# The End of the DSLR?



## jolyonralph (May 8, 2017)

I had an interesting discussion last night with a guy who has more contacts than I do in the Canon world. He made a bold statement.

"Canon will never release another mirror-based professional DSLR"

Pushing further he said that you won't see a 1DXIII or a 5D Mark V with mirrors. There will probably be refreshes in the amateur lineup (90D etc) but even those won't go more than a couple of generations more.

6D Mark II? He doesn't know, but wouldn't be surprised if it was ready but Canon were unsure whether to actually launch it or not.

He expects the current 1DX II and 5D IV to be on sale for "At least" another 5 years, and possibly like the film cameras they'll keep them in slow production for a few years more for those who really don't want to move to mirrorless.

Changes in current lens designs, focus technology and changes in market plans for future lenses are all being based on a mirrorless future, apparently.

He also said this would make a lot of people unhappy, which is why no-one is talking about it. 

So perhaps I shouldn't either. But oh well too late 


I suspect he may be wrong. I am a definite convert for mirrorless, but there is still a huge difference when it comes to shooting fast action. And battery life! Will these problems be solved within 5 years? Probably.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 8, 2017)

I'm pretty sure we'll see a 5DSR II though, with a mirror!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2017)

Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 8, 2017)

I wonder if the 1DX II has reached the limits of how fast a traditional mirror system can perform. If we want more frames per second then we either have to look at pellicle solutions (A99II) or mirrorless. I've seen the future, and it's not the EOS RT.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2017)

Mirrorless systems have not yet caught up with dSLRs for tracking moving subjects, more frames not in focus isn't really a viable solution for 1-series uesrs.

Sony has made claims about the a9. Lett me know when you start seeing them on the sidelines of major sporting events. I won't hold my breath.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 8, 2017)

Many film photographers also swore that digital would never replace 35mm professionally. Look how that worked out for them.

But yes, I think Canon are playing the smart game here, letting companies such as Sony grow the market for mirrorless and waiting until they can entirely replace the mirror with a fast enough sensor. 

The future goes beyond just speed. We already have face tracking, which works really well. What can we expect in future cameras? intelligent object recognition and tracking for example? So not just faces, but birds, balls, lions or whatever else is there. Face tracking is the 'consumer' end of the technology, but I see future cameras being sold not just on megapixels and focus speed but on the intelligence of the onboard systems in identifying items of interest and getting them in focus before you have even had time to think about what to focus on! Of course there will still be manual modes for us luddites


----------



## Rockskipper (May 8, 2017)

They'll have to somehow match the quality of an OVF with an EVF and make it work when the power's off to make a lot of us happy. And then there's blackout...


----------



## docsmith (May 8, 2017)

How many drinks had your friend had???? : : :

I am not sure the exact lead time it takes to launch a professional DSLR....but it would surprise me if Canon isn't already working on the 5DSR II, 5DV, and 1DX III. All with mirrors.

It would not surprise me at all if they have several prototype mirrorless FF dSLRs. Matter of fact, it would shock me if they didn't. But when they go exclusively mirrorless, I would also expect a new lens mount. Thus, I expect a transitional period, a FF mirrorless body (M1), EF adaptor, and a few lenses at launch. At least one more generation of mirrorslappers to help with the transition as the new lens mount is populated.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Many film photographers also swore that digital would never replace 35mm professionally. Look how that worked out for them.



I'm not saying mirrorless won't replace dSLRs in pro cameras (or consumer cameras), that will likely happen. But suggesting that Canon will make it happen across all their lines, all at once, and never release another dSLR? Sorry, but that's ludicrous. 

No one is talking about it, not because it will make people unhappy, but because it's silly.


----------



## unfocused (May 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.



So true. 

Mirrorless will replace SLRs when they can do everything a mirrored system can do, only better. So far, that is not the case. Will it be the case in five years? Who knows? And, really, who cares?

As long as I can look through a viewfinder, see my subject and compose my frame, what do I care if there is a mirror in the camera or not? Regardless, I highly doubt that the basic ergonomics of high-end interchangeable lens cameras are going to change all that much. 

Of course, if the OP's story is at all close to true, it proves that his "friend" is something of an idiot. After all, to say that a company is going to make a major change that "would make a lot of people unhappy" is a pretty good indicator that the person knows absolutely nothing. Companies do not go out and purposely do things to make "a lot of people unhappy."


----------



## YuengLinger (May 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Many film photographers also swore that digital would never replace 35mm professionally. Look how that worked out for them.
> ...



But if we are looking at a new mount, should we avoid Big Whites? Will they be obsolete or relegated to adapters that slow down AF?


----------



## tpatana (May 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mirrorless systems have not yet caught up with dSLRs for tracking moving subjects, more frames not in focus isn't really a viable solution for 1-series uesrs.
> 
> Sony has made claims about the a9. Lett me know when you start seeing them on the sidelines of major sporting events. I won't hold my breath.



Yea you get these threads every so often. Like I said earlier, when mirrorless has:

-99% as good AF tracking and speed
-Nearly indistinguishable EVF, with virtually no lag

Then I'm all in for mirrorless. Using my dlsr until that happens.

My guess is that time is less than 5 years thou, so it's possible 1DX3 has those. For sure 1DX4 will have those (although they'll change name at that point, but the 4th gen in 1DX legacy)


----------



## Hflm (May 8, 2017)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.
> ...


In my opinion, shooting weddings using a 5divs with A7rii for supplement (having used Nikon high-end and Fuji XT2, too, to get a perspective) the transition point is close, if not already there for most areas. We all know the A9 specs. Many things need to be investigated further in real competitive situations to see whether the laurels are deserved or not. But for the majority of users, when implemented in the A7iii or similar (no blackout, fully silent shutter, similarly quick start-up time, etc. etc.) I don't see a big reason to stay with DSLRs anymore. I find myself using the DPAF most of the time at weddings, to be honest. Why? Focus is accurate even at the outer focus points using my f1.4 lenses _all_ the time (even better with the A7rii). No back- or front-focus issues any more. You often have a single chance getting the focus right and I love using the A7rii since I know the image will _always_ be perfectly focused. Always. It is more quiet, exposure is closer to what I want in strong backlit situations resulting in less post-processing time (nice when dealing with thousands of images for a wedding). DPAF is already very good. I can easily imagine Canon using the same EF mount in a DPAF MILC or maybe an intermediate hybrid version. I wouldn't use a different mount. RED, BlackMagic, and others have active EF mount systems. Thom Hogan said that rumor at the NAB trade show has it that Panasonic will be going that direction with a new VariCam.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 8, 2017)

I have little doubt that Canon is looking at mirrorless, but so far, they have not produced a single FF body or even one with pro level AF for mirrorless. They have lots of patents, and likely will release one in a few years. They have done lots of surveys, and found most pro level photographers have little interest in mirrorless, since the glass is so important, and mirrorless does not make it smaller or lighter.

