DSLRs are a dying breed, EVIL is the future!

[whatta]

size does matter. otherwise I would have a 7d 

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

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

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

[Canon-F1]

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

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

[Viggo]

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

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

[JonJT]

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

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

[Canon Rumors]

size does matter. otherwise I would have a 7d 

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

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

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

Size matters, yes.

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

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

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

Cheers

[EYEONE]

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

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

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

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

[AJ]

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

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

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

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

[Flake]

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

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

[Ellen Schmidtee]

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

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

[Ellen Schmidtee]

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

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

Weren't rangefinder camera manual focus only ?

[Rocky]

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

[jbwise01]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[7enderbender]

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

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

[Rocky]

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

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

Weren't rangefinder camera manual focus only ?

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

[AJ]

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

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

Weren't rangefinder camera manual focus only ?

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