall them all now, but lists's of their missing options/features have been printed and I was even surprised at (so) many of them.

Not insignificant is that their lowest-cost camera cannot use (admittedly older) lower-cost (used) lenses.

Click to expand...

How many old, used lenses can your Panasonic point & shoot use ?

The one you constantly brag about. None ?

gary0319 said:

There also have been (buyers) in the BEGINNERS forum that bought low-cost kits w/ a NON-VR 300mm (450 EFL) lenses.

I originally thought this was a low-ball tactic by a SCAM retailer.

BUT ... I now find out that NIKON ITSELF is selling that specific (in my opinion SCAM) kit.

Click to expand...

The only scam is you claiming Nikon sells a kit with a 300mm lens.

If you meant a 70-300 kit superzoom, then go back to the point of our exchange, which is the absolute importance of a low-cost entry-level camera, which is absolutely required before the topic of this thread will be achieved.

I have to say though, despite your lack of information, your through-the-roof, Jim Jones style devotion to mirrorless is admirable. I hope one day you actually convince someone.

Even if it's just you.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jonathan Brady said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

The fact of posting here demonstrates literacy - and that means it's possible to read about the world beyond our immediate experience.

Click to expand...

Of course, it's possible. But you somehow missed the point I was making. There's too much information for any one person to know everything.

Jonathan Brady said:

Jonathan Brady said:

On top of that, there's SO much information available now that no one could be expected to know everything. And what one may consider to be "common knowledge" another may not be interested in at all and have only their experience to guide them.

Click to expand...

But the to present ones limited knowledge as somehow universal is just lazy.

Click to expand...

Lazy? Seriously? I think you misspelled "realistic".

Do you know everything about everything? Do you know of anyone who knows everything about everything? Unless you can provide an example, what you call "lazy" is "realistic".

Click to expand...

How many people in the US that know that half the cars in Europe have manual transmissions have actually been to Europe to research it? Very few. It’s a simple Google search. So yes, I think I will go with lazy.

Jonathan Brady said:

Jonathan Brady said:

Jonathan Brady said:

Also... you misspelled "localized".

Click to expand...

No. I didn't try to spell localized; I correctly spelt localised. This is the same phenomenon - both words are used but in different areas. I don't claim that localized is wrong; you have no right to claim that localised is wrong.

Click to expand...

A winky face (meaning: I'm kidding), a laughing face (meaning: I'm laughing), and a hugging emoji (meaning: let's hug it out, bro, because I'm not taking things too seriously and I'm hoping you wouldn't either).

Sorry, I just sort of expected that people who communicate via the Internet would have knowledge of emojis and understand how they're used, or at least that they wouldn't be lazy and avoid looking them up. (see what I did there? <-- to save you some Google'ing time, that is a rhetorical question commonly used on the Internet when one pats themselves on the back for obvious humor.) <-- SEE WHAT I DID THERE?

Click to expand...

Marty4650 said:

I selected the option "MILC will outsell DSLRs in 10-15 years" because I think it will eventually happen, but it won't happen any time soon. And probably not in my own lifetime.

I say this because there really are advantages and disadvantages to BOTH formats, so some people will always prefer one over the other. Over the long term, I believe that MILC will prevail because it offers more advanced technology and represents a lower cost of production for the camera makers.

But the truth is... there really isn't that much difference between these two formats. Whether a mirror exists or not, both are interchangeable lens systems with multiple sensor sizes available for buyers. They are about as different as a two door sedan is from a two door coupe.

This is really much ado about nothing. And I probably should add I am a pretty rabid MILC fan. One who is able to put things in perspective and context.

Click to expand...

10-15 years? That's way too long for this changeover to happen. Do you realize how long that is? The iPhone is 11 years old.