We'll see how much your friend knows when the 6D MK II is released later this year.

I'd give you good odds that it will not be mirrorless.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 8, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I have little doubt that Canon is looking at mirrorless, but so far, they have not produced a single FF body or even one with pro level AF for mirrorless. They have lots of patents, and likely will release one in a few years. They have done lots of surveys, and found most pro level photographers have little interest in mirrorless, since the glass is so important, and mirrorless does not make it smaller or lighter.
> 
> We'll see how much your friend knows when the 6D MK II is released later this year.
> 
> I'd give you good odds that it will not be mirrorless.



But why can't the mount area of mirrorless be a little elongated so as to accommodate current ef lenses? 

I just hope the adapters are 99% as good as current performance without on FF bodies.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 8, 2017)

My friend never said the 6D II would be mirrorless. His suggestion was that it would be a traditional update to the 6D, but this might be cancelled because Canon are not sure of the strength of the market for DSLR cameras.

Personally, I think Canon's got a good chance of doing something innovative with a hybrid OVF/EVF that gives photographers the best of both worlds, so that 'live view' can be used through the viewfinder etc. If they can get this right and their parents hold up well then it could give them a huge advantage in the future.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 8, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> But why can't the mount area of mirrorless be a little elongated so as to accommodate current ef lenses?
> 
> I just hope the adapters are 99% as good as current performance without on FF bodies.



As I just said, I think a hybrid OVF/EVF solution (which would therefore require normal EF mount) would be the best solution. 

But I think what is quite possible is that we'll see in the future a FF mirrorless camera effectively in two different form factors, as a 5D/6D style large body with standard EF mount (so no adaptors needed) and as a more compact EOS-M style body with the EF-M mount which would take EF-M lenses (current and future full-frame variants) and EF lenses with appropriate adaptor. 

Much in the same way as the current 80D and EOS M5 are almost the same camera in two different form factors (albeit in this case only one is mirrorless.)

That second option would of course require a whole new line of FF EF-M lenses which may or may not be a sensible allocation of resources by Canon. But they probably wouldn't need much, a decent 24-70 f/4 IS, 50mm 1.8 or 14 prime, maybe a compact 35mm f/2. Everything much wider or much longer than these would have little benefit in making EF-M specific versions. Of course these lenses would work on existing EOS M cameras too.


----------



## Sporgon (May 8, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> My friend never said the 6D II would be mirrorless. His suggestion was that it would be a traditional update to the 6D, but this might be cancelled because Canon are not sure of the strength of the market for DSLR cameras.



;D ;D

Your friend is some dude


----------



## ykn123 (May 8, 2017)

Oh boy, am i the only one who give a s... on whether my camera has a mirror or not as long as i can use it to take great pictures?


----------



## arthurbikemad (May 8, 2017)

Maybe tech will change, maybe a clear sensor will be developed, then new tech could give me what I want, to see through my lens without the need for an EVF, no EVF I have ever used has ever come close to a simple DSLR let along the amazing and incredible OVF of the 1DX2.


----------



## Don Haines (May 8, 2017)

YAPOD!

The people at Canon are smart and they know the market. The proof of this is that they are #1 in sales.....

Some people want a small, relatively inexpensive, yet good quality camera. The "M" series is their answer....

Others want the advanced controls (and you need a large sized body to fit them) and uncompromising image quality of a FF camera.... and they will not accept the vignetting and chromatic aberration that comes with bending the light sharper for a short flange body.....

and never the two shall meet.....


----------



## Jopa (May 9, 2017)

Why would a successful business want to make "a lot of people unhappy"? 

I don't think anyone would care if a camera has mirror or no mirror, as long as it's fast, reliable and take the existing EF lenses with no issues.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 9, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Why would a successful business want to make "a lot of people unhappy"?
> 
> I don't think anyone would care if a camera has mirror or no mirror, as long as it's fast, reliable and take the existing EF lenses with no issues.



Its not a simple thing. North American and to some extent, Europeans prefer large Camera bodies, while in Asia, small is considered better. Some say its due to hand size, but its probably more cultural. Companies like Canon have taken the large body approach merely because most camera buyers were in North America and Europe.

That dynamic has changed, Asia is now driving camera sales, and they prefer small. Its very expensive to make flagship level cameras in both large and in small sizes, but that is one solution. Canon is big enough to be able to design and sell both, so I expect that to happen. If sales of small mirrorless bodies take over, then everything will follow the money.


----------



## LDS (May 9, 2017)

unfocused said:


> After all, to say that a company is going to make a major change that "would make a lot of people unhappy" is a pretty good indicator that the person knows absolutely nothing. Companies do not go out and purposely do things to make "a lot of people unhappy."



Actually, Canon already did when it switched from the FD mount to the EF one. Suddenly, all your precious lenses couldn't be used on new cameras and you had to buy them again (Canon had good reasons for such choice, but it was expensive for customers). So, yes, some deep changes may made people unhappy - if I would have to use all my EF lenses through an adapter on a mirrorless camera I wouldn't be happy at all, and wouldn't probably buy it.

Yet, I'm sure mirrorless will take the place of SLR - they are cheaper to build ( = more profits) and will last less - OLED MTBF is not yet very high (= more sales, and "planned obsolescence"). Some people will be happy to replace a camera every two-three years. Others may be not.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 9, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Others want the advanced controls (and you need a large sized body to fit them) and uncompromising image quality of a FF camera.... and they will not accept the vignetting and chromatic aberration that comes with bending the light sharper for a short flange body.....



I've seen this said before, and it's still nonsense.

If you stick EF lenses on a mirrorless camera it's going to have exactly the same optical properties as it would on a mirror DSLR. Whether this is with an adaptor onto a compact body or a larger body that takes EF lenses directly. So no-one has to accept any degradation in vignetting or aberration for mirrorless. 

Similarly, if you are designing lenses for a short flange distance sensor then it is ENTIRELY UP TO YOU how much distance you put between the rear element and the sensor. If you want to have a larger lens with a greater distance between the two then go ahead. 

Compact lenses are an advantage that mirrorless offers, but it doesn't INSIST on compact lenses. Look at the Sony FE lens options for example!

I do agree about smaller cameras being more difficult to operate - my biggest criticism of the M5 is that they made it TOO small.


----------



## Mikehit (May 9, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I've seen this said before, and it's still nonsense.
> 
> If you stick EF lenses on a mirrorless camera it's going to have exactly the same optical properties as it would on a mirror DSLR. Whether this is with an adaptor onto a compact body or a larger body that takes EF lenses directly. So no-one has to accept any degradation in vignetting or aberration for mirrorless.



So what you are saying is 'buy the Sony camera because it is great....but only if you buy an adapter and use Canon lenses....and lose that fantastic frame rate.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen this said before, and it's still nonsense.
> ...



No, I have no idea how you read that into my comment! 

