The DSLR doesn't die, because it actually works!

[threw the lens]

We keep reading thinly disguised baiting- which I define as trolly- threads announcing the imminent death of the DSLR.

I am somebody who actually shoots with cameras and I have shot with many systems, with optical and electronic viewfinder. I got to borrow various stuff and got rep offers.

In case the reader doesn't have the practical experience, I can tell them that shooting with DSLRs has some overriding practical advantages which don't turn up on specification sheets which a lot sing from:

- Shooting action with DSLRs is a remarkably fuss free experience a lot of the time, I see what is happening directly. There is an overlay of etched focus point boxes on. I get used to the 1/4 second reaction time I have from thinking to press the shutter button and a photo being taken. No lag in the viewfinder, no disorienting freezing of the image in the viewfinder, no slideshow, no tearing, no slowdown of response in lower light (- and none of these show on mirrorless specification sheets, do they?) The downside might be that with more parts to move I can't get as many fps as with mirrorless, but in practice being able to pick a moment, and stay in the moment, with DSLR makes it easier to shoot action with, especially in lower light levels. I have shot with many of the top flagship DSLRs but the same advantage goes for the mid tier ones, you just get less fps and less focus points most of the time, and slightly longer mirror blackout. Nevertheless, I don't remember being as impeded by the blackout of a 4fps DSLR as I was by the viewfinder behaviour of a 10fps mirrorless.

- Seeing the world as it is, at a similar brightness as it is, through the optical viewfinder, is a kind of therapeutic antidote to the screen overload of today. When I am forced to work with computers and phones so much, it's nicer to keep with reality when I have to do long hours behind the lens, rather than see it on yet another screen.

Mirrorless has its own advantages, but I won't go on at them because that's not the point.

You should not expect DSLRs to disappear when they not just work, but work with less hassle in some scenarios. Even if you are convinced mirrorless works better than ever and don't have the experience to recognise what I write about the DSLR in use, the fact is that the DSLR just works. You don't expect one technology to replace another when the former had native advantages whereas the new one presents difficulties. A problematic thing only tends to replace an older one only when the older one has been legislated against. DSLRs are not the CFCs and DDT of the photographic world. As experienced shooters who know their value are still around to buy them, DSLRs will still be sold.

I hope you can be comfortable with that!

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

got my popcorn ready for this one, i am expecting 60fps to be mentioned more than once

 

[threw the lens]

got my popcorn ready for this one, i am expecting 60fps to be mentioned more than once

60fps could be useful. But it end-loads a lot on the user in culling rather than picking the moment. Are we to shoot in pairs now, a shooter and a culler?

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

got my popcorn ready for this one, i am expecting 60fps to be mentioned more than once

60fps could be useful. But it end-loads a lot on the user in culling rather than picking the moment. Are we to shoot in pairs now, a shooter and a culler?

yeah for some it will be useful, for the majority of us....not really, i think many already shoot with the view to culling.....or from a cricket term from my youth....hit and hope

 

[SiriusB]

For my photography (mostly wide field astro and weather) the DSLR still has significant advantages. One of them is battery life. I typically shoot 1000+ photos on each shoot and it is just easier to not think about when the battery will be empty and needed to be replaced. It is probably not much of a fuss with one camera, but working with three it does add up. The other is lens availability - I love the fact that there is a huge market of used Nikon F-mount lenses; I can get a lens in excellent condition for 50-60% of the price of a new one and use the saved money to drive many hundreds of kilometers to shoot weather. But these are advantages as I see them and for me, others may have a completely different view.

IMHO the main mechanism which will drive the eventual dominance of mirrorless in the market will be just simple availability, driven by manufacturers. As the DSLR has become very mature tech, they are good enough for most people. Not everyone, but probably most. Mirrorless offers new directions of development, which can drive new camera iterations and new sales - just like DSLRs in the past 15 years, since becoming 'mainstream'. More than anything else, the main drive seems to be not in photographic capability (secondary), but video as social media video has become what social media photo used to be maybe just under a decade ago.

