# Will Mirrorless Cameras Make Our Current DSLR Equipment Obsolete?



## mbworldz (Jul 2, 2013)

I was talking to one of my friend last night and ask him is he is going get the Mark III. He said "It forgoes the SLR system that is outdated which allows for a much more compact body. Imagine having the functionality and image quality of a 5D mark III but with the size and weight of a compact point n shoot. "

That might be true in the future but I don't think mirrorless will replace our DSLR. Can you imagine we (professional wedding.....etc photographers all carrying a tiny small camera for the photo shoot LOL. 

Professionals will also always need a veiwing system that allows them to still frame up shots when doing night photographer or heavy ND filter shooting. This is more difficult on a mirrorless with current ISO ratings because the image is shown on an LCD screen where as with a standard DSLR you're seeing the image the way your eye sees it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 2, 2013)

If your hands are as big as mine, having a tiny camera where my fingers cannot push less than 3 buttons at once is not appealing. On the other hand, I would not mourn the loss of the reflex mirror.

So far, over the past 60 or more years, many attempts have been made to get rid of that mirror, none of them successful. There are both film and digital mirrorless cameras, and the digital ones are getting more capable, but so are those with mirrors. It will take a while longer before we see a mirrorless camera that is the best available camera.
Two main things need to happen.
1. A viewfinder for mirrorless that's equivalent to a optical one, and so far we are 50% there. Images of moving objects still smear in even the best ones, but resolution is getting pretty good.
2. Autofocus that is as fast as phase detect, and we might be 50% of the way. (tiny sensor cameras have fast AF because the lens only has two or three positions to move to). This is also improving every year.


----------



## m (Jul 2, 2013)

According to that theory, Leica would be what Canon and Nikon are today and vice versa.


----------



## mbworldz (Jul 2, 2013)

I am not a big fan of mirrorless camera. I have the Mark III and 1D Mark IV. Last time when I went to the Camera expo, I got to play with the 1DX. Stunning! I am going to sell my Mark IV and get the 1DX lol. 
This is what you are using ? 





Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If your hands are as big as mine, having a tiny camera where my fingers cannot push less than 3 buttons at once is not appealing. On the other hand, I would not mourn the loss of the reflex mirror.
> 
> So far, over the past 60 or more years, many attempts have been made to get rid of that mirror, none of them successful. There are both film and digital mirrorless cameras, and the digital ones are getting more capable, but so are those with mirrors. It will take a while longer before we see a mirrorless camera that is the best available camera.
> Two main things need to happen.
> ...


----------



## meli (Jul 2, 2013)

mbworldz said:


> Imagine having the functionality and image quality of a 5D mark III but with the size and weight of a compact point n shoot.
> 
> That might be true in the future but I don't think mirrorless will replace our DSLR. Can you imagine we (professional wedding.....etc photographers all carrying a tiny small camera for the photo shoot LOL.



Being able to have a p&s with the capabilities of a mk3 is half the equation in many cases. 
On a pro level, things like ergonomics matters alot, either device ergonomics like the grip and controls placement either system ergonomics (eg head-camera-hand-lens, imagine a 70-200 attached to an iphone and you trying to shoot a 5hr event)
Plus, by the time you could cram a mk3 into a p&s volume, imagine what you could have in a 5d volume ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 2, 2013)

Sony RX-1 is a fine sample that small body camera can produce EXCELLENT images. If Sony can release RX-2 with exchangeable lenses....DSLR could take a big hit. And if AF speed can focus as fast as DSLR...well, I will drop all my current gear and say "hello" to Sony. 

Until then...I'll enjoy my 5D III + L lenses


----------



## noisejammer (Jul 2, 2013)

I think the change is already happening - I dipped my toe in the Fuji Kool Aid and found it worked really well. The image quality is comparable with my 5D2. Sure, it's not quite as good in all respects but let's give it a generation or two and then see. If a $1k Fuji is giving a $3k Canon a run for it's money (body plus comparable lens), it starts to sound ominous.

I think the change will come in a couple of waves. First the XXD series will be compromised, then it's the XXXD. At this point, there won't be enough sales to drive development of XD cameras at a reasonable price and they will also vanish. Since it's technically possible, the question might better be phrased "Is the camera-public willing to pay DSLR prices for a high end mirrorless camera?" I think they are.

As other have commented, there are a few things to fix. The obvious ones are build quality and robustness (this could be greatly improved), user interface (this has been improved), battery life (difficult if the camera's to remain compact), focus speed (already solved - see the X100s or OM-D), larger buffers (easy to fix), faster storage (easy but expensive), frame rate (processor dependent but maybe).

If pressed for a timeline, I'd guess the last generation of high end DSLR's will appear around five years from now. This is depressing - I have a small fortune tied up in glass.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Jul 2, 2013)

Very much depends on what you want to do. I could see that for casual or landscape. Not sports or wildlife.

For that matter, here's a simple test: any of the 70-200 lenses -- the lightest of which is 1 1/2 pounds -- and a DSLR in live view mode only. How long would or could you hold that lens out in front to view the back? Now try it with a 300mm or 100-400. Holding a camera at a steady shooting position without a tripod/monopod becomes much more difficult as well.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 2, 2013)

It may just be the generation I am from (aging baby boomer) but I cannot imagine using a camera without a viewfinder. It just doesn't work with the way I shoot.

So, I agree with Mt. Spokane that until digital viewfinders are as good or better than traditional optical viewfinders, I don't see mirrorless replacing DSLRs. I also wonder what the point might be. Reliable, simple designs usually trump more complicated designs. It seems like a simple mechanical mirror has been pretty reliable and a compelling case would need to be made to replace it with electronics.

I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm just suggesting that it's hard to predict what direction future technology will take us. A more light efficient translucent mirror for example? DSLRs in a smaller form factor than the Canon SL1?

Right now, Fuji seems to be doing the most interesting things with mirrorless and they could be showing the path to the future. I wouldn't mind a Canon brand X-Pro Style body that uses the existing Canon lens lineup, but that wouldn't fit the small form factor that some prefer.

Finally, I wonder if lens design may be the biggest limiting factor. If the goal of a mirrorless body is to reduce the bulk, it doesn't seem to save much by the time you mount a decent zoom on the front.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 2, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If your hands are as big as mine, having a tiny camera where my fingers cannot push less than 3 buttons at once is not appealing. On the other hand, I would not mourn the loss of the reflex mirror.
> 
> So far, over the past 60 or more years, many attempts have been made to get rid of that mirror, none of them successful. There are both film and digital mirrorless cameras, and the digital ones are getting more capable, but so are those with mirrors. It will take a while longer before we see a mirrorless camera that is the best available camera.
> Two main things need to happen.
> ...



