# The writing on the wall



## Warninglabel (Mar 8, 2012)

Hello All, This is a living post and as we discuss things on this topic I will try to update it. This topic is really about Mirror less tech and sensors, please keep that in mind

Thank you. 

For some weeks now I have been trying to figure out what Canon has been doing the past 4 years. Was the set back from the floods in Thailand that crippling for their R&D department, or was it their IPhone or Android devices in their pockets. I’ve looked at the IPhone 4′s a few weeks ago and took some pictures, pretty good pictures in fact, so good I used them in a brochure for work. So, was this the technology blocking Canon’s future or was it something else altogether different? Maybe… it was just a combination of numerous things or it could have been Sony.

Let’s go over some stuff about Sony here. Did you know that Sony makes the sensors in Nikon D800/D800E, yep, if you want to read more about their sensor go here. So, Nikon just builds the camera and components around the Sony 36mp sensor. What does Canon do, well they design/ build their sensor with Canons own R&D department. So why does this matter, the reasons is money. *Sony is a much larger company than Canon.*



Astro said:


> unkbob said:
> 
> 
> > Um, no. In terms of company value, Canon is 3 x as big as Sony and still twice as big as Sony + Nikon combined. Canon also has more employees than Sony
> ...



I stand corrected Sony is losing their @#$es 


With Sony and Nikon working together, they’re developing faster sensor technology. I know what you’re thinking, so how does this affect Canon? Well, Canon doesn’t have the money to invest fully in a dying technology as mirrored DSL’s. In fact, it’s hard to believe, but DSL’s with mirrors are done after this year. We will see the last of them from now to the end of this year. (2012, in my opinion) I’m not saying they won’t be selling them the next 3 years, but the 5D3 and the 1dx have a life span of 3-4 years and mirror less should have advance enough by then.

So, now you might be seeing where I’m going with this. But are we afraid of mirror less DSL’s as photographers? People hate change, especially the older we get, sure there are people that want it right now, but most just don’t understand how it will affect their work. They are so used to mirrored DSLR’s some might think they have to completely change their work flow. Also, the question will be whether the mirror less actually be on par with mirrored DSLR’s or better with the first generation? I really don’t know the answer to that and I’m not going to tell you it is, but will it be slight improvement? It better be, and it really has to be, because people won’t support it fast enough and Canon will lose to competitors like Sony that already has their first gen Nex 7 mirror less DSL out and it’s selling very well.

So what has Canon been doing over the last 4 years? Well, they have better been developing mirror less technologies for their DSL’s, and with the release of the 5D Mark III and hopefully Canon is secretly telling us that. A lot of people aren’t happy with the improvements of the 5D Mark III over its older brother Mark II. But Canon knows it has to secure its future or be obsolete and they can’t afford to invest in another 3 year cycle camera. They are behind Sony already. Canon doesn’t have the budget that Sony does. Canon had to bring out the Canon 5D Mark III to please the Canon folks or lose most of its customers to Nikon. They know their customers have invested heavily in glass and they needed to protect them with something like the merge of the Canon 7D and the 5D, but Canon knew they would lose some of them, maybe not at the extent as reported by posters in forums, but overall Canon did the right thing here. It was very smart, but they can’t have any setbacks, they must move forward at an accelerated pace.

So will there be any more Canon camera’s this year? I would say yes. The 4k DSLR that’s been reported and maybe the first blockbuster announcement of the mirror less Rebel XTi, lol, Just kidding about that one , but I don’t see a 7D Mark II, I might be wrong. It is still a great camera and now the 5D Mark III that has kind of merged the two together. Anyway this is only my opinion folks, but you can see the writing on the wall. Hopefully, Canon’s leadership has the vision to move forward like we all should. So how do you guys feel?


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 8, 2012)

I think if mirrored DSLRs become obsolete in the next few years, I'll happily give you £500 out of my pocket. I disagree that Canon is significantly behind - they just focus on other things. They have (on paper) the best focussing system on the market. That can't have been cheap. Their sensor tech is proving to hold up well as far as the first round of tests seem to have gone, but further tests will show things up too.

I also think the whole MP discussion is largely irrelevant. They could if they wanted to.

So, sorry, I completely disagree with nearly everything you said  But it's good to talk...


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Mar 8, 2012)

I am sure they are working on mirrorless concept and I am certain that eventually the mirror box will fade in history but we are quite a few years away from that. Especially considering that the DSLR market still continues to peak.

If you are looking for prophecies of doom, I'd say that the P&S will be abandoned in favor of phones much sooner than the DSLR.


----------



## Warninglabel (Mar 8, 2012)

Don't get me wrong I don't think they are completely behind Nikon or Sony I just don't see the advancement of 4 years in the 5D mark III and the AF was a joint investment in the 1Dx and 5D. I see a great future of possibilities with canon, I have the 5D Mark III on preorder and will love it (Coming from the 7d) I'm just saying technology is a fast pace and they had to being doing something else in the last 4 years for sure.


----------



## photophreek (Mar 8, 2012)

Posted by: Warninglabel


> but I don’t see a 7D Mark II, I might be wrong. It is still a great camera and now the 5D Mark III that has kind of merged the two together.



I've read this comment a few times about the so called merging of two different cameras. The buyers of these cameras are different with some overlap and price points are not the same. Is it because the 5D 3 has an AF system based on the 7D or that the two cameras look somewhat the same? 

FWIW, and based on the points I have mentioned, I think there will be a next gen 7d with the potential of positive sales volume for the buyers who can't afford the 5D 3 or the additional L lenses. When the 5D 3 was announced, Canon made no mention of the 7D merging with the 5D 3 as it did when th 1D X was announced. 