In any case, it is probably ILCs altogether that are in trouble. The market is shrinking and right now there is no foreseeable reason it will not continue to do so. The DSLR revolution came at a most fortuitous time, when social media was kicking off and there was demand for digital photos, but phones had not become a viable photographic tool yet. Future ILCS, be it DSLR or ML, will face an uphill battle against the smartphone, not necessarily against each other.

 

[threw the lens]

IMHO the main mechanism which will drive the eventual dominance of mirrorless in the market will be just simple availability, driven by manufacturers. As the DSLR has become very mature tech, they are good enough for most people. Not everyone, but probably most. Mirrorless offers new directions of development, which can drive new camera iterations and new sales - just like DSLRs in the past 15 years, since becoming 'mainstream'. More than anything else, the main drive seems to be not in photographic capability (secondary), but video as social media video has become what social media photo used to be maybe just under a decade ago.

I don't usually bother with market analysis. I would say however that just because there will be more mirrorless models available, that doesn't mean they are selling more mirrorless than DSLR. And for that matter it doesn't even mean use of mirrorless is overtaking the DSLR user base. A proliferation of mirrorless models could just reflect that is:

1) the faster growing market

2) moving faster technologically

3) easier to differentiate mirrorless technologically by simply disabling aspects in firmware and disabling areas of chip die to suit different price ranges. Intel has been doing this for a couple of decades at least.

I find it easy to envisage half a dozen mirrorless (compared to one DSLR in that market segment) built on the same exterior chassis, with a handful differentiated by what has been enabled/crippled in firmware, and the rest having extra or upgraded processors or sensor. But that doesn't mean mirrorless will be six times more popular or higher selling!

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

IMHO the main mechanism which will drive the eventual dominance of mirrorless in the market will be just simple availability, driven by manufacturers. As the DSLR has become very mature tech, they are good enough for most people. Not everyone, but probably most. Mirrorless offers new directions of development, which can drive new camera iterations and new sales - just like DSLRs in the past 15 years, since becoming 'mainstream'. More than anything else, the main drive seems to be not in photographic capability (secondary), but video as social media video has become what social media photo used to be maybe just under a decade ago.

I don't usually bother with market analysis. I would say however that just because there will be more mirrorless models available, that doesn't mean they are selling more mirrorless than DSLR. And for that matter it doesn't even mean use of mirrorless is overtaking the DSLR user base. A proliferation of mirrorless models could just reflect that is:

1) the faster growing market

2) moving faster technologically

3) easier to differentiate mirrorless technologically by simply disabling aspects in firmware and disabling areas of chip die to suit different price ranges. Intel has been doing this for a couple of decades at least.

I find it easy to envisage half a dozen mirrorless (compared to one DSLR in that market segment) built on the same exterior chassis, with a handful differentiated by what has been enabled/crippled in firmware, and the rest having extra or upgraded processors or sensor. But that doesn't mean mirrorless will be six times more popular or higher selling!

the camera market is actually shrinking as a whole, percentage of sales for mirrorless will grow in that shrinking market

 

[Flowchart]

To be honest, i don't care as much about the tech details as I do about shooting.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knew very little about photography when I decided to buy the awesome Nikon D70; learned quickly that this expensive camera didn't make me a good photographer.
Http://kristerp.wordpress.com

 

[threw the lens]

IMHO the main mechanism which will drive the eventual dominance of mirrorless in the market will be just simple availability, driven by manufacturers. As the DSLR has become very mature tech, they are good enough for most people. Not everyone, but probably most. Mirrorless offers new directions of development, which can drive new camera iterations and new sales - just like DSLRs in the past 15 years, since becoming 'mainstream'. More than anything else, the main drive seems to be not in photographic capability (secondary), but video as social media video has become what social media photo used to be maybe just under a decade ago.

I don't usually bother with market analysis. I would say however that just because there will be more mirrorless models available, that doesn't mean they are selling more mirrorless than DSLR. And for that matter it doesn't even mean use of mirrorless is overtaking the DSLR user base. A proliferation of mirrorless models could just reflect that is:

1) the faster growing market

2) moving faster technologically

3) easier to differentiate mirrorless technologically by simply disabling aspects in firmware and disabling areas of chip die to suit different price ranges. Intel has been doing this for a couple of decades at least.