We were talking about FUTURE Canon mirrorless FF cameras, not Sony - and as has already been suggested on this site that a future FF camera may continue to use the standard EF mount and camera general dimensions.

There are more advantages to mirrorless than just size reduction.

Anyway, the high end Sony lenses such as the 24-70 f/2.8G are very good, at least on a par with the Canon 24-70. Are they small and compact? No they're no different to the Canon lenses. Of course with the A7rII you get the benefit of in-body image stabilization which Canon still doesn't have for still photography.


----------



## Mikehit (May 9, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> No, I have no idea how you read that into my comment!
> 
> We were talking about FUTURE Canon mirrorless FF cameras, not Sony - and as has already been suggested on this site that a future FF camera may continue to use the standard EF mount and camera general dimensions.
> 
> ...



Thank you for clarifying. Your comment was in response to Don who commented on short flange distance so I assumed you were continuing that line. 

But yes, you are right that you can make FF mirrorless with the correct flange distance. The thing with the Sony lenses is that optically they may be equal to Canon but lenses designed for the A7rii they reportedly have issues at the edge arising from the short flange distance. 

Once Canon go down the line of mirrorless I can see them following Olympus/Panasonic line of having combined IBIS and optical IS to give greater stabilisation - do that with the big whites and you will have an awesome system!


----------



## jolyonralph (May 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> The thing with the Sony lenses is that optically they may be equal to Canon but lenses designed for the A7rii they reportedly have issues at the edge arising from the short flange distance.



Again, the flange distance defines the minimum distance between the lens and the sensor. With mirrorless you CAN make that much smaller, but it doesn't have to be.

If your optical formula determines that the best quality is given by a set of lenses with a traditional large gap between the rear element and the sensor then you can do just that with the lens! 

There is no *requirement* to put the rear elements extremely close to the sensor, you only do that if a compact lens is your primary goal. 

And, even with compact lenses on the A7RII (35mm 2.8) i've seen no evidence of issues at the edge.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> My friend never said the 6D II would be mirrorless. His suggestion was that it would be a traditional update to the 6D, but this might be cancelled because Canon are not sure of the strength of the market for DSLR cameras.



So they're going to cancel the 6DII because they're uncertain about the strength of the dSLR market, and instead switch over to entirely mirrorless…a market that is less than one-third the size of the dSLR market. 

Yeah, that makes just oodles of sense. :


----------



## Orangutan (May 9, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I wonder if the 1DX II has reached the limits of how fast a traditional mirror system can perform.



Maybe for flip mirrors, but I've wondered why they couldn't do a sliding mirror (like the shutter curtain) with the big-body DSLRs. If they can get a light shutter curtain to move at x-sync speed, they should be able to get a heavier mirror to move at some decent fraction of that.


----------



## hendrik-sg (May 9, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



I think we should avoid all which we dont need now. who needs a big white now will have no alternative now. And obsoletness is a selling strategy, and recently the 400 2.8 IS got obsolete, maybe 5 years after replacement. 

To link to the past, the guy who bought a FD big white 3 month before the EOS system was announced made a worse investment, than his friend who bout a EOS big white 1 year later, but the eos guy had no big white for 1 year. 

Because we never know what happens next (because we not make the decision ourselves) we should avoid what we not need NOW


----------



## CanonCams (May 9, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > My friend never said the 6D II would be mirrorless. His suggestion was that it would be a traditional update to the 6D, but this might be cancelled because Canon are not sure of the strength of the market for DSLR cameras.
> ...



Cancelled?

If the rumors are any indication (especially with the supposed registration of the 6D MK II), how many times has any camera company cancelled a product this close to release? 

I don't buy it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> Cancelled?
> 
> If the rumors are any indication (especially with the supposed registration of the 6D MK II), how many times has any camera company cancelled a product this close to release?



Nikon announced their DL series of premium compacts in Feb 2016 and indicated a summer 2016 launch. They postponed that, then in Feb 2017 they canceled the series. 

So, it happens...but it's not going to happen to the 6DII.


----------



## Hflm (May 9, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the 1DX II has reached the limits of how fast a traditional mirror system can perform.
> ...


?? Why and how should they do that? How to design it to avoid vibration or shock waves initiated by an even faster movement of mechanical parts and reduce blackout time similarly? Development costs are much higher for DSLRs, in a declining market where companies try to move customers to more expensive gear to increases sales numbers or expensive mirrorless (even higher revenue) to mitigate the drop in units sold. The market will move to global shutter or at least efcs. I see the benefit with my A7rii or when using the 5div in LV. The A9 avoids blackouts and allows silent shooting. For the next Olympics an A9 successor will be there, improving what we have now even further. Not all need that, but I find that useful. In combination with higher res sensors it makes sense to avoid things degrading pixel level IQ, unless you only want to use your camera on a tripod. 
I can imagine Canon offering some kind of hybrid intermediate models, doing OSPDAF in between mirror slaps, for example, however.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 9, 2017)

Clearly the 6D is coming and it's going to be a traditional DSLR 

And, as I said before, I think we'll see a 5DSR Mark II (but possibly not a 5DS mark II?) too.

My views are that we'd likely see at least a 1DX Mark III with a traditional mirror, but yes maybe the 5D Mark V will be a premium mirrorless camera.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 9, 2017)

Canon EF-M flange depth is 18mm for APS-C sensor, Sony E mount is 18mm for Full Frame cameras, Canon EF / EF-S is 44mm (FL / FD was 42mm). 

As we see for the EF-M you can use an adaptor to mount EF lenses on a shorter back focus camera to cover the larger 24 x 36mm image circle (as adaptors for the Sony E mount already do with Canon lenses) the issue is this doesn't really save anything on size & weight other than the camera body. Designing new optics is possible but Canon are still releasing new EF lenses they have invested huge sums of money developing so what is the likely reality. 

The sensor will not be moved, it would need to move forwards 26mm to accommodate 44mm flange depth lenses

Change the profile of the DSLR: That would break a design tradition dating back to the film EOS 650, not likely. 

More likely I think Canon will work on the Rebel line and convert those to mirrorless and move away from EF-S lenses and use adaptors for those wanting to use EF lenses and at the same time expand the EF-M lens line-up to go back to two series of lenses rather than three. Most Rebel camera purchasers (7D MKII / 80D excepted) only ever purchase the kit lens and maybe one other zoom to me that makes more logic and the 7D MKII / 80D users will be able to purchase the legacy EF-S lenses kept in production but not newer versions.


----------



## CanonCams (May 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > Cancelled?
> ...



Yikes.


----------



## geonix (May 9, 2017)

Well, I can remember that it was rumored, once the 7D2 came out, that Canon won't make a mirror 7D III.

At some point in time we will see mirrorless cameras that have no disadvantages compared to pro level dslrs. Also not in AF tracking. We will see if the A9 is already one of those or just an incremental step in that direction.