Please explain how you came to this conclusion.


----------



## pdirestajr (Mar 8, 2012)

You don't have to say "Mirrored DSLR", The "R" in DSLR covers that. Also, a mirror-less camera is NOT a DSLR. I believe it is an electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens camera.

I'm not sure Canon is behind anyone. When I watch a sporting event, I see a TON of white lenses all over the place. I don't think there will be many Sony Nex 7 cameras covering the Olympics either.

I don't have figures to back this up, but I do believe Canon is the market leader, and has been for quite some time.

There is a place for the mirror-less cameras. I'm sure they will take over the consumer market in the future. But I don't the think the focusing speed or accuracy is even close for it to go pro.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 8, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> You don't have to say "Mirrored DSLR", The "R" in DSLR covers that. Also, a mirror-less camera is NOT a DSLR. I believe it is an electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens camera.


But there is a DSLR without a flipping mirror - like in my good ol' Canon RT it's a semi-transparent one, you can actually see what you shoot and phase af would even work on live view. And the reaction time is much faster, on the RT you just have to breathe at the shutter release button to take a picture.

Since this system eats light, I hope updated sensor tech with lower iso noise will bring this system back. So even without a real mirror, there is hope for the ef lens ecosystem and for our investments.


----------



## triggermike (Mar 8, 2012)

> If you are looking for prophecies of doom, I'd say that the P&S will be abandoned in favor of phones much sooner than the DSLR.



+1, right on the mark.


----------



## nighstar (Mar 8, 2012)

sounds to me like you (and others) are just rumping around in the dark looking for answers that aren't there due to being dissatisfied with the 5D Mark III.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Mar 8, 2012)

Sony is a bigger company, but they are not exactly overflowing with cash for R&D. There is a reason their stock prices diverge(see below). It's in large part because Sony is operating at a loss and Canon is not. 

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=CAJ&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=SNE


----------



## Warninglabel (Mar 8, 2012)

photophreek said:


> Posted by: Warninglabel
> 
> 
> > but I don’t see a 7D Mark II, I might be wrong. It is still a great camera and now the 5D Mark III that has kind of merged the two together.
> ...



I have a 7D and love it, but what is the 7D, a entry level sports DSLR crop sensor with great and fast 19-AF 8 FPS this camera is still relevant right now, there really isn't anything comparable with it's speed and anyways how much can it be improved by what we already have and how much? Will they give it more then 19 pts, 20mp and higher IOS, maybe. But how much would you pay, the price will be higher and what if canon rumors is right and there is No 7D Mark II? [CR1] in this post http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/no-7d-mark-ii-cr1-2/ but it is just a rumor


----------



## Warninglabel (Mar 8, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> Sony is a bigger company, but they are not exactly overflowing with cash for R&D. There is a reason their stock prices diverge(see below). It's in large part because Sony is operating at a loss and Canon is not.
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=CAJ&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=SNE



btw, I have never bought anything from sony other then a Camcorder  I have really never like the company. I have look @ some of their TV's but never pick them over anyone else.


----------



## crasher7 (Mar 8, 2012)

*whoa, yes the first of the 7Defenders*

The 7D is anything but 'entry level' to me. That would be a T3 or perhaps a T1i but I guess one person's entry level is another person's semi-pro.


----------



## nvsravank (Mar 8, 2012)

DSLR are not going away until the AF speed of other solutions come up to the speed of the current optical based technologies.

Sony's technology is the best i have heard so far in AF speed but it is still at least a revolution away from the DSLR AF speed. If it were an evolution away, i would have agreed with you about DSLR fading in 2 to 3 years, but it is not. So i expect around 6 years at least. 3 years for the technology to advance and the technologists to find a better solution for AF that is revolutionary from current technologies and can match the DSLR AF speeds.

For technological bent, I am talking about moving away from Phase detection to something new. The contrast measurement technology does not have the ability to identify front focus and back focus and so cannot track focus for continuous focusing needed for many shooting situations where fast action happens.

The LYTRO light field technology might be something that might be useful if we can combine that technology with the regular camera technology. Just a thought


----------



## nitsujwalker (Mar 8, 2012)

Speculation is all in good fun.. I love my 7D and enjoy shooting birds, surfing and other sports. I am also interested in mirrorless cameras, but there are no good solutions for telephoto and fast autofocus right now. Yes, several cameras have fast autofocus, but no good telephoto options. Until these two can converge there will be a need for DSLRs (at least for me). I believe it will take more than a few years for the market and converge and do away with DSLRs. That said, I may pick up a mirrorless for when I don't want to carry a big camera.


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 8, 2012)

Sony is a very large corporation; but the sensor group is only a small piece of the overall picture. They only get their share of the resources. And certainly there is a Profit/Loss the Sony Director has to account for when that group looks for budget every year.

And what is Sony's agenda? They tend to be a consumer company. Does it make sense for them to be putting huge resources in pro-level sensors? Maybe in some ways; or they benefit somewhat from the television/broadcasting/digital film group - I dont know how their internal structure is organized.

Does Sony and Nikon have the same agenda? What happens if Sony grows disinterested in pro-level sensors? What if the 36 mp sensor was Sony's decision based on consumer-high-mp goals and did that influence Nikon's design?

Canon has a benefit here. While consumer is huge, they remain dedicated to pro-level technology.

Just questions.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 8, 2012)

right sony is making nikon sensors... and sony is making dslr cameras too... so how can that be good for nikon?

in the end they are competitors and nikon is dependent. 

and canon is creating a huge amount of patents year after year... so you worrys are needless.