100% agreement from me. The form factor of a DSLR with the eyepiece viewer (optical or digital) is hard to beat for following objects or stability. A good solid stance and proper hand/arm position gets more and more important as lenses get bigger.

We might be a bit closer than 50% of the way there, but we are most definitely not there yet... At least on the first point. It will be interesting to see how fast the new live-view focus is, plus it works at F11!


----------



## pharp (Jul 2, 2013)

Of course - the only question is when and what it'll look like. Videographers somehow manage without an OVF - even those that do sports and wildlife. I picked up an OM-D some time ago and while I wouldn't mind it being a little larger, it handles like a regular DSLR - the eye level EVF is very good, not OVF good in bright light, but on the other hand, the EVF's auto brightness control (while a little noisy) really shines in low light situations - quite a bit better than an OVF in my opinion, especially for macro. I also love the MF assist - just touch the focus ring and the EVF is magnified 5X - really helps nail the focus - absolutely wonderful feature and something that really isn't possible (practical) with an OVF. 

Canon is purportedly working on an M with eye level EVF - for many situations, I can see many folks picking up a mirrorless - lens for lens the M's are quite a bit smaller - compare the EF-S 10-22 with the new EF-M 11-22 - cargo pocketable


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 2, 2013)

Mirrorless will eventually replace DSLRs but the lenses are obstacle. It'll take a long time to replace all the EF lenses with mirrorless variants. I can see a half-way there product: a mirrorless camera with the same external dimensions (and flange distance) as a DSLR. Gone will be the mirror and phase detect array to be replaced by high FPS sensor, and the pentaprism replaced by an EVF. That will give sports shooters an edge over existing offerings. 

For a FF mirrorless design, fast primes and quality zooms will always be larger than the camera could be, which means a FF mirrorless will never be pocketable for significant segments of the DSLR user base. Larger sensors will always have advantages over smaller sensors. If the sensors improve such that smaller sensors are good enough for indoors/sports/dim settings, then FF may go the way of large and medium formats -- niche products. Until then, I'll choose the FF DSLR and lenses for its better IQ.


----------



## moreorless (Jul 2, 2013)

mbworldz said:


> I was talking to one of my friend last night and ask him is he is going get the Mark III. He said "It forgoes the SLR system that is outdated which allows for a much more compact body. Imagine having the functionality and image quality of a 5D mark III *but with the size and weight of a compact point n shoot*. "



If he wants the same coverage of focal length and aperture then this is likely physically impossible.

As has been said the other side of the debate is that a lot of people actually like the size of current DSLR's, look at something like the GH3 and its clearly much larger than it needs to be.

I'd add as well that to me there doesn't seem to against potentially going the Fuji route with DSLR's and having a viewfinder that can switch between an OVF and an EVF to potentially get the best of both, I won't be shocked if we see this from Canon in the future given the amount of focus there putting on video.


----------



## tcmatthews (Jul 3, 2013)

Eventual but by then our Current DSLR Equipment (camera bodies) will already be Obsolete. Lens will likely be usable on what ever mirrorless replaces them. For Sony that is Fy2014 all upcoming cameras both A and E mount will be mirrorless. That includes a full frame mirrorless Amount camera. My nex6 is fantastic with Canon Fd lens. 

I think that there will always be a need for select optical viewfinders (at least until EVF are as large, bright and fast as OVF). The question is will there be consumer models with this feature. 

Personally I am hoping someone will develop a really good SLR hybrid viewfinder. With a translucent mirror transmitting to both Optical information form the mirror. (It would be dimmer like a penta-mirror instead of a penta-prism camera) Then overlay information in the form of the EVF over the optical image such as focus peeking histogram ect in the viewfinder. It could be made selectable, EFV overlay off, mirror up full EFV or hybrid. 

Lets face it a hybrid Optical EFV would be awesome. It would have all of the benefits of a EFV with out the drawbacks. 

Do not assume that mirrorless means small. Large telephoto lenses will likely need larger camera bodies or a mount system for the camera lens cap.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 3, 2013)

And one of the advantages of going mirror less is no more need for AFMA. I, for one, will not miss having to calibrate lenses...... And I can certainly live with F11 autofocus.


----------



## gmrza (Jul 3, 2013)

moreorless said:


> mbworldz said:
> 
> 
> > I was talking to one of my friend last night and ask him is he is going get the Mark III. He said "It forgoes the SLR system that is outdated which allows for a much more compact body. Imagine having the functionality and image quality of a 5D mark III *but with the size and weight of a compact point n shoot*. "
> ...



To clarify this point a bit:
For one, you can't really make lenses any smaller than they are, and in some cases, you also can't bring them any closer to the focal plane (think about any f/1.2 lenses - light is already striking the sensor from such an oblique angle that there are problems with the amount of light which the sensor "sees").
The overall body/lens package needs to be balanced - current "pro" bodies are "about the right size" to use with a lens like a 70-200 f/2.8.
It would also be difficult to pack all the controls you need on a pro body into anything much smaller without compromising ergonomics.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 3, 2013)

I'm not concerned. As long as mirrorless performs as well as, or better than SLR's, that fine. And I like the size of the 5DIII.

Ergonomics are not likely to change much for pro bodies, and Canon is not likely to abandon it's huge selection of high end EF lenses, so even if 1D / 5D lines go mirrorless, they'll still take all of my lenses.

By all means make the 5DIV or 5DV mirrorless, as long as it performs better than the 5DIII.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 3, 2013)

gmrza said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > mbworldz said:
> ...



I agree. A p/s camera with tiny lenses is very different to hold than a camera with a decent sized chunk of glass.... And the "big whites" are another thing altogether. You need the size for balance, a good grip, and access to a reasonable number of controls. For example, the big difference between a 60D and a rebel is the shoulder display and controls... It makes it a far easier camera to use, plus the larger body is easier to hold(at least for me). Shrink the size too much and you loose functionality.