My hope is, that the technological advance also continues on converters and adapters. If canon came up with a mirrorless body, that had a specially fitted adapter for the current eos lenses, so that these lenses would work on the mirrorless body the same as on current dslrs, the transition would be easy.


----------



## Mikehit (May 9, 2017)

Easy? Not so sure. 
There are many experienced users who still do not like the EVF offerings out there. They will form a core of those who need to be convinced. Personally, I look on the EVF as a great aid to composing the picture and the information I get is a great help that overcomes the non-real appearance. But some want it to look like an optical VF as well and 'feel' as though they are looking at the view and not a computer representation of it.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 9, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I had an interesting discussion last night with a guy who has more contacts than I do in the Canon world.



So this guy you talked to was not a Canon employee, but a guy that knows another guy that may or may not actually work at Canon? We don't know what guy at Canon would actually know about this, nor do we know if your guy's guy even knows this yet another guy. 

This sounds like one step ahead of asking a random person on the street. 

I would not sweat too much about what he said. 

I wonder what will happen first

Canon stops making Pro level DSLRS or Nikon goes out of business? Both are rumours but I think neither will happen during my lifetime.


----------



## SteveM (May 9, 2017)

The success (or not) of the Sony A9 will no doubt be a driving factor. Maybe the DSLR has reached the peak of what is possible to do with it, in which case Canon etc will try to push people towards mirrorless by removing the alternatives....good or bad is a matter of opinion. 
Personally, I like the larger body of the 5D MklV in contrast to the Mirrorless bodies, larger hands, I want a larger camera. I have a lot of 'L' series glass that I am not disposing of so they either give mirrorless an appropriate mount or produce an adaptor that doesn't compromise weather sealing or lose any light, I would be non too happy if my 1.4 lens became 1.8.
Maybe they eventually make a mirrorless camera the same size as a DSLR with a mount that fits L series glass....maybe now I'll listen.


----------



## Pookie (May 9, 2017)

It wouldn't be CR if you didn't waste 3 pages talking about a guy, that knows a guy who know guys that say...


----------



## unfocused (May 9, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> ...that it would be a traditional update to the 6D, but this might be cancelled.



Yes, I'm sure the first DSLR cancelled with be the successor to a camera that consistently outsold every other full frame camera body on the market. 



AcutancePhotography said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I had an interesting discussion last night with a guy who has more contacts than I do in the Canon world.
> ...



I disagree. I think a random person on the street would have have more intelligence. 



Pookie said:


> It wouldn't be CR if you didn't waste 3 pages talking about a guy, that knows a guy who know guys that say...



Come on, I'm sure we can get to 10 pages if we try.


----------



## timmy_650 (May 10, 2017)

I was thinking about this... the 1DxII they say it shoots 14 fps but in live view it shoots 16. So at 16 the mirror is locked up, so it is kinda running like a mirrorless camera right? so how does that affect the camera? what So the auto-focus run the same?

I wouldn't get to shocked if canon makes one of those bodies goes mirrorless but i highly doubt they will go away the EF mount. That is the biggest thing canon has going for them. I know that this means the bodies can't go much smaller but I feel like most people shooting the 5D or 1D aren't overly worried about a little weight.


----------



## Mikehit (May 10, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Come on, I'm sure we can get to 10 pages if we try.



Only 10? Get some ambition, man!


----------



## neonlight (May 10, 2017)

I suspect the one thing holding up mirrorless is the global shutter sensor. Once Canon have a GS they will not need a mechanical shutter nor a mirror, so this should tip the balance. Global shutter sensors are trickier to design and need more transistors than the basic, so may be more expensive. MILC plus EVF will no doubt occur sometime soon and will slowly displace DSLR ... I think.


----------



## Aussie shooter (May 10, 2017)

Mirrorless will replace DSLR when there are no sacrifices to be made with mirrorless. It will happen and with the speed of technology improvement these days it could well be within 5 years. But untill a mirrorless is as good in everyway and more importantly as reliable and bulletproof as current DSLRs it won't happen. Gimmiks won't convert pros or srious enthusiast wildlife and landscape photographers who demand reliability.


----------



## GHPhotography (May 10, 2017)

neonlight said:


> I suspect the one thing holding up mirrorless is the global shutter sensor. Once Canon have a GS they will not need a mechanical shutter nor a mirror, so this should tip the balance. Global shutter sensors are trickier to design and need more transistors than the basic, so may be more expensive. MILC plus EVF will no doubt occur sometime soon and will slowly displace DSLR ... I think.



I agree, especially if Canon intends to make a new lens mount (I don't think they will). Like the FD to EF switch, there needs to be some massive improvement to drive people to switch. Crazy frame rates and a global shutter along with DPAF might make a compelling reason for pros to completely switch systems, but I think using EF glass for FF and expanding the M offerings for APSC is the smart choice for Canon.


----------



## Jopa (May 10, 2017)

timmy_650 said:


> I was thinking about this... the 1DxII they say it shoots 14 fps but in live view it shoots 16. So at 16 the mirror is locked up, so it is kinda running like a mirrorless camera right? so how does that affect the camera? what So the auto-focus run the same?
> 
> I wouldn't get to shocked if canon makes one of those bodies goes mirrorless but i highly doubt they will go away the EF mount. That is the biggest thing canon has going for them. I know that this means the bodies can't go much smaller but I feel like most people shooting the 5D or 1D aren't overly worried about a little weight.



It just needs to maintain AF using DPAF, like the M5 does it. One note - 16 fps with the mechanical shutter, so you can use strobes, and no jello effect. The A9 is doing 20 with no mechanical shutter (which still has jello in spite of the marketing claims), and only 5 with the mechanical shutter. If Canon can read the sensor fast enough (like the global shutter implemented in the C700) - they definitely can do a nice mirrorless with no compromises.


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, I'm sure we can get to 10 pages if we try.
> ...


If


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, I'm sure we can get to 10 pages if we try.
> ...


We


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, I'm sure we can get to 10 pages if we try.
> ...


Try


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, I'm sure we can get to 10 pages if we try.
> ...


hard


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, I'm sure we can get to 10 pages if we try.
> ...


then


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, I'm sure we can get to 10 pages if we try.
> ...


we


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, I'm sure we can get to 10 pages if we try.
> ...


can


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, I'm sure we can get to 10 pages if we try.
> ...


do


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, I'm sure we can get to 10 pages if we try.
> ...


it!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2017)

;D


----------



## Luds34 (May 11, 2017)

neonlight said:


> I suspect the one thing holding up mirrorless is the global shutter sensor. Once Canon have a GS they will not need a mechanical shutter nor a mirror, so this should tip the balance. Global shutter sensors are trickier to design and need more transistors than the basic, so may be more expensive. MILC plus EVF will no doubt occur sometime soon and will slowly displace DSLR ... I think.