----------



## Meh (Mar 8, 2012)

I respectfully disagree with the OP. Contrast-detect AF is not yet good enough to replace phase-detect AF and on that basis, and until there is a significant advancement, we are not approaching the end of the DSLR. Canon is sufficiently large to conduct world-class sensor R&D and their market share is large enough to not need to partner with Sony. A more important question is why does Sony want to partner with Nikon... most likely answer is because their market share and volume in DSLRs is too low to justify the investment and despite their size they are struggling in many areas... I believe they admitted a while back they are losing money on every TV sold, they are not doing very well in computers, they are small in DSLR cameras and don't have the lenses, they are not what they once were in consumer music devices (i.e. walkman/mp3 players), their margins are small on other consumer electronics. Sony does well in consumer P&S, camcorders, cinema cams, and Sony Music does well I believe.

The writing on the wall is that Canon continues to be the dominant high-end camera producer, has the size and patience to see what will happen with mirrorless, and doesn't have to jump on to new trends too earlier. Contrary to certain business wisdom... being first to market with a new product is not usually a recipe for success unless a barrier to entry and/or serious market share can be developed before competitors can rise up. So Canon can be comfortable waiting to see how the market plays out for mirrorless or other new trends and win by being late but getting it right. Look at Noink (love it Brian!) and their V1/J1 how is that doing? Bleh.

Flipping mirrors won't go away anytime soon. Sony resurrected the SLT concept to be different but it's no utopia... if one wants the best low-light camera for example... well, the SLT system loses almost a stop of light during image capture and the extra glass isn't helping image quality.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 8, 2012)

Meh said:


> I respectfully disagree with the OP. Contrast-detect AF is not yet good enough to replace phase-detect AF and on that basis, and until there is a significant advancement, we are not approaching the end of the DSLR.



well sensor based phase AF could replace the current phase AF in a few years.


----------



## Warninglabel (Mar 8, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> You don't have to say "Mirrored DSLR", The "R" in DSLR covers that. Also, a mirror-less camera is NOT a DSLR. I believe it is an electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens camera.



You are right I just got to excited it like I always call a pop a Coke 



pdirestajr said:


> I'm not sure Canon is behind anyone. When I watch a sporting event, I see a TON of white lenses all over the place. I don't think there will be many Sony Nex 7 cameras covering the Olympics either.



Correct!! I'm not saying canon is, but if canon would have made these camera 30% better then the competition they would have and could have I just saying they have to be working on something else. 


pdirestajr said:


> I don't have figures to back this up, but I do believe Canon is the market leader, and has been for quite some time.
> 
> There is a place for the mirror-less cameras. I'm sure they will take over the consumer market in the future. But I don't the think the focusing speed or accuracy is even close for it to go pro.



I never said anything about Sony Nex-7 kicking Canon butt, they're on to something, no moving parts and just a sensor to update, should be pretty fast techno.


----------



## kdsand (Mar 8, 2012)

Blasphemy!!!

How on earth have you not been smitten to death yet is beyond me! 
Lol!
I don't know the time frame but yes the mirror is destined to go. There is no doubt the Nikon Sony combination is a looming and ever present threat. 

Canon's development of sensor, AF system, processor and glass is of maximum priority as I see it. If these stay relevant they can be implemented in numerous ways.

There are even contact lenses with digital overlay. Google was supposed to release like this month bluetooth glasses with l e d display superimposed. 8)

And while we're at it what the hell is that pancake lens 4? Hmmm?


----------



## Warninglabel (Mar 8, 2012)

Ok folks, when will the next 5D/1Dx come out? Maybe in 3 years, many more, are you all saying that the technology is that slow? the cameras that just got release are here to stay for a while.


----------



## Meh (Mar 8, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > I respectfully disagree with the OP. Contrast-detect AF is not yet good enough to replace phase-detect AF and on that basis, and until there is a significant advancement, we are not approaching the end of the DSLR.
> ...



Possibly. I think it was Fuji (?) that had a decent crack at it a while back but even they admitted it had some drawbacks one of which being it had to mask off half of the pixels that were used for the AF in order to ascertain which side of the lens the ray-bundle is coming from. It's a relatively small number of pixels but it does technically affect IQ and on the highest-end cameras maybe we care. The sensor must also get hotter since it's always exposed to the light which could introduce more noise but I don't recall that being discussed. But yeah, that could be a way forward towards ditching the flipping mirrors.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 8, 2012)

Warninglabel said:


> Ok folks, when will the next 5D/1Dx come out? Maybe in 3 years, many more, are you all saying that the technology is that slow? the cameras that just got release are here to stay for a while.



imo sensor design is slowing down.
today they are doing finetuning.

microlenses, faster read speed all fine, but how much does quantum efficiency increase?
as r.n clark wrote not much



> Complications regarding the perceived performance of pixels, pixel size and sensor size in digital cameras over the last decade (about 2000 to 2009) is a significant refinement in technology. While the quantum efficiency of sensors in digital cameras has not really changed much, other factors that have improved include: fill factor (the fraction of a pixel that is sensitive to light), higher transmission of the filters over the sensor, better micro lenses, lower read noise, and lower fixed pattern noise.



you can´t expect huge jumps in sensor design today... well you can but that would be unrealistic.
making the sensitiv area of the sensor bigger (backlight, exmor) was a nice step but we will hit a wall sooner or later.


----------



## Meh (Mar 8, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> you can´t expect huge jumps in sensor design today... well you can but that would be unrealistic.
> making the sensitiv area of the sensor bigger (backlight, exmor) was a nice step but we hit a wall sooner or later.