If you went mirrorless, you could shrink the distance to the sensor, but you would need to redesign all the lenses and in the end, the space savings on a lens, particularly longer lenses, would be negligible.... Seems like too much trouble for too little gain.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 3, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Sony RX-1 is a fine sample that small body camera can produce EXCELLENT images. If Sony can release RX-2 with exchangeable lenses....DSLR could take a big hit. And if AF speed can focus as fast as DSLR...well, I will drop all my current gear and say "hello" to Sony.
> 
> Until then...I'll enjoy my 5D III + L lenses



Dylan, I remember that you had a RX-1 in your signature. Did you trade it for the 2nd 5D3 body? Any feedback on the Rx-1? In a recent overseas trip with my family (I have two young kids), I found the little S100 recorded far more memorable moments than my 5D3 + 24-70II, simply because I pretty much had the S100 on my belt all the time. As much as I appreciate the excellent IQ and fast AF on a DSLR, I have really started to consider eventually switching to compact system with large sensor and great lens.


----------



## Strobe the globe (Jul 3, 2013)

I think professional photographers would not mind having a much smaller camera to carry around. As for the button size - I'm sure Canon would be able to produce an ergonomic hand grip and easy to use buttons (they are very good at this). 

For me, having a true-to-life viewfinder would be the main issue. 

Either way, I am sure Canon would make current equipment at least semi-compatable with any new designs.


----------



## expatinasia (Jul 3, 2013)

Phenix205 said:


> Dylan, I remember that you had a RX-1 in your signature. Did you trade it for the 2nd 5D3 body?



Didn't he say his wife "borrowed" it off him and never returned it!  ;D



Phenix205 said:


> As much as I appreciate the excellent IQ and fast AF on a DSLR, I have really started to consider eventually switching to compact system with large sensor and great lens.



I think that the enthusiast and consumer camera markets are going to go in similar lines as to what you highlight. I see so many consumers with bulky DSLRs and a whole assortment of lenses, to produce stuff that will likely only ever be seen on FB, and the occasional mantelpiece at your, and possibly a relative's, home. Even the 5D Mark III was heavily marketed in some markets to consumers, with billboards of still and video ads showing off how great it is. But for most consumers and enthusiasts, a M, RX1, RX100 ii and the like, are more than enough, and even better in some ways as they are so easy to use, so portable and just more fun, and I think many will start thinking the same.


----------



## northbyten (Jul 3, 2013)

interchangable lens Sony RX1 made by Canon with good AF = gg large DSLRs

it's inevitable and honestly I look forward to it because lunging such big things is a pain


----------



## M.ST (Jul 3, 2013)

For over 90 percent of all users mirrorless is the future.

Most people don´t need a mirror, a mechanical shutter, a big body and heavy and expensive lenses to have fun with photography.

Look at the image quality of the RX1 and the G6/GF6 AF system that beats ALL the latest DSLR AF systems in speed and hitrate.


----------



## Zv (Jul 3, 2013)

I have moderate sized hands and find the rebel bodies / SL1 size camera to be uncomfortable to hold and use over long periods of time. I have two fingers just dangling in mid air. Walking with a 7D in hand feels secure. For working pros I think there will always be a demand for the 5D sized bodies. The 6D is an OK size too, prob the smallest I'd want to use. I'm not a fan of the 1D body though, the extra size has no clear advantage to me esp when you can stick a BG on a normal body anyway. And these days the batteries last forever. If anything I'd say those 1D bodies days are numbered. 

For those who like p&s size but also like to have decent IQ the ML stuff is perfect and will fill that need. So I think we might see a decline in the lower end DSLR market once ML becomes more advanced. Also it will fill that "back up" body need too. Canon need to add more lenses to the system though. With the EF adapter and a mid sized lens you might as well just use a rebel body. No real size adv there.


----------



## bycostello (Jul 3, 2013)

yes


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 3, 2013)

Mirrorless cameras are already a viable alternative for many people, but obviously not for all. Its always a balancing act - a particular camera will have features that appeal to some. Alternatively, they'll lack essential features and will be unacceptable to others (or for use in certain situations). I recently purchased a Fuji X-E1 to augment my Canon gear, and I've been quietly impressed with it. While it isn't as responsive or feature-packed as most Canon cameras, it is very enjoyable to use. I love it. My Canon cameras are getting very jealous as they sit on the shelf, gathering dust 90% of the time. 

The only reason I've kept my Canon bodies is that I think of myself as an intrepid wildlife photographer that needs a weather sealed FF body with big white lenses to be taken seriously. After all, when was the last time the Wildlife Photographer of the Year was an APS-C shooter? But I suspect by the time the X-Pro3 comes out, they'll be good enough to at least consider abandoning the DSLR. I doubt I'm the only one thinking that.


----------



## funkboy (Jul 3, 2013)

Nothing is going to obsolete my nice bright optical viewfinder & focusing screen for a long, long time.

Which is why I've taken a serious look at the Fuji X-Pro more than once...

If they can get their hybrid system up to the point where the optical experience is close to that of a 7D I might consider it in the future.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 3, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > For one, you can't really make lenses any smaller than they are, and in some cases, you also can't bring them any closer to the focal plane (think about any f/1.2 lenses - light is already striking the sensor from such an oblique angle that there are problems with the amount of light which the sensor "sees").
> ...



I agree. Unless there is a major technological breakthrough in the field of optics, lenses can't get much if any smaller. A big lens will need a good sized body to balance it.

I also agree that the currenty DSLR bodies feel right in my hands. I have a 6D and 7D and both feel good and are easy to operate. I used to own a 550D (T2i) and it was a little to small for me. I've handled an SL1 at a store and while I like the small size, I would not purchase one for me, as its just not comfortable to use for an extended period. For my wife, its a very nice size however.

I have a S100 P&S that I carry at times when an DSLR isn't an option or I just don't want to lug heavy equipment around. It takes decent pictures, but I would never be satisfied with it as a primary or only camera. 

That said, none of us can predict the future and I'm sure there will be technological advances that none of us can anticipate now. So, lets see what unfolds in the world of photography equipment, I'm sure it will be an interesting ride.


----------



## Mathias (Jul 3, 2013)

Those mirrorless cameras still consume way too much energy. I own a 1D X and it can take about 1500 shots, if I use the optical viewfinder, although one would think that moving the mirror up and down 1500 times needs quite a lot of energy. If you use Live View, it is only good for 300 shots or so (I have not tested that), even with that wuite large battery (compared to the ones of other cameras). That is a major step back. Even if battery life will grow in future, the optical viewfinder will still allow you to use your camera much longer. I would like to have a camera which allows me to go on holiday and take 5000 or 10000 photos without changing the battery. 