Hmmm, I guess I don't get it. Global shutter and mirrorless are mutually exclusive. Currently, none of the still cameras I'm aware of have a global shutter, aka they all produce a rolling shutter affect as anything above max flash sync speed is a slit moving across the shutter via first and second curtain. 

AND all the mirrorless cameras I'm familiar with still use a mechanical shutter. They may have electronic shutter option, but then the rolling affect is often worse because you are limited by the sensor readout which is often slower than what the mechanical shutter produces. In short the EF does not freeze action very well.

No, the global shutter will be a huge step forward for stills cameras, regardless whether there is a mirrorbox or not.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 11, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Yes, I'm sure the first DSLR cancelled with be the successor to a camera that consistently outsold every other full frame camera body on the market.



Just curious if you have a source?

I've got a suspicion that in the higher priced camera market (let's say, over $US1,000), mirrorless cameras are already selling better than DSLRs. But this is just based on what I see people using, blogs, images that get posted online etc - not actual sales data. Does anyone have any info on camera model sales numbers?


----------



## Aussie shooter (May 12, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I'm sure the first DSLR cancelled with be the successor to a camera that consistently outsold every other full frame camera body on the market.
> ...



No numbers here but i have some pretty solid evidence to say mirrorless cameras are only a very small player in the high end camera feild. I work on an island that is a very popular tourist destination (especially for chinese travellers) and i can tell you that high end mirrorless are vastly outnumbered by canon and nikon DSLRs. I would say at about a 50 to 1 ratio. As far as happy snapper tourists go DSLRs and small mirrorless are fairly similar.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 14, 2017)

Interesting. Here in Brisbane, I'm not sure that I've even seen a 5DIV or 1DX2 in the wild. But I see a lot of new mirrorless cameras being used. Even amongst the photographic communities that I'm involved with, it is as though FF DSLR production stopped in 2015. I'm struggling to think of a single person who has bought a new FF DSLR in the last year. But I personally know a lot of people who have picked up mirrorless cameras recently.

Don't get me wrong - I am still noticing a lot of new DSLRs (eg 1300Ds). And of course, as far as usage goes, there are a lot more DSLRs out there than mirrorless cameras. This is really noticeable when you go to Sporting events (such as rally car racing), where everyone has a DSLR. But, I get the impression that Canon has some local issues with FF DSLR sales.


----------



## Sporgon (May 14, 2017)

Well I'm selling my M3. It is a superb little camera system, but..........

I have the G1X. For casual shooting it has a better lens than the 18-55, faster and better reach, the G1XII greatly so. The 24 MP sensor produces unneccesarily big files when shooting in raw, especially so when the pictures from that camera are unlikely to be reproduced at a large size. Interpolation down doesn't improve colour definition much at all, which is odd when you consider how the Bayer array works, but then I guess it's because "low resolution" sensors are pretty high res really ! The sensor craves high quality lenses and solid technique to show the full potential of the sensor. This means using the adapter and larger, heavier lenses than the M ones, with the exception of the 22 mil. This is all well and good if it's your only camera, but I have FF dslrs as well. 

I just don't like the EVF. I find the delay really irritating when switching from EVF to rear screen. I shot a wedding reception from the air and took the M3 because it was a tiny 2 seat aerobatic aircraft with no spare space, but it has a canopy that could be opened in flight. Five minutes in with the delay on the finder I began wishing I hadn't. The info through the EVF doesn't make up for the other shortfalls for me. With these modern cameras now the meter is always going to get you close shooting in raw, especially if you couple that with years of exposure experience. The focus peaking is not as useful as a 's' screen in a dslr, personally speaking anyway. I don't like the power consumption. I don't like how in order to conserve power you have to keep switching the camera off. 

The dslr is just so instantaneous. The view is just there, all the time, and its real life. It doesn't get in the way of shooting. I find the EVF does. The A7 I used for a while was no better, so it's not just Canon's implementation of EVF. A dslr seems to go on for ever with one battery charge. 

When the day comes that EVF is indistinguishable from a good OVF, in every way, and is comparable in power consumption, then this threads title might have some truth in it, but until then, no way for many. I think that one of the biggest advantages of mirrorless at the moment is that the camera is less prone to damage from knocks. Despite all the effort that does into making a dslr tough, drop it and the chances are your AF will be out. I was at Swallow Falls in Wales a while ago, it was pouring with rain and I dropped my G1X. The camera bounced off the concrete plinth that was supporting a viewing bench, shot through the safety fencing onto the rock beyond, and then began bouncing end over end down the cliff face towards the river a few hundred feet below. Fortunately a hollow trunk of an old tree stopped it, as it bounced inside. So I had to decide whether my life was worth the £250 that the camera was worth. Being a total skinflint I decided it wasn't, so climbed over the fencing, and down the cliff to retrieve it. Despite a dent in the corner of the top plate the camera is absolutely fine, no issues, no de-centering of the lens. I guess the fact it was switched off and the lens home may have helped. But I digress......

The EVFs should be putting pressure on the Canon and Nikon to put decent pentaprisms in their smaller cameras. I'd be very interested in the SL2 if it had a really good finder.


----------



## Ozarker (May 18, 2017)

AcutancePhotography said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I had an interesting discussion last night with a guy who has more contacts than I do in the Canon world.
> ...



Crap. Now we are in deep trouble. Ralphie said, "a guy." Now we know he meant "they". Oh nooooooooo!


----------



## Ozarker (May 18, 2017)

As long as I can keep my future vintage EF glass and use it on the future 3D Mark VIII, I don't care whether there is a mirror or not. *****As long as IQ doesn't suffer and AF gets even better.*****


----------



## BillB (May 18, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I'm sure the first DSLR cancelled with be the successor to a camera that consistently outsold every other full frame camera body on the market.
> ...



No source, but I think that the 6D has been on the market longer than any other currently available FF camera except the 5DIII, and it has/is lower priced than other available FF DSLR. So, it wouldn't surprise me if more 6Ds have been sold than anything else.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 19, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I'm sure the first DSLR cancelled with be the successor to a camera that consistently outsold every other full frame camera body on the market.
> ...



I have a suspicion that if that were true, Sony wouldn't be bleeding money like Carrie.

But that's just a suspicion.


----------



## dak723 (May 19, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I'm sure the first DSLR cancelled with be the successor to a camera that consistently outsold every other full frame camera body on the market.
> ...



Well, I've been checking Amazon sales numbers occasionally since you posted this and, alas, not close to true. The Sony A6500 has consistently been in the top 5 ILC sellers, but, usually it is the only one. Canon 80D, Canon 6D and Nikon D750 are there a lot, This afternoon Canon 5d Mark IV was there as well, but sometimes it is the Mark III.