I find it easy to envisage half a dozen mirrorless (compared to one DSLR in that market segment) built on the same exterior chassis, with a handful differentiated by what has been enabled/crippled in firmware, and the rest having extra or upgraded processors or sensor. But that doesn't mean mirrorless will be six times more popular or higher selling!

the camera market is actually shrinking as a whole, percentage of sales for mirrorless will grow in that shrinking market

... and part of the shrinkage could be that worthwhile progress in DSLR has slowed, i.e. many are keeping their cameras for longer. That is a kind of success story reflecting content users, which the mirrorless shills have missed. And a goldfish does not become a whale when it is transferred from a river to a pond.

 

[57even]

DSLRs will die if not enough people buy them. It's as simple as that. As long as enough people buy them, they will continue to be made.

However, it is my view that they will become more specialised. Low-end DSLRs with smaller sensors will disappear relatively soon. Specialised FF gear is likely to last longer, given the existing professional user base. How long, nobody knows.

But there are reasons why camera companies might prefer to ditch them in the future.

• They have more moving parts and require calibration to align the complex mirror assembly. There are relatively few small companies that make components for these assemblies, and none outside Japan. This creates a supply chain risk in the event of disasters like Fukushima.
• Live view is clunky, but required for video. The video feed is used to support object recognition and tracking features, or scene analysis to provide better auto-exposure and scene-specific processing. Most new customers expect a more seamless transition, just like their phones.
• There are many optical advantages to using a short flange distance, particularly with wide-angle lenses.
• Most first time buyers already take live view for granted on their phones, and will not have the same awareness of the advantages. As DSLRs become less widely used, this problem will get worse.

The various issues with mirrorless ILCs are gradually being dealt with and overcome. Even battery life issues are likely to be solved, given the huge investment in higher energy density technologies.

I have no wish to see the end of OVFs. I have used an SLR since 1977, and only gave up on my D800 because Fuji provide a hybrid finder that allows me to choose either option. So I had 39 years of continuous investment in SLRs.

But I can see why manufacturers may push in that direction.

 

[davidedric]

A small and probably diminishing community of professionals for whom they are the best tool for the job.

An aging group of enthusiasts wedded to their OVF's

Photographers wanting an ilc learning that the world goes beyond Canikon

I'm sure they will long outast me though, so I'll never know!

 

[MUSTDOS]

Not really, though I see that DSLRs are still practical for medium formats since having a quick readout from a large sensor to EVF is next to impossible. Even DSLRs have their share of unreliability like making sure that the OVF and the lens are perfectly synchronized or you would get a "focus lying" result.

Modern EVFs are stunning, non-laggy and would decrease significantly the price and weight (Never choose mirror boxes; only penta prisms).

And for reliability in case of Micro Four Thirds, you can use one lens That has decent 3x or eveb 4x zoom without much weight issues and wouldn't need to switch lenses since it's so small to carry around such a performer making the mirror as the "sensor's shield" argument invalid.

DSLRs will stay for medium formats; I just wish pentax put more effort into their 645 line.

 

[Ring A]

We keep reading thinly disguised baiting- which I define as trolly- threads announcing the imminent death of the DSLR.

I am somebody who actually shoots with cameras and I have shot with many systems, with optical and electronic viewfinder. I got to borrow various stuff and got rep offers.

In case the reader doesn't have the practical experience, I can tell them that shooting with DSLRs has some overriding practical advantages which don't turn up on specification sheets which a lot sing from:

- Shooting action with DSLRs is a remarkably fuss free experience a lot of the time, I see what is happening directly. There is an overlay of etched focus point boxes on. I get used to the 1/4 second reaction time I have from thinking to press the shutter button and a photo being taken. No lag in the viewfinder, no disorienting freezing of the image in the viewfinder, no slideshow, no tearing, no slowdown of response in lower light (- and none of these show on mirrorless specification sheets, do they?) The downside might be that with more parts to move I can't get as many fps as with mirrorless, but in practice being able to pick a moment, and stay in the moment, with DSLR makes it easier to shoot action with, especially in lower light levels. I have shot with many of the top flagship DSLRs but the same advantage goes for the mid tier ones, you just get less fps and less focus points most of the time, and slightly longer mirror blackout. Nevertheless, I don't remember being as impeded by the blackout of a 4fps DSLR as I was by the viewfinder behaviour of a 10fps mirrorless.

