# DSLRs are a dying breed, EVIL is the future!



## Flake (Jan 12, 2012)

Not my words of course, but a piece written on the 'Stuck in Customs' website. 

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2012/01/04/dslrs-are-a-dying-breed-3rd-gen-cameras-are-the-future/

He does have a point the 'mirrorless' cameras are big heavy expensive & high profile, many entry level buyers will make a choice not to buy a DSLR, and as the quality improves with large sensors & faster lenses, they are going to offer image quality just as high as the DSLR.

Obviously it's a discussion point, which is the whole reason for posting it! But I think that Canon are well behind the game in this market, with no interchangeable lens camera, and despite the introduction of the G1X, it seems that they just don't understand the market at all.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 12, 2012)

even when the mirrors are gone one day, because electronic viewfinder are finally good enough and the sensor based phase detection is up to par with it´s optical sibling, the 35mm camera systems will still be here.

so who cares if a 9D MK2 will have a mirror or not?
if the EVF can match the optical one i don´t care.... im all for it!!

but do this guy really think nikon and canon will stop making aps-c and fullframe sensors for their current mounts? bullsh*t!

and EF mount cameras will always have a bigger sensor then mFT for example. so no matter how good the sensor technology gets... a bigger sensor of the same technology will always have better IQ then a smaller one. 

i "fear" more about low cost/low quality point and shoot cameras, with all the mobile phone cameras, who needs a 90$ point and shoot?



> it seems that they just don't understand the market at all.



but you are? 
the problem to solve for a company is not what some photogs want.. it´s where the MONEY is.

i know that around 40% of my customers are ambitious amateurs.
everyone of them would love to have a camera like the 1DS or 1D X.
but guess how many will buy one? 

i sell a lot of mirrorless cameras, especially OLYMPUS PEN and PANASONIC G models.
but lens sales are bad compared to NIKON or CANON 35mm systems.

i think (im guessing) canon knows exactly what they are doing.
that they have no mirrorless exchangeable lens system out yet does not mean they don´t do a lot of R&D.

because mirroless owner do not invest as much in their systems as DSLR owners, they switch brands much easyer (my own experience from selling cameras).
many PEN and GF3 owners asking me for the new FUJI PRO camera already.

so if CANON will bring out a great mirrorless one day it will not be the same as if they have left the 35mm market to NIKON for years.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Jan 12, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> even when the mirrors are gone one day, because electronic viewfinder are finally good enough, the 35mm camera systems will still be there.
> 
> so who cares if a 9D MK2 will have a mirror or not?
> if the EVF can match the optical one i don´t care.... im all for it!!
> ...



The fuji X100 and the new X-Pro 1 have the same size sensor as all canon's cropped sensor dslrs

Leica M9 has a full frame sensor.

So it isn't really anything to do with sensor size. Smaller mirrorless bodies have no problem in holding larger sensors.

Shutter lag and autofocus are better examples of what mirrorless cameras haven't quite trumped DSLRs at yet.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 12, 2012)

alipaulphotography said:


> So it isn't really anything to do with sensor size. Smaller mirrorless bodies have no problem in holding larger sensors.



you don´t get what im saying. 

im aware of M9 .. i sell them. 

what i say is, that 35mm system will not be replaced by mFT or other systems who have the possible benefit of even smaller bodys.
sales numbers will decline but there will still be a healthy market for 35mm (mirrorless) cameras.



> Shutter lag and autofocus are better examples



yes i had already added that to my original posting.
but nikon shows that sensor based phase detection can be the future.

i have no doubt that some day mirrors in cameras will be a thing of the past.

but all these articles who announce the dead of DSLR´s" forget that DSLR cameras have more to offer. i for one hate shooting in portrait mode with all these tiny cameras.


----------



## Flake (Jan 12, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> alipaulphotography said:
> 
> 
> > So it isn't really anything to do with sensor size. Smaller mirrorless bodies have no problem in holding larger sensors.
> ...



I don't think the article imagines DSLRs becoming extinct, but rather that they will account for much less of the market than they currently do.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 12, 2012)

If one decides to buy a camera purley for sensor size, I say, great, but don't try to convince me THAT makes or breaks a camera. 

For me there's MUUCH more reasons to buy a SLR camera. Size is one of them, try holding a NEX for two hours straight, trying using one quickly with no controls externally. Try to shoot ANY type of movement with a hybrid. If one still don't get the difference, an SLR is not for you, or you talked to a seller who knows squat. As a seller myself, I have no idea how many people asks me what to buy, hybrid or SLR, that end up with an SLR after trying a hybrid for 5 minutes with me telling them why it isn't any good, for other than to fit in your pocket (which most of them needs an additional pancake lens to do) and to shoot still-sitting subjects they aren't any good.

Give my son three sips of Coke and try getting 10 images sharp with a hybrid.. yeah.. that'll happen. 

I'm not even going to mention how lack of optical VF cripples the hybrids from being properly useful. Okay so I mentioned it...