----------



## bholliman (May 19, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> Interesting. Here in Brisbane, I'm not sure that I've even seen a 5DIV or 1DX2 in the wild. But I see a lot of new mirrorless cameras being used. Even amongst the photographic communities that I'm involved with, it is as though FF DSLR production stopped in 2015. I'm struggling to think of a single person who has bought a new FF DSLR in the last year. But I personally know a lot of people who have picked up mirrorless cameras recently.
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I am still noticing a lot of new DSLRs (eg 1300Ds). And of course, as far as usage goes, there are a lot more DSLRs out there than mirrorless cameras. This is really noticeable when you go to Sporting events (such as rally car racing), where everyone has a DSLR. But, I get the impression that Canon has some local issues with FF DSLR sales.



I was recently at the Grand Canyon and the Page, Arizona area. My very unofficial observation was that DSLR's (typically Rebels or entry level Nikons) outnumbered mirrorless cameras by maybe 15-1. Of course the vast majority of people were using cell phones, but DSLR's strongly outnumbered mirrorless. On the photo tour I took of Upper Antelope Canyon, there was a pretty even mix of higher end Canon and Nikon equipment (4 photographers using each system) and one Sony A7RII.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 19, 2017)

bholliman said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. Here in Brisbane, I'm not sure that I've even seen a 5DIV or 1DX2 in the wild. But I see a lot of new mirrorless cameras being used. Even amongst the photographic communities that I'm involved with, it is as though FF DSLR production stopped in 2015. I'm struggling to think of a single person who has bought a new FF DSLR in the last year. But I personally know a lot of people who have picked up mirrorless cameras recently.
> ...



My sleepy little small town camera club has 3 1DX MkII owners and probably a dozen 5D MkIV/III owners, along with two who own A7RII's. But it is predominantly the 6D, 7D MkI/II and Rebels.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 19, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Well, I've been checking Amazon sales numbers occasionally since you posted this and, alas, not close to true.



I thought of the same thing too, and looked at the most popular listings on Amazon. Adorama have a "popular results" feature, too. But then I realized that both of these best reflect US sales. And the USA seems a little out of step in relation to mirrorless adoption and sales. 

Anyway, if you believe Amazon popularity rankings, the DSLRs is dead. Long live the Fuji Instax.


----------



## Maximilian (May 19, 2017)

bholliman said:


> I was recently at the Grand Canyon and the Page, Arizona area. My very unofficial observation was that DSLR's (typically Rebels or entry level Nikons) outnumbered mirrorless cameras by maybe 15-1. ...


That was just because the MILC were sooooo small, you couldn't recognize them


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 1, 2017)

LDS said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > After all, to say that a company is going to make a major change that "would make a lot of people unhappy" is a pretty good indicator that the person knows absolutely nothing. Companies do not go out and purposely do things to make "a lot of people unhappy."
> ...



There are several factors that weight against a mount replacement:

1. The market size has increased exponentially in the last few years, meaning there are a lot more customers, cameras, and lenses out there.

2. The "screw me twice, shame on me" factor. A good example would be the Apple Macintosh - the hardware architecture was changed twice, and now it's a niche product.

E.g. I have a 5DmkIII, 16-35mm & 24-70mm & 70-200mm f/2.8L mkII. That's expensive equipment which will become worthless if Canon changes mounts. I will not repeat if Canon changes mount again. A whiff of it, and my plans of upgrading the 16-35mm to mkIII go out the window.

3. Third party manufacturers willingness to develop compatible lenses.

Companies like Sigma and Tamron are invested in the Canon brand two ways - manufacturing EF lenses, and customers willing to buy them. Having those ditching the Canon brand in fear of losing those again will be bad for the Canon products ecosystem.


There's a reason EOS M uses EF mount with a shorter flange distance. Merely having two mounts coexisting may cause customers think the EF mount is being transitioned out, which is sufficient to scare people off.


----------



## K (Jun 1, 2017)

Mirrorless is the future.

Mirrorless, even the Sony A9, is still in its infancy. Although, the A9 finally makes a few key advancements that brings mirrorless to the table for the first time, barely. Overall, mirrorless needs many generations before it is viable enough to displace DSLR in a serious way.

There are still more cons than pros to mirrorless, regardless of how unique and awesome certain features are (such as the viewfinders). 

The cons mostly impact real pros. 

With the rise and take over of camera market by cell phone users, the market for dedicated cameras is ever pushing upward toward the Pro range. 

Mirrorless take over will be slow - because mirrorless ONLY features must prove to be of greater worth. This is a tough, slow sell.

Physics dictates that certain lenses cannot be made much smaller. And that certain lenses are required to achieve certain perspectives and looks in imagery. Their size and weight eliminates the benefit of smaller size and weight of mirrorless bodies.


To add to that, and to the cons that exclusively impact pros -- is the fact that some people do not want a smaller camera. They actually want a physically larger camera that is comfortable to hold all day, that fits the hand. Mirrorless options must be made larger (at least as big as a 5D4 w/ battery grip) to appeal to pros. I'd like to see 1DX sized mirrorless rig. 


Disagree? I challenge you to mount a 70-200 2.8 and a 24-70 2.8 on your camera and hold it while shooting a minimum of 8 hours to simulate a wedding day or festival event. Don't forget putting a real flash on top. Tell me how your hand feels after that trying to hold onto the point-and-shoot/travel style body of the current mirrorless cameras. Yeah, and you'll need about 7 batteries too.

These bodies do not have a dedicated grip. Instead, you hold onto the end of the camera body. There is also the poor placement of controls, and cramped spacing. This is a big problem for mirrorless. Mirrorless will have to be introduced into DSLR sized bodies before mirrorless can conquer DSLRs. That is just 1 of many prerequisites that has to be met before the writing is on the wall for the demise of DSLR.


******


I would like to see a future where the pro 35mm world has larger mirrorless camera bodies that accepts "sensor backs" like the medium format cameras do but of course on a smaller scale. This way, companies like Canon and Nikon, who are experts in photography - can focus on photography, not sensor design which is for the tech geeks and semiconductor industry. Decoupling the sensor from the body will be a comeback to the days of film where people had choice. Kodak vs Fuji becomes Sony vs Canon or Sony vs. Toshiba

Sensor manufacturers who specialize in this work become the new makers of film.

This is extremely unlikely. Such a thing would require that the DSLR world has been totally wiped out. And consumers are not using any dedicated cameras anymore, even mirrorless ones. That requires cell phones get better to the point that they've fully overlapped with the abilities of entry level DSLR's and mirrorless. Dedicated cameras become the realm of pros. And as such, economy of scale means camera companies have scaled back to just a couple of bodies only and it isn't economical for them to design, build or buy sensors anymore. Also, it would mean that the feature set of bodies in that distant future will reach a sort of practical limit. Meaning, FPS will be so high - they can all do any sports photography. AF becomes moot with high density AF points and complete coverage. And all the bells and whistles are all in there already. So that the need to update bodies becomes less important. We can see the very beginning of that already in DSLR's. The update cycles getting longer for Canon and Nikon, slightly - but longer. This effect will grow fast, leading to slower update times. Because cameras are getting stacked with powerful abilities to capture images to the point that the only revolutionary change will be to pull stills from video. Mirrorless that reaches 20+ FPS is just about in that realm.

