Death of DSLR?

[sanj]

With Nikon launching it's mirrorless and Canon to follow soon, it seems like to me - maybe I am not the only one, that soon mirror slappers will soon belong in museums and studios of obstinate photographers.

Reason for this thinking: Neither of these companies would make mirrorless cameras unless they thought they would be better then older technology. Simple.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Long term yes. Short term no. It is not like anyone thinks