Will DSLR be replaced by mirrorless?

[gary0319]

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

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.

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.

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

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

While this is true for the photographers (consumers), the new mirrorless review/profit advantage for the camera/lens manufacturers will tilt the field away from DSLRs.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

ML are better and better... much better than the ones just a couple of years ago... but personally I only will consider ML as a replacement for my DSLR when they offer also a reliable and efficient electronic only shutter... then I will have something interesting where mechanics will be limited only for IBIS and electric switches and dial in the camera.

Probably I will have to wait 5 years more.

Regards,

Just out of curiosity, what parameters have you set that would constitute a “reliable and efficient” shutter. My Olympus E-M1 II has a pretty good electronic shutter, so good that I rarely ever use the mechanical one (I prefer silent)

60fps w/ no "jello" at even the highest speed (airplane-propeller) subjects.

Pretty high bar. My Olympus will do 60fps raw with no buffer filling, but not sure about the airplane prop. I have not seen any wing jello in fast birds in flight, though. But, what DSLR could ever hope to even come close?

Well a Focal-Plane shutter also can have jello-distortion.

"LEAF" shutter is current best but I assume a "global" potentially also could.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Off Topic ...

What is you opinion of current trend towards "Push-Button" starting w/ electronic-keys ???

I hate them ... I want the "key" back.

 

[Jonsi]

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

While this is true for the photographers (consumers), the new mirrorless review/profit advantage for the camera/lens manufacturers will tilt the field away from DSLRs.

Probably, but not until they start producing $500-$600 entry-level ML cameras, since that is the biggest market for cameras (by far) and no one is going to abandon them without a replacement.

Nikon's biggest selling camera is the D3400.

A $2,000 MILC will never be.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

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

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.

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.

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

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

Completely disagree, especially potentially for the future.

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 ???

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) ???

 

[Jonathan Brady]

Off Topic ...

What is you opinion of current trend towards "Push-Button" starting w/ electronic-keys ???

I hate them ... I want the "key" back.

I think it's probably a temporary technology, to be honest. I foresee much more advanced, anti-theft implementations for turning the car on. Things like using your finger print on the forward/reverse selector, an eye scanner, etc. Heck, when self-driving cars take over, you'll just tell it the destination and once all the seat belts are fastened and the doors are closed, and the sensors confirm that the garage door is up, it'll just go.

In the meantime, I'm somewhat neutral on them. It's nice not to have to bother with getting your keys out of your pocket (talk about lazy!! lol)

 

[gary0319]

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

While this is true for the photographers (consumers), the new mirrorless review/profit advantage for the camera/lens manufacturers will tilt the field away from DSLRs.

Probably, but not until they start producing $500-$600 entry-level ML cameras, since that is the biggest market for cameras (by far) and no one is going to abandon them without a replacement.

Nikon's biggest selling camera is the D3400.

A $2,000 MILC will never be.

Agreed, the smaller sensor market will not be abandoned, but why would a camera manufacturer continue to add new APSC DSLR models when new mirrorless models could be offered at a lower manufacturing cost (notice I did not say sale price, since profit is the overriding parameter)

 

[J A C S]

DSLR top ML is manual transmission to automatic.

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

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.

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

Also... you misspelled "localized".

You noticed that but failed to notice that he sais: outside the US...

Random, non-photography-related post from here on out...

According to this article which references data from Edmunds.com, only 20% of all cars offered for sale in the US are offered with either an automatic or manual transmission. But, of all cars sold in 2018 in the US, only 2% are manual transmission. Even the budget models from Kia, those which you might expect to have a higher percentage of manual transmissions, only sell manual transmissions in 4% of their vehicles (which is admittedly double the national average but still a paltry sum).

This author theorizes that the recent ban on gas and diesel in the UK, set to go into effect in 2040, will be the nail in the coffin for manual transmissions there (electric cars only have one gear due to the fact that maximum torque is immediately and consistently available). He posits that the trend pointing towards the proliferation and dominance of automatic transmissions is occurring independent of that legislation, however, as the percentage of cars sold with automatic transmissions has increased from 24.7% to 37.7% in 5 years (2012 to 2017).

 

[Jonathan Brady]

DSLR top ML is manual transmission to automatic.

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

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.

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

Also... you misspelled "localized".

You noticed that but failed to notice that he sais: outside the US...

That was actually my point. If ones perspective, in its entirety, is life inside the US and if we can't be expected to know everything then perhaps his reply was a little harsh.