Absolutely correct.


----------



## Meh (Mar 8, 2012)

Warninglabel said:


> Ok folks, when will the next 5D/1Dx come out? Maybe in 3 years, many more, are you all saying that the technology is that slow? the cameras that just got release are here to stay for a while.



Sorry, which side of this discussion are you on? You can be on as many sides as you want, I'm just confused if you're saying DSLRs are here to stay or done after this year?


----------



## Warninglabel (Mar 8, 2012)

Meh said:


> Warninglabel said:
> 
> 
> > Ok folks, when will the next 5D/1Dx come out? Maybe in 3 years, many more, are you all saying that the technology is that slow? the cameras that just got release are here to stay for a while.
> ...



What I mean and will correct on my main post is no more new high end models other then maybe a few DSRLs like the rebel yearly event.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 8, 2012)

Warninglabel said:


> Don't get me wrong I don't think they are completely behind Nikon or Sony I just don't see the advancement of 4 years in the 5D mark III and the AF was a joint investment in the 1Dx and 5D. I see a great future of possibilities with canon, I have the 5D Mark III on preorder and will love it (Coming from the 7d) I'm just saying technology is a fast pace and they had to being doing something else in the last 4 years for sure.



I'd say part of the issue here is that the tech that has been advancing in DSLR's for the last 15 years or so is starting to slow down, when you reach that stage each improvement in performance is going to come at a higher and higher price. The D4 for example really isnt that much of a leap from the D3s and the D800 clearly sacrifes other areas for its high resolution.

My feeling with mirrorless is that it isnt so much replacing DSLR's as it is creating a new market and I suspect Canon will try to tap into that rather than looking to go head to head with their own product. To some extent I do think mirrorless sales are something of a fad aswell, there is obviously a future to it but right now I think alot of buyers arent looking clearly at the benefits/disadvanatges but rather going with the "cool new tech".


----------



## unkbob (Mar 8, 2012)

Warninglabel said:


> Sony is a much larger company than Canon.



Um, no. In terms of company value, Canon is 3 x as big as Sony and still twice as big as Sony + Nikon combined. Canon also has more employees than Sony, and Sony's camera department is just one part of its sprawling portfolio whereas it is the cornerstone of Canon's. And Canon currently makes a profit, Sony doesn't. Sony is not some huge corporation with infinite resources, they're struggling and focused firmly on consumer-orientated products, which is why they have - at least for now - abandoned the pro camera market.


----------



## Astro (Mar 8, 2012)

unkbob said:


> Um, no. In terms of company value, Canon is 3 x as big as Sony and still twice as big as Sony + Nikon combined. Canon also has more employees than Sony



a few numbers form wikipedia:

sony = 168,200 employees
canon = 199,820 employees

sony net income = US $ -2.96 billion  (2011)
canon net income = US $ 3.2 billion (2011)


----------



## nitsujwalker (Mar 8, 2012)

Astro said:


> unkbob said:
> 
> 
> > Um, no. In terms of company value, Canon is 3 x as big as Sony and still twice as big as Sony + Nikon combined. Canon also has more employees than Sony
> ...



+1


----------



## Astro (Mar 8, 2012)

Warninglabel said:


> Sony is a much larger company than Canon.
> .....
> Canon doesn’t have the budget that Sony does
> .....
> Canon doesn’t have the money to invest fully in a dying technology as mirrored DSL’s. In fact, it’s hard to believe, but DSL’s with mirrors are done after this year.



well that is of course complete nonsense.

it´s even more nonsense as seeing sony as some electronic behemoth with bottomless resources.

with a little bit research and less guessing you would not have wasted so much time writing this together.


----------



## kdsand (Mar 8, 2012)

nitsujwalker said:


> Astro said:
> 
> 
> > unkbob said:
> ...



Does this mean that nobody here needs to defend Canon's high prices? 
???


----------



## Astro (Mar 8, 2012)

kdsand said:


> Does this mean that nobody here needs to defend Canon's high prices?



depends.... if your a shareholder and want a profit instead of a loss it seems canon is doing it right.


----------



## nitsujwalker (Mar 8, 2012)

kdsand said:


> nitsujwalker said:
> 
> 
> > Astro said:
> ...



I would love for Canon to have lower prices but am also happy that they aren't losing money. I don't believe that they have always been overpriced, but the trend with new lenses and the 5Diii seem to show it's going that way. That said, Nikon lenses cost an arm and a leg as do several other brands. Looking at the specs of the 5Diii i'd rather pay the $500 extra and purchase it over the D800. This is just my 2 cents. Overpriced? Probably.. Still going to buy stuff from them? Probably.


----------



## kdsand (Mar 8, 2012)

nitsujwalker said:


> kdsand said:
> 
> 
> > nitsujwalker said:
> ...


----------



## Meh (Mar 8, 2012)

nitsujwalker said:


> I would love for Canon to have lower prices but am also happy that they aren't losing money. I don't believe that they have always been overpriced, but the trend with new lenses and the 5Diii seem to show it's going that way. That said, Nikon lenses cost an arm and a leg as do several other brands. Looking at the specs of the 5Diii i'd rather pay the $500 extra and purchase it over the D800. This is just my 2 cents. Overpriced? Probably.. Still going to buy stuff from them? Probably.



Probably? You must have more self control than I do... Canon will definitely be getting more of money... I really can't do anything to prevent that, it's like an addiction really, I can't stop. Help me.


