Will Mirrorless Cameras Make Our Current DSLR Equipment Obsolete?

[alexanderferdinand]

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

[AvTvM]

Yes. 

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

[wockawocka]

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

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

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

[aj1575]

Yes. 

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

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

[paul13walnut5]

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

Try Sony's range.

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

Do you need much faster than 10fps? 

[paul13walnut5]

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

And you have hands on experience obviously?

[Dylan777]

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.

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

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

[moreorless]

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

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

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

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

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

[skitron]

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

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

[insanitybeard]

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

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

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

[tpatana]

For basic consumer level: yes (for most people)

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

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

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

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

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

[AvTvM]

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

And you have hands on experience obviously?

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

[tcmatthews]

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

[dgatwood]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Don Haines]

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

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

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

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