Random, non-photography-related post from here on out...

According to this article which references data from Edmunds.com, only 20% of all cars offered for sale in the US are offered with either an automatic or manual transmission. But, of all cars sold in 2018 in the US, only 2% are manual transmission. Even the budget models from Kia, those which you might expect to have a higher percentage of manual transmissions, only sell manual transmissions in 4% of their vehicles (which is admittedly double the national average but still a paltry sum).

This author theorizes that the recent ban on gas and diesel in the UK, set to go into effect in 2040, will be the nail in the coffin for manual transmissions there (electric cars only have one gear due to the fact that maximum torque is immediately and consistently available). He posits that the trend pointing towards the proliferation and dominance of automatic transmissions is occurring independent of that legislation, however, as the percentage of cars sold with automatic transmissions has increased from 24.7% to 37.7% in 5 years (2012 to 2017).

 

[MarshallG]

It seems like some mirrorless owners on DPReview feel like they need to prove their cameras are better.

Why do we want to keep an "anvil" (mirror) chained to our ankles ???

I think this demonstrates insecurity. Mirrorless does not make the quality of the image better. That’s the function of the sensor.

Maybe mirrorless will replace DSLR, maybe not. The market will decide. Who cares?

 

[Jonathan Brady]

It seems like some mirrorless owners on DPReview feel like they need to prove their cameras are better.

Why do we want to keep an "anvil" (mirror) chained to our ankles ???

I think this demonstrates insecurity. Mirrorless does not make the quality of the image better. That’s the function of the sensor.

Maybe mirrorless will replace DSLR, maybe not. The market will decide. Who cares?

I don't think anyone cares as long as their needs are met. But, speculation is fun. Heck, that's what the entire world's economy is based upon. Speculation is part and parcel with our society.

 

[gary0319]

It seems like some mirrorless owners on DPReview feel like they need to prove their cameras are better.

Why do we want to keep an "anvil" (mirror) chained to our ankles ???

I think this demonstrates insecurity. Mirrorless does not make the quality of the image better. That’s the function of the sensor.

Maybe mirrorless will replace DSLR, maybe not. The market will decide. Who cares?

Actually, my experience with teaching members of my camera club on the differences in shooting a mirrorless camera as opposed to their DSLR cameras is that it does improve image quality, sensor size/quality aside. The simple concept difference between DSLR shooting and Mirrorless improves the photographers ability to properly expose and focus images. Add to that, that the less post processing of properly exposed and focused images results in superior results when compared to images needing more adjustments by Lightroom, Photoshop or whatever your PP software is.

 

[Bob Janes]

Only this way they can say it isn't their view (they will always say that they will stay cutting edge and give customers what they want), but it gives a boost to mirrorless, which is an area where they can make lots of profit - because:

1. Solid state mirrorless bodies are going to be cheaper to produce and easier to mass produce that an intricate mechanical instrument like an SLR.

Why would a mirrorless cheaper to produce than an electronicViewerLess ?

A (moving) mirror is cheaper than electronic screen, and as it is well known since so much years, it has no particular complexicity to produce nowadays, contrary to screens that need evolutions to have better resolution, better dynamic range and that will need more and more power to reduce lag time, and memory hardware just for it and complex electronics.

Because it isn't just a moving mirror -

• It is a moving mirror that can move from one precise position to another and form a light-tight seal and return to the precise position again up to 5 times per second - and do this in a way that does not induce shocks in the camera body.
• It is an autofocus sensor system fed by a semi-transparent mirror (and its own little secondary folding mirror at the back of the main mirror)and which needs to be positioned at exactly the same distance from the back on the lens as the sensor.
• In some of cases (high end cameras) it is an adjustment system which allows for correction for misfocusing with the secondary PDF system for individual lenses.
• It is a viewing screen that needs to be precisely positioned at the same distance from the back of the lens (allowing for the light path reflected in the mirror) and which needs to incorporate graphics that illuminate as the camera chooses different focus points. it also needs to be finely calibrated so that it shows 98% or better of the image that will be seen on the focusing screen.
• It is a precision engineered prism to take that back-to-front upside-down image and invert it so that it can be viewed the right way up in an eye level viewfinder.
• It is light sensitive cells that sit in the viewfinder and work out what the exposure needs to be when the main sensor gets exposed.

