canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => EOS Bodies => Topic started by: 5dmarkii on June 28, 2012, 10:08:32 AM

Title: Is SLR dead?
Post by: 5dmarkii on June 28, 2012, 10:08:32 AM
I have been a SLR/DSLR user since 1990s, my first cameras include Nikon N90s and  FE-2. About 3 years ago I switched to Canon EOS-5D and then the Mark II.

Recently I bought a Nikon J1 for wife and decided to give it a try on my vacation to China. This is pretty much the first vacation I didn't bring a SLR/DSLR along with me. Very happy with the J1, appreciate the size/weight, especially when climbing mountains. With a 10-30mm plus a DX 70-210 I got 27-560mm coverage, plus excellent video -- all in a ridiculously small package. And the price? $400 for the body plus 10-30, $200 for an adapter(which sucks!) and $150 for the 70-210mm, total $750. My Mark II body alone cost me $2000.

This makes me wonder, is SLR heading to tomb? If you compare the testing result on dpreview, under low ISO it's hard to tell the difference between a full frame DSLR and a mirrorless. Although DSLR still have clear advantage on high ISO, I am afraid it's only time that technology will catch up and the gap will shrink(Don't think technology will eliminate the difference completely, but may make is smaller).

DSLR will always be appreciated by pros, that for sure. But for everyday amateur users, it doesn't seem to make sense to pay so much more money and carry so much weight for only limited advantage?

Just some thoughts, I am keeping my Mark II. :)
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: RLPhoto on June 28, 2012, 10:17:56 AM
Nope.  8)
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: tamedia on June 28, 2012, 10:21:29 AM
Nope.  8)

Nope +1
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: aznable on June 28, 2012, 10:27:41 AM
in the long run… yes
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Jettatore on June 28, 2012, 11:08:34 AM
For amateurs and vacationers yes, definitely.  This will overtake the Rebel-end line up over time.   But it's a 2.7x crop camera, and the behavior of the lenses won't match the behavior of full frame lenses at the same calculated focal length views in terms of background compression and DOF, etc. etc.

For me, I am interested in both moving up to Medium Format or bigger, and having a smaller Full Frame system for convenience (i.e. Lieca)  But I'm not so interested in micro 4/3rds or the Nikon 1 series, simply because for the same reason it's suggestible to upgrade to Full Frame over APS-C, this is simply going in the opposite direction.  Also considering things like the 5DIII/1DX's ability to nearly see in the dark, etc. etc., I think it will be quite some time before cameras in the micro 4/3rd's and Nikon 1 series range are able to fully catch up in terms of sensor tech.  I mean I could see Panasonic launching a higher end range model than currently exists in their line-up, but I can't see Nikon at all trying to race sensor performance until forced to by Pan/Oly for consumer marketshare.  The list goes on, but I think the end result is that these cameras have at best limited 'professional' utility and will be popular enough among consumers who are not at the same time aspiring to go 'pro' or become a high-end 'hobbyist' or what have you.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: aznable on June 28, 2012, 11:29:40 AM
For amateurs and vacationers yes, definitely.  This will overtake the Rebel-end line up over time.   But it's a 2.7x crop camera, and the behavior of the lenses won't match the behavior of full frame lenses at the same calculated focal length views in terms of background compression and DOF, etc. etc.

nono… i think that camera with bigger sensors and so on will become non-slr too
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: lopicma on June 28, 2012, 11:38:45 AM
We must be at some sort of tipping point for the cost of a small {O}LED viewfinder to a glass and mirror version.  With Google gearing up for a pair of wearable glasses, and the Television market embracing {O}LED screens at more affordable prices, it will be inevitable.

I think the design of a mirror-less camera can be identical that of current models, so why people are so resistant is puzzling.  Less moving parts is always a good thing for longevity of a product as well.

I am surprised it has lasted this long.  With everything moving to Solid State, the DSLR is one of the last hold outs.  I expect it "won't go easily" either.   I have been investing in better glass these days, so as long as the new models accept these lenses, I am ready for the change, ...whenever it comes.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: unfocused on June 28, 2012, 11:49:58 AM
in the long run… yes

In the long run, we are all dead.

Not until you can hold the camera up to your eye and actually see what you are shooting as clearly as you can with today's SLRs.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: adhocphotographer on June 28, 2012, 11:53:19 AM
In the long run, we are all dead.


haha, too true...  I think that SLRs, like everything else, will eventually die, being replaced by the next thing...  when and how this will happen, only time will tell!  :)  I think mirrorless is the first step, and the fact that a lot of the P&S cameras are getting better and better!
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: lopicma on June 28, 2012, 12:00:15 PM
I am reminded now of people using their iPhones and iPads to take photos.  They are seeing what they shoot, and in some cases, as large a laptop screen.  If that detail can be shrunk and/or projected into a usable viewfinder, the problem is solved. 

Talk about a dead camera type...  point and shoots are slugging it out with phone cameras on an minute-by-minute basis.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: aznable on June 28, 2012, 12:22:18 PM
in the long run… yes

In the long run, we are all dead.

Not until you can hold the camera up to your eye and actually see what you are shooting as clearly as you can with today's SLRs.

yap of course...and i would add with a very low lag
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: drjlo on June 28, 2012, 01:16:27 PM
It's much more likely that point-and-shoot cameras and cameras like Nikon J1 are dead due to phone cameras replacing them.  Those cameras' main advantage of portability over DSLR has been turned agains them with the decent phone cameras, which shoot decent pictures in good light also.  DSLR's will live on because for serious work, commercial work, weddings, etc, they cannot be replaced. 

Following are couple of shots with my Samsung Nexus Phone camera, which work OK when lighting is good.  It is utter cr**^ in anything less than optimal light, though.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7236/7170885731_c75021c5ab_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drjlo1/7170885731/)
IMG_20120609_122617A (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drjlo1/7170885731/#) by drjlo1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/drjlo1/), on Flickr


(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5238/7185747461_0bd8c6eb2f_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drjlo1/7185747461/)
Samsung Nexus phone camera (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drjlo1/7185747461/#) by drjlo1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/drjlo1/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 28, 2012, 01:18:16 PM
Not for me.  I have big hands, like shallow depth of field (big sensor) large depth of field (small apertures not limited by diffraction) and hell, just the noise it makes.

Not seen any decent fast aperture zooms for cscs, and unless you shoot with a pancake all the time, then they really aren't as compact as the hype makes out.  If its not going to fit in a pocket (as no cscs with kit zooms do) then I'm as well with my dslr.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: 5dmarkii on June 28, 2012, 01:18:44 PM
in the long run… yes

In the long run, we are all dead.

Not until you can hold the camera up to your eye and actually see what you are shooting as clearly as you can with today's SLRs.

I don't know man. I am not sure it will be THAT long. Just read a post which reports in Japan the mirrorless market share is already over 40%, In taiwan it's over 50%. Even worldwide, the percentage grew from 10% in 2010 to 22% in 2011. People still favor SLR in this country, maybe because we vacation more on cars rather than feet(even in mountains!), so the weight benefit is less significant.

I actually like the LCD screen more than eye level. Sure eye level is clearer, but the LCD screen gives you more realistic view how the photo would eventually turn out, sort of like the old fashioned TLRs. And LCD gives you so much more information than just apeture/shutter.

Anyway, I have used SLR/DSLR for 20 years plus a few TLRs, never owned any P/S or rangefinder until the J1, but the Mark II is probably going to be my last SLR ever.

I do agree some day phone camera may replace mirrorless as well, the smaller the better!
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: JRS on June 28, 2012, 01:27:59 PM
I think that SLRs, like everything else, will eventually die, being replaced by the next thing...  when and how this will happen, only time will tell!  :)  I think mirrorless is the first step, and the fact that a lot of the P&S cameras are getting better and better!


Yes, but even if P&S reach SLR in terms of IQ, noise and ISO performance, we will not have the same DOF using small sensors....
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Astro on June 28, 2012, 01:29:32 PM
it´s not dead.

but the useless discussions about DSLR´s dead should die....
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: 5dmarkii on June 28, 2012, 01:38:30 PM
I think that SLRs, like everything else, will eventually die, being replaced by the next thing...  when and how this will happen, only time will tell!  :)  I think mirrorless is the first step, and the fact that a lot of the P&S cameras are getting better and better!


Yes, but even if P&S reach SLR in terms of IQ, noise and ISO performance, we will not have the same DOF using small sensors....

You can safely assume majority of camera owners don't even know what is DOF.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: RLPhoto on June 28, 2012, 01:42:13 PM
I think that SLRs, like everything else, will eventually die, being replaced by the next thing...  when and how this will happen, only time will tell!  :)  I think mirrorless is the first step, and the fact that a lot of the P&S cameras are getting better and better!


Yes, but even if P&S reach SLR in terms of IQ, noise and ISO performance, we will not have the same DOF using small sensors....

You can safely assume majority of camera owners don't even know what is DOF.

Let alone the Circle of Confusion around it. Pun Intended. ;D
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Brymills on June 28, 2012, 01:50:21 PM
I've gone the other way.  After a succession of point and shoots I bought an Olympus Pen when they were first launched.  It was ok, but (un)fortunately it got nicked and gave the opportunity to buy a 7D.  I wish I'd bought the 7D instead of the Pen, but I'm glad I didn't have it when my luggage was stolen.  I'm off to buy a Panasonic GH2 tomorrow as although I love my 7D I want a second camera that's a bit smaller and lighter, and people keep nagging me about doing videos, so I can use the continuous autofocus for lazy video clips.  I think the market for entry level DSLRs will shrink, but not the high end / Pro market, or at least not for a while.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on June 28, 2012, 02:05:09 PM
One way to determine this, is to look at sales.  DSLR sales are rising, Mirrorless sales are rising, but P&S sales  are dropping.
Are P&S Cameras dying?  Camera phones, Ipads, and mirrorless are eating into their sales, they only made just short of a billion sales of P&S last year.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: preppyak on June 28, 2012, 02:05:54 PM
Following are couple of shots with my Samsung Nexus Phone camera, which work OK when lighting is good.  It is utter cr**^ in anything less than optimal light, though.
Those are pretty impressive for a camera phone though, the resolution seems great
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: K-amps on June 28, 2012, 02:08:27 PM
If I could get a Mirrorless than can take my 70-200mk.ii with full functionality and ISO perf of my 5diii, I would not miss the Mirror reflex one bit.

We Americans are Dogmatic when it comes to adoption of new technology in General (even if we are at the forefront of innovating sometimes). We are just set in our ways. One day when Canon announces the discontinuation of mirror boxed bodies, how many will jump ship? and what if Nikon followed suit? What then.