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 12, 2012)

Flake said:


> I don't think the article imagines DSLRs becoming extinct,



well yes. but "dying breed" suggests something else. 



> but rather that they will account for much less of the market than they currently do.



as will P&S cameras is my guess (because of better mobile phone cameras).

my experience is that the "not photog customer" doesn´t care if he can change lenses.
they rather go with a great zoom range on a camera then the possibility to buy different lenses. that is why i sell a lot of PEN and GF cameras but not many lenses for them.

the normal people (what is still the majority) do not care much about changing lenses.
that is why you see so many REBEL owners (30-60 years old) with just a KIT lens.

they want better image quality then P&S cameras offer... but that´s it.

these people will (maybe) prefer to buy smaller mirrorless cameras in the future (i can agree to that).
but don´t be suprised i they switch to a G1 X kind of camera instead of cameras with a lens mount.


----------



## SnapHappy (Jan 12, 2012)

Flake said:


> Gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > alipaulphotography said:
> ...



This! What people forget or don't know, is that before the rebel series (and then followed by every other companies equivalent) was released, the DSLR market was mostly made up of serious enthusiast and working pro's. The avg consumer couldn't afford or was unwilling to invest the kind of money it required to get into a system. Once Canon released the rebel in 2003 it opened up the world to affordable SLR shooting and the DSLR exploded. 

I think these new mirror-less systems are here to stay and will only get better as they are adopted more and more into the consumer market. The compact size and fantastic IQ are exactly what the avg person would prefer and I see them, as they improve, killing off the entry level DSLR market all together. I think what we are going to see over the next 5-10 years is the DSLR market revert back to the pre-rebel days when only the serious enthusiast and working pro had them.

DSLR's won't die or be going anywhere anytime soon but make no mistake that the market share they currently hold is going to decrease. The avg shooter, soccer Dad and hockey Mom are more likely to pick up a mirror-less camera based on size alone.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 12, 2012)

SnapHappy said:


> DSLR's won't die or be going anywhere anytime soon but make no mistake that the market share they currently hold is going to decrease. The avg shooter, soccer Dad and hockey Mom are more likely to pick up a mirror-less camera based on size alone.



Until they relalized that the AF is no where near coping with hockey and soccer.

I see another side to your argument though. Even though we have the highest quality on video and stills possible, bluray, handycams with fantastic quality, SLr's with even better video. We have the highest possible IQ of stills. But what I notice(working with picture devolopment) is that people are satisfied with a lot less, which is very interesting, people use their cellphones for everything now. They print thank you cards from a childs birth with a picture from a frikkin lousy phone, yellow noisy blurry pictures, and they think it's good enough. If you switch on "Americas funniest home videoes" I used to see high quality (apart from low res) videoes, with 30 fps. But now, all I see are complete crap videoes shot at 10 fps with a useless phone. Take youtube as the main example, people watch videoes all day long that suck in quality compared to what tech is available. People are becoming more and more into the old phrase "the best camera is the one you have with you".

They don't care if they picture is blurry or noisy, as long as you can somewhat make out who you actually took the picture of. 

And if it's one thing I know, people usually have no clue how important, and how different the different AF-systems are. And therefor come to me as a seller, saying, that camera sucks, without even knowing that is just the AF system. For that alone I tell people that the AF is the most important feature of the camera, and if you want to shoot moving subjects, SLR is the answer.

I have a lot of people syaing this sentence: "I don't need a professional camera, just something cheap, I just take pictures of my children running around, mostly in the living room, and I hate using flash"

That's pretty high up on the "Worst case scenario" list for a camera, but people have no clue. They want "the cheapest you've got with 16 mp"

I think we sold maybe 3 pieces of the Nikon 1-series, NO ONE asks about it, no interest at all, but it clearly has the best AF-system of the lot.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 12, 2012)

Viggo said:


> But what I notice(working with picture devolopment) is that people are satisfied with a lot less, which is very interesting, people use their cellphones for everything now. They print thank you cards from a childs birth with a picture from a frikkin lousy phone, yellow noisy blurry pictures, and they think it's good enough. If you switch on "Americas funniest home videoes"



exactly my experience.

an i tell you this... it´s depressing. 

i shoot portraits of my niece.
with softboxes, umbrellas, hair and rim lighting... or outdoors in the summer with a reflector, diffusor.... and my 5D MK2.

and when i show pictures to my ignorant (photographically speaking  ) family there are some crappy mobile phone pictures between them shoot by my mother or my brother in law.

they notice the quality difference i guess... but they don´t care a sh*t.

when i delete a blurry or out of focus image all i hear is "hey wait that was a nice picture!!! why did you delete it??".

sharp eyes? .... often i ask myself who cares except a photog?