That said, these are possible conditions that might need to exist for the possibility of such to ever happen. 

Or, 35mm just dies off entirely and pros stick with medium format, whose prices will come down.


We've only seen about 10 years or so of smartphones. What will the next 10 years look like for their cameras? The innovation and evolution in their cameras has been significant and shows no sign of slowing down.


They never have to be pro level. All they have to do is reach the ability to make a Rebel or D3400 level camera obsolete. I see this as possible in 10 years from now. Once soccer-dad's DSLR's and mirrorless for that matter are gone from stores and won't sell -- the floor falls out from under the entire dedicated camera market. Enthusiasts and Pros are subsidized by these users. 


What will delay this will be the hobby market. Those users who want to be creative and create images that cell phones can't because physics dictates certain lenses be used for which cell phone will never be able to. How many and how big this market is could vary a lot. Will be mirrorless only of course. I think it depends on the industry's ability to educate and market to a whole new generation or users the value and merits of photography. They have to build the demand and interest. They have to do that by emphasizing the differences and the quality and creative potential. The more and more society becomes accepting of cell phone quality and "look" in images, the more certain the death of dedicated cameras are. As this goes on, cell phones will slowly be able to replicate *some* of the DSLR look ...will it be enough? Depends on the users. For some it will, for others it will always be compromises. In any event, this becomes yet another way cellphones chip away at dedicated camera potential buyers. A little piece there, a little piece here. They don't have to completely meet all capabilities and win over all users, just enough to reach a critical mass that sends the already declining dedicated camera market to its death. A point where it isn't economically sustainable to create these cameras any longer.

Social media and sharing is with us for the long term. To this day, not a single dedicated camera has a decent, easy and reliable way to quickly share photos. This is a massive problem and the biggest engine driving cell phones ahead. Looking at how pathetically slow the innovation of NEW features are in cameras (existing features are advancing very well), it isn't on the horizon in the slightest that a dedicated cameras from Canon or Nikon will become Android based or have the capability to join cellular networks full time like a phone to make sharing seamless. These companies have no interest either. This would cost consumers even more money and require data plans. The convenience just isn't there no matter what they do. In this regard, they are *******. Simple as that. The same way the very first sensor technology signaled the end of film, this is tech that will end most of the dedicated cameras.


Back then, there were tons of deniers. Film will be around for 20 more years they said. Well, it happened a LOT faster than they thought. Naysayers criticized early digital for having worse quality than film and weren't convinced. This was 100% true early on. This was completely true while we watched film die a quick death. The same is true today. Cellphones have crappy quality - sure, but convenience trumps all out quality. Never underestimate the markets response to convenience.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 1, 2017)

K said:


> Mirrorless is the future.



Viewing in real time and zero power consumption is the future.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 1, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorless is the future.
> ...



...and the present. And the past. It's not even like that's an I-promise-next-year-mirrorless-will-be-better; OVFs deliver as promised _right now_!


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 1, 2017)

K said:


> Mirrorless is the future.


And - ironically - has been since records began.

Thing is, nobody denies that _eventually_ mirrorless is likely to gain the ascendency.

And many people couldn't care less either way _as long as whatever technology we end up with *does the job we want it to do*_.

The problem many have with mirrorless isn't the technology, it's the zealotry of its proponents _now_, when it is patently obvious to any informed observer that in the current state of the mirrorless art, it's more a liability than an advantage to anyone shooting subject matter more challenging than selfies and cat pics.

And yet the zealots try and cram them down our throats _now_, dismissing the self-evident current failings of the technology. 

Less of that, and you'd find far more acceptance of mirrorless in conceptual terms.

Mirrorless for its own sake though? Pointless fanboyism.


----------



## davidhfe (Jun 2, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> Interesting. Here in Brisbane, I'm not sure that I've even seen a 5DIV or 1DX2 in the wild. But I see a lot of new mirrorless cameras being used. Even amongst the photographic communities that I'm involved with, it is as though FF DSLR production stopped in 2015. I'm struggling to think of a single person who has bought a new FF DSLR in the last year. But I personally know a lot of people who have picked up mirrorless cameras recently.
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I am still noticing a lot of new DSLRs (eg 1300Ds). And of course, as far as usage goes, there are a lot more DSLRs out there than mirrorless cameras. This is really noticeable when you go to Sporting events (such as rally car racing), where everyone has a DSLR. But, I get the impression that Canon has some local issues with FF DSLR sales.



Keep in mind the Sony a7r2 has been out for quite a bit longer than a 5d4. As for a 1dx2, I don't know that I've ever seen a full size DSLR outside of a studio/stadium/event


----------



## davidhfe (Jun 2, 2017)

K said:


> This way, companies like Canon and Nikon, who are experts in photography - can focus on photography, not sensor design which is for the tech geeks and semiconductor industry.



The integration of all these parts is what makes a camera. I think the analogy to film vastly understates the complexity of a modern DSLR. This'll be even more true in a mirrorless world where the imaging sensor pulls triple duty as the AF module and metering sensor.


----------



## zim (Jun 2, 2017)

K said:


> [blaa blaa blaa]....Never underestimate the markets response to convenience.



What like simpler AF systems that make entry level cameras easier to use for the demographic it's aimed at even if the spec sheets show it up to be totally inferior to what other manufacturers offer? or the ergonomics of a camera that just make it easier to use than a camera with obviously superior specs? interesting point you raise given your comments in another thread.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 2, 2017)

zim said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > [blaa blaa blaa]....Never underestimate the markets response to convenience.
> ...



I've noticed that K's comments on other threads are far more considered. I suspect that on this thread he (I assume 'he' but could be 'she') has made statements that cannot be substantiated, and rather than admit he has overplayed his hand tries to reassert them and just keeps on digging.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 3, 2017)

This is a logical, well-reasoned post that deserves some reasonable responses



K said:


> Mirrorless is the future.



Possibly, but possibly not. However, I'd not going to let this questionable statement derail the conversation.



K said:


> Mirrorless, even the Sony A9, is still in its infancy. Although, the A9 finally makes a few key advancements that brings mirrorless to the table for the first time, barely. Overall, mirrorless needs many generations before it is viable enough to displace DSLR in a serious way.
> 
> There are still more cons than pros to mirrorless, regardless of how unique and awesome certain features are (such as the viewfinders)... Mirrorless take over will be slow - because mirrorless ONLY features must prove to be of greater worth. This is a tough, slow sell...
> 
> ...



All correct.



K said:


> I would like to see a future where the pro 35mm world has larger mirrorless camera bodies that accepts "sensor backs" like the medium format cameras do but of course on a smaller scale...
> 
> ...This is extremely unlikely.