The DSLR is dead soon... but not all the functionality it provides.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: K-amps on June 28, 2012, 02:09:27 PM
Following are couple of shots with my Samsung Nexus Phone camera, which work OK when lighting is good.  It is utter cr**^ in anything less than optimal light, though.
Those are pretty impressive for a camera phone though, the resolution seems great

Agreed, Amazing perf!  you could have said it came from a D800E and we would not have given it a second look.  ;D
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Dylan777 on June 28, 2012, 02:38:49 PM
If I could get a Mirrorless than can take my 70-200mk.ii with full functionality and ISO perf of my 5diii, I would not miss the Mirror reflex one bit.  
We Americans are Dogmatic when it comes to adoption of new technology in General (even if we are at the forefront of innovating sometimes). We are just set in our ways. One day when Canon announces the discontinuation of mirror boxed bodies, how many will jump ship? and what if Nikon followed suit? What then.

The DSLR is dead soon... but not all the functionality it provides.
+1...plus AF is good as 5D III
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Razor2012 on June 28, 2012, 02:52:22 PM
By the time P&S reach SLR standards, SLR will be that much farther ahead.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: distant.star on June 28, 2012, 03:34:40 PM

.

I wholly disagree with this.

The discussion is not about the demise of the SLR, but the future of imaging. That's well worth discussing.


it´s not dead.

but the useless discussions about DSLR´s dead should die....
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: moreorless on June 28, 2012, 03:41:34 PM
in the long run… yes

In the long run, we are all dead.

Not until you can hold the camera up to your eye and actually see what you are shooting as clearly as you can with today's SLRs.

I don't know man. I am not sure it will be THAT long. Just read a post which reports in Japan the mirrorless market share is already over 40%, In taiwan it's over 50%. Even worldwide, the percentage grew from 10% in 2010 to 22% in 2011. People still favor SLR in this country, maybe because we vacation more on cars rather than feet(even in mountains!), so the weight benefit is less significant.

I actually like the LCD screen more than eye level. Sure eye level is clearer, but the LCD screen gives you more realistic view how the photo would eventually turn out, sort of like the old fashioned TLRs. And LCD gives you so much more information than just apeture/shutter.

Anyway, I have used SLR/DSLR for 20 years plus a few TLRs, never owned any P/S or rangefinder until the J1, but the Mark II is probably going to be my last SLR ever.

I do agree some day phone camera may replace mirrorless as well, the smaller the better!

This makes the assumption that the growth in mirrorless is at the expense of DSLR sales though when I believe the latter are infact increasing. Long term I can see mirrorless replacing some or all of the lower end of the market and moving into the "rangefinder" slot at the higher end but right now I think its mostly replacing P&S sales.

At the top of the market though I think the sizes of lens your dealing with will help keep SLR's alive, why go with a smaller mirrorless when you want to balance out a 1 kg 2.8 zoom on the other end?
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Ricku on June 28, 2012, 04:03:43 PM
With Google gearing up for a pair of wearable glasses, and the Television market embracing {O}LED screens at more affordable prices, it will be inevitable.
Wearable glasses? Where can I preorder a pair of these?
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: AvTvM on June 28, 2012, 04:08:27 PM
yes. SLR is dead. My current one may very well be the last one I ever purchased. Especially if somebody finally comes along with a killer FF mirrorless cam at a reasonable non-Leica-esque price tag. :-)

Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: KitsVancouver on June 28, 2012, 05:33:12 PM
Look at two other consumer trends:
Music Quality
Video Quality

There was a time when people sat down and listened to music.  Today, people just download compressed music.  there are always going to be audiophiles, but they are the minority.  I'm one of them, but I know it's not the norm. 

Then there is Blu-ray.  Where can you rent those today?  How big is the Blu-ray section in your local electronics retailer?  Again, I've got a movie set-up at home, but I'm the minority.  I didn't think people would ever watch movies and video on small screens, but it's happening.

On one side, we have quality...image quality, video quality, sound quality.  On the other side, we have convenience, weight, on-demand, cost, etc.  I don't know if SLRs will diminish in sales numbers, but for all those that don't think it's even a remote possibility, those people aren't looking outside of their own world. 
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: gmrza on June 28, 2012, 05:57:06 PM
in the long run… yes

In the long run, we are all dead.

Not until you can hold the camera up to your eye and actually see what you are shooting as clearly as you can with today's SLRs.

When it becomes possible to provide an electronic viewfinder, metering system and AF more cheaply and reliably and to at least the same level of quality as with a reflex mirror, the reflex mirror will become obsolete.

The other challenge which has to be overcome when shooting without a mirror is low shutter latency.  You can see this when you shoot in live-view mode that the delay until the exposure is taken is much longer.  That delay is unacceptable in a lot of circumstances.  I think there is a lot of work that needs to be done to get that delay to the level required to shoot sports.
In short, a mirrorless camera will need to shoot at 12fps, with the viewfinder active between frames, and with negligible shutter lag before the mirror will become obsolete.  I don't see that as impossible, I just see it as being a few years away.

Now if camera makers could make a totally electronic shutter at the same time .... that would be sweet!
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: moreorless on June 28, 2012, 06:08:13 PM
Look at two other consumer trends:
Music Quality
Video Quality

There was a time when people sat down and listened to music.  Today, people just download compressed music.  there are always going to be audiophiles, but they are the minority.  I'm one of them, but I know it's not the norm. 

Then there is Blu-ray.  Where can you rent those today?  How big is the Blu-ray section in your local electronics retailer?  Again, I've got a movie set-up at home, but I'm the minority.  I didn't think people would ever watch movies and video on small screens, but it's happening.

On one side, we have quality...image quality, video quality, sound quality.  On the other side, we have convenience, weight, on-demand, cost, etc.  I don't know if SLRs will diminish in sales numbers, but for all those that don't think it's even a remote possibility, those people aren't looking outside of their own world.

This seems like a bit of a different arguement to me, agenst higher image quality generally rather than SLR's as the preffered basis for that quality.

I'd argue that photography had its "shift to convenience" a decade ago with the digital revolution and what were seeing today is a shift back towards quality.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: wickidwombat on June 28, 2012, 06:13:12 PM
This is what I dont get, people say that technology is closing the gap between small sensors and large sensors
everyone that uses this argument as essentially comparing an unspecified future tech sensor with a current larger sensor, the fundamental flaw in this is thinking that the same technological enhancements will really be applied to the larger sensors or in fact even greater technological advances.

the second significant fault in the whole arguement is ergonomics for me the 5D is the ideal form I dont want to shoot all day with anything small or bigger if i can help it for many the perfect size is the 1D or many again maybe the rebel is the perfect fit or perhaps the 1J is just the right size

Small isnt necessarily the best it all reminds me of the mobile phones in zoolander. The minature camera while perhaps convenient for certain things cannot beat well designed and evolved designs of DSLRs the 5Dmk3 IMO is the most comfortable to use camera ever built so far they have really nailed the design and ergonomics with this one

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTJds-P8ZGzkt5z8lpUUhNdutbNMzLQTdt1rA8JmOcottJd0mwKw)
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: aznable on June 28, 2012, 06:17:04 PM
I think that SLRs, like everything else, will eventually die, being replaced by the next thing...  when and how this will happen, only time will tell!  :)  I think mirrorless is the first step, and the fact that a lot of the P&S cameras are getting better and better!


Yes, but even if P&S reach SLR in terms of IQ, noise and ISO performance, we will not have the same DOF using small sensors....

we are not talking about cameras with small sensors, but cameras without a mirror/pentaprism...or at least is what i am talking about
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: gmrza on June 28, 2012, 06:21:10 PM
This is what I dont get, people say that technology is closing the gap between small sensors and large sensors
everyone that uses this argument as essentially comparing an unspecified future tech sensor with a current larger sensor, the fundamental flaw in this is thinking that the same technological enhancements will really be applied to the larger sensors or in fact even greater technological advances.


Regardless of the technological advancement of small sensors, they cannot achieve the aesthetics of an image produced on a large sensor.  For that reason, for many enthusiast uses and professional use, a large sensor will remain important.

I think there are also many more photography enthusiasts than there were 20 years ago.  The digital revolution has democratised quality as far as photography is concerned.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paulc on June 28, 2012, 06:52:34 PM
A cheap and easy low-end will almost always grow, evolve and eventually replace the high-end.  The high-end gets chased into a continually smaller niche until it's irrelevant.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Bennymiata on June 29, 2012, 02:44:03 AM
The old 35mm rangefinder cameras didn't oust SLR's back in the film days, even thought their lenses may have been just as good, and the quality of the film was obviously identical, and neither will mirrorless oust the DSLR.
SLR's have been around for a long, long time and many see DSLR's as something to aspire to, as well as those people that want good images.
I got my first SLR in 1966, and it was about 10 years old then!
While today's mirrorless cameras will improve, and their sales should also, DSLR's will also improve and will still have a large share of the camera market for decades to come.

Mirrorless cameras may be selling well in Japan and Taiwan, but they tend to go with fads far more than most Western coultures, and they love miniaturisation far more than we do.
Let's see how their sales are in a few more years, as I believe even they will realise that there just isn't anything as good as a DSLR in the long run.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: peederj on June 29, 2012, 02:51:29 AM
I think they will be replaced by medium format.  8)
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: briansquibb on June 29, 2012, 04:24:07 AM
I think they will be replaced by medium format.  8)

An 80mps @ 4 fps MF would create interest on a seismic scale  ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: AvTvM on June 29, 2012, 04:48:55 AM
Now if camera makers could make a totally electronic shutter at the same time .... that would be sweet!

Of course! All digital cameras will be free of mechanical crap, and all electronic. Only that way will we finally be able to really reap all fruits of digital photography and finally overcome the remaining remnants of early days analogue-mechanical-chemical photography. 

I see this very near ... electronic shutters are possible today ... at virtually any framerate ... as proven in any videocam at any price point and any quality level from smartphione to broadcast TV cam to higheswt end cine cam. :-)

After that the only remaining burden from early day photography holding us back will be optical systems made of ground glass blocks. Those need to go away as well. And they will. On the low end it will be gel-filled transparent bags for shape-shiftable lenses [as used today in mobile phones already], in the long run it will be some quantum mechanics device bending and shaping photon flows in any which way. Virtuelly unlimited Tilt, Shift and lightfield capture will be integral parts of the future photography game.

No idea, how long that will take ... for sure it still is a couple  of years out ... but it will come. Maybe Canon and all the other industry players acting as "maintainers of status quo" will have to go out of existence first, so that new companies such as Lytro helped on by dominant consumer electronics players like Apple will pull it of. :-)
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Jettatore on June 29, 2012, 05:30:20 AM
Far enough into the future and I can imagine organic cameras.  Imagine a cloned 'eagle's eye' lens to replace your heavy 600mm, etc..... 
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: briansquibb on June 29, 2012, 05:33:19 AM
I wonder how many commenting have done sports on an EVIL body?

Even shooting Kids on an EVIL is very hard when they are running around.