----------



## SnapHappy (Jan 12, 2012)

You both bring up great points which is why I believe the entry level DSLR market will dry up. "Good enough" seems to be the thought in today's society. How many avg shooters do you know who still use the kit lens? I know too many! MOST people are happy with one camera and one lens which is why I believe the size factor alone is enough to send the new systems to the top of the consumer market. They are small, light and the companies keep telling people the image quality rivals the best DSLR's on the planet.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 12, 2012)

SnapHappy said:


> I know too many! MOST people are happy with one camera and one lens which is why I believe the size factor alone is enough to send the new systems to the top of the consumer market.



or these people will buy something like this:

http://www.artefactgroup.com/wvil/


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 12, 2012)

There will always be good-enoughs... Those are the populous and masses.

For small compact camera, I could careless whether it has a mirror or not. I am just looking for something I can fit in a pocket, slip into a concert, etc.

I think there are some inherent limits, AF being the most apparent... When you start seeing fashion magazine covers being shot with these, then start to worry. 

Will be interesting to see the short term affect as to what this does to the entry DSLR, whether they get stronger, more features and prices creep down in the entry to mid-market.

I think the entry DSLRs will still remain, because some people want to get into photography, want to work their way up to better bodies, and the lifecycle of upgrading body and lenses will not be replaced. Now if they start having a mirrorless body that can take a EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS II or an EF 400 lens and actually be competent at focusing and shutter bursts, then I may worry.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 12, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Now if they start having a mirrorless body that can take a EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS II or an EF 400 lens and actually be competent at focusing and shutter bursts, then I may worry.



and why would you worry?
if the EVF is as good as the optical viewfinder or better and AF is great AND you can fit a EF lens onto that body.. why worry? 

i don´t think canon would make a body like that tiny as a NEX body.
because handling and ergonomy will still be an important point.

i think we will see a great improvement in sensor based phase AF over the next years.

i only care about the mirror as long as he is BETTER then the alternatives.
the day electronics can do a better job then a MIRROR.. i say get rid of it.

unfortunately all EVF still suck....


----------



## whatta (Jan 12, 2012)

size does matter. otherwise I would have a 7d 

EVF and AF will be getting better for sure and besides these two, fast primes are the reason for me to use dslr.

it seems the 650d will be my last dslr 
since the competition is bigger and bigger I hope it will come with a new sensor too not only with digic5.

btw I hate the fact that if you want a better camera it must be bigger.
like: you want AF-MA? buy a 7D.. pfff.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 12, 2012)

whatta said:


> btw I hate the fact that if you want a better camera it must be bigger.
> like: you want AF-MA? buy a 7D.. pfff.



maybe that is because canon thinks REBEL buyer will not spend much money on prime lenses.
another point is they need features to seperate the model lines. simple but true.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 12, 2012)

whatta said:


> btw I hate the fact that if you want a better camera it must be bigger.
> like: you want AF-MA? buy a 7D.. pfff.



May I ask why you want AFMA in a contrast-based AF camera like the hybrids?


----------



## JonJT (Jan 12, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> ........so who cares if a 9D MK2 will have a mirror or not?............



I've never understood why people have incited and perpetuated arguments pairing DSLRs and Mirrorless technology when the two were never equitable, for this reason. The DSLR form factor will remain. the presence of absence of a mirrorbox isn't going to change that.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 12, 2012)

whatta said:


> size does matter. otherwise I would have a 7d
> 
> EVF and AF will be getting better for sure and besides these two, fast primes are the reason for me to use dslr.
> 
> ...



Size matters, yes.

I use an M9 and Summicron 35 for 90% of what I shoot. I love the size and weight of the thing. I can fit it almost everywhere.

However, sometimes a camera the size of a 1D Mark IV is almost necessary. I cannot imagine shooting wild life or sports with a camera even as small as an M9, nevermind something the size of a NEX-7. The size of the camera adds to its ergonomic advantages. Having easy to access dedicated buttons for nearly every function instead of an LCD driven menu system is a must. You just don't have the space on a small camera to make it great in that regard.

I think we're going to see tons of choice when it comes to size in the future, but the big DSLR isn't going anywhere.

Cheers


----------



## EYEONE (Jan 12, 2012)

I think people are mixing up capabilities and form factors. Mirrorless camera's will most certainly one day match the capabilities of DSLRs. But I want a big sturdy camera for my shooting.

It's all about what a camera is good for. And people are just assuming that because a mirrorless is as good as whatever other camera then people will use it. But I don't take my desktop to a coffee shop and I don't edit photos on my laptop at home. Even though they are close to the same speed each has it's proper uses.

I think it's time we got over this confusion about the two. I actually like hauling my gripped 7D around with a 70-200mm and a flash. And I wouldn't prefer a lighter version of the rig. One of the main reasons I upgrade from my Rebel was that it was too small.

But, maybe I'm just a weird person. All my favorite TV shows get cancelled too...


----------



## AJ (Jan 12, 2012)

Back in the film days there were many mirrorless cameras, ranging from cheap point-n-shoots to high-quality rangefinders to big SLRs like EOS 3.

Back then, the small cameras didn't kill the SLRs. I don't see why mirrorless digital cameras will kill DSLRs in the future.