----------



## Warninglabel (Mar 9, 2012)

Meh said:


> nitsujwalker said:
> 
> 
> > I would love for Canon to have lower prices but am also happy that they aren't losing money. I don't believe that they have always been overpriced, but the trend with new lenses and the 5Diii seem to show it's going that way. That said, Nikon lenses cost an arm and a leg as do several other brands. Looking at the specs of the 5Diii i'd rather pay the $500 extra and purchase it over the D800. This is just my 2 cents. Overpriced? Probably.. Still going to buy stuff from them? Probably.
> ...



I would have to agree, my wife will kill me before the end of the year.


----------



## kdsand (Mar 9, 2012)

Meh said:


> nitsujwalker said:
> 
> 
> > I would love for Canon to have lower prices but am also happy that they aren't losing money. I don't believe that they have always been overpriced, but the trend with new lenses and the 5Diii seem to show it's going that way. That said, Nikon lenses cost an arm and a leg as do several other brands. Looking at the specs of the 5Diii i'd rather pay the $500 extra and purchase it over the D800. This is just my 2 cents. Overpriced? Probably.. Still going to buy stuff from them? Probably.
> ...



Perhaps we should have something like AAA. 
Would you like some one to be your sponsor? 
Volunteers?


----------



## unfocused (Mar 9, 2012)

I'm not going to smite the OP or anything. He's entitled to his opinion, I just wish he had done a little more critical thinking and a bit of fact-checking.

Most of the others have pointed out many of the things that went through my mind: comparing Sony and Canon is an apples to oranges comparison. Sony is probably not the right company to pick to illustrate that somehow Canon is doing things wrong – how's that 3D television working out?

Are DSLRs dinosaurs that will someday become obsolete? Yes. Might not be in my lifetime, but almost everything becomes obsolete sooner or later. 

Point and shoots are definitely on the endangered species list. Go to any tourist attraction and compare the number of persons using cell phones to the number using point and shoots. Now compare that today to what it was just two years ago.

Honestly, what difference does it make if some other form factor becomes more successful than the DSLR. If it fits my needs, I'll switch over. But, I don't see anything on the horizon that interests me. I am absolutely uninterested in an viewfinder-less camera. And, from the reviews I've read of both the GX and the Fuji X10, I don't think they've got the kinks worked out yet either. 

So, in the meantime, I'll keep using my 7D and anxiously await the next generation.


----------



## nitsujwalker (Mar 9, 2012)

Meh said:


> nitsujwalker said:
> 
> 
> > I would love for Canon to have lower prices but am also happy that they aren't losing money. I don't believe that they have always been overpriced, but the trend with new lenses and the 5Diii seem to show it's going that way. That said, Nikon lenses cost an arm and a leg as do several other brands. Looking at the specs of the 5Diii i'd rather pay the $500 extra and purchase it over the D800. This is just my 2 cents. Overpriced? Probably.. Still going to buy stuff from them? Probably.
> ...



hahaha yeah... I understand that.. My 'probably' is definitely an understatement.


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 9, 2012)

Tend to agree with the long term premise that Sony will be Canon's main competitor in the future. Currently, they are second behind Canon in many markets. They can't be too far off from overtaking Nikon in total camera sales.

But to say that the SLR will be gone within 12 months is a big call. Then again, for 90%+ of photography, a mirrorless camera could perform as well as an SLR. And most people that are buying their first DSLR would probably consider a mirrorless camera if they thought it was good enough. My 12 month prediction is that we'll see a few more sub $1,000 DSLRs released this year. But after that, mirrorless cameras will own that market. Canon will always have an entry level DSLR, but its sales and popularity will decrease over time. However, DSLRs will own the over $1,000 category.


----------



## crasher7 (Mar 9, 2012)

*Re: The writing *

I must say even though I do not agree with the OP I believe the post was very well written and convincing to a point. The point was where it started to leak like a sieve. Still, very well written fiction.


----------



## Meh (Mar 9, 2012)

kdsand said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > nitsujwalker said:
> ...



Haha... CanonRumors.com is secretly AA for photo gear freaks like us. Imagine how much time we'd all be spending hanging out in camera shops tempted to buy stuff if we weren't on here bickering all the time over nonsense ;D


----------



## Brendon (Mar 9, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> Tend to agree with the long term premise that Sony will be Canon's main competitor in the future. Currently, they are second behind Canon in many markets. They can't be too far off from overtaking Nikon in total camera sales.
> 
> But to say that the SLR will be gone within 12 months is a big call. Then again, for 90%+ of photography, a mirrorless camera could perform as well as an SLR. And most people that are buying their first DSLR would probably consider a mirrorless camera if they thought it was good enough. My 12 month prediction is that we'll see a few more sub $1,000 DSLRs released this year. But after that, mirrorless cameras will own that market. Canon will always have an entry level DSLR, but its sales and popularity will decrease over time. However, DSLRs will own the over $1,000 category.



Agree with this. DSLRs are here for a long time to come. The low end market may move to mirrorless but you wont catch a serious sport photographer with a mirrorless camera and a 400mm lens anytime soon. I certainly cant imagine shooting a wedding without the big viewfinder. Sony has made strides in the electroic viewfinders but take one out in the cold for a winter shoot and you will quickly cry for your mirror back!


----------



## Rocky (Mar 9, 2012)

Until manufacturer can make the mirrorless with AP-S (or even FF) sensor and have AF as fast as the DSLR. DSLR will be here to stay. Would you buy a mirrorless with 1/2 sec. AF and a sensor smaller than APS-C???


----------



## kdsand (Mar 9, 2012)

Brendon said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > Tend to agree with the long term premise that Sony will be Canon's main competitor in the future. Currently, they are second behind Canon in many markets. They can't be too far off from overtaking Nikon in total camera sales.
> ...