There is a long way to go before the optical mirror is surpassed
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: moreorless on June 29, 2012, 06:22:17 AM
This is what I dont get, people say that technology is closing the gap between small sensors and large sensors
everyone that uses this argument as essentially comparing an unspecified future tech sensor with a current larger sensor, the fundamental flaw in this is thinking that the same technological enhancements will really be applied to the larger sensors or in fact even greater technological advances.

I'd guess that optics are going to increasing become a barrier aswell, these new 24MP ASPC sensors really seem to be struggling to find a lenses that give good sharpness across the frame.

Quote
the second significant fault in the whole arguement is ergonomics for me the 5D is the ideal form I dont want to shoot all day with anything small or bigger if i can help it for many the perfect size is the 1D or many again maybe the rebel is the perfect fit or perhaps the 1J is just the right size

There actually seems to be alot of room for DSLR's to devolp in this area aswell to me, at the moment size and quality go together but I think theres alot of potential for quality to be reduced in size ala Pentax.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 29, 2012, 07:32:28 AM
@briansquibb
Quote
I wonder how many commenting have done sports on an EVIL body?

Even shooting Kids on an EVIL is very hard when they are running around.

There is a long way to go before the optical mirror is surpassed

Maybe the Sony SLT system is the future, I remember pellicle cameras were the go to option for sports folks, and of course, no mirror flip means EF-s lenses could in theory be used on cameras with an FF sensor (and EF-s mount, obviously)

Olympus made a camera a few years back, the E-330, which was unremarkable in every way except that it managed to have both an optical finder and live view similtaniously, although like current DSLRs, it had to drop the mirror to get the best AF,  maybe a combination of the two systems would be an ideal:

Full time live view, full time optical finder, with full time phase detection AF? Would make for a complex prism path and unusual camera shape, but then is it form over function, or function over form.

The only CSC that really appealed to me was the GF1, I really really liked the Panasonic Lumix L1  / leica digi whatever and would liked to have seen a scaled down micro 4/3rds version  (again, optical finder and live view - adapted from e-330 but in a nicer shaped body) and with its aperture ring and shutter dial could be a fuji x competitor...

The problem with csc's is that anything other than a pancake just isn't really all that usefully compact.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Rocky on June 29, 2012, 12:22:40 PM
It is a little bit to early to sound the Death bell for DSLR. Will it happen??? May be quite a few years down the road. Some posts here sound like science friction. They are a little bit far fetch. Let us look at what we have now:
Fast auto focusing without mirror: Nikon 1, Olympus OM-D has it. Canon on T4i???
Semi-transparent Mirror: Canon has it 50 years ago and give it up, Sony SLT now. Is there any problem? Decrease actual lens speed for sure. Ghosting, unsharpness, maybe?
Electronics view finder: we have it now.But can we live with the delay and distortion due to delay???
Electronic shutter: we have it now. But do we want to  expose the sensor while we are changing lens? We can put an automatic blind to protect the sensor while we are changing lens. But this will slow down the lens changing process (slightly) and have more mechanical parts.
Practically, I can see a 2 parallel path for a long while:  1. For light weight and smaller size: Canon S100 or G1 X type with fast AF. 2. DSLR for speed and versatility.  As it is now, I do not see the practicality of  interchangeable mirrorless digital camera. I was playing with the Olympus OM-D for awhile  couple weeks ago. It has FAST AF. But the view finder gave me a headache.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: stevenrrmanir on June 29, 2012, 01:06:52 PM
I think that SLRs, like everything else, will eventually die, being replaced by the next thing...  when and how this will happen, only time will tell!  :)  I think mirrorless is the first step, and the fact that a lot of the P&S cameras are getting better and better!


Yes, but even if P&S reach SLR in terms of IQ, noise and ISO performance, we will not have the same DOF using small sensors....

You can safely assume majority of camera owners don't even know what is DOF.

Let alone the Circle of Confusion around it. Pun Intended. ;D

anyone knows what DOF means - something to do with the Department of Freedom

getting back to topic, yes, dSLR are dead! anyone buying them right now will realize that their bodies will  be useless and as they got old things don't function as they used to. As bodies age, they will notice stuff sagging, pants being to small, and needing larger underwear.

I would definitely stick with the point and shoot cameras. They fit nicely in your pants. Small is always good!
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: infared on June 29, 2012, 01:48:45 PM
LOL!  Let me compare a Nikon J1 to a 5D Mark III....funniest thing I have heard in a while.....
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: aznable on June 29, 2012, 02:00:04 PM
I wonder how many commenting have done sports on an EVIL body?

Even shooting Kids on an EVIL is very hard when they are running around.

There is a long way to go before the optical mirror is surpassed

i have a very old evil...a bridge nikon something and it's impossibile to shoot anything that's moving because of the lag, but we are talking about future.

the solution of sony it's a joke, like everything sony is doing
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 29, 2012, 02:08:32 PM
Quote
the solution of sony it's a joke, like everything sony is doing

Like the well-received 36MP that everybody apart from Canon will be using soon?

Like the NEX-7? (I do hope Canons CSC is at least half as good as this)

Like the G1x beating RX-100?

Like the EOS c300 & 500 beating FS700? (costs a third less too) 

I'm here all week ladies and gentlemen.

I am no Sony fanboy, but I do wish canon would teke a leaf out of their book sometimes!
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: HurtinMinorKey on June 29, 2012, 02:18:29 PM
^To be fair, I've seen nothing out of the fs700 that looks anywhere near as good as the c300.

I think there will be dslrs around for a while, but they won't dominate the high end market.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Razor2012 on June 29, 2012, 02:40:13 PM
I think that SLRs, like everything else, will eventually die, being replaced by the next thing...  when and how this will happen, only time will tell!  :)  I think mirrorless is the first step, and the fact that a lot of the P&S cameras are getting better and better!


Yes, but even if P&S reach SLR in terms of IQ, noise and ISO performance, we will not have the same DOF using small sensors....

You can safely assume majority of camera owners don't even know what is DOF.

Let alone the Circle of Confusion around it. Pun Intended. ;D

anyone knows what DOF means - something to do with the Department of Freedom

getting back to topic, yes, dSLR are dead! anyone buying them right now will realize that their bodies will  be useless and as they got old things don't function as they used to. As bodies age, they will notice stuff sagging, pants being to small, and needing larger underwear.

I would definitely stick with the point and shoot cameras. They fit nicely in your pants. Small is always good!

That's not what she said, lol.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: moreorless on June 29, 2012, 02:47:34 PM
Quote
the solution of sony it's a joke, like everything sony is doing

Like the well-received 36MP that everybody apart from Canon will be using soon?

Like the NEX-7? (I do hope Canons CSC is at least half as good as this)

Like the G1x beating RX-100?

Like the EOS c300 & 500 beating FS700? (costs a third less too) 

I'm here all week ladies and gentlemen.

I am no Sony fanboy, but I do wish canon would teke a leaf out of their book sometimes!

Theres a difference between Sony's exellent sensors and there own products.

The feeling I'v always gotten from SLT is that it was a solution looking for a problem introduced to differentiate there products from Canon and Nikon.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 29, 2012, 04:15:19 PM
I think the problem was crap AF in live view...   whilst solution may not be a 1D beater, if you were shooting sports on a budget and had no lens legacy, then a Sony might be very appealling.

As I say, not a fanboy, and prefer optical VF, but Sony seem to have continued Minoltas slightly offbeat & sometimes superlatively forward thinking attitude.   I just feel that sometimes, especially recently, Canon are the followers...



Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: epsiloneri on June 29, 2012, 05:23:56 PM
I think it's pretty clear that optical viewfinders at some point will be replaced by electronic ones, meaning yes, SLRs are doomed in the long run. That doesn't mean they will become entirely extinct (like there are still LPs around today).

Regarding camera size... there are certain limits every future camera will need to adhere to, that can never change, no matter how clever future engineers are. I'm of course referring to the laws of physics. It may sound scary, but is often really simple, like this one: A sensor can never detect more light than is fed to it.

One implication is that we cannot expect sensors to increase their sensitivity indefinitely. Sensors already have a quantum efficiency (QE) of about 50%, meaning about half of the photons of the right wavelength hitting the sensor will get registred. For Bayer-type sensors we can thus expect at most a factor 2 improvement in sensitivity, even for an ideal sensor. With photo-sites that can detect all colours (as opposed to one colour; think foveon-like sensors), we can gain another factor 3 in sensitivity.

Low-light photography dominated by thermal/readout noise can naturally benefit from eliminating those additional noise sources, but the photon noise will always be there no matter what.

Another implication is that a larger lens will always have a low-light advantage, no matter the size of the sensor. Thus you have the option to choose a big lens that will be good in low light (and give shallow DOF), or a small lens that will fit easily into your pocket, but deliver deep DOF and not work as well in low light conditions. This will always be true. Forget about small lenses delivering shallow DOF - the reason the DOF becomes shallow is that the lens is big! Simple.

For perfect optics, the size of the sensor does not matter. In reality, it is much easier (and cheaper) to design satisfactory optics for a large sensor than a small. That's why the EF-S 17-55/2.8 is slightly more expensive than the EF 24-105/4.0L, eventhough the latter sports better build quality, has a larger effective aperture (26 mm at f=105mm compared to 20mm at f=55mm for the EF-S), and has the red ring.

Since we can expect sensors to continue become cheaper I would predict that sensors in general will become larger, and that the optics will become cheaper. I'd be surprised if we hadn't cheap FF P&S with plastic lenses within 10 years, producing better quality images than current P&S to better ergonomics and much better prices.

Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: chasn on June 29, 2012, 05:40:55 PM
Interesting article in to-days London Daily Telegraph. Sales of digital cameras have fallen by 30% ( value)  between 2006 and 2011 and are forecast to continue downwards ( mirrored by camcorder sales) All down to smartphones and helped by fact that 25% upload to web and 33% burn to disc rather than print. The message is optical quality is of less importance, megapixels and optical zoom are dead, web services or other new capabilities are key to attracting sales....The article I assume is geared at the P&S market but it must have something to say about how firms like Canon see the market.  IMV 10 years time  - no P&S. 10 years time 2 or 3 DSLRs,  Mirrorless to rule with no entry level SLR for keen photographers.  Did you see the post the other day comparing the Hasselblad and the G10?  I have a 7D, a 5D11 and a G1x - the difference is not sensor size, IQ or DR - it's size,  fps, dof  weather sealing etc etc and a great mirrorless could take them all out
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: moreorless on June 29, 2012, 05:45:08 PM
I think the problem was crap AF in live view...   whilst solution may not be a 1D beater, if you were shooting sports on a budget and had no lens legacy, then a Sony might be very appealling.

As I say, not a fanboy, and prefer optical VF, but Sony seem to have continued Minoltas slightly offbeat & sometimes superlatively forward thinking attitude.   I just feel that sometimes, especially recently, Canon are the followers...

Was that really a big issue for many users of SLR's? I'm guessing for the majority of users liveview is something thats used for either less challenging AF subjects like landscape or for manual focus.