Mirrors work, and they're not that expensive to produce. Why strip them away?

On another note. Personally I'm lusting for an EF mount camera with a full-frame sensor in a Rebel-like body (plastic+pentamirror = lightweight). If you want to shave off weight, why not get rid of the metal body and big lumpy prism. But I'm not holding my breath...


----------



## Flake (Jan 12, 2012)

While I think the writer has an interesting point, his thinking is flawed. He talks about the advances in technology which will make the EVIL cameras much better, but neglects to consider the advances which may occur in DSLR development. 

I think sales of DSLRs will slow, for several reasons, recession, competition from other formats, but most of all because the technology gains are not sufficient to merit a trade up. Maybe we will see a slowing in the rate of new body launches, both the 5D & 1Ds replacements have kept bodies current much longer than was expected, perhaps what ever is launched will have an even longer product life.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 12, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> But, maybe I'm just a weird person. All my favorite TV shows get cancelled too...



It's the other way around - people who would rather have another season of survivor, lost, or heroes are weird. People who would rather have another season of dark angel or flash forward are not.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 12, 2012)

AJ said:


> Back in the film days there were many mirrorless cameras, ranging from cheap point-n-shoots to high-quality rangefinders to big SLRs like EOS 3.
> 
> Back then, the small cameras didn't kill the SLRs. I don't see why mirrorless digital cameras will kill DSLRs in the future.



Weren't rangefinder camera manual focus only ?


----------



## Rocky (Jan 12, 2012)

Size, weight, form factor and ergonomics are all important. How many reviewer are complaining about cameras that have buttons are too small and too close to each other, hand grips are too small, etc. It all goes back to cameras are being too small. I know people that have brought the Rebel for smaller size and cheaper price compared to XXD. they end up buy ing the battery grip such tha they can hold the (even in landscape position). The existing APS-and 4/3" mirrorless are light and cute. But they are ergonomically worst than the DSLR. Also their lenses are just as big as the EF-S lenses (may be there are 2 or 3 exceptions). When we are talking about system, we are talking about lenses, flash, and camera body. with couple big lenses, the camera body doe not matter any more.
I am not against mirrorless. But I have feel that people use the wrong arguement (size and weight). In fact weight of a camera is important to help stabilize the camera during shooting. when you push the shutter button, the camera has a tendency to move downward. the heavier the body, the less movement it will have. That is why in the old film days, some cameras (Rollies, Exakta, eta ) have the shutter release to be pushed backword instead.
One poster mentioned to have pentamirror instead od pentaprism to save weight. I hopethat he realize that he will give up alittle bit of view finder brightness for the weight. The DSLR finder is already dimmer than the film SLR dueto the half mirror needed for auto focusing. I would rather have the extra weight to go me the brightness.
When the AF on mirrorless is as good as the DSLR and EVF is asgood as the optical view finder. Then, we will see whatwill happen. Untilthen,DSLR will still be the "Godfather".


----------



## jbwise01 (Jan 12, 2012)

I definitely think the SIC article is pointing out some important features of mirrorless cameras. 

The article mentions FPS as one thing mirrorless has going for it. So you could pick out 1 image from 200 instead of 1 or 20. I think this is an extremely interesting topic.

My wife loves this show on E! called "Scouted", they basically look for models , I should at least mention my detest for E! and all things “pop” culture... anyways...

On this show I noticed they were using RED EPICs for their photo shoots, I was intrigued, because I figured Pro Studios would be using High end DSLRs for their shots and was completely surprised. I looked into this, and it seems that the RED EPIC is gaining a lot of popularity in studio photography and situations where shutter speeds over 1/120 are not an absolute requirement. The fact that magazines and studios are using it shows the potential for mirrorless camera in the photo industry.

The RED EPIC is basically an extremely upgraded “pro” version of a mirrorless camera EVIL-style camera. 

The pros
-You can capture 120 FPS.
-Each image is a RAW 14mp
-Live view shooting can be shown on multiple reference monitors

Cons
-images shot in continuous mode are limited to an equivalent shutter speed of 1/120 sec. 
-Continous shooting for a long photo session would require LOTS of storage.
-extremely expensive set up for photography
-Requires high powered / high output lighting setup and equipment
-no strobe lighting can be used
-energy needs for lighting would be high
-mobility is limited


Here’s a great Article on the RED EPIC and digital photography.
http://cinetech.drewmaw.com/2011/06/red-epic-may-replace-pro-photography-camera/

I think it will be at least a few years before we see a real “pro” version of a Full Frame mirrorless camera from either Nikon or Canon. Needless to say.. mirrorless cameras are indeed the future, the potential is there for some exciting possibilities.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jan 12, 2012)

I don't see the general design concepts contradict each other. I like the size and weight of my DSLR for its use. I'm actually one of the crazy people who added the way-too-expensive battery grip to my 5DII to enhance the ergonomics and balance.