Mirrorless currently makes up almost 40% of the market (according to NPD). And that was before Canon and Nikon jumped in with their EOS R and Z bodies. Mirrorless will easily hit 50% within 2-3 years, probably sooner. Now that Canon and Nikon are in, the changeover to mirrorless will accelerate. It'll happen at a faster pace than ever. From here on out, we're going to see an onslaught of mirrorless camera introductions that will far eclipse DSLRs. With more attention on mirrorless, and less attention on DSLRs, that will certainly have a huge impact on their sales. We're entering a phase of mirrorless camera surge.

agukha said:

Thomas Rose said:

Mirrorless advantages:

• Fewer moving parts ... more reliable (and, most likely, cheaper to make)
• With no mirror in the way the exit pupil of the lens can be closer to the sensor ... allows lenses to be designed without the compromises made necessary by the larger distance that is needed in a DSLR. (Especially good for wide angles)
• No mirror = one fewer sources of vibration
• Lack of a mirror enables faster frame rates
• Camera bodies can be a little bit lighter and thinner than equivalent DSLRs
• More accurate autofocus that never needs adjustment and does not requires lenses to be calibrated
• EVF ... WYSIWYG

DSLR advantages:

• Mature technology ... most of the problems have been solved
• Longer battery life
• Some photographers still prefer an OVF even over today's excellent EVF's

I think that is just about it, but please add more points if you can think of any.

Click to expand...

All the strikethrough"ML advantages" can be done by a DSLR with mirror up, using liveview, included the WYSIWYG but not in EVF.

Click to expand...

So then why have the mirror at all? All you are proving is that it's better to have a DSLR be a a mirrorless camera! And who the heck wants to use a DSLR in Live View mode anyways? It's totally non-ergonomic, and terrible in bright sunlight.

agukha said:

You can add on DSLR advantages that you have never any (inconstant) lag (longer than light speed ok ) on the viewer and almost "infinite" quality of the view compared to any electronic device.

Click to expand...

No, there is no "infinite" quality of the view. OVF fan seem to forget that when you're looking at an OVF image, you're looking at it through a cheap, frosted piece of plastic, called a focusing screen:









There is no "infinite" quality of view with a focusing screen. Resolution off of a focusing screen is probably far less than people realize. And even if a screen did have "almost infinite" quality of view, most people's vision isn't acute enough to see it anyways. I think people far overestimate the quality of their vision. And it doesn't get better with age. As for lag, I have never been in a situation where even the tiniest amount of lag has ever kept me from getting the shot. OVF users are just grasping at straws.

Jonathan Brady said:

stevo23 said:

Maybe they love it!

Click to expand...

Probably depends on their ego as some may associate the noise with interest (which they may conflate with importance).

Click to expand...

Most mirrorless cameras will have a shutter for quite some time. Not everyone will be shooting electronic shutter. So where will still be sound. But the sound will just be quieter, tamer, rather than the cacophony of DSLR mirror slapping that we currently have.

There is a slow trend towards mirrorless, but it's not exactly taking The Americas and Europe by storm.




Source: CIPA




Source: CIPA

justmeMN said:

There is a slow trend towards mirrorless, but it's not exactly taking The Americas and Europe by storm.


Source: CIPA


Source: CIPA

Click to expand...

But things are reaching a critical mass. The technology has matured, and now every manufacturer except Pentax is seriously into mirrorless. It is inevitable that the mirrorless surge will happen. Now with Canon and Nikon in, I think that was the last straw. We are now going to head into a phase of mirrorless surge. That's how these trends in technology happen. There is typically a lag in adoption, but when all the key things come together (the technology hits a certain point, the manufacturer adoption hits a certain point, the consumer awareness hits a certain point), things move very fast after that. Take a look at smartphone adoption, for example:





At a certain point in time, the adoption rate shoots up. That is what we are about to see with mirrorless, especially now that Canon and Nikon have jumped in with both feet. Up until now, we've only been in the "Early Adopters" phase of the curve. Soon we'll be in the "Early Majority" phase of the curve. You're just looking at the "Innovators" and "Early Adopters" phase of the curve and concluding, "[Mirrorless is] not exactly taking The Americas and Europe by storm." But the storm is coming.

agukha said:

All the strikethrough"ML advantages" can be done by a DSLR with mirror up, using liveview, included the WYSIWYG but not in EVF.

Click to expand...

Only when using the LCD which is has so many disadvantages that most "serious" photographers use it only when necessary.

agukha said:

You can add on DSLR advantages that you have never any (inconstant) lag (longer than light speed ok ) on the viewer and almost "infinite" quality of the view compared to any electronic device.

Click to expand...

Where this argument completely falls apart is you are ignoring the lag (delay) that occurs due to the mechanical nature of the mirror flipping up. You see the subject but when you push the button but the actual photo is taken after a short delay. That could actually be worse than electronic delay with an EVF.

--
Tom