Just seems like a halfway house between DSLR's and mirrorless to me with the disadvanatge of both plus the loss of light from the mirror.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: gmrza on June 29, 2012, 05:47:36 PM
I wonder how many commenting have done sports on an EVIL body?

Even shooting Kids on an EVIL is very hard when they are running around.

There is a long way to go before the optical mirror is surpassed

+1000

Shutter latency is one of the biggest issues.  You can only really shoot predictable action with a compact or EVIL camera - because you have to compensate for the latency between the time when you release the shutter and when the photo is actually taken.  Try shooting sports in live-view mode and see....
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Jettatore on June 29, 2012, 06:05:42 PM
Quote
Since we can expect sensors to continue become cheaper I would predict that sensors in general will become larger, and that the optics will become cheaper. I'd be surprised if we hadn't cheap FF P&S with plastic lenses within 10 years, producing better quality images than current P&S to better ergonomics and much better prices.

I wouldn't be surprised if we got FF or near to it P&S cameras that have fixed lenses that are of a high quality and a better value, size and weight than a big L prime lens in the future, to a point where it may make some consider just getting the fixed P&S if the attached camera and controls and resulting pictures are good enough vs. buying a modular prime lens and lugging around a bigger system...  I'm not sure if I would go for it or not, but it is very tempting.

This is for example enticing, although getting close, it's probably not up to snuff of the above description.. http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-X100-Digital-Fujinon-2-8-Inch/dp/B0043RS864/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341005816&sr=8-1&keywords=finepix+x100 (http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-X100-Digital-Fujinon-2-8-Inch/dp/B0043RS864/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341005816&sr=8-1&keywords=finepix+x100)
"with an equivalent focal length of 35mm because of the X100's ~1.5x crop factor" plus it's an f/2 lens, so not too shabby, and gallery photo's seem to be able to hold their own to some degree.  I just think the price of this item is a bit high for my tastes, especially because it's not a "perfected release", but if it were cheaper, I'd seriously consider something like this either before getting a 35mm L prime or just as an easily pocket-able camera that I would take everywhere with me and be taking more pictures.  It's price however is about 2-3 times as much as I would want to pay for a high quality walk around camera and I don't honestly think I would consider it over a 35mm prime if pocket-ability wasn't the main concern.  I can however envision this changing in the future with new pricing and updated models.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 29, 2012, 06:08:34 PM
@moreorless
Quote
Was that really a big issue for many users of SLR's? I'm guessing for the majority of users liveview is something thats used for either less challenging AF subjects like landscape or for manual focus.

Just seems like a halfway house between DSLR's and mirrorless to me with the disadvanatge of both plus the loss of light from the mirror.

There's two strands here, one - video AF.  Not a big deal for me as with video I'm an MF man (although when I use 1/3 type camcorders I do like the option to quickly engage then disengage AF) but I recognise that a lot of folk don't use the video mode because live view AF sucks.

Second strand, I was shooting stills over a crowd at a demo through the week with the flip out screen and it brought it home how slow and lousy the live AF is on the 600D, if the camera isn't that still it doesn't lock, and as the camera was at arms length above my head I couldn't really see how well or otherwise AF was doing.

Better can only be better, even if YOU don't see the practical implications.  It's a broad church.

On your second point, I think the reason Sony have to some extent carried it off is because their current sensors / processing have really address the dynamic range / noise issues on their earlier cameras.

That extra stop of DR the 16MP has over the canon 18MP makes up for the stop lost through the mirror.

I am strictly a canon guy, I've used and enjoyed their cameras for years and have invested into their system, it doesn't mean that I can't look over the fence at what other companies are doing, some crap (Pentax Q, Nikon J) some excellent (Pentax K-01, Fuji X-Pro1) and I have to say I am almost always nearly seduced by Panasonic, their GF1 and GX1's, the DMC-L1, the superior video quality of their G and Gh cameras....

But I'm a loyal beast.   Just I feel sometimes that canon takes that loyalty for granted (prices of the 24 & 28mm IS lenses? anoooooother 18MP rebel)


Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: unfocused on June 29, 2012, 06:14:23 PM
Interesting article in to-days London Daily Telegraph. Sales of digital cameras have fallen by 30% ( value)  between 2006 and 2011 and are forecast to continue downwards ( mirrored by camcorder sales) All down to smartphones and helped by fact that 25% upload to web and 33% burn to disc rather than print. The message is optical quality is of less importance, megapixels and optical zoom are dead, web services or other new capabilities are key to attracting sales....The article I assume is geared at the P&S market but it must have something to say about how firms like Canon see the market.  IMV 10 years time  - no P&S. 10 years time 2 or 3 DSLRs,  Mirrorless to rule with no entry level SLR for keen photographers.  Did you see the post the other day comparing the Hasselblad and the G10?  I have a 7D, a 5D11 and a G1x - the difference is not sensor size, IQ or DR - it's size,  fps, dof  weather sealing etc etc and a great mirrorless could take them all out

Yes. Interesting. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9361867/Digital-camera-sales-slump-as-people-use-smartphones-to-take-snaps.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9361867/Digital-camera-sales-slump-as-people-use-smartphones-to-take-snaps.html)

That's one reason why I'm not so sure companies betting on mirrorless are making the right decision. People use their smartphones because they are small and they have them with them all the time. For uploading to the web (which is about as far as the majority of photos get today and many never even get off of people's phones or cameras) smartphones are adequate and getting better.

Why would the typical smartphone user want to carry about a camera and two or three lenses? Clearly they don't.

Someone tell me who the mirrorless interchangeable lens customer is, please. Early adopters who want the latest cool gadget? I suppose tourists not wanting to be loaded down with a big DSLR, but wanting nice pictures from their trip of a lifetime might be a good market. But is that a sustainable market? And, knowing how most consumers think, they might pay $6,000 for trip but aren't going to shell out $1,000 for a camera and lenses to remember the trip by. ("I thought about it and then realized I could just upgrade my iPhone for $200.")

It seems like many who are enthusiastic about mirrorless cameras are enthusiastic about a product that exists only in their minds. Big sensor, small lenses, lightweight, clear viewfinder, high ISO, quality images, low cost. But no one makes this dream mirrorless camera. Frankly, I suspect that the ideal mirrorless camera would need to be something like Dr. Who's TARDIS: bigger on the inside than on the outside. And outside of science fiction, that's a bit difficult to accomplish.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: gmrza on June 29, 2012, 06:44:58 PM

It seems like many who are enthusiastic about mirrorless cameras are enthusiastic about a product that exists only in their minds. Big sensor, small lenses, lightweight, clear viewfinder, high ISO, quality images, low cost. But no one makes this dream mirrorless camera. Frankly, I suspect that the ideal mirrorless camera would need to be something like Dr. Who's TARDIS: bigger on the inside than on the outside. And outside of science fiction, that's a bit difficult to accomplish.

The EVIL camera is a bit like the netbook, at least at the moment.  Remember when Steve Jobs said that Apple would not go into the netbook market, because it was not possible to produce a netbook that was not a piece of junk.  Essentially, he was right.  Fortunately for us, PC technology has matured to the level where ultrabooks make netbooks irrelevant.

Cameras will take a bit longer.

I think Canon's strategy of staying out of mirrorless has been right, at least so far.  I don't know that Canon will make a profitable entry into that niche, given how small it is.

I believe a big issue where mirrorless systems fall down at the moment is on the fact that their market is too narrow - unlike DSLRS, which appeal to all kinds of users from beginners to seasoned professionals.  DSLRs also cater for the widest range of use cases from landscape, portraiture, events to reportage and sports.  That breadth of appeal and use makes it possible to build economies of scale, which are still impossible for a mirrorless system, at least for the foreseeable future.

In addition to all the issues that have been mentioned, any decent mirrorless system, without the economies of scale that Canon and Nikon's DSLR systems have, will suffer from "Leica syndrome" - the costs of production will be too high to bring a product to market at a price which has broad appeal.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Jettatore on June 29, 2012, 06:53:11 PM
Quote
Someone tell me who the mirrorless interchangeable lens customer is, please. Early adopters who want the latest cool gadget? I suppose tourists not wanting to be loaded down with a big DSLR, but wanting nice pictures from their trip of a lifetime might be a good market. But is that a sustainable market? And, knowing how most consumers think, they might pay $6,000 for trip but aren't going to shell out $1,000 for a camera and lenses to remember the trip by. ("I thought about it and then realized I could just upgrade my iPhone for $200.")

It seems like many who are enthusiastic about mirrorless cameras are enthusiastic about a product that exists only in their minds. Big sensor, small lenses, lightweight, clear viewfinder, high ISO, quality images, low cost. But no one makes this dream mirrorless camera. Frankly, I suspect that the ideal mirrorless camera would need to be something like Dr. Who's TARDIS: bigger on the inside than on the outside. And outside of science fiction, that's a bit difficult to accomplish.

I think you are mostly right, (your whole post, not just the snippet above) however you asked, and I think a distinction needs to be made.  There already is a niche, mirrorless, fullframe high-quality camera system that negates most of the snippet above, the Lieca M9 (rangefinder and manual focus-aperature, etc.).  It's a niche product, it is absurdly, absurdly, absurdly expensive, but for what it does, in it's small form factor, it has no equal.

So that's one range defined, the other, is the Nikon 1 and Micro 4/3rd's systems that already exist.  Nikon 1 feels very, very, very consumer end, Micro 4/3'rds, slight bigger/pricier but more pro-sumer ended.  Because of the level of interest/experience of most registered users here, there just isn't a lot of excitement for these style cameras, especially not on the lower end Nikon 1 series side of things, and I suspect if Canon simply clones either of these systems in it's own right it will mostly be ignored by this crowd, especially if it's 1 series.  I personally am not even looking forward to having the front rumors page cluttered up with Nikon 1 series style announcements.  On the other hand, an affordable, competing mirror-less system of Lieca quality at much lower prices would not only interest me, it might just get me to swap all of my equipment if the price is right and the quality is a match or better.  There is also the Sony mirror-less which aside from regular upgrades isn't that well differentiated from Sony's mirrored cameras that take the same lenses.  You at least need to have lenses that are designed (or already functionally small enough) to cater to the benefits of a small form factor body that mirror-less can afford and Sony doesn't quite capture on this to the same extent as Pan/Oly, Lieca or Nikon 1.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 29, 2012, 07:00:04 PM
Quote
it is absurdly, absurdly, absurdly expensive

Is it?  If folk are willing to pay it then it can't be that absurd.

It is bespoke, made in short production runs, finished to a high standard, different economies of scale (design, tooling, niche market)

For all that I wouldn't have one.  Don't like 'em.  I might buy a contax G2 whilst they are cheap. ish. 