Cellphones have the same problem. Ten years ago every cellphone worked at least two weeks with the same battery charge. Today some don't even last two days, just because of some function you really do not need to make a phone call.


----------



## aj1575 (Jul 3, 2013)

It has been said before, but I like to give my 2 cents on this too.

-There are physical limitations for the optics that make it impossible to make them smaller, without loosing some aspects of fotographie (DoF) and qualitiy (diffraction).
It does not make sense to build a small camera, and attach a big lens to it (ever seen a NEX with a 24-70 f2.8 Zeiss).

-The main problem with small cameras is, that there is not enough room for all the buttons needed for fast operation.
So ergonomics is another point why the formfactor of DSLR won't change that much. You can compare it to a laptop computer, it would be easy to make it much smaller with today electronics, but the display and the keyboard need a certain size.

I think that mirrorless (ILC/EVIL) will play a big role in the future of cameras. For many occasions they are a nice tool, small with great IQ. I also think that there will be bigger mirrorless cameras in the future, that will be positioned like a DSLR. Actually, it doesn't matter if there is a mirror or not, important is the image quality and the ergonomics.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jul 3, 2013)

I would love to see the digital successor of the Canon EOS RT.
Yes, a mirror, halftransparent, silent, fast.
A friend of mine had it, and he borrowed it very often to me.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 3, 2013)

Yes.  

Looking forward to it. My next camera will be a interchangeable-lens mirrorless camera with 
* body size like a Sony RX-1 
* FF sensor with resolution and IQ equal to or better Nikon D800 
* on-sensor Hybrid-AF with performance equal to or better than 70D 
* "Retina EVF" [350+ dpi] with ultra-fast refresh [no more visible smearing of moving objects]
* Electronic shutter, X-sync all the way to 1/8000s 
* no mechanical parts whatsoever 
* less expensive than a Nikon D800 today ... since it is way cheaper to make one.
8)


----------



## wockawocka (Jul 3, 2013)

TBH, lens size isn't that big an issue. If you want F1.2 lenses then yeah, sure.

But the 85 1.8 is half the weight and size of it's L big brother. Why Canon haven't released a light series of L's is beyond me.

Same size of the 1.8 but better coatings and refined optics. I don't need 1.2L but I need the image quality.


----------



## aj1575 (Jul 3, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Yes.
> 
> Looking forward to it. My next camera will be a interchangeable-lens mirrorless camera with
> * body size like a Sony RX-1
> ...


And what kind of Camera will you use up until then? It will take some years until everthing you like to have is ready. The main problem is the "Retina EVF", especially the ultra fast refresh/no lag. This will take a few years until it is ready. They already made huge improvements, but the 80% of the work is done in 20% of the time; the remaining 20% need 80% of the time...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 3, 2013)

alexanderferdinand said:


> I would love to see the digital successor of the Canon EOS RT.
> Yes, a mirror, halftransparent, silent, fast.
> A friend of mine had it, and he borrowed it very often to me.



Try Sony's range.

Canon didn't pursue the RT because they could come up with a conventional SLR that delivered 10fps. And that was probably a limitation of the film transport rather than the mirror. And it was also 13 years ago.

Do you need much faster than 10fps?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 3, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> * on-sensor Hybrid-AF with performance equal to or better than 70D



And you have hands on experience obviously?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 3, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> Phenix205 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan, I remember that you had a RX-1 in your signature. Did you trade it for the 2nd 5D3 body?
> ...



No...the wife still using it. I haven't use the RX-1 since..............I don't remember it : I doubt she would give it back.

Did sold my 16-35 II and returned 135L. This will help me getting closer to pull trigger on 300mm f2.8 IS II, 400mm f2.8 IS(version I) or 400mm f2.8 IS II


----------



## moreorless (Jul 3, 2013)

wockawocka said:


> TBH, lens size isn't that big an issue. If you want F1.2 lenses then yeah, sure.
> 
> But the 85 1.8 is half the weight and size of it's L big brother. Why Canon haven't released a light series of L's is beyond me.
> 
> Same size of the 1.8 but better coatings and refined optics. I don't need 1.2L but I need the image quality.



Its maybe not such a big issue for certain people who are happy with f/2ish primes in the wide to short tele range but how much of the market does that really make up? the majority of users still IMHO preffer to use zoom lenses with a recent range and on FF to get decent quality that means a minimum of 500g and a decent size.

I'm sure a decent sized market exists for FF mirrorless but I think the lens size issue is going to limate its appeal compared to ASPC where I do think mirrorless will gradually build market share as performance increases. Added to that of course the advanatges of an OVF are multipled on FF were as an EVF can be the same size on any format.


----------



## skitron (Jul 3, 2013)

Soooo....this may be a dumb question....but is the new 70D mirrorless? It has phase detection imbedded in the image sensor and has EVF....so it kinda sounds like there may not be any point in it having a mirror?

My understanding is the entire purpose of the mirror in DSLR is to get a light path to the phase detection sensors which are mounted in a different location than the image sensor (in addition to VF).


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 3, 2013)

skitron said:


> Soooo....this may be a dumb question....but is the new 70D mirrorless? It has phase detection imbedded in the image sensor and has EVF....so it kinda sounds like there may not be any point in it having a mirror?
> 
> My understanding is the entire purpose of the mirror in DSLR is to get a light path to the phase detection sensors which are mounted in a different location than the image sensor.



The 70D does not have an EVF. Still an optical viewfinder, pentaprism, 98% coverage, 0.95x magnification.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 3, 2013)

For basic consumer level: yes (for most people)

For pros and such: yes, but not for all. Especially those people who say LP records sound better than CDs, they will keep telling optical viewfinder is the best invention since pre-sliced bread.

However, at some point, there will be LCD screen at the viewfinder, so you don't see the actual image through prism/mirror, but the image captured by the sensor and then displayed at the viewfinder LCD screen.

With current technology, it's not good enough that most people would use it. But give 5-10 years, for sure you can't tell it from the real live view.

There's also one big benefit, as Mathias mentioned, live view drains your battery. That's because the 3"+ LCD draws plenty of power. Using smalled LCD at the viewfinder will draw much less, so it doesn't have such impact on the battery life.

So mirrorless will come eventually, and the transition starts from the consumer level and slowly transforms up to pro level. Most likely there'll be model or two for those who insist mirror, but at that point there's really no benefit for that.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 3, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > * on-sensor Hybrid-AF with performance equal to or better than 70D
> ...