That is not to say that I wouldn't like adding another small camera at some point that is more capable than my current digital P&S. Actually, I'm closely looking at what Canon does with the new G series and certainly what Fuji just came up with. High want factor. But not as a replacement.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 12, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > Back in the film days there were many mirrorless cameras, ranging from cheap point-n-shoots to high-quality rangefinders to big SLRs like EOS 3.
> ...


Straightly speaking, range finder cameras are manual focusing only. However, a lot of people call non-SLR as range finder. In the early 80's there are a lot of small AF, full auto little film camera. I personally will call them "view finder".


----------



## AJ (Jan 12, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > Back in the film days there were many mirrorless cameras, ranging from cheap point-n-shoots to high-quality rangefinders to big SLRs like EOS 3.
> ...



Yes indeed that's true. Thanks for pointing that out


----------



## Sunnystate (Jan 12, 2012)

Agree completely, I am looking to mirrorless for something to finally replace my Rebel with super wide lens that, I carry everyday for walks with my dog. My God, just give me high quality mirrorless with some kind of lens in the 14-16mm FF range, I don't care for the price, and of course I will still keep all of my other SLR bodies.

On the other hand when mirrorless technology obviously will get really advanced, exceeding ability of the SLR, it may become financially sound not to support both systems and mirrorless will also be build in the form similar to the current SLR to preserve ergonomics, weight, ability to mount large lenses etc.
In any case SLRs probably will be replaced at some point if not by so called mirrorless than by some kind of other technology that will be cheaper, more efficient and better.
There is no reason to cry... just roll with the punches learn, and take best shots you can with available technology.
If changes like that will kill one or two companies (hopefully not Canon) it only will show that there was something wrong with the management, and usual suspects are lack of imagination and arrogance.




EYEONE said:


> I think people are mixing up capabilities and form factors. Mirrorless camera's will most certainly one day match the capabilities of DSLRs. But I want a big sturdy camera for my shooting.
> 
> It's all about what a camera is good for. And people are just assuming that because a mirrorless is as good as whatever other camera then people will use it. But I don't take my desktop to a coffee shop and I don't edit photos on my laptop at home. Even though they are close to the same speed each has it's proper uses.
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 12, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > But, maybe I'm just a weird person. All my favorite TV shows get cancelled too...
> ...



Wonderfalls, Pushing Daisies, and Dead Like Me - great shows that all died untimely deaths. It's hard for quirky, intelligent shows to compete against 'mainstream' shows like Survivor and Lost and Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader (hint: if you're watching it, the answer is likely 'no'). 

dSLRs aren't 'quirky' but while I think there will always be a market for the high IQ they can deliver, I think when the banes of mirrorless cameras get solved (AF speed and shutter lag), the _consumer_ popularity (i.e. Rebel/xxxD lines) of the dSLR arena will be dramatically reduced.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 12, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> I use an M9 and Summicron 35 for 90% of what I shoot. I love the size and weight of the thing. I can fit it almost everywhere.



Yes...I thought that camera sitting on your workspace at CES didn't look like a Canon. Bad boy! Since it's your website, you don't get bad Karma, even though you deserve it. 

Seriously though, *of course *DSLRS are a dying breed. It's just a question of how long it will take. Right now, there is nothing available that makes a better replacement. But, technology marches on. 

In my lifetime, I've seen vinyl records, eight-track tapes, cassettes and now CDs come and go (well actually, vinyl records were here before I was born, but not the others). Same with the entire video store industry. For half of my life, there was no such thing as a video rental store. They came...they succeeded...they failed and technology marched on.

I accept that I am a dinosaur. 

But, I'm also gambling that the death of the DSLR, when it comes, will arrive gradually and I may be too old and weak to lift a camera to my eye by that time. On the upside, if it comes sooner, the end of the DSLR just might give me the opportunity to pick up some nice "L" lenses at a discount when no one else wants them anymore.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 12, 2012)

unfocused said:


> In my lifetime, I've seen vinyl records, eight-track tapes, cassettes and now CDs come and go (well actually, vinyl records were here before I was born, but not the others). Same with the entire video store industry. For half of my life, there was no such thing as a video rental store. They came...they succeeded...they failed and technology marched on.
> 
> I accept that I am a dinosaur.
> 
> But, I'm also gambling that the death of the DSLR, when it comes, will arrive gradually and I may be too old and weak to lift a camera to my eye by that time. On the upside, if it comes sooner, the end of the DSLR just might give me the opportunity to pick up some nice "L" lenses at a discount when no one else wants them anymore.


May I add that I have seen 78 rpm hard phono record, hand crank phono player, steel wire recorder. That is a real dinosaur.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 12, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > EYEONE said:
> ...



+1 for that, I think the best tv-series EVER produced for an insanely amount of reasosns, "Arrested Development" were to smart for people, three seasons only? Because it wasn't profitable. I for one can't wait until the movie gets here...


----------



## Viggo (Jan 12, 2012)

Again, why are people so obsessed with loosing the mirror? 