Optical SLR viewfinders can be a thing of beauty, but you don't just chuck them together - they need to be precision engineered and you need to assemble everything and calibrate it to make sure it all works together.

You do of course need to have some way of providing AF off the sensor, assessing exposure etc and if you were not already doing these for dSLRs with live-view this would be a new expenses for mirrorless, but as it is both dSLR and mirrorless need this stuff.

Yes, EVFs have their downsides (although I don't find lag to be one in the EVFs I've used), but they are ones that can be lessened by advancing technology and reducing costs of batteries and memory.

 

[Jonsi]

It seems like some mirrorless owners on DPReview feel like they need to prove their cameras are better.

Why do we want to keep an "anvil" (mirror) chained to our ankles ???

I think this demonstrates insecurity. Mirrorless does not make the quality of the image better. That’s the function of the sensor.

Maybe mirrorless will replace DSLR, maybe not. The market will decide. Who cares?

Actually, my experience with teaching members of my camera club on the differences in shooting a mirrorless camera as opposed to their DSLR cameras is that it does improve image quality, sensor size/quality aside. The simple concept difference between DSLR shooting and Mirrorless improves the photographers ability to properly expose and focus images.

So the difference in image quality is not due to the camera... it's due to technique.

Add to that, that the less post processing of properly exposed and focused images results in superior results when compared to images needing more adjustments by Lightroom, Photoshop or whatever your PP software is.

I realize you're referring to students, but people who know their cameras can properly expose, focus, etc.

Regardless if there is a mirror or not.

And despite a certain person's NEED for his celebrated "zebras" to produce a decent photo.

 

[Bob Janes]

It seems like some mirrorless owners on DPReview feel like they need to prove their cameras are better.

Why do we want to keep an "anvil" (mirror) chained to our ankles ???

I think this demonstrates insecurity. Mirrorless does not make the quality of the image better. That’s the function of the sensor.

Maybe mirrorless will replace DSLR, maybe not. The market will decide. Who cares?

Actually, my experience with teaching members of my camera club on the differences in shooting a mirrorless camera as opposed to their DSLR cameras is that it does improve image quality, sensor size/quality aside. The simple concept difference between DSLR shooting and Mirrorless improves the photographers ability to properly expose and focus images.

So the difference in image quality is not due to the camera... it's due to technique.

Technique is always going to make more difference.

Add to that, that the less post processing of properly exposed and focused images results in superior results when compared to images needing more adjustments by Lightroom, Photoshop or whatever your PP software is.

I realize you're referring to students, but people who know their cameras can properly expose, focus, etc.

Personally I would avoid complacency - I don't rule out being able to learn new stuff - in truth we never stop learning.

Regardless if there is a mirror or not.

 

[Mackiesback]

Honestly... When the new Nikon D850 comes out, people who went out and bought it didn’t tell the D810 owners they were wrong or stupid for not replacing their cameras right away.

This seems to be either A) an irrelevant, random statement or B) a straw man argument implying that I tell people they are either wrong or stupid for choosing to buy a DSLR. That's something I've never done in this thread or any other, or in person, over the phone, email, snail mail, carrier pigeon, or smoke signals. Heck, I don't remember every dream I have but I'm fairly certain I've never done it there, either.

Maybe mirrorless will replace the DSLR completely some day, but it doesn’t really matter if you already have a camera system. It only matters when you’re ready to upgrade. It seems like some mirrorless owners on DPReview feel like they need to prove their cameras are better.

Again, irrelevant or you're implying I'm one of those people - as you replied to me.

As the originator of the thread, if people have something general to say, they have to reply to someone, and the person that posted right before them may be less appropriate than you. As the thread originator, you should expect this.

I just want people to like my photos, and 95% of that is me, not the camera features.

I don't even care if people like my photos. I enjoy photography for me. I enjoy using the cameras and lenses, process, interactions, challenge, post-work, and looking for opportunities to improve (which are innumerable). If other people like my photos, great! If not, it doesn't impact my enjoyment of gear, desire to shoot, drive to improve towards my goals, etc.

OK, personal journey stories aside, I would like to post back to the original topic of this thread, so please note this is not directed at you.

I am seeing a lot pf people on this thread saying ML will replace mirrors in their entirety, most declaring this will happen in less than a decade. They are saying it with an undeniable level of certainty as if, how can you even doubt this?

I have an anecdote from my industry that is similar.