You're right. Just replace 70D with nikon 1 hybrid AF-performance ... And i will be happy. 70d may not be as fast ... ;-)


----------



## tcmatthews (Jul 4, 2013)

I think that for use of common telephoto lens will require larger bodies than a Nex or EOS M. I mean you can put them on a small mirrorless but they get ridiculous rather quickly.


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 4, 2013)

pharp said:


> Of course - the only question is when and what it'll look like. Videographers somehow manage without an OVF - even those that do sports and wildlife.



Videographers shoot at 30fps-ish. Still cameras can be used to frame shots measured in tens of seconds. The two are not really comparable.





Random Orbits said:


> Mirrorless will eventually replace DSLRs but the lenses are obstacle. It'll take a long time to replace all the EF lenses with mirrorless variants.



The reason mirrorless lenses are smaller is that mirrorless cameras are semi-crop bodies. Want the same image quality? The lenses aren't going to get smaller. I mean sure, if Canon stopped developing full-frame sensors, then eventually mirrorless cameras will catch up, but....





Don Haines said:


> And one of the advantages of going mirror less is no more need for AFMA. I, for one, will not miss having to calibrate lenses...... And I can certainly live with F11 autofocus.




Why would there be no more need for AFMA? Did Canon miraculously find a way to eliminate manufacturing variation in lens and body manufacture while I wasn't looking?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 4, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > And one of the advantages of going mirror less is no more need for AFMA. I, for one, will not miss having to calibrate lenses...... And I can certainly live with F11 autofocus.
> ...


In a DSLR, normal focusing is done by diverting light to a focusing sensor. The camera then focuses accurately to this sensor, not the image sensor. If all is perfectly manufactured and aligned, the image is also focused properly for the image sensor, but as we know, with manufacturing tolerances and wear, this is not always true. aFMA calibration is how we correct for this discrepancy.

In live view, focusing is done on the image sensor so there is no second path to correct for.... Therefore, no mirror, no AFMA.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 4, 2013)

Phenix205 said:


> Dylan, I remember that you had a RX-1 in your signature. Did you trade it for the 2nd 5D3 body? Any feedback on the Rx-1? In a recent overseas trip with my family (I have two young kids), I found the little S100 recorded far more memorable moments than my 5D3 + 24-70II, simply because I pretty much had the S100 on my belt all the time. As much as I appreciate the excellent IQ and fast AF on a DSLR, I have really started to consider eventually switching to compact system with large sensor and great lens.



No, I didn't trade my RX-1 for 2nd 5D III....my wife uses it alot and I doubt she would give it back  

RX-1 is an EXCELLENT camera, especially in low light. Here are some low light shots I took around the house. All lights were off, except 7watts sleep lamp that 4yrs daughter holding.

http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/AciN2mE8/1/5955241

If you think S100 has good IQ, wait until you shoot with RX-1 ...I love the size of RX-1. I wish Sony could come up RX-2, with same body size as RX-1 or tiny bit bigger is ok, that allows user to swap lenses.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 4, 2013)

Concerning optical viewfinders.... I have an SX-50. It has an electronic viewfinder. Although it does not work as well as a optical viewfinder it still works well enough. They will only get better from here.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jul 4, 2013)

@ paul13walnut5: no, the 10 fps from my 1d4 is enough.
It was simply very useful to see what happened, exactly in the moment the picture was taken, like did the flash fire, or were the eyes open.Was a very nice concept. 
Yes I know, Sony has some bodies with the semitransparent mirror.
But I am a Canonista for their glasses, and the ergonomics since the T90.....


----------



## deleteme (Jul 4, 2013)

I cannot wait until we lose the mirror and OVF.
I shoot architecture, commercial and events with the occasional wedding.

For architecture I already use Live View with the camera on a tripod so I would appreciate a mirror less with a very large screen that could even be wirelessly linked. For commercial an EVF and flash sync at 1/500 or higher (electronic shutter fantasy) and for events and weddings I would like to be able to "pre-chimp" exposure and WB while working far more quietly. Electronics allow for so much more flexibility in component design and layout that I could imagine a "pro" camera with modular components that would allow the customization of the camera to suit the application. For starters an EVF that could be placed at either the right or left on the main body would be a boon to lefties.

I realize that m43, NEX and Fuji already offer many of these advantages but if Canon offered FF that I can mount my 17TS-E on I would be delighted. I also like the idea of the short flange to sensor distance allowing me to mount (via adapters) a range of legacy lenses.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 4, 2013)

I think the ergonomics of small P&S cameras is not conducive of prolonged use. Yes i think their IQ will improve, but the need for a more comfortable grip/button combo will be needed.

I don't think it will be redundant, but maybe less prevalent, with a lot of amateurs and part-time users preferring the compact version of mirror-less over a DSLR sized one... a shift in popular trends more than absolute eradication! 

EDIT: I see the title is whether they will still have mirrors... I think we will loose them at some point, but i think the form and function of the DSLR will exist.


----------



## northbyten (Jul 4, 2013)

The argument of professional lenses not being able to shrink without compromise is definitely one reason why large DSLRs will be around still.

I wonder how good they can make pancake primes.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 4, 2013)

northbyten said:


> The argument of professional lenses not being able to shrink without compromise is definitely one reason why large DSLRs will be around still.



You guys are stuck on the fact that current mirrorless cameras are smaller than current DSLRs.

Of course if there was pro-level mirrorless which is supposed to handle anything from ~10mm .... 600F4LIS, the body size must be similar to today DSLR bodies. If they don't need all the space inside for electronics, maybe the battery will be bigger, or more features like wifi/bt/gps/younameit.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 4, 2013)

tpatana said:


> You guys are stuck on the fact that current mirrorless cameras are smaller than current DSLRs.
> 
> Of course if there was pro-level mirrorless which is supposed to handle anything from ~10mm .... 600F4LIS, the body size must be similar to today DSLR bodies. If they don't need all the space inside for electronics, maybe the battery will be bigger, or more features like wifi/bt/gps/younameit.



I think the space is for the mirror box and prism. Thus the mirrorless bit. The mirror box also increases the required rear focus distance, although as Leica have discovered there are limits to how much you can bend light onto a sensor.

I would actually like to see a bigger camera, without mirrorbox and prism, replaced with a dichroic prism and 3 sensors. Get full colour depth at each pixel. The assembly is huge so it may be smaller sensors are required.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 4, 2013)

northbyten said:


> I wonder how good they can make pancake primes.