- Seeing the world as it is, at a similar brightness as it is, through the optical viewfinder, is a kind of therapeutic antidote to the screen overload of today. When I am forced to work with computers and phones so much, it's nicer to keep with reality when I have to do long hours behind the lens, rather than see it on yet another screen.

Mirrorless has its own advantages, but I won't go on at them because that's not the point.

You should not expect DSLRs to disappear when they not just work, but work with less hassle in some scenarios. Even if you are convinced mirrorless works better than ever and don't have the experience to recognise what I write about the DSLR in use, the fact is that the DSLR just works. You don't expect one technology to replace another when the former had native advantages whereas the new one presents difficulties. A problematic thing only tends to replace an older one only when the older one has been legislated against. DSLRs are not the CFCs and DDT of the photographic world. As experienced shooters who know their value are still around to buy them, DSLRs will still be sold.

I hope you can be comfortable with that!

Well said, now be prepared for the keyboard know-it-all responses.

 

[Zoc]

New users won’t want to learn two completely different user interfaces for the viewfinder and rear screen. Mirrorless just makes more sense because you don’t have to switch UI paradigms based on what you’re shooting.

 

[FingerPainter]

Not really, though I see that DSLRs are still practical for medium formats since having a quick readout from a large sensor to EVF is next to impossible. Even DSLRs have their share of unreliability like making sure that the OVF and the lens are perfectly synchronized or you would get a "focus lying" result.

That has nothinh to do with synchronizing the lens with the OVF. It has to do with calibrating the AF sensor with the photo sensor.

Modern EVFs are stunning, non-laggy

Perhaps you meant to say less laggy than they used to be.

All EVFs are inherently laggy. First the sensor has to accumulate a certain amount of light. That takes time. Then the sensor has to be read and its data passed to the image processor. That takes time. Then the image processor has to create a JPEG image from the data passed from the sensor. That takes time. Then the JPEG image has to be passed, row by row to the EVF. That takes time.

The question is whether the amount of time it takes to capture and display an image on the EVF is long enough to affect the photographer negatively. That is going to depend in the photographer and what she is trying to do. We may well have reached the point where the fastest EVFs are fast enough for most photographers most of the time.

and would decrease significantly the price and weight (Never choose mirror boxes; only penta prisms).

And for reliability in case of Micro Four Thirds, you can use one lens

No I cannot.

No one lens has the range of focal lengths i need, and the ones with the longer focal ranges don't have the apertures I need.

That has decent 3x or eveb 4x zoom without much weight issues and wouldn't need to switch lenses since it's so small to carry around such a performer making the mirror as the "sensor's shield" argument invalid.

DSLRs will stay for medium formats; I just wish pentax put more effort into their 645 line.

 

[going_digital]

I agree with what you say. But consider these:

1) I am of the baby boomer generation. We and the Gen X’ers were the biggest contributors to the DSLR growth. This happened during the rapid transition into the Internet age. Photography by camera was an actual thing for us. We stored pictures on hard drives, not on the cloud, and scratched our heads trying to figure out how to view them. We keep them to ourselves because they are private. Back then DSLR was a new thing - lots of marketing opportunities and messages.

2) My children who are Gen Y and have no interest in cameras of any kind (DSLR or otherwise). They love to take pictures, just not by camera but by phone. Oh and also, pictures mean different things to them; not landscape, portrait, wildlife, street... just pictures. Their pictures remain on they phones, synced to the cloud, and they view them on social media services. They also share them with all their friends and followers with no expectation of privacy.

3) I bought my first digital SLR in 2001, and still have it. 19 years later, I bought my first mirrorless ILC, and will still have it 19 years from now. In that future, I don’t expect to be able to replace it with anything resembling a camera. In the meantime, I don’t expect to buy anything more (unless something breaks and has to be replaced). I’m hoping my camera outlasts me. Then my children can inherit it and put them in the ‘museum of me.’