10 years ago, or thereabouts, the first books in electronic format were published. Wow! the public exclaimed, you can now buy books and download them 24/7 online, for less money, than that old clunky print technology. I mean, what's not to love? Instant books, less expense, one device to catalog them all, electronic bookmarks, the technology makes the old way look positively neanderthal.

And the pundits, evangelists, and breathless early adopters agreed! Print is DEAD! they said. Publishers were quaking in fear because this new business model relied in 3 customers and was very low margin, how will we survive? Stocks for bookstores tumbled, stocks for Amazon soared. The new age is upon us!

Then something weird happened. The adoption rate hit a wall at 25%, and has stalled there for the last three years. Independent bookstores as a category are growing. The public has stated...."in spite of all your speculation and breathless proclamations, we enjoy the experience of buying and reading print books just fine.

Moral of the story, in spite of what evangelists here say, the general public will make this decision for us. If DSLRs are around 10 years from now, it will be because enough people like em and buy em to make them still viable. It's as simple as that.

Time will tell where the percentages balance out, but I have learned, don't be so sure about what seems to be inevitable.

 

[stevo23]

Only this way they can say it isn't their view (they will always say that they will stay cutting edge and give customers what they want), but it gives a boost to mirrorless, which is an area where they can make lots of profit - because:

1. Solid state mirrorless bodies are going to be cheaper to produce and easier to mass produce that an intricate mechanical instrument like an SLR.

Why would a mirrorless cheaper to produce than an electronicViewerLess ?

A (moving) mirror is cheaper than electronic screen, and as it is well known since so much years, it has no particular complexicity to produce nowadays, contrary to screens that need evolutions to have better resolution, better dynamic range and that will need more and more power to reduce lag time, and memory hardware just for it and complex electronics.

Because it isn't just a moving mirror -

• It is a moving mirror that can move from one precise position to another and form a light-tight seal and return to the precise position again up to 5 times per second - and do this in a way that does not induce shocks in the camera body.
• It is an autofocus sensor system fed by a semi-transparent mirror (and its own little secondary folding mirror at the back of the main mirror)and which needs to be positioned at exactly the same distance from the back on the lens as the sensor.
• In some of cases (high end cameras) it is an adjustment system which allows for correction for misfocusing with the secondary PDF system for individual lenses.
• It is a viewing screen that needs to be precisely positioned at the same distance from the back of the lens (allowing for the light path reflected in the mirror) and which needs to incorporate graphics that illuminate as the camera chooses different focus points. it also needs to be finely calibrated so that it shows 98% or better of the image that will be seen on the focusing screen.
• It is a precision engineered prism to take that back-to-front upside-down image and invert it so that it can be viewed the right way up in an eye level viewfinder.
• It is light sensitive cells that sit in the viewfinder and work out what the exposure needs to be when the main sensor gets exposed.

Optical SLR viewfinders can be a thing of beauty, but you don't just chuck them together - they need to be precision engineered and you need to assemble everything and calibrate it to make sure it all works together.

You do of course need to have some way of providing AF off the sensor, assessing exposure etc and if you were not already doing these for dSLRs with live-view this would be a new expenses for mirrorless, but as it is both dSLR and mirrorless need this stuff.

Yes, EVFs have their downsides (although I don't find lag to be one in the EVFs I've used), but they are ones that can be lessened by advancing technology and reducing costs of batteries and memory.

All good points. They've long since bottomed the cost of making and installing mirror units. So scaling production up won't decrease the per unit price. It's a manual/mechanical method of assembly and test.

sdBut EVFs can still benefit from further increases in scale because they are made with the same methods as ICs and other electronics. I don't think we've seen the bottom of that cost model yet.

This also includes the assembly of whole mirrorless cameras in general - fewer screws, fewer and more modular parts etc. etc.

DSLRs come from a hybrid manufacturing method that still includes a lot of old school mechanical screw / snap / test steps whereas mirrorless are more akin to electronics that have more plug and go steps.

And I'm not sure we the consumer will see lower cost - camera companies will economize for sure, but they will use that extra cash to strengthen their own financial positions since they've been in this drought for so long.

 

[richiebee]

mine was 3 years ago

Don

A safe move if bug macros are your main subject material.

I wonder if he has any photos in that realm that he can share?

 

[richiebee]

[No message]

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

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

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.

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.

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

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

Completely disagree,

Your prerogative ...

especially potentially for the future.

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

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 ???

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

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) ???