Have a look, how small, light, fast and good primes can be made: http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/

And contrary to urban legend, adding Ring-USM-AF to those lesnes would not cause additional bulk, but actually make them even smaller and lighter, once the utterly unneccessary manual focusing gear and focus ring will be finally exterminated.


----------



## weixing (Jul 4, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> northbyten said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how good they can make pancake primes.
> ...


 Ya... saw this video quite sometime ago... see the hair style of the lady assembly the lens... you know who to look for if you find hair inside your leica lens... ha ha ha 

Have a nice day.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jul 4, 2013)

mbworldz said:


> I was talking to one of my friend last night and ask him is he is going get the Mark III. He said "It forgoes the SLR system that is outdated which allows for a much more compact body. Imagine having the functionality and image quality of a 5D mark III but with the size and weight of a compact point n shoot. "
> 
> That might be true in the future but I don't think mirrorless will replace our DSLR. Can you imagine we (professional wedding.....etc photographers all carrying a tiny small camera for the photo shoot LOL.
> 
> Professionals will also always need a veiwing system that allows them to still frame up shots when doing night photographer or heavy ND filter shooting. This is more difficult on a mirrorless with current ISO ratings because the image is shown on an LCD screen where as with a standard DSLR you're seeing the image the way your eye sees it.



I do not think this type of new AF and sensor tech will make D-SLR shaped camera obsolete but it makes the OVF and slapping mirror AF obsolete.

I mean some of us will always need a big camera to use big lens but we will not really need the OVF or analogue -era AF system with the annoyingly loud mirror.

I 've been shooting some concerts and church events(not weddings) sometimes, and the extremely loud mirror noise was the main reason why they banned my D3s at last year's event.
Now I use my 6D for lowlight concert and church events because it is quiet and produces superb images at high ISO.
Any way, imagine, without the mirror slapping part of camera , how much faster and quieter the next gen SLR-shaped camera can get , being a mirrorless does not mean it must be small , but faster , cheaper and more reliable in many ways.
The on sensor PDAF tech is the first step for Canon , Nikon, Sony, etc to go true digital gen camera and this is why it is really important and as IR says it should be the camera tech of the year for 2013.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jul 4, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Sony RX-1 is a fine sample that small body camera can produce EXCELLENT images. If Sony can release RX-2 with exchangeable lenses....DSLR could take a big hit. And if AF speed can focus as fast as DSLR...well, I will drop all my current gear and say "hello" to Sony.
> 
> Until then...I'll enjoy my 5D III + L lenses



agreed RX-1 is an amazing pocketable camera, but its main problem is the terrible AF , if the AF was a bit better in lowlight, I might not have sold it for the 6D.

I think the next gen RX2 or whatever will be called will have to be a bit more matured product and I think I will get that.
But again , as you said , its sensor /lens combo is really nothing short of amazing.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 4, 2013)

It all depends on the quality of the electronic viewfinder - with good on-sensor af and if (apart from the fact that a evf draws power) you cannot tell an evf from an ovf and the camera has a good af the days of the mirror systems will be over or only limited to a small legacy (pro) segment.

Cameras with mirrors will be as outdated as the systems from the 1800s where you had to remove a cap from the lens to take a picture - the mirror lets you see through the lens, but has nothing but disadvantages:


severely limited fps (120fps anyone?) and/or requires ultra-expensive sturdy components
moving component: limits camera lifespan (ok, some manufacturers will like that )
in a sensor-based af and high cpu power, you can do af/tracking yet unheard of ("please auto-track the bird with the yellow head and auto-focus on the eyes")
you can overlay any information in an efv like focus peaking, ovf is much more limited
blackout, you cannot see what you shoot (better with semi-transparent mirrors like the eos rt)


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 4, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> It all depends on the quality of the electronic viewfinder - with good on-sensor af and if (apart from the fact that a evf draws power) you cannot tell an evf from an ovf ...



That's really not true, for two reasons:

1. You can only add so much gain to the output before the signal you're getting becomes too poor to use even for viewfinder purposes. Therefore, when you're shooting 30 second exposures at high ISO already, unless you're willing to accept a very low frame rate in the EVF, it isn't likely to let you see as well as you could with your naked eye through an OVF.

2. When you're shooting at night, your eye is wide open to compensate for the lack of light. I've never heard of an EVF that didn't put out enough light to cause an afterimage under those circumstances. By contrast, it would be exceptionally rare for an OVF to do so. 

Yes, for daytime shooting, there's little difference. For shooting anything in the dark—plays, concerts, starry night skies, etc.—the differences are a bit harder to avoid.




Don Haines said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



If that were the only reason for AFMA, then the AFMA value for every lens should be identical (or at least mathematically proportional in a trivially calculable way), because the difference in placement between those two sensors doesn't change when you change lenses. More to the point, Canon would presumably calibrate out that difference at the factory, because there's no good reason not to do so.

If lenses adjusted their focus until infinite precision was achieved, then yes, it would eliminate the need for AFMA. Then again, it would mostly eliminate the need if they did that for DSLRs, too. It would also lengthen the delay before you take a picture, which is why they don't do that. Instead, at least as I understand it, cameras compute the distance to move the lens, and where it stops, that's assumed to be in focus. If that computation is off because the lens is even slightly imperfect in any way, then the lens will consistently either front-focus or back-focus. This is why AFMA varies from lens to lens instead of being a constant value for each body. Thus, mirrorless cameras won't eliminate the need for AFMA, to the best of my understanding.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 4, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> 1. You can only add so much gain to the output before the signal you're getting becomes too poor to use even for viewfinder purposes. Therefore, when you're shooting 30 second exposures at high ISO already, unless you're willing to accept a very low frame rate in the EVF, it isn't likely to let you see as well as you could with your naked eye through an OVF.



1. when 30sec exposure are required with Hi ISO, the naked eye will se squat in an optical viewfinder. 

2. automatic dimming of the EVF in sync with ambient light levels is quite easy to implement.


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 4, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> 2. automatic dimming of the EVF in sync with ambient light levels is quite easy to implement.



At least with backlit EVFs, there's a minimum threshold brightness below which your only choice is to shut off the backlight. It may be that OLEDs reduce that problem significantly. I don't have enough experience with them to say.

Then again, unless they've fixed the life expectancy issues, OLEDs have problems of their own, just different problems.


----------



## moreorless (Jul 4, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> northbyten said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how good they can make pancake primes.
> ...