I agree they are expensive, but is it all that absurd.  TS-E lenses are expensive, is that absurd? 
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Razor2012 on June 29, 2012, 07:06:35 PM
Quote
it is absurdly, absurdly, absurdly expensive

Is it?  If folk are willing to pay it then it can't be that absurd.

It is bespoke, made in short production runs, finished to a high standard, different economies of scale (design, tooling, niche market)

For all that I wouldn't have one.  Don't like 'em.  I might buy a contax G2 whilst they are cheap. ish. 

I agree they are expensive, but is it all that absurd.  TS-E lenses are expensive, is that absurd?

I wouldn't say TS lenses are expensive, but I would say the 5 & 600mm's are ones that are.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 29, 2012, 07:11:45 PM
Economies of scale.  Just like the real leicas (not rebadged Panasonics, Fuji's, Minoltas or whatever)

For the folk who get rangefinders is the cost any less absurd than those who want low selling fast aperture extreme telephoto primes?

If I want a subaru imprezza it costs a lot less than a morgan...

Maybe thats the thing, I might think an imprezza is a better car, anonymous, but faster, better handling, better factories, but lots of folk have them - it's not a statement car.  Sometimes i feel a lot of folk buy cameras as statements. 

Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Jettatore on June 29, 2012, 07:12:11 PM
Quote
it is absurdly, absurdly, absurdly expensive

Is it?  If folk are willing to pay it then it can't be that absurd.

It is bespoke, made in short production runs, finished to a high standard, different economies of scale (design, tooling, niche market)

For all that I wouldn't have one.  Don't like 'em.  I might buy a contax G2 whilst they are cheap. ish. 

I agree they are expensive, but is it all that absurd.  TS-E lenses are expensive, is that absurd?

I fully respect your distinctions.  And I do understand that 'an appropriate price is whatever a buyer will pay/market will bear' concept of commerce, as well as economies of scale etc. etc.  But I don't even agree with monetary systems for distribution of essential or non-essential goods and services, which would bring in a topic too large to fully discuss here.  Again I agree with you, so long as it's a niche product and there is a market with wallets big enough that Leica can and will charge what it can get.  However, I am specifically in the market for such a designed camera system but am in a completely different price range, which is why I chose to say what I said and I hope that makes sense of it.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 29, 2012, 07:17:20 PM
even outwith any political stand point or perception of exlusivity, you must agree in a purely practical sense that the unit cost of something that sells 10'000 editions is going to be less than something that sells 200?

Especially with design and high technology?

I am not inclined to bum up the free market by any manner of means, but economies of scale apply whether you are working in a factory in Venezuala, Japan or Taiwan.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Jettatore on June 29, 2012, 07:21:41 PM
even outwith any political stand point or perception of exlusivity, you must agree in a purely practical sense that the unit cost of something that sells 10'000 editions is going to be less than something that sells 200?

Especially with design and high technology?

I am not inclined to bum up the free market by any manner of means, but economies of scale apply whether you are working in a factory in Venezuala, Japan or Taiwan.

I understand the concept and agree.  However, to repeat, "I am specifically in the market for such a designed camera system but am in a completely different price range".  So from my perspective, the one I am writing from (not the CEO of Lieca's perspective) the camera is absurdly priced and not even a consideration for myself.

p.s. I had edited the previous post while you were posting a response to add in "as well as economies of scale" while you were posting... wasn't intentional
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 29, 2012, 07:24:24 PM
The Fuji looks nice, and i have came very close to buying a GF1...

But really all I want is a canon.  Just cos I've got canon lenses and that.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Razor2012 on June 29, 2012, 07:24:29 PM
Economies of scale.  Just like the real leicas (not rebadged Panasonics, Fuji's, Minoltas or whatever)

For the folk who get rangefinders is the cost any less absurd than those who want low selling fast aperture extreme telephoto primes?

If I want a subaru imprezza it costs a lot less than a morgan...

Maybe thats the thing, I might think an imprezza is a better car, anonymous, but faster, better handling, better factories, but lots of folk have them - it's not a statement car.  Sometimes i feel a lot of folk buy cameras as statements.

Heh, the whole world is a statement.  It all boils down to how much disposable income one has or what their priorities are.  Everything everyone buys is a statement, whether it costs a little or a lot.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 29, 2012, 07:32:56 PM
Yes, up to a point.

I might defend somebody who makes a living doing street or social photography spending what seems like absurd cash on a Leica M digital.

However when it comes to Hermes editions, I just think there's too many starving weans in the world.  If you are that rich just buy an M9 and build a well with the change.  Or something.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Jettatore on June 29, 2012, 07:38:58 PM
Economies of scale.  Just like the real leicas (not rebadged Panasonics, Fuji's, Minoltas or whatever)

For the folk who get rangefinders is the cost any less absurd than those who want low selling fast aperture extreme telephoto primes?

If I want a subaru imprezza it costs a lot less than a morgan...

Maybe thats the thing, I might think an imprezza is a better car, anonymous, but faster, better handling, better factories, but lots of folk have them - it's not a statement car.  Sometimes i feel a lot of folk buy cameras as statements.

Heh, the whole world is a statement.  It all boils down to how much disposable income one has or what their priorities are.  Everything everyone buys is a statement, whether it costs a little or a lot.

Yes but there is definitely something 'extra state-menty' about the feeling of the uber high price Lieca systems.  It seems to speak, I know photography (otherwise I couldn't even work this camera because it's full manual), this camera fills my needs precisely and flawlessly without being 'too much/too big/or more for the sake of more' niche and the obvious 'I can afford this'.  Combined, it does at least 'seem' to be making a statement even if that statement is fully assumed by the judgmental observer.  I want something like it, because of size and weight without sacrificing too much quality, I have no interest in making any statement whatsoever and if I was given a Lieca system, I would gladly use it and I suspect I would use it more often than my bigger, and more capable, DSLRs.  With that said, and all the other similar topics I've been in today, I think I am just going to try to get more comfortable with the idea and practice of lugging around DSLR equipment to situations where I normally wouldn't.  At least for the time being that will solve most of the issue, except that it will still attract more unwanted attention.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: AvTvM on June 29, 2012, 08:01:49 PM
... , you must agree in a purely practical sense that the unit cost of something that sells 10'000 editions is going to be less than something that sells 200?
Especially with design and high technology?

yes.

But ...
if Canon brings to market an APS-C sensored mirrorless system camera that does everything the 650D does (with great EVF instead of tunnel-vision Rebel-OVF, minus mirror box and mirror slap) at the same price as a 650D ... plus a few matching pancake fixed focals the size and optical quality of the  40/2.8 plus a few ultra-compact zooms ...  all of which I consider to be very well be possible ...  they will sell them in the millions.

And ...
if Canon brings to market a 135-sensored ("FF") mirrorless system body the size of a Minolta CLE (=smaller than a Leica M9), that does everything the 5D 3 does at the price of the 5D 3 ... they will sell them by the millions. Especially if this camera would come with an electrified Leica M-mount up front. Backwards compatible with all M-mount manual focus lenses. Plus a few, new, nice and very compact Canon "E-M" lenses with USM-AF and optical quality close to the Leicas but at half the price ... they would sell gazillions.

I would order the latter system, as a matter of fact. :-)   
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: picturesbyme on June 29, 2012, 08:11:21 PM
No.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 29, 2012, 08:28:27 PM
@AvTvM
Quote
if Canon brings to market a 135-sensored ("FF") mirrorless system body the size of a Minolta CLE (=smaller than a Leica M9), that does everything the 5D 3 does at the price of the 5D 3 ... they will sell them by the millions. Especially if this camera would come with an electrified Leica M-mount up front. Backwards compatible with all M-mount manual focus lenses. Plus a few, new, nice and very compact Canon "E-M" lenses with USM-AF and optical quality close to the Leicas but at half the price ... they would sell gazillions.

I would order the latter system, as a matter of fact. :-)   

I would like Mila Kunis to rub her @ss on my face.  I don't know who is going to have to wait longer to be dissapointed.

Have often pondered the CLE though.  A bit like an M7, but 20 years earlier.  And still cheaper.  Ok I admit it.  I have a soft spot for Minolta.  And Mila Kunis.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Rocky on June 29, 2012, 08:43:21 PM
... , you must agree in a purely practical sense that the unit cost of something that sells 10'000 editions is going to be less than something that sells 200?
Especially with design and high technology?

yes.

But ...
if Canon brings to market an APS-C sensored mirrorless system camera that does everything the 650D does (with great EVF instead of tunnel-vision Rebel-OVF, minus mirror box and mirror slap) at the same price as a 650D ... plus a few matching pancake fixed focals the size and optical quality of the  40/2.8 plus a few ultra-compact zooms ...  all of which I consider to be very well be possible ...  they will sell them in the millions.

And ...
if Canon brings to market a 135-sensored ("FF") mirrorless system body the size of a Minolta CLE (=smaller than a Leica M9), that does everything the 5D 3 does at the price of the 5D 3 ... they will sell them by the millions. Especially if this camera would come with an electrified Leica M-mount up front. Backwards compatible with all M-mount manual focus lenses. Plus a few, new, nice and very compact Canon "E-M" lenses with USM-AF and optical quality close to the Leicas but at half the price ... they would sell gazillions.

I would order the latter system, as a matter of fact. :-)

Sounds like you would like to have everything Pus the kitchen sink.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: itsnotmeyouknow on June 29, 2012, 08:43:44 PM
For amateurs and vacationers yes, definitely.  This will overtake the Rebel-end line up over time.   But it's a 2.7x crop camera, and the behavior of the lenses won't match the behavior of full frame lenses at the same calculated focal length views in terms of background compression and DOF, etc. etc.

nono… i think that camera with bigger sensors and so on will become non-slr too

I have the Pentax 645D which has a 44mm x 33mm CCD sensor.  There are no medium format sensors using CMOS and no Live view with any MF camera.  Without the use of CMOS MF sensors there will be no mirror free medium format.  With Kodak hitting the skids (they make the sensor for the 645D and the Leica S2) I can't see investment happening in this sector a little while and I believe that the circuitry in a CCD sensor of that size would not be able to handle Live view.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 29, 2012, 09:40:12 PM
Don't get hung up with CMOS.  I've been using CCD cameras with 'live view' for the last 23 years. 
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Rocky on June 29, 2012, 11:17:50 PM
I cannot understand while people complain about the  price of M9 at $7999 and call it ABSURD,  while no one complain about the Canon 1D X at $6999
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Jettatore on June 29, 2012, 11:34:56 PM
I cannot understand while people complain about the  price of M9 at $7999 and call it ABSURD,  while no one complain about the Canon 1D X at $6999

Well one idea (among many other possible ones) would be that the 1DX and other high end EF cameras in or around that price range aren't the only cameras readily available for the EF mount system so your comparison seems a bit forced....  Also, I think you are, however un-fault-ably so, taking out of context the inherent perspective that must be considered of the author of said statement.  When we make statements in English, more often than not, the author of the statement is assumed or completely ignored/omitted (since rarely and with difficultly is the author -as a whole- included/referenced in the statement itself) and the statement often unintentionally yet improperly taken and interpreted by the listener in isolation from it's perspective, leads to frustrations and confusions as seen above. 

