Will Mirrorless Cameras Make Our Current DSLR Equipment Obsolete?

[gmrza]

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  He said "It forgoes the SLR system that is outdated which allows for a much more compact body.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

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

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

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

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

[Etienne]

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

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

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

[Don Haines]

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  He said "It forgoes the SLR system that is outdated which allows for a much more compact body.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Phenix205]

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

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

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

[Strobe the globe]

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

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

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

[expatinasia]

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

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

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

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

[northbyten]

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

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

[M.ST]

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

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

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

[Zv]

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

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

[bycostello]

yes

[Hillsilly]

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

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

[funkboy]

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

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

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

[bholliman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mathias]

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

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

[aj1575]

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

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

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

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