4) I asked my children if they want a camera and they say “no.” I ask them if the want the next iPhone and they say “sure.” Their phone is their camera, it takes perfectly satisfactory ‘pictures’ for them.

That new computational photography thing with the studio mode simulated ‘bokeh’ - they could care less. That is targeted at the Gen X’ers to pull them away from ‘real’ cameras (something that is an actual thing to Gen X’ers). They don’t need to sell phone camera to Gen Y or Z, they already have those millennials locked in.

From my perspective, I struggle to understand the state of the camera industry, but from their perspective it makes perfect sense. I am not a significant market, but they are (and they aren’t interested). The camera market shrinks along with our numbers, that is life.

The future of the camera market rests in successfully marketing products to the Gen X’ers. And it looks like camera manufacturers are betting on mirrorless ILC. There are just 2 manufacturers that aren’t only making mirrorless ILC (3 if you count Pentax). That’s got to mean something about where things are heading. It’s the next ‘new’ thing, marketing opportunities..

 

[bolt2014]

Well said threw the lens!

 

[trungtran]

- Shooting action with DSLRs is a remarkably fuss free experience a lot of the time,

Mirrorless tech is improving. It will overtake flagship dslrs if it already hasn't.

Pre burst mode and pro capture mode is a game changer in sports. Something you can't do with a mirror and OVF.

- Seeing the world as it is, at a similar brightness as it is, through the optical viewfinder,

This is really the only difference that mirrorless can't overcome.

The younger generation are basically growing up with smart phones and having everything in live view. It will be hard to get the next gen of camera buyers to buy an OVF camera if this is the only real benefit.

There are still many people that like OVF, but we are dieing off everyday.

Like manual cars, smartphones with physical keyboards, etc

 

[MUSTDOS]

Perhaps you meant to say less laggy than they used to be.

All EVFs are inherently laggy. First the sensor has to accumulate a certain amount of light. That takes time. Then the sensor has to be read and its data passed to the image processor. That takes time. Then the image processor has to create a JPEG image from the data passed from the sensor. That takes time. Then the JPEG image has to be passed, row by row to the EVF. That takes time.

The question is whether the amount of time it takes to capture and display an image on the EVF is long enough to affect the photographer negatively. That is going to depend in the photographer and what she is trying to do. We may well have reached the point where the fastest EVFs are fast enough for most photographers most of the time.

It's impossible to have a 100% non-laggy EVF like having a 100% responsive OVF; Both take milliseconds to accumulate light or to move the mirror when triggered.

That has decent 3x or eveb 4x zoom without much weight issues and wouldn't need to switch lenses since it's so small to carry around such a performer making the mirror as the "sensor's shield" argument invalid.

I meant when weather conditions are harsh; visibility isn't 100% at it's best and you need something that just works. Or you might suffer from dirty OVF too under these conditions or worse if dirt found it's way to the sensor or lens after moving

--
Engineers are the lawyers when it comes to laws of physics; Scientists are judges.

 

[Brick Wall]

We keep reading these bold pronouncements--thinly-disguised wishful thinking--declaring that the DSLR won't die.

As someone who has decades of experience shooting formats, I can confidently assert that any purported advantages the DSLR might have simply will not be enough to stave off its eventual--and imminent--"death."

The plain truth is that, for the vast majority of shooters, shooting low-light mirrorless action is a remarkably fuss-free experience. The EVF actually benefits from glass faster than f/2.8 and accurately reflects the DOF changes. In contrast, DSLR VFs anything but accurately reflect scene brightness; they are uniformly dimmer.

Some of these seemingly compelling arguments are in fact recycled (and failed) tropes from decades past: that EVFs engender "sensory overload" and, consequently, are somehow disadvantaged, echoes claims by some that TVs did so relative to radios.

Where are the radios?

If history is any guide--and it is a good one--"native advantages" are hardly a bulwark against marginalization. Unlike cars, horses can jump over obstacles.

Where are they now--apart from in the hands of jockeys, the Amish, and those Central Park carriage drivers?

Perhaps DSLRs won't completely die. But there are some things worse than death. Languishing--stagnant and staid--while the rest of the tech world passes you by is one of them.

--

"Gotta catch em all," he muttered. "Gotta catch em all,"...