I see nothing but benefits from it. (If you shoot video and argue for AF on video, forget it. If you buy a 1d X purley for filming, you have a rig and person adjusting focus anyways.)


----------



## alipaulphotography (Jan 12, 2012)

I think my ultimate gear combination would be a big medium format Contax with Zeiss glass for the best image quality.

Then a small mirrorless full frame for portability.

That would probably be the best of both worlds.

I agree the DSLR's will always have their place in sports and wildlife photography for sure.


----------



## EYEONE (Jan 12, 2012)

Viggo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen Schmidtee said:
> ...



Arrested Development, Firefly, Stargate: Universe... The list goes on.

However, I did love Lost too...


----------



## skitron (Jan 12, 2012)

I suppose at the end of the day the laws of physics will have its say in the matter. If you want the framing and DOF that a full frame gives with a particular lens then sure, you can miniaturize the body. Maybe you can even miniaturize the lens 5% under what you have now. But at the end of the day does anyone really want to shoot a 70-200 L f/2.8 with something like a NEX 5 body?


----------



## dstppy (Jan 12, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Arrested Development, Firefly, Stargate: Universe... The list goes on.
> 
> However, I did love Lost too...



Yall got nothing on my troubles. Since Nero Wolfe got cancelled . . . I've had to turn to READING!!! Oh the Humanity! :'(


----------



## traveller (Jan 12, 2012)

When EVFs are indistiguishable from OVFs and on-chip phase detect AF is as good as using a separate sensor, then I cannot see the point of having a mirror inside the camera anymore. But none of this means that all future 'mirrorless' cameras will be tiny pocketable models; I've stated my position before that in the future 'mirrorless' cameras will simply be the norm and there will be plenty of room in the market for many different form factors. 

Imagine this for a future Canon pro camera: 

-no mirror, on-sensor hybrid phase and contrast detect AF (Nikon 1 style) 
-smaller flange back distance frees up designers to produce exciting new lenses (which can be used on smaller bodies when you need compactness or discretion)
-EF mount adaptor allows mounting of legacy lenses
-Huge EVF (bigger than current 1D X's 0.76x) that lets you compose in near darkness (to match the low light capabilities of future sensors), whilst previewing white balance and exposure. 
-fully electronic shutter with 120+fps capability (no moving parts), flash sync at just about any speed you like... 

Still afraid of losing the mirror?


----------



## Cosk (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm a two-system kinda guy. I have my big-fast-prime system, and I have an always-with-me camera.

What I don't understand is that there seems to be a belief that big sensors require bigger bodies and bigger lenses. 

Back in the film days, I loved the Olympus Stylus Epic (aka MJII).

Here are the specs:
- Full Frame / ~20MP when loaded with Fuji Reala
- Weather Sealed
- 35mm f/2.8 lens (fantastically sharp and saturated)
- Jean-Pocket comfortable 

http://www.d2gallery.com/cameras/olympusstylusepic.html

That lens was tiny, bright, and full frame. 

Now, I realize that big sensors are still very expensive, we are stuck in the mentality that every camera needs a screen - which adds thickness, cost, needs power and buttons.... so we need big batteries... and now that we have buttons, we really want full manual control and touch screens. 

But if anyone built a digital version of the film Stylus Epic, I'd buy it... (but probably very few others, so I'm sure it won't happen). 

Canon started to... in their SD20... but alas, like your favorite shows, they discontinued it.

But my point is... I've owned a full frame camera with tiny lens that was wonderfully good. 

And EVIL doesn't have to replace SLR... if it can fit in a pocket, it can live comfortably alongside our air-cube cameras. 


We should rename SLR to LACS: Lens>Air Cube>Sensor


----------



## mitchell3417 (Jan 12, 2012)

In ten years no new cameras will come out with a physical mirror in them. The pros will carry 5d size bodies with ef mounts and beautiful evf's that can zoom in on demand for pinpoint focus control. The average person will only ever carry their cell phone as a camera. The rebel consumer today will have a nice mirrorless camera that may or may not come with interchangable lenses and may or may not have an evf.

That is where I see us headed. Pros will always want full size bodies, with 35mm sensors and the best IQ, AF, and DR.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 12, 2012)

mitchell3417 said:


> In ten years no new cameras will come out with a physical mirror in them. The pros will carry 5d size bodies with ef mounts and beautiful evf's that can zoom in on demand for pinpoint focus control. The average person will only ever carry their cell phone as a camera. The rebel consumer today will have a nice mirrorless camera that may or may not come with interchangable lenses and may or may not have an evf.
> 
> That is where I see us headed. Pros will always want full size bodies, with 35mm sensors and the best IQ, AF, and DR.


We already have it, It is Leica M9. If used properly, It can MF more accurate than DSLR, especially for shoter lense. It will MF faster than DSLR with proper skill. Its shutter lag is measured in 10's of milli second.