2 years from now I think I might know 
5 years from now I don't know if I know ???
7 years from now I know I don't know


----------



## jrista (Mar 9, 2012)

Warninglabel said:


> With Sony and Nikon working together, they’re developing faster sensor technology. I know what you’re thinking, so how does this affect Canon? Well, Canon doesn’t have the money to invest fully in a dying technology as mirrored DSL’s. In fact, it’s hard to believe, but DSL’s with mirrors are done after this year. We will see the last of them from now to the end of this year.



Yup. Just like the disposable film camera replaced actual cameras. Just like we never saw film again a couple years after the advent of the DSLR. Just like APS film killed off 35mm film within three years. Just like we stopped seeing large format film and contact printing since the advent of 35mm film.

Sorry...what a load of crap. The advent of mirrorless is simply the DIVERSIFICATION OF MARKET OPTIONS. DSLR's won't be going away. Many people, such as myself, much prefer the larger body format to the small size of mirrorless bodies or the disproportionate nature of lenses to mirrorless bodies as a matter of ergonomics. Many people, such as myself, prefer to see a REAL image through the viewfinder, rather than a replicated one on a tiny electronic screen with limited resolution. It will be quite some time before there is a major shift from DSLR type cameras to mirrorless cameras, and the two service partially different demographics that simply overlap...neither cover exactly the same range of photographer types.

Nothing ever entirely replaces anything else, and unlike film cameras (of all formats, which are still used by millions upon millions of people around the world today, and which in many respects has made a resurgence in recent years with the renewed manufacture of popular or specialty films like Velvia 50, independent resurrection of various forms of discontinued instant films, etc.), DSLR cameras have far more life left in them. Unlike film...which has consistent and continuous costs associated with developing it, DSLR technology requires only the initial investment in gear and a computer. The hundreds of millions of DSLR cameras that exist in the world today won't be going anywhere...they'll be resold, handed down, and the percentage of photographers who never actually leave the DSLR format for something else will continue to buy new ones.

Markets diversify, and only after decades do some submarkets shrink to a small percentage of what they were...few ever actually disappear for good. Film was still largely considered superior to digital until only a few years ago, and only with the advent of cameras like the 5D Mark II did that perception begin to really change. Film manufacture is still the largest single consumer of silver in the world, and photographic film is still a gargantuan market. It will take some time for manufacturers to perfect mirrorless technology, build up lens profiles that are even a fraction as impressive as those for DSLR's, etc. If I had to predict, I would say we might see the DSLR market shrink to an equal size as the mirrorless market 5-10 years from now...possibly. I think it would be decades before the DSLR market was actually a minor submarket of photographic equipment in general and second to mirrorless...and again, it would depend on where mirrorless goes. 

The current state of mirrorless cameras particularly appeal to a certain demographic who want smaller, trendy, and new. We'll need to see DSLR-size mirrorless bodies with the same handling and ergonomics, full frame sensors, with extremely high resolution EVF's, that don't require dumping existing gear for one system and replacing it with gear for another system, before any kind of true shift occurs.


----------



## Bennymiata (Mar 9, 2012)

I've read these posts with great interest, both the for and against DSLR's and their logevity.

No, DSLR's will not go away, not in my lifetime and probably not in your's either.

One thing no-one has been asking about is the value for money aspect of the mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras.
Have you seen the prices of them and their lenses and other accessories?

For what you get, they are ridiculously overpriced.
After all, most of them are just a point and squirt camera, with small sensors and slow auto-focus, poor high ISO quality, questionable handling, and they all cost far more than the entry level DSLR's!
The people who are buying them, and they are only a very small percentage of interchangeable lens camera buyers (about 10% in the US) and I would say most of these are buying them as a step up from a P&S, and so they think they're cool, but not many DLSR owners are changing their cameras for a Mirrorless that I know of.

I would imagine that most of these mirrorless buyers are wanting is really made perfect by the Canon G1x.
It has a larger than normal sensor for a P&S, has a great lens and good IQ for what it is, and it doesn't cost an arm or a leg, like a decent mirrorless camera costs, and the included lens covers probably 90% of what people use, rather than having to buy 3 or 4 prime lenses at great expense.

Once you've been used to looking through a good OVF, holding a small camera with a huge lens out in front of you trying to see the image on a poor quality LCD screen in bright sun, and waiting for the thing to focus and getting a good shot, will be a frustrating experience.
I know it was for me when I tried out a few of these new cameras, and considering what you can buy in a DSLR for less money, I wasn't convinced at all.
IF thes emirrorless cameras are priced somewhere between a P&S and an entry level DSLR, then they can start taking big slices of the market, but at their current costs, I very much doubt they will have much impact.
The Nikon J1 and V1 sold strongly for the first few weeks here in OZ, but now they are just sitting on the shelves gathering dust.
The new Fuji looks really good, but you can buy a Canon 5D MkII for less money!

Nikon has a big problem, and that problem is a heavy reliance on Sony.
As Sony is losing money hand over fist right now, and their camera sales are really pretty poor in most countries, there is a chance that Sony will be forced, by its board and shareholders, to cut costs and get rid of loss-makeing areas of the business like thier DSLR's.
If that happens, Nikon will be in real trouble as it doesn't have the resources to make their own high quality sensors, and without the sales of Sony DSLR's, Sony may decide that the volumes they make for Nikon are just not enough to keep this sensor business viable either.
You must have noticed that Sony bring out a camera using virtually every sensor that Nikon uses, haven't you?
Pentax also relies heavily on Sony sensors.