Look at what it'll cost you.


----------



## weixing (Jul 4, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...


Hi,
The AFMA is used to compensate both the distance error between the AF sensor and imaging sensor, and the manufacture tolerance of the lens... that's why the error is different for every lens.

Mirrorless camera don't require AFMA because the AF system will keep measuring the error and move the lens until it's in focus (or at least within the allowable error), so there is no need for AFMA. If 70D live view phase detect AF also use this method, then AFMA on live view is not required.

Have a nice day.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 4, 2013)

moreorless said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > northbyten said:
> ...



Sure - but there are excellent m43 primes that are relatively inexpensive (the best and most expensive is probably the Olympus 75mm f/1.8, which costs c. $900 - but the marvelous 45mm 1.8 and 60mm macro are half that).

I look forward to the disappearance of mirrors, for various reasons. Whatever else one might say about the relative performance of my Canon 5DII and 6D vs my Olympus OM-D, the latter invariably nails focus precisely (and it's nice to buy a new lens and not worry about front/back focusing, let alone trying to fix it). I don't much care whether the resulting cameras are smaller (the top of the line Panasonic m43 body isn't much smaller than a 6D); in fact, as long as I'm going to be using my Canon lenses, I would prefer the body to be bigger for the reasons given by others. 

I do want a viewfinder, though. In some ways electronic viewfinders are already superior to optical viewfinders. I realize it's nice to see what you're photographing as you're photographing it, and what you see through an optical viewfinder is certainly nicer (though that will doubtless change as technology improves), but optical viewfinders are misleading - it's surely more useful to see through the viewfinder roughly how the image will look as you're taking that photo that waiting until you've taken it and checking on the monitor. One of the OM-D's dials adjusts exposure, and it's nice to be able to do that while you're taking the photo, looking through the viewfinder and seeing what happens as you turn the dial.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 4, 2013)

I loved the electronic viewfinder on my Konica Minolta Dimage A2. Best thing about the camera. And that is now getting on 10 year old tech. 

Maybe a look again at the solution devised by Olympus for the E-330 and also used in the Panasonic L-1 / Leica Digilux 2 is an idea. Not all that compact, even with a compact sensor, but maybe a viable best of both worlds.

The areas where I can an an EVF or LCD only option failing are:

Situations where the eyes dynamic range or low light abilities are just better (as iso noise rises AF performance drops for on sensor AF right?)

Situations where the glow of LCDs is undesirable or distracting (surveilance, nature)


----------



## tpatana (Jul 5, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > 1. You can only add so much gain to the output before the signal you're getting becomes too poor to use even for viewfinder purposes. Therefore, when you're shooting 30 second exposures at high ISO already, unless you're willing to accept a very low frame rate in the EVF, it isn't likely to let you see as well as you could with your naked eye through an OVF.
> ...



Exactly what I was planning to respond to him, until I saw you already did.


----------



## moreorless (Jul 5, 2013)

sdsr said:


> Sure - but there are excellent m43 primes that are relatively inexpensive (the best and most expensive is probably the Olympus 75mm f/1.8, which costs c. $900 - but the marvelous 45mm 1.8 and 60mm macro are half that).



Considering the sensor size I'v always felt m43 primes were rather expensive as well, I'm guessing because as with Leica building that much smaller costs more.



> I look forward to the disappearance of mirrors, for various reasons. Whatever else one might say about the relative performance of my Canon 5DII and 6D vs my Olympus OM-D, the latter invariably nails focus precisely (and it's nice to buy a new lens and not worry about front/back focusing, let alone trying to fix it). I don't much care whether the resulting cameras are smaller (the top of the line Panasonic m43 body isn't much smaller than a 6D); in fact, as long as I'm going to be using my Canon lenses, I would prefer the body to be bigger for the reasons given by others.
> 
> do want a viewfinder, though. In some ways electronic viewfinders are already superior to optical viewfinders. I realize it's nice to see what you're photographing as you're photographing it, and what you see through an optical viewfinder is certainly nicer (though that will doubtless change as technology improves), but optical viewfinders are misleading - it's surely more useful to see through the viewfinder roughly how the image will look as you're taking that photo that waiting until you've taken it and checking on the monitor. One of the OM-D's dials adjusts exposure, and it's nice to be able to do that while you're taking the photo, looking through the viewfinder and seeing what happens as you turn the dial.



The ideal situation would I'd say be a system like Fuji's recent cameras were you have an OVF and EVF in one finder, just have the mirror flip up at the touch of a button.

I do think we'll see a few compact FF mirrorless cameras in the coming years going after a market similar to Leica(but with AF) but I have my doubts there going to make up as much of the market as on ASPC/43 sensor sizes.

I actually think the more obvious size advantage would be when you push up to MF if theres a long term market for sensors that size. When you get to that size I think the mirrorbox clearly starts increasing the size of the camera beyond that which could be argued to be ergonomically ideal.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 5, 2013)

Whatever we may or may not want, if this is correct obsolescence is hardly imminent:

http://www.43rumors.com/camera-slaes-history-from-2011-till-today-mirrorless-hype-is-over-dslr-rules/


----------



## DanielW (Jul 5, 2013)

Mathias said:


> I would like to have a camera which allows me to go on holiday and take 5000 or 10000 photos without changing the battery.


I can't even imagine myself flagging 10,000 photos on LR after some holiday...  To be honest, I'm currently taking 4 GB cards around instead of 16 or 32 GB because I've found myself taking so-so pics much too often (and I'm actually much too lazy to import and categorize zillions of pics). I'd rather have 20 great pics a day.


----------



## DanielW (Jul 5, 2013)

No place for m4/3 to me. I like the size of a DSLR in my hands; in fact, I'm very happy with my 60D and the 17-55/2.8 and the pics I can take of my kid with it. I wish, though, I had a smaller yet capable camera for carrying around. I've considered a Canon EOS-M, especially after firmware + crazy deal, but I'd rather have a small camera with a fixed lens and built-in flash, and letting the lens-changing and flash-attaching thing for DSLR-demanding situations.
I can't really see much of an advantage of m4/3s over DSLRs. Smaller, yeah, but still not pocketable, and you still have to change lenses and all that.
I'm probably getting a Sony RX-100 ii for good enough casual pics and video, and sticking with DSLRs (maybe a 7Dm2) for important or challenging situations, like my kid learning to walk or playing soccer. I can't myself going FF, as next gen sensors will probably be very good, at least for my amateurish needs.
My future kit, as I can think of right now: 
- Sony RX-100 ii for everyday things
- DSLR for important moments -- 7Dm2, 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/4L is what I'm thinking of right now
- Borrowed Handycam when really good video matters (not often to me; not a video guy)
Cheers!