----------



## EYEONE (Jan 12, 2012)

mitchell3417 said:


> In ten years no new cameras will come out with a physical mirror in them. The pros will carry 5d size bodies with ef mounts and beautiful evf's that can zoom in on demand for pinpoint focus control. The average person will only ever carry their cell phone as a camera. The rebel consumer today will have a nice mirrorless camera that may or may not come with interchangable lenses and may or may not have an evf.
> 
> That is where I see us headed. Pros will always want full size bodies, with 35mm sensors and the best IQ, AF, and DR.



You could be right. But I'm not thrilled about the elimination of the mirror. Every one worshiped the EVF on the A77 but when I used it I was underwhelmed. It still isn't pleasant compared to a OVF. They have a long long long way to go to replace the OVF. It's just a pleasure to use, looking through the lens with your own eye. It's natural, comfortable and precise. 

What I'd rather see is a very advanced transmission LCD that allows more information options to be shown line a live histogram, more option for grid lines, electronic level and many many other things (without using AF dots). Maybe even some color overlays right in the OVF. A hybrid OVF in a pro DSLR


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 12, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> whatta said:
> 
> 
> > size does matter. otherwise I would have a 7d
> ...


too true, for me ergonomically the 5Dmk2 is about the perfect size and shape to be able to shoot continuously for extended periods.
The other thing that will take quite some time to change is peoples perception when you are shooting and being paid then people expect you have have big gear, I couldn't quite imagine rocking up to a wedding with a nex5 or PEN... might end up here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjBSIvg3pjc
I really hope to see the integrated battery grip on pro bodies disappear though in time they are just not necessary anymore and for the people that really need the extra bulk they can get the add on grip. I think it would widen the potential sales for these cameras. and while the tech of mirrorless and EVIL cameras increases dslrs will continue the mirror system of the camera may fall by the wayside and perhaps they might all start using leaf shutters (fingers crossed) but the ergonomics of the size will remain at least for working pros due to the necessity to have the controls you need accessible quickly and without cramping your hand. as for glass i am sure it will continue, tiny lenses will still have certain optical constraints and limitations, they will hit this wall sooner than people think with all this miniturisation of these camera systems.


----------



## archangelrichard (Jan 13, 2012)

Can't we stop these childish and idiotic troll messages?

We keep getting this same BS here, constantly climing that DSLR's are dying (not!) or EVF's / EVIL is the future (the main problem being nowhere does the poster demonstrate an understanding of the future as in "the future of ... what, exactly?")

Look, folks, *EVIL / EVF is NOT; I repeat NOT the same market as DSLR's*. This is like saying with it's 35x zoom, the Powershot SX 40 HS is going to replace all DSLR's -- NOT the same market

STOP the childishness and quit wasting time trying to troll, enough with the fake controversy, already; grow up! Oranges do not replace apples when you are making applesauce, and this is an apples to oranges comparison, these are not the same thing, not the same market. People who light have purchased a DSLR because there was no alternative will have one, but the most popular cameras are those found on Phones so EVIL is more comoetuing with phone cameras than anything else

And, at that point, phone cameras win - you can use them to talk, text, hit the internet, AND take pictures


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 13, 2012)

I dont see anything troll like about it. its purely posting the opinion of a very popular photography blogger and people are discussing the view. I dont think many people agree with the expressed view though.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 13, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I don't see anything troll like about it. its purely posting the opinion of a very popular photography blogger and people are discussing the view. I don't think many people agree with the expressed view though.



I agree. Attention-grabbing headline aside, the discussion has been entertaining, even if pretty seriously off-topic at times.


----------



## funkboy (Jan 13, 2012)

Let's put it this way:

I'd rather have a very good EVF & very good digital MF assist than the crappy pentamirror optical viewfinder sans interchangable focus screen found on most entry-level crop cameras.

But look through the viewfinder on any modern FF DSLR (or better yet, an older pro-level MF SLR like the Canon T90) & you'll see that EVFs and associated ergonomics still have a very very long way to go before being close to the experience.

The Fuji system seems to be a nice compromise, but I haven't had the experience of actually using one yet.


----------



## jbwise01 (Jan 13, 2012)

I think there is a lot of confusion out there about Mirrorless cameras. A lot of people are assuming it has to be something small, which it doesn't have to be at all... 

The NEX series cameras are pretty good cameras, but no where near as ergonomic, useful, or durable as a pro camera should be. The NEX cameras aren't targeted towards pro's neither are the M 4/3 or Nikon 1 series cams, tose cameras are small becaus ethats what soccer moms and fmaily vacationers want in a camera, and those that want great image quality and could be considering a interchangable lens camera may be swayed. 
The simple fact is that if mirrorless can eventually provide the same performance as todays DSLRs there would be no reason for companies not to make them. I would imagine the abilitiy to provide customers with the best product is the goal of the camera companies, and when mirrorless provides advantages for certain product types they will begin to introduce pro versions of mirrorless. he transition wont happen overnight and DSLR's will be around for quite some time, but the change is inevitable.