From my perspective and current financial position, as a consumer, it seems very reasonable, for me to consider and suggest the price of the Leica system on the whole, absurd, and move on accordingly to suggest to other manufacturers who actually develop products in my price-range - my growing interest in such a system at a different price level.  Does that mean it 'is' absurd, no, - it 'is' what it 'is', and at this point, I'm not so sure it's even that... 

(p.s. the verb 'to be' and it's many forms 'is' etc., very much resembles playing with land-mines, and in using English, proves extremely difficult to avoid...)  Check e-prime on wikipedia and the .pdf's in the 'external links' section at the bottom if your interested in that sort of stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-prime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-prime)
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Rocky on June 30, 2012, 12:04:06 AM
I cannot understand while people complain about the  price of M9 at $7999 and call it ABSURD,  while no one complain about the Canon 1D X at $6999

Well one idea (among many other possible ones) would be that the 1DX and other high end EF cameras in or around that price range aren't the only cameras readily available for the EF mount system so your comparison seems a bit forced....  Also, I think you are, however un-fault-ably so, taking out of context the inherent perspective that must be considered of the author of said statement.  When we make statements in English, more often than not, the author of the statement is assumed or completely ignored/omitted (since rarely and with difficultly is the author -as a whole- included/referenced in the statement itself) and the statement often unintentionally yet improperly taken and interpreted by the listener in isolation from it's perspective, leads to frustrations and confusions as seen above. 

From my perspective and current financial position, as a consumer, it seems very reasonable, for me to consider and suggest the price of the Leica system on the whole, absurd, and move on accordingly to suggest to other manufacturers who actually develop products in my price-range - my growing interest in such a system at a different price level.  Does that mean it 'is' absurd, no, - it 'is' what it 'is', and at this point, I'm not so sure it's even that... 

(p.s. the verb 'to be' and it's many forms 'is' etc., very much resembles playing with land-mines, and in using English, proves extremely difficult to avoid...)  Check e-prime on wikipedia and the .pdf's in the 'external links' section at the bottom if your interested in that sort of stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-prime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-prime)
You you the word 'Absurdly three times one after another in the same sentence. there is no confussion or misinterpretation about it.  If you want to do back-paddle, it is your call.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Jettatore on June 30, 2012, 12:06:31 AM
From my perspective as a consumer, the price of the Leica system, is absurdly, absurdly, absurd, from my perspective...  From Leica's CEO's perspective, the price of the Leica system is likely absurdly right on target and taking it to the bank.  Bye.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: bdunbar79 on June 30, 2012, 12:08:44 AM
I guess after reading all of these threads and 1D X and 5D Mark III forums, it seems a lot of people are unhappy with their current gear, AND the new gear for sale.  If there is an absolute perfect camera, it will cost about $27k or more.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: itsnotmeyouknow on June 30, 2012, 04:54:13 AM
Don't get hung up with CMOS.  I've been using CCD cameras with 'live view' for the last 23 years.

I know that many compacts have CCD sensors and of course they have 'live view'.  The sensors aren't the size of a medium format sensor though, and if it was possible on a CCD sensor that size I'm sure it would have been done as manual focussing via live wire would be a great USP on MF
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Marsu42 on June 30, 2012, 08:29:29 AM
From my perspective as a consumer, the price of the Leica system, is absurdly, absurdly, absurd, from my perspective...

The price of premium brands or products is *supposed* to be absurd from a Joe Sixpack's perspective: you don't only buy the product, but the distinction that goes along with it! In economic theory, this is called the "snob effect" since more people buy a product if the cost is higher, reversing the usual price-demand curve.

Even using a Canon big white lens with red ring might give people give a considerable ego boost and will part the crowd in front of you to give the "real" photog the opportunity for stellar shots, even if/he she has no clue about photography and has trouble finding the shutter button.

However, most Canon expensive products don't fall in the "premium", but in the "pro" category because after all Canon is just another japanese tech company producing gadgets like powershots in vietnam or some other desolate low-wage country. Only a few products stand out visually and have a premium appeal like maybe the 50L which looks impressive on a 5d.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: FunkyCamera on June 30, 2012, 08:42:27 AM
SLR isn't dead yet or Canon would have made a mirrorless already. They know the business better than anyone in this thread.

The release on the Canon mirrorless system will be the beginning of the end.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 30, 2012, 09:31:22 AM
@FunkyCamera
Quote
The release on the Canon mirrorless system will be the beginning of the end.

Precedent?

Perhaps the example of 4/3's succession by m43.

Nikon have launched the J system and have since launched two of the most interesting conventional DSLRs on the market.

Pentax launched the Q system, yet have also launched the 645D and avant-garde designs like the K-01.

I remember when APS film cameras were the beginning of the end for 35mm cameras...

It's a bold statement to make without even being certain about what Canon will launch and when.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: itsnotmeyouknow on June 30, 2012, 09:43:45 AM
I don't believe that when Canon introduces a mirrorless camera that it will be the beginning of the end for DSLR.  There will always be a market for a dslr. I wouldn't exchange my 5D mk III for even a FF mirrorless which I don't see coming out this year at all.  It could become a back up but wouldn't be a main camera as there are compromises to be made with mirrorless.  I'm not all that interested in a rangefinder, although I was tempted by teh Fuji Xpro1.  If canon brought out something similar with a FF sensor it would be very competitive, but still don't think it would kill SLR
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: archangelrichard on June 30, 2012, 10:40:38 AM
I have no idea why we keep seeing this kind of comment from people who should know better

NO!

These are different MARKETS (and the mirrorless is the one that is marked for obsoletion already - the phone cam is it's replacement and as technology gets better they will replace all low end cameras (or cameras with phones in them with wifi hubs and .....)

This is the way that market is going - "hand held devices" will replace non-dedicated cameras by taking over that price point / market position

DSLR's are NOT in that market
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: itsnotmeyouknow on June 30, 2012, 10:57:52 AM
I have no idea why we keep seeing this kind of comment from people who should know better

NO!

These are different MARKETS (and the mirrorless is the one that is marked for obsoletion already - the phone cam is it's replacement and as technology gets better they will replace all low end cameras (or cameras with phones in them with wifi hubs and .....)

This is the way that market is going - "hand held devices" will replace non-dedicated cameras by taking over that price point / market position

DSLR's are NOT in that market

I don't think for a second that the mirrorless system is earmarked for obsoletion.  Compacts may become more like phones and there may end up being an amalgamation.  I do think that mirrorless will grow, and if it grows with more models like the Xpro1 then it will be good growth.  DSLR won't die any time in the foreseeable future but I think that mirrorless will continue to grow as it  has many advantages: it's consumer friendly yet feels like a premium product to consumers.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: hgascoigne on June 30, 2012, 11:45:33 AM
I have a friend that has a NEX-5n and I've played with it a little bit. It's image quality is on par to that of a 7d for quite a bit less. However, I would never buy one simply because of the ergonomics. It's awkward for me to hold and I much prefer the larger body of the 7d, especially on long days of shooting. Not to mention I prefer the optical vf.

That being said, I easily see both styles of camera coexisting. I know many people, including my friend, that could care less about anything other than taking nice looking pictures. For them, mirrorless is perfect.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: KitsVancouver on June 30, 2012, 12:52:26 PM
Look at two other consumer trends:
Music Quality
Video Quality

There was a time when people sat down and listened to music.  Today, people just download compressed music.  there are always going to be audiophiles, but they are the minority.  I'm one of them, but I know it's not the norm. 

Then there is Blu-ray.  Where can you rent those today?  How big is the Blu-ray section in your local electronics retailer?  Again, I've got a movie set-up at home, but I'm the minority.  I didn't think people would ever watch movies and video on small screens, but it's happening.

On one side, we have quality...image quality, video quality, sound quality.  On the other side, we have convenience, weight, on-demand, cost, etc.  I don't know if SLRs will diminish in sales numbers, but for all those that don't think it's even a remote possibility, those people aren't looking outside of their own world.

This seems like a bit of a different arguement to me, agenst higher image quality generally rather than SLR's as the preffered basis for that quality.

I'd argue that photography had its "shift to convenience" a decade ago with the digital revolution and what were seeing today is a shift back towards quality.

Audio and video already went through their improvement stages.

People care less and less about quality after it's met a minimum standard. That's some unknown level of perceivable difference. Most people don't have the time, care or money to tell the difference of modern technologies.

Maybe our circles of influence are different but the strong majority of women I know don't want an SLR and many of my friends who are early adopters who have SLRs have either augmented or replaced their SLRs with smaller formats.

You don't have to believe me. Look into industry sales numbers. DSLRs sales are growing but at a declining rate.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: photogaz on June 30, 2012, 01:27:44 PM
Yes, absolutely! I'm willing to offer a recycle service for your SLRs.

Send em to me!
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: moreorless on June 30, 2012, 02:12:27 PM
Look at two other consumer trends:
Music Quality
Video Quality

There was a time when people sat down and listened to music.  Today, people just download compressed music.  there are always going to be audiophiles, but they are the minority.  I'm one of them, but I know it's not the norm. 

Then there is Blu-ray.  Where can you rent those today?  How big is the Blu-ray section in your local electronics retailer?  Again, I've got a movie set-up at home, but I'm the minority.  I didn't think people would ever watch movies and video on small screens, but it's happening.

On one side, we have quality...image quality, video quality, sound quality.  On the other side, we have convenience, weight, on-demand, cost, etc.  I don't know if SLRs will diminish in sales numbers, but for all those that don't think it's even a remote possibility, those people aren't looking outside of their own world.

This seems like a bit of a different arguement to me, agenst higher image quality generally rather than SLR's as the preffered basis for that quality.

I'd argue that photography had its "shift to convenience" a decade ago with the digital revolution and what were seeing today is a shift back towards quality.

Audio and video already went through their improvement stages.

People care less and less about quality after it's met a minimum standard. That's some unknown level of perceivable difference. Most people don't have the time, care or money to tell the difference of modern technologies.

Maybe our circles of influence are different but the strong majority of women I know don't want an SLR and many of my friends who are early adopters who have SLRs have either augmented or replaced their SLRs with smaller formats.

You don't have to believe me. Look into industry sales numbers. DSLRs sales are growing but at a declining rate.

I don't think you can generalise like that, the reality is that peoples desire for quality will be closely linked how how much they value a certain kind of media.

As I said I think photography went though what music has at an earlier stage, when digital cameras first appeared they were not offering near to the same quality as 35mm film yet they quickly came to dominate the market. Those who'se quality needs were met by compact cameras never bothered to upgrade to DSLR's or other large sensor options where as many who wanted the convenience of digital AND high quality upgraded.