----------



## sdsr (Jul 5, 2013)

DanielW said:


> I can't really see much of an advantage of m4/3s over DSLRs. Smaller, yeah, but still not pocketable, and you still have to change lenses and all that.



All true; there is, however, a vast difference in weight and bulk. The biggest m43 lens is the Panasonic 100-300mm (200-600mm equiv), and even it weighs only 20oz (compare the closest dslr equivalents, such as the Canon 100-400 or Sigma 50-500); the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz. Most of the primes seem almost weightless. Plus, as mentioned elsewhere, they have some technological advantages. Of course, if you have a smallish DSLR and don't carry around more than a couple of fairly lightweight lenses, or don't carry your equipment around for hours on end, these differences may seem trivial....


----------



## Aurora Borealis (Jul 5, 2013)

sdsr said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > I can't really see much of an advantage of m4/3s over DSLRs. Smaller, yeah, but still not pocketable, and you still have to change lenses and all that.
> ...



Lets do a bit of spread sheeting:
5DmkIII 1kg
17-40 f4L 0.6kg
24-70LII 0.8kg
70-200 f4LIS 0.7kg
= 3,1kg

OM-D 0.4kg
Panasomic G 7-14 0.3kg
Panasomic G 12-35 0.3kg
Panasomic G 35-100 0.3kg
= 1,3kg

Please note that the OM-D have f2.8 over a wider range than the Canon. The OM-D also goes a lot wider (14 vs 17 mm).


----------



## ecka (Jul 5, 2013)

Aurora Borealis said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > DanielW said:
> ...



First - Why are you putting Panasonic (3rd party) lenses on your OM-D, while asking for Canon OEM equivalent? Sigma 12-24mm is available + Nikkor 14-24mm can be adapted as well.
Second - There are no f/2.8 FF equivalent zoom lenses in M4/3 system. EF 28-300/3.5-5.6L is like M4/3 14-150/1.8-2.8 (which would be near as big, as heavy, as expensive and most likely not as good).


----------



## Pi (Jul 5, 2013)

sdsr said:


> ... the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz.



That is a f/5.6 eq. lens. The closest comparison is the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, which is more than twice (!) the weight and the price of the equivalent 70-200/4 IS, longer, and not as good. 

The m43 14-35/2 is 28-70/4 eq., and it is a heavy $2.3K monster. The overpriced Canon 24-70/4 IS looks like a bargain next to it, and it is considerably lighter and smaller, not to mention wider and better.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 6, 2013)

You can not do a fair comparison between a m4/3 camera and a FF dslr (or APS-C). They are different beasts. A fair comparison would be micro 4/3 compared against Canon M.

Also going mirror less on a full frame camera does not necessarily mean that you have to have a tiny body. The body can be kept similar and the existing suite of lenses can be used. I have no doubt that eventually we will see mirror less FF bodies and that they will be using the same lenses.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > ... the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz.
> ...



Exactly!
4/3 has in no way delivered on the promise of smaller, lighter or better lenses. Neither has APS-C. We know it is not possible for tele lenses where size is determined solely by entrance pupil, not by image circle. But manufacturers have also failed to deliver on the wide-angle side. 
I will wait for a sony RX1-sized body with FF sensor and a number of tiny, native flange distance FF-capable primes with AF. I expect these pancake fixed focals between 20 and 80mm to be similar in size and cost to the excellent EF 40/2.8. plus a series of faster, somewhat larger and significantly more expensive "L" lenses, which will deliver Leica-M class image quality minus manual focus mechanics - at about 50% of current Leica M lens prices. 

And i also expect a more compact 24-70/4 with short flange-back as hi-IQ kit lens. Priced at less than 1k. 

It will come. Sooner rather than later. DSLRs are on the way out.


----------



## mkabi (Jul 6, 2013)

Your needs or wants of today, aren't exactly your needs or wants of tomorrow.

Fact is... yes mirrorless cameras will make current DSLR obsolete... the keyword here is "current" DSLRs.

Most of you guys think that mirrorless will be evolving, but DSLRs will remain constant.

Thats like comparing todays laptop to a desktop of the late 80s or early 90s.


----------



## mwh1964 (Jul 6, 2013)

I will stay with full frame. That's how I first got introduced to photography in the 80ties - Pentax ME Super which I still have - and this what counts for me. And then perhaps a Fuji X100s which reminds me of me Canon QL17 which I also still have.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 6, 2013)

mwh1964 said:


> I will stay with full frame.



Is there a law telling mirrorless cannot be full frame?

Sounds also that there's law telling mirrorless must be too small to be convenient with big lenses.

After they change those laws, then mirrorless bodies start (slowly) replacing traditional DSLRs.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 23, 2013)

Pi said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > ... the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz.
> ...



The aperture equivalences are only valid if you are interested in equalizing narrow depth of field. Many people and most pros like a fast lens to be able to use a higher shutter speed. The DOF issue in no way affects that.

As for the price of any lens, it is either worth it or it isn't. I would gladly pay $2500 each for the f2 Olympus lenses if they would focus quickly on an OM-D. Not only would I be able to shoot wide open at good shutter speeds in dim light but I would also have the advantage of being able to have two people in focus in the frame.

Even though those lenses are large, the comparable lens in terms of true speed will never be made for a FF body.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 23, 2013)

tpatana said:


> mwh1964 said:
> 
> 
> > I will stay with full frame.
> ...


Take a look at the Leica M9 system. It is against the 'laws' that you have mentioned.


----------



## Pi (Jul 23, 2013)

Normalnorm said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...



And noise. And AOV. 



> Many people and most pros like a fast lens to be able to use a higher shutter speed. The DOF issue in no way affects that.



Nothing else does. If you are not shooting with a phone or a P&S, you can choose whatever speed you want.



> As for the price of any lens, it is either worth it or it isn't. I would gladly pay $2500 each for the f2 Olympus lenses if they would focus quickly on an OM-D. Not only would I be able to shoot wide open at good shutter speeds in dim light but I would also have the advantage of being able to have two people in focus in the frame.
> 
> Even though those lenses are large, the comparable lens in terms of true speed will never be made for a FF body.



"True speed"? What prevents you from getting the same DOF on FF?


----------