----------



## whatta (Jan 13, 2012)

Viggo said:


> whatta said:
> 
> 
> > btw I hate the fact that if you want a better camera it must be bigger.
> ...


I was talkind about the current apsc line (better = bigger). I have a rebel, I will probably go for the 650d but since I do have primes I would like to have afma, which is a software feature which adds 0gr and 0mm to the body, but canon currently answers - "buy a 7d", which is a great camera and I would love the viewfinder eg but it is just too big for me. I would just like to have more options..


----------



## Rocky (Jan 13, 2012)

It is all about personal preference. SLR and Range/View finder cameras has been coexisted since the dawn of 35mm film. Even in digital camera, they are co-existing now. I just cannot see one type will completelty taking over the other. Eah type has its own merit and down fall.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 13, 2012)

archangelrichard said:


> Can't we stop these childish and idiotic troll messages?



I agree: archangelrichard can you please not post childish and idiotic troll messages (as indicated by the insults and name calling.)


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 16, 2012)

Maybe mirrorless could get better, but perhaps, the SLR technology could get better too?


----------



## whatta (Jan 16, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > whatta said:
> ...


good to see that you have the same opinion, you do not want bigger camera if you want better 
the only difference is that for you 5d is the "perfect" size..


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 16, 2012)

Large and medium format are still with us and going strong, DSLR's are strong as ever. 
To say the thread title is hogwash is very reserved of me.

Mirrorless cameras were created to fill a gap of those who wanted better compacts and interchangeable lenses.

I was in Venice this weekend and loads of people asked me to take their photos, with their camera. All were on green box or program mode. It doesn't matter how good mirrorless gets, it's still not going to be used professionally by 99% of the market. They just want cameras that take good pictures easily.

Because manufacturers serve the markets needs they won't incorporate professional features. Not like DSLR's have. I know of some pros who have a second camera in the X100, which takes great pictures...but I prefer to change the lens on my 1Ds3 as that lens affords me lots more functions when attached to my main body.

There'll come a point where DSLR's will have smaller and smaller improvements and compacts / EVIL cameras will catch up. The only limitations will be pure laws of physics.

A good example of this was 10 years ago and audio. We had Dolby Surround, DTS, the Soundblaster cards, various upgrades and now nearly every pc has onboard 5.1 audio but since then, not much has changed in the world of audio.

The same thing will happen to imaging until something groundreaking and new comes along.


----------



## NormanBates (Jan 16, 2012)

no doubt about it: in the long run, electronics beats mechanics every time it has a small chance

I give it 10 years tops for flagship models to have no mirror in them

(also, I'd like to say: I don't know about the A77 EVF, but I shoot mostly video with my 550D, and have a loupe permanently attached to its LCD screen; that beats an OVF in absolutely every respect; but it's big; as soon as they can get the EVF to work that good, I don't want to look through an OVF ever again)


----------



## whatta (Jan 16, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> no doubt about it: in the long run, electronics beats mechanics every time it has a small chance
> 
> I give it 10 years tops for flagship models to have no mirror in them
> 
> (also, I'd like to say: I don't know about the A77 EVF, but I shoot mostly video with my 550D, and have a loupe permanently attached to its LCD screen; that beats an OVF in absolutely every respect; but it's big; as soon as they can get the EVF to work that good, I don't want to look through an OVF ever again)


"loupe"
a what?  can we see the product what you use? thanks


----------



## NormanBates (Jan 16, 2012)

I have a DIY version of this:
http://www.zacuto.com/z-finder-dslr-viewfinder

mine is a bit extreme, it makes the screen a LOT bigger than the OVF in a 5D2; yes, it's a bit too big for composition, but it lets me see all the detail the screen can provide (and I need that for focusing manually)


----------



## elflord (Jan 16, 2012)

[quote author=AprilForever]
Maybe mirrorless could get better, but perhaps, the SLR technology could get better too?[/quote]

Both technologies will move, but mirrorless is moving much faster. The Canon 5D Mark II was announced before the first micro 4/3 cameras were released. Since then, those cameras have gone through 3 iterations of development, the Sony NEX, Nikon 1, Fuji X Pro, and Samsung NX systems were released or announced, as were the Fuji X100 and Canon's G series update. And we still don't have a 5D Mark III yet.


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 16, 2012)

elflord said:


> [quote author=AprilForever]
> Maybe mirrorless could get better, but perhaps, the SLR technology could get better too?



Both technologies will move, but mirrorless is moving much faster. The Canon 5D Mark II was announced before the first micro 4/3 cameras were released. Since then, those cameras have gone through 3 iterations of development, the Sony NEX, Nikon 1, Fuji X Pro, and Samsung NX systems were released or announced, as were the Fuji X100 and Canon's G series update. And we still don't have a 5D Mark III yet.
[/quote]


The difference between SLR and mirrorless will always be that an SLR has real light meeting your eye. Interpolated light will never be the same.


----------