That's an understatement. Sensors and bodies are so closely intergrated that I doubt it would be possible, practical or even desirable to separate the two.



K said:


> ...the only revolutionary change will be to pull stills from video. Mirrorless that reaches 20+ FPS is just about in that realm.



Lots of people fantasize about this, but they don't understand stills or video. To be smooth, video relies on the intentional blurring of one image into another. Still capture requires each frame to be sharp. As one who shoots a lot of sports, I could never use a video frame capture because it would be too blurry. If I were shooting video, a shutter speed of 1/800th of a second to stop action is going to mean jerky video.




K said:


> ...Or, 35mm just dies off entirely and pros stick with medium format, whose prices will come down.



Not bloody likely. All of the progress being made is toward smaller sensors with greater resolution. Medium format is a tiny niche market and is likely to get even tinier, as full-frame cameras approach 100+ megapixels (which really isn't necessary for anything other than pixel-peeping anyway. Today's cameras are more than capable of producing billboard sized images (I've done so with the 5D and 1DX.)

Plus, there is no way to overcome physics and medium format requires huge lenses.

Smaller, better sensors are much more likely. That's where the research dollars are going and that's where the progress is being made.




K said:


> We've only seen about 10 years or so of smartphones. What will the next 10 years look like for their cameras? The innovation and evolution in their cameras has been significant and shows no sign of slowing down.



True, as I said, that's where the research dollars are going.



K said:


> ...Those users who want to be creative and create images that cell phones can't because physics dictates certain lenses be used for which cell phone will never be able to. How many and how big this market is could vary a lot.



True



K said:


> Will be mirrorless only of course.


 
False, or at least no evidence to support this.




K said:


> I think it depends on the industry's ability to educate and market to a whole new generation or users the value and merits of photography. They have to build the demand and interest. They have to do that by emphasizing the differences and the quality and creative potential. ...A point where it isn't economically sustainable to create these cameras any longer.



Partly correct. It does depend on the industry's ability to market to a new generation. But, I don't think it can be assumed that the market now filled by DSLRs, etc., is necessarily unsustainable. The camera industry goes in waves. In the 60s and 70s interchangeable lens cameras were all the rage. Then they hit a long, dry spell until digital arrived. Canon and Nikon survived those dry spells and it's plainly evident that Canon is positioning itself to survive the next dry spell as well.



K said:


> Social media and sharing is with us for the long term. To this day, not a single dedicated camera has a decent, easy and reliable way to quickly share photos. This is a massive problem and the biggest engine driving cell phones ahead.



I've been preaching this for years. In my view, Canon, Nikon and Sony have been rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic for years. Competing on "features" while failing to provide professionals and advanced amateurs with the basic features that everyone with a smart phone already has. People on this forum like to argue over trivia like dual card slots, when the real argument ought to be why can't any manufacturer seem to produce a camera that can help a professional using a $6,000 camera get a picture uploaded to the web in the same time and with the same ease that it takes a smartphone to do the job?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 3, 2017)

unfocused said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > Social media and sharing is with us for the long term. To this day, not a single dedicated camera has a decent, easy and reliable way to quickly share photos. This is a massive problem and the biggest engine driving cell phones ahead.
> ...



I think you're wrong for three reasons:

1) Apps for cameras have already been discussed, and it's a bad idea. E.g. the camera manufacturer will have to make an open OS, and let social networks develop apps for them, opening the door to instabilities & viruses.

In addition, users will have to buy SIM cards, have a 2nd phone line, pay for it, deal with this 2nd line if the camera is stolen or lost, etc.

2) The simplest solution would actually be to implement a file server over wifi in the camera, and develop an app for the phone to upload the photos from the camera to social web site.

3) Solutions to share photos are available where users really want them, e.g. big sports events like the Olympics & photo magnets in weddings. My impression is the latter is losing it's attraction, with people being tired of covering their refrigerators with them.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 4, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> The future goes beyond just speed. We already have face tracking, which works really well. What can we expect in future cameras? intelligent object recognition and tracking for example? So not just faces, but birds, balls, lions or whatever else is there. Face tracking is the 'consumer' end of the technology, but I see future cameras being sold not just on megapixels and focus speed but on the intelligence of the onboard systems in identifying items of interest and getting them in focus before you have even had time to think about what to focus on! Of course there will still be manual modes for us luddites



That's pretty much what iTR AF that has been around since the 1D X introduced in 2011 already does. It links the RGB+IR light meter that is effectively a low resolution CMOS sensor with the PDAF system to track items by shape and color. It has been further refined in the 7D Mark II (2014), 5Ds/5Ds R (2015), 1D X Mark II (2016), and 5D Mark IV (2016). Even the 80D has a version of iTR.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 4, 2017)

Hflm said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Isn't that what DPAF in Live View is? An intermediate hybrid version?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 4, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Most Rebel camera purchasers (7D MKII / 80D excepted) only ever purchase the kit lens and maybe one other zoom to me that makes more logic and the 7D MKII / 80D users will be able to purchase the legacy EF-S lenses kept in production but not newer versions.



When did the 7D and x0D series become part of the "Rebel" line? Rebels are xx00D and xx0D model lines in other market areas.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 4, 2017)

timmy_650 said:


> I was thinking about this... the 1DxII they say it shoots 14 fps but in live view it shoots 16. So at 16 the mirror is locked up, so it is kinda running like a mirrorless camera right? so how does that affect the camera? what So the auto-focus run the same?



At 16fps the 1D X Mark II holds the same focus position for all of the frames in a burst. Since the mirror is locked up the PDAF system is obviously blind. Since the mechanical shutter is closed and resetting between frames the DPAF/CDAF is also blind between frames. It would take two cycles of the shutter to take an AF reading from the main sensor in between each frame. Using PDAF with the mirror is probably just as fast or faster than that because the PDAF system can be active at the same time the shutter curtains are being reset for the next frame.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 4, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I'm sure the first DSLR cancelled with be the successor to a camera that consistently outsold every other full frame camera body on the market.
> ...



The last numbers I saw about a year ago had MILCs with a smaller share of the market more recently than they had back around 2012 when everyone who never shoots more than one frame every 5 minutes was jumping on the MILC bandwagon and proclaiming the imminent death of the DSLR. Then the "not yet ready for prime time" reality set in regarding MILCs' EVF lag, battery life, and lens availability (in terms of both focal length/max aperture and absolute image quality) that affect most working pros far more than those same issues affect the enthusiast crowd apart from the ones shooting sports/action. A few pros I know who dabbled with MILCs are back to using their 1D series and D3/4/5 series bodies for most of their paying jobs. If they even still have the MILCs, they use them for personal projects or vacations when they don't need or want a whole suitcase full of gear.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 4, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



Is Ralphie sure this "guy" doesn't work for Nikon? This sounds more like their recent strategy.


----------