DSLR growth slowing really isnt a supprize I'd say since we've just been though a major transition, you had an entire generation moving to DSLR's from either 35mm film or compacts.

Music and video are for me very different cases, I think the former has generally been a media focused on quality for decades with LP's and CD's where as the latter was until recently far less so with TV and VHS. Hence music generally moving towards lower quality where as video moves towards higher, first DVD and then HD.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Wilmark on June 30, 2012, 04:00:28 PM

Following are couple of shots with my Samsung Nexus Phone camera, which work OK when lighting is good.  It is utter cr**^ in anything less than optimal light, though.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7236/7170885731_c75021c5ab_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drjlo1/7170885731/)
IMG_20120609_122617A (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drjlo1/7170885731/#) by drjlo1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/drjlo1/), on Flickr


When you say Nexus - are you talking about the Galaxy Nexus running Android 4? I have that phone and the camera is utter crap - I dont think i have taken any pictures this good with it under any conditions. What app are you using or any special settings? Its so bad that i have black listed any future purchases from Samsung because of the poor photo performance in a flagship phone.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: KitsVancouver on June 30, 2012, 04:03:51 PM
You're wrong about video quality. Video stores are dying and bluray sales are falling off the charts. Many brick and mortar stores don't even give any shelf space for it.

If you're on this message board you're already far more of an enthusiast than the average Joe. IMO, the difference in IQ and flexibility (lenses etc) are far greater between SLRs and compacts than between SLRs and micro 4/3 and the like.

Anyways, no one can prove the future. We can only see what happens. IQ is the most important thing for me regardless of size but if there was a way to prove it, I'd wager that convenience (where acceptable IQ exists) is for most, the most important thing.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: moreorless on June 30, 2012, 04:53:50 PM
You're wrong about video quality. Video stores are dying and bluray sales are falling off the charts. Many brick and mortar stores don't even give any shelf space for it.

Video stores are dying because business is moving to net rentals/sals/streaming.

Sales of physical media are I'd guess down but HD streaming is growing and HD generally is moving towards the standard for TV viewing.

Quote
If you're on this message board you're already far more of an enthusiast than the average Joe. IMO, the difference in IQ and flexibility (lenses etc) are far greater between SLRs and compacts than between SLRs and micro 4/3 and the like.

Anyways, no one can prove the future. We can only see what happens. IQ is the most important thing for me regardless of size but if there was a way to prove it, I'd wager that convenience (where acceptable IQ exists) is for most, the most important thing.

The DSLR market as it is today really doesnt depend on the average Joe if you ask me, the average Joe was happy with his compact and is now probabley happy with his camera phone so never bothered with a DSLR in the first place.

Now whether the DSLR market might be replaced with something new such as mirrorless that offers the same or better image quality is certainly questionable but thats a very different arguement to saying it will die because people don't care about image quality.

As I said I think photography had its big shift to convenience with the digital revolution, that was a massive shift that did convince many people who took photography serious to accept a drop in quality to start with. I don't think that a mere size difference will have as big an effect personally, espeically as many users are happy with the form factor of the DSLR.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: iaind on June 30, 2012, 05:42:21 PM
In keeping with EU directives I am happy to recycle any 1DX 5DII/III or 7D that anybody has.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Rocky on June 30, 2012, 05:59:19 PM
With the pancake 40mm f2.8 lens, canon is trying to make the 5D  "not too much bigger" than the "interchangeable lens mirrorless". Canon should also make a 30mm f2.8 EF-S for the Rebel. That will really make the Rebel close to the size of some  "interchangeable lens mirrorless".  Both will have much better Ergonomics than any mirrorless.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on June 30, 2012, 06:04:19 PM
Is video going higher quality?   VHS was pretty crap, but analogue broadcast was excellent, the DVB system is MPEG2 based, and like over applied JPEGs you can get banding and shadow mush etc. 

Bluray is excellent (so long as compression kept in toe) streaming... not so much.

Maybe it's because I work in video that I'm more critical of these things, but I wouldn't want to watch a streamed movie on my 40" telly.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: preppyak on June 30, 2012, 08:12:52 PM
The DSLR market as it is today really doesnt depend on the average Joe if you ask me, the average Joe was happy with his compact and is now probabley happy with his camera phone so never bothered with a DSLR in the first place.
Go to any major vacation destination and it will blow your mind how wrong you are. There are usually as many, if not more, users with a DSLR than there are with a compact camera. And its only going to be more true as people aren't gonna supplement their iPhone with a P+S camera, they'll supplement it with a m4/3 camera or a DSLR. Now, many of them are wasting the potential of a DSLR, by putting a super-zoom on the front, never learning settings, and using it like a P+S; but without those users, DSLR's would cost 2-3x what they do.

Canon would never had considered things like a touch-screen if they didn't care what the average joe was used to.
Canon should also make a 30mm f2.8 EF-S for the Rebel. That will really make the Rebel close to the size of some  "interchangeable lens mirrorless".  Both will have much better Ergonomics than any mirrorless.
Even then, the body of those mirrorless cameras are still half the size of a rebel. An NEX with a pancake lens can fit in your jacket pocket; a T4i with the 40mm probably can't, at least not conveniently.

It makes it smaller, which is nice, but the very nature of the EF mount means that Canon's DSLRs aren't gonna match the small size of a mirrorless. But, as you pointed out, ergonomics are the trade-off for having a small camera
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Orangutan on June 30, 2012, 09:37:52 PM
Apologies, but I just read the first post and tl;dr the whole thread.

Short answer: yes.  Reason: IQ.

What, you ask, does SLR vs mirrorless have to do with IQ?

Just google for "3chip camera."  Bayer filters currently filter about 2/3 of all incident light.  A mirrorless pro-level camera with a 3chip design would allow closer to 100% of incident light to be used, and without the other problems introduced by the Bayer pattern (sharpness).  I.e., would you rather have a 36MP camera with a Bayer pattern, or a 24MP camera with 3 individual color sensors, and three times the light absorption?  (Yes, of course I pulled those MP numbers out of the air, but it's got to be cheaper to build three lower-density sensors, without Bayer or AA filter, than a single higher-density sensor with Bayer and AA.)

As soon as manufacturers find a way to make an EVF fast and accurate enough for pros there will be no reason to stick with SLR's, and they should be left in the gutters of history.

Besides, when I take a picture I don't want to see the world the way it really is, I want to see it the way my camera sees it.


Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: weixing on June 30, 2012, 11:59:36 PM
Hi,
Apologies, but I just read the first post and tl;dr the whole thread.

Short answer: yes.  Reason: IQ.

What, you ask, does SLR vs mirrorless have to do with IQ?

Just google for "3chip camera."  Bayer filters currently filter about 2/3 of all incident light.  A mirrorless pro-level camera with a 3chip design would allow closer to 100% of incident light to be used, and without the other problems introduced by the Bayer pattern (sharpness).  I.e., would you rather have a 36MP camera with a Bayer pattern, or a 24MP camera with 3 individual color sensors, and three times the light absorption?  (Yes, of course I pulled those MP numbers out of the air, but it's got to be cheaper to build three lower-density sensors, without Bayer or AA filter, than a single higher-density sensor with Bayer and AA.)

As soon as manufacturers find a way to make an EVF fast and accurate enough for pros there will be no reason to stick with SLR's, and they should be left in the gutters of history.

Besides, when I take a picture I don't want to see the world the way it really is, I want to see it the way my camera sees it.
     Err... I think 3chips camera and this thread is not related as you can built a 3chips DSLR also.

    Anyway, DSLR probably will not be replace by the mirrorless camera for the next 10 years.... But I think mirrorless system definitely will replace DSLR some day in the future as the main camera system once manufacturer able to produce an EVF or the live view as good as the optical one and improve the focusing speed to as fast as the DSLR at an affordable cost.

  Have a nice day.
 
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Orangutan on July 01, 2012, 12:31:54 AM
     Err... I think 3chips camera and this thread is not related as you can built a 3chips DSLR also.
It seems like the trichroic beam splitter would need to be where the mirror is located in a DLSR, so it would throw off the geometry.  I haven't done the calculations, so I could be wrong.  Also, if it were possible someone (like Sony or Pentax) would have tried it by now.

Quote
Anyway, DSLR probably will not be replace by the mirrorless camera for the next 10 years
I would guess it'll start inside 5 years with studio-oriented models.

Quote
  Have a nice day.

And you as well.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: silat shooters on July 01, 2012, 12:44:58 AM
I think we're about to see some major improvements in Mirrorless cameras.  As the iPhone forces camera manufacturers to improve their P&S and small Mirrorless cameras to offer consumers a reason to buy them, the DSLR is bound to get squeeze somewhat.  But I recall 25 or so years ago, when film P&S cameras started incorporating zooms of 38-200mm, folks back then where saying the same thing.  The SLR is dead, why would anyone buy one when you could get a tiny camera with a zoom range that covered 90% of most shooters needs. 

Well, it seems the SLR weathered that storm.  I have a Sony NEX 5N and it's a terrific little camera and far easier to carry than my Mark III.  But as good as it is, the files are not as creamy.  Thankfully the Mark III focuses in another stratosphere, so there are things my DLSR can do that my 5N can't.  But I also have a GH2 and have played with the OM-D and both of those are very nice cameras.  The GH2 especially, is the best hybrid camera to date.  So the M4/3rd people have finally figured out a formula that works, and now their sensors are finally up to the game. 

I think the DSLR will have to become more innovative with new technologies while retaining the optical viewfinder and continue to become more powerful with frame rates, AF, and yes meg count (it still sells cameras).
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on July 01, 2012, 03:36:53 AM
@orangutan
Quote
A mirrorless pro-level camera with a 3chip design would allow closer to 100% of incident light to be used, and without the other problems introduced by the Bayer pattern (sharpness).  I.e., would you rather have a 36MP camera with a Bayer pattern, or a 24MP camera with 3 individual color sensors, and three times the light absorption?  (Yes, of course I pulled those MP numbers out of the air, but it's got to be cheaper to build three lower-density sensors, without Bayer or AA filter, than a single higher-density sensor with Bayer and AA.)

Being from a video background I've often considered this very point.  The Bayer grid has crap chroma resolution (but underpins it with full luma resolution, to be fair) I've looked at the foveon and fuji superCCD's etc and wondered could these, combined with a canon digic be any better?

The arguement against 3ccd cameras is the sheer bulk of the dichroic prism.  It would vastly increase the depth of a camera body, once the prism, extra sensors (mounted perpendicular to lens mount) and flange depth were accomidated.

This is managable with 1/3rd, 1/2, 2/3rd sensors in large ENG bodies.  Forget it with m43 or APS-C let alone full frame sensors.

If you need an example of this google the minolta RD-175.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Orangutan on July 01, 2012, 09:20:07 AM
The arguement against 3ccd cameras is the sheer bulk of the dichroic prism.  It would vastly increase the depth of a camera body, once the prism, extra sensors (mounted perpendicular to lens mount) and flange depth were accomidated.