I've been in manufacturing for 40 years, and know full-well that you can't be reliant on just one manufacturer for vital components, becausae if that supplier has a hiccup, it can ruin your business.
What will happen to Nikon and Pentax if Sony goes down?
I'm not saying they will, but even huge companies, like Kodak, GM, Chrysler etc can falter.


----------



## kdsand (Mar 9, 2012)

Sony does have a track record of sticking with certain products come hell or high water. Heck there are likely long term reasons for them to stick with this. Right now they're in the ball game and playing with the big boys. So while they may not be competing at the very top they are competing, gaining experience and have grown in consumer awareness.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying Sony is good or going to lofty places - just that they could pull something out of their butt and surprise everybody.

I'm sure Nikon has plenty of contingency plans. 

I guess I'll tack this on.
I have to imagine almost all DSLR consumers and even most enthusiast can't completely comprehend what a truly good optical viewfinder is capable of. You can't miss what you never had.


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 9, 2012)

The posts above miss the point. Mirrorless cameras will succeed over DSLRs in the entry level price ranges precisely because they are cool and trendy. It doesn't matter what argument you put up as to why they are inferior. As long as the mirrorless cameras are essentially up to the task, "cool and trendy" will generally trump the practical choice. 

People don't need to see a big, fast focusing, full frame mirrorless camera before a major shift occurs. Looking at the sale figures for Japan and my market research from Australia and Europe (ie me looking around to see what type of camera people are using, but also backed up by some reports - eg http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/15/Cipa_publishes_mirrorless_sales_and_shipments), the shift has happened. Its already come. Doesn't necessarily mean that Canon has to compete or change its line-up. But I'd be surprised if they weren't trying to figure out how to put an EVF into the G1Xii.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 9, 2012)

jrista said:


> Many people, such as myself, much prefer the larger body format to the small size of mirrorless bodies or the disproportionate nature of lenses to mirrorless bodies as a matter of ergonomics.



This to me is really the key issue, I can imagine AF performance reaching reasonabley close to(if perhaps not IDX/D4) DSLR speeds in say 5 years but is there going to be anyway around the issue of unbalanced lenses? maybe kit zooms can shrink a bit more but is a f/2.8 zoom or even an f/4 every going to be that small? espeically tele lenses? If you end up needing a body of a certain size to balance the lens then why get rid of the mirror? alot of the potential advanatges of mirrorless(quiet, ultra high FPS, EVF exposure preview) seem like there perfectly possible to incorperate into a DSLR with something similar to Fuji's hybrid viewfinder.

My feeling is that you can actually get a good idea for the potential of mirrorless why looking at where rangefinders remained sucessful late in the film era. Seems like three main areas to me...

1.The cheap more casual end of the market where large appature and/or long.teke range zooms werent needed and size saving was desired.

2.Street shooters, more expensive bodies for users who again value size but are happy using primes that can balance well.

3.Medium format, lots of potential size savings and users who tend to shoot non action in the wide/normal range alot where lenses can balance more easily.


----------



## jrista (Mar 9, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> The posts above miss the point.



The point I was disputing was quite specific: 



> "Well, Canon doesn’t have the money to invest fully in a dying technology as mirrored DSL’s. In fact, it’s hard to believe, but *DSL’s with mirrors are done after this year*. We will see the last of them from now to the end of this year."



When someone states something as fact like that, when the reality is not even close, just requires a response. 

As for statistics, I don't think its as cut and dry as "the shift _has_ happened". Mirrorless, bridge camera, and the P&S market is a different beast than the DSLR market. Its the same market that saw the come and go of super cheap 35mm film cameras, the disposable film camera, instant film cameras, and a myriad of other products. Volatile, high volume market that is constantly changing because no one is ever satisfied, everyone in it follows trends, and its demographic is always itching for "the next _'best'_ thing." For any serious photographer, the SLR style interchangeable lens body has been the format of choice for longer than I've been alive. Statistically, there are numerous reports from the US and Eurpoe that indicate mirrorless camera growth has slowed or dropped in many major/faster markets, picked up a _little_ more in slower growing markets, while DSLR sales have shown strong and consistent growth across the board (5-6% minimum last quarter 2011). 

My point is, _matter of factly_ stating that "DSLR is DEAD" is naive at best, and just plain dumb in general.


----------



## jrista (Mar 9, 2012)

moreorless said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Many people, such as myself, much prefer the larger body format to the small size of mirrorless bodies or the disproportionate nature of lenses to mirrorless bodies as a matter of ergonomics.
> ...



Aye! Ergonomics and balance are a critical issue for me. I never realized it until I had a 7D, but even the relatively small size of my entry-level 450D DSLR body was too small for me to properly hold, and my panning and tracking technique suffered as a result.

I've tried both the Sony NEX and Nikon V/J series mirrorless cameras. I can't stand either. The disproportionate size of lenses to body is disconcerting, balance is off, and the whole setups feel almost toyish. On that note, what about ruggedness and weather sealing? Half the time I'm out photographing, its either extremely cold (sub-zero f° temps), snowing, raining, windy up to 60mph...or a variety of combinations thereof. I haven't heard anything about any mirrorless with decent (or any) weather sealing or rugged build capable of handling the kind of beating you might get with serious amateur or professional use.

I think @Hillsilly really kind of nailed it...at least for the time being: Mirrorless is just another option for the schizophrenic, trend-following, rarely-satisfied masses who were happy consuming disposable cameras, P&S digitals, bridge cameras, and are now enamored by the fancy and newfangled "mirrorless/evf/ilc". As a viable competitor for the serious _*photographer*_, I think we have a LONG way to go before we have the kinds of standard features found in prosumer and professional grade DSLR's in mirrorless cameras.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 9, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> The posts above miss the point. Mirrorless cameras will succeed over DSLRs in the entry level price ranges precisely because they are cool and trendy. It doesn't matter what argument you put up as to why they are inferior. As long as the mirrorless cameras are essentially up to the task, "cool and trendy" will generally trump the practical choice.



I think we need to remember that entry level DSLR's are still outselling mirrorless plus "cool and trendy" obviously changes over time.

One aspect I see changing in the coming years is the obcession with interchangable lenses on mirrorless. My guess is that at least 2/3rds of users never use anything but the kit lens yet an interchangable mount is still marketed as the sign of a "serious camera" dispite making the design more difficult and bulkier. Perhaps not the 1DX itself(which seems aimed at a more serious market) but that kind of concept at a smaller size has a strong future IMHO.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 9, 2012)

jrista said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > The posts above miss the point.
> ...



This to me is a very strong sign that large sensor mirrorless isnt replacing DSLR's but rather creating a new market, a market that is now reaching saturation and possible loosing some of its trendiness.

The market mirrorless is really taking a large chunk out of is I'd say small sensored compacts. While camera phones take the very casual compact users away the drop in sensor price means that many former users can now afford to move up in size with many wanting the same compact size.

Equally though I think were seeing many former film users return to SLR's now that price and performance is more competitive, I know I'v been seeing FAR more DSLR's in the hands of non pro's in the UK in the past 2-3 years.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 9, 2012)

Mirrorless
Backlit sensor
APS-C 28mb
Weatherproof
Full 1DX AF
10 fps
dual CF
Electronic Viewfinder

Unless Canon deliver this by April 1 for a price tag of less than $1000 then they will go the same way as Kodak

:'( :'( :'(


----------



## kdsand (Mar 9, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Mirrorless
> Backlit sensor
> APS-C 28mb
> Weatherproof
> ...


 ???
Ehhh?

Oh sarcasm!


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 9, 2012)

kdsand said:


> ???
> Ehhh?
> 
> Oh sarcasm!



... and the date ....


----------



## CJRodgers (Mar 9, 2012)

Out of interest, 

If / when mirrorless cameras are as good as dslr in every aspect (assuming they would be in the market at roughly the same price), what would you prefer to use for professional work? 

I am not a professional, but i hope to be one day. I get the feeling id feel more comfortable with something more substantial and robust in my hand than a mirrorless. I think it just looks and feels more professional. Does anyone else agree with this or am I being naive? Or is it just too hard to say that until the day mirrorless is as good as dslr.

But id probably still want a good mirrorless to take on holiday or even for casual walks etc


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 9, 2012)

CJRodgers said:


> Out of interest,
> 
> If / when mirrorless cameras are as good as dslr in every aspect (assuming they would be in the market at roughly the same price), what would you prefer to use for professional work?
> 
> I am not a professional, but i hope to be one day. I get the feeling id feel more comfortable with something more substantial and robust in my hand than a mirrorless. I think it just looks and feels more professional. Does anyone else agree with this or am I being naive? Or is it just to hard to say that until the day mirrorless is as good as dslr.



The only interest is getting the best IQ in the easiest fashion. What is in the body is of no interest to me providing it delivers


----------



## jrista (Mar 9, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Mirrorless
> Backlit sensor
> APS-C 28mb
> Weatherproof
> ...



;D


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (Mar 9, 2012)

jrista said:


> Many people, such as myself, prefer to see a REAL image through the viewfinder, rather than a replicated one on a tiny electronic screen with limited resolution. It will be quite some time before there is a major shift from DSLR type cameras to mirrorless cameras, and the two service partially different demographics that simply overlap...neither cover exactly the same range of photographer types.


This is the point for me too. I simply wouldn't use one 'cos I often stand in a corner and wait for the perfect expression when doing a wedding. I need to see massive detail to be able to do that. Plus, I want to use my camera as it is, ergonomically.

Fundamentally I'm not going to take a camera system which is worse than what I have right now.

I've no doubt that mirrorless cameras have their market - and good on those manufacturers who spotted the gap - but it's not something that most pros are going to want to use for the majority of their work. I might have one as a second camera for hols and stuff, but it's not going to be my tool of choice.


----------



## kdsand (Mar 9, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> kdsand said:
> 
> 
> > ???
> ...



Humping horny toads!
April 1st ;D


----------



## bigbadhenry (Mar 9, 2012)

Nikon manufacturer the lithography systems which Sony use to make there sensors. Does that mean Sony are more reliant on Nikon. Canon make there own lithography systems and sensors.


----------



## iaind (Mar 9, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Mirrorless
> Backlit sensor
> APS-C 28mb
> Weatherproof
> ...




Vou poisson d'avril as the french would say.

You forgot the 8-1200 f1.0 zoom lens in the kit


----------



## Rocky (Mar 9, 2012)

CJRodgers said:


> Out of interest,
> 
> If / when mirrorless cameras are as good as dslr in every aspect (assuming they would be in the market at roughly the same price), what would you prefer to use for professional work?


I am not a professional either. If the mirrorless was as good as (including ergonomics) the DSLR, I would use mirrorless any time. It would be lighter, better balance for the hand and no mirror vibrationthat will allow me to hand hold at a lower speed. The existing mirrorless (except one) has poor ergonomics,slow AF and rediculusly large lenses. The exception that I have memtioned is the Leica M9 with manual focusing. Too bad that the price is so high, $8000 body only.


----------