...

If you need an example of this google the minolta RD-175.

Interesting.  It appears that a lot of the bulk came from the mirror assembly and relay optics needed to make the whole thing work.  A mirrorless version likely could be smaller. 

Fun speculation; we shall see...
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: moreorless on July 01, 2012, 10:11:07 AM
The DSLR market as it is today really doesnt depend on the average Joe if you ask me, the average Joe was happy with his compact and is now probabley happy with his camera phone so never bothered with a DSLR in the first place.
Go to any major vacation destination and it will blow your mind how wrong you are. There are usually as many, if not more, users with a DSLR than there are with a compact camera. And its only going to be more true as people aren't gonna supplement their iPhone with a P+S camera, they'll supplement it with a m4/3 camera or a DSLR. Now, many of them are wasting the potential of a DSLR, by putting a super-zoom on the front, never learning settings, and using it like a P+S; but without those users, DSLR's would cost 2-3x what they do.

Canon would never had considered things like a touch-screen if they didn't care what the average joe was used to.

It depends what you consider the "average joe" I spose, for me even someone using auto modes and a superzoom is likely to have alot more interest in the quality of there photos than the average man on the street.

These people probabley owned a compact camera for years before DSLR's prices dropped and quality increased. They've already made there choice as to how much they value quality and I think DSLR's have more to worry about from smaller options that can produced the same quality than they do compacts or camera phones.

Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: danski0224 on July 01, 2012, 10:33:37 AM
Phone cam vs P&S:

The camera built into the HTC Amaze far exceeds the P&S cameras I own: Olympus 850 SW and Canon Power Shot G2.

Unfortunately, the bluetooth feature of the HTC Amaze really sucks for my uses, so it has been replaced by a HTC Sensation, and that camera is still quite good (but it lacks the Sweep Shot function found in the Amaze that works rather well).

In my experience, the phone cams or P&S models do not come close to the functionality of a DSLR.

It took a long time for me to go back to the (D)SLR format after getting my first digital P&S camera which basically replaced all of my film shooting, but never quite matched the 35mm film camera experience. The expense of the digital part held me back along with the evolving technology. I paid something like $800 for my G2 when it was new... not exactly chump change at the time. I still do not "like" this disposable digital camera technology where one can spend over a thousand dollars on something that becomes obsolete unlike a 35mm film camera.

I know a couple of people that have those Sony digital mirrorless cameras with the OVF, and I am not impressed at this time, but that tech will catch up. 
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: aznable on July 01, 2012, 10:50:40 AM
the phones camera doesnt excedes anything…except for the nokia one with a big sensor size
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Rocky on July 01, 2012, 01:26:47 PM

 The expense of the digital part held me back along with the evolving technology. I paid something like $800 for my G2 when it was new... not exactly chump change at the time. I still do not "like" this disposable digital camera technology where one can spend over a thousand dollars on something that becomes obsolete unlike a 35mm film camera.

I know a couple of people that have those Sony digital mirrorless cameras with the OVF, and I am not impressed at this time, but that tech will catch up.
Unfortunately, you bought the G2 at the "Infancy" of digital camera. I bought the G1. I spent more than $800.  You can spend less than $800 to get a Rebel with a semi-decent lens now. I do not think it is fair to call the digital camera a " disposable technology". Whether you want to obsolete your digital camera is a frame of mind. I know people that are using 4 or 6 years old DSLR and P & S.  They are perfectly happy. I also know people that will change camera every year because they want to be up front with the newest ( may not be better than what they have already owned). Also The amount of pictures being taken per digital camera per year is a lot more than film camera. Just imagine if you take 5000 picture a year, what will it cost you. Most people will take 5000 digital picture per year without thinking about it. Even in the film days, most camera maker will come up with new model every other years. So it is the situation for the people that will chase the newest model.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: Fleetie on July 01, 2012, 03:20:01 PM
A few thoughts :

I have an Olympus OM2-SP (Spot/Program) SLR dating from the mid-1980s. It is black, and I was very lucky to find such a mint example on eBay in perfect working order. It is a Beautiful Thing (TM). I caress it and admire it. Owning it, and the 50mm f/1.2 lens and the 55mm f/1.2 lens, makes me Happy. It's about 27 years old and mint, as is the 50/1.2.

I am also lucky enough to own a 5D3 and a 7D. The 5D3 especially is also a Beautiful Thing. It actually makes the 7D feel plasticky! And the 7D is NOT plasticky!

But in 27 years' time, apart from the fact that I'll be dead, will the 5D3 be usable? Unfortunately, I fear not. I doubt that USB will be around in any compatible form, or indeed compatible card-readers.

On the other hand, although 35mm film, and will by then be a rare commodity indeed, and processing services more so, I expect that film SLRs will still be usable, for those who really want to use them.

The film SLR could in a sense be seen as an "heirloom". Maybe not so much for an Olympus camera, but consider a Leica M-series rangefinder film camera. They are heirlooms. The M9? No, it can't be; it won't have the necessary longevity, I fear.

I find this all rather depressing. The 5D3 and the M9 and so on are wonderful, high-quality pieces of engineering, but they seem doomed to be ephemeral.

I don't REQUIRE my 5D3 to last many years; if I'm still around and into photography and still cashed up in 4 years' time, no doubt I'll buy a successor, but that's not the point I'm making. It seems a shame that such wonderful things won't last 20, 30, 50 years and still be usable by most people.

(I'm just old and sad!)
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on July 01, 2012, 04:05:51 PM
Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 are backwards compatable, and these will be the ports used for the next 10 years, beyond that will folk deem USB 2.0 devices worthy of use (By that time canon might be making a lightfield 3D DLR and 2D is seen as old hat, who knows...)?

For example, a 10D will not work with windows 7.  So folks who own and still use them (and why not?  Perfectly servicable camera that can deliver good A4 prints) have to use a card reader.

Will JPEGS still be around in 20 30 years time?  Will CRW files be readable?

I do know that I am finding it harder and harder to track down anything other than basic colour 200 or 400 print 35mm film these days.  In the UK Jessops carry less and less, Jacobs have shut down, and a trip to the calumet store isn't always that easy (when I do make it they seem to have more reduced out of date film in a sale bin than fresh film in the fridge)

High street film developing is starting to disappear with Boots the chemists reducing their capacity by around a third.

In 20 30 years time?  Again hard to tell, will film reach a level of consolidated user base where a few labs are viable (such as with super8?)

And whilst your OM2 is servicable today, what will happen if it breaks in 20 or 30 years time?  Will anybody have the skills to repair the old shutter?  Will there be enough parts or bodies to salvage for parts?

My 7D takes great pics, my AF works and I process my RAWs with proven NR settings.  It will still take great pics in 10 years time, unless I drop it, or something burns out, but when the Rebel T7 / 1500D is in the shops and has better AF, better low noise, and 40MP and costs £300 will I be as loyal?

Maybe the answer is modular cameras ala medium format...  buy a new back, buy a new AF prism etc.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: briansquibb on July 01, 2012, 04:50:13 PM
Who can tell what will happen

Here is a picture taken on my 2001 D30 + 50 f/1.8 last week - D30 cost £35 - about $55. 3mp. 3 AF points, iso OK to 400 :D
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: AvTvM on July 01, 2012, 05:20:15 PM
Who can tell what will happen

Here is a picture taken on my 2001 D30 + 50 f/1.8 last week - D30 cost £35 - about $55. 3mp. 3 AF points, iso OK to 400 :D

subject does not look happy. Probably he resented being photographed with such outdated and cheapo gear.  :P  ;D

A static, brightly-lit subject like this could equally well be taken with any mirrorless system camera on the market today.  That's no challenge. Try small kids or playing dogs with your D30 ... that's when it gets interesting and where you need a tracking-capable Servo-AF rather than a sorry old 3-point system.

Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: briansquibb on July 01, 2012, 05:49:19 PM
Who can tell what will happen

Here is a picture taken on my 2001 D30 + 50 f/1.8 last week - D30 cost £35 - about $55. 3mp. 3 AF points, iso OK to 400 :D

subject does not look happy. Probably he resented being photographed with such outdated and cheapo gear.  :P  ;D

A static, brightly-lit subject like this could equally well be taken with any mirrorless system camera on the market today.  That's no challenge. Try small kids or playing dogs with your D30 ... that's when it gets interesting and where you need a tracking-capable Servo-AF rather than a sorry old 3-point system.

You missed the point - we are talking about using old cameras - this is already 11 years old

Well lit? Indoors under tungsten, 1/40, f/2.8, iso200. Sorry but the old 3 point AF still is accuate without AFMA. Who cares if it is mirrorless - totally irrelevant. It has servo mode although I can't vouch for its speed.

However the 2007 1DS3 tracks at least as well as any crop + 5D/5D2.
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: AvTvM on July 01, 2012, 06:08:56 PM
However the 2007 1DS3 tracks at least as well as any crop + 5D/5D2.

it better. The thing cost an arm and a leg more than any mirrorless system on the market.

Except the Leica M9, which is mirrorless but still does not count here, as it is nothing more than a anachronistic 1960's technology rangefinder with a digital sensor instead of film. :-)


But again ... for static subjects and sufficient light, almost any camera will do. 
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: briansquibb on July 01, 2012, 08:27:00 PM
However the 2007 1DS3 tracks at least as well as any crop + 5D/5D2.

it better. The thing cost an arm and a leg more than any mirrorless system on the market.

Except the Leica M9, which is mirrorless but still does not count here, as it is nothing more than a anachronistic 1960's technology rangefinder with a digital sensor instead of film. :-)


But again ... for static subjects and sufficient light, almost any camera will do.

@AvTvM

You feekin OK m8 - thats two posts where Canon didn't get a jab. You could have said that in 2001 Canon were struggling to keep up with Nikon. Although in 2001 I suppose Nikon had nothing to match the D30 - the grandaddy to the Rebels.

Keep on trolling m8 - makes me larf
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: wickidwombat on July 01, 2012, 08:45:57 PM
I'm suprised you didnt get an old school 1Dmk1 with the 4MP kodak sensor
I sold mine for $500 a little while ago
they still take decent pics and while have tones of pattern noise still have pretty decent
iso performance up to 800
also for such an old duck still has a bad ass 45 point AF
Title: Re: Is SLR dead?
Post by: briansquibb on July 01, 2012, 08:49:52 PM
I'm suprised you didnt get an old school 1Dmk1 with the 4MP kodak sensor
I sold mine for $500 a little while ago
they still take decent pics and while have tones of pattern noise still have pretty decent
iso performance up to 800
also for such an old duck still has a bad ass 45 point AF

$500 - I could have had one of those and a D800 for the price of the 5DIII

Mind you I would not have used the d800 because of the missed pictures due to the low fps :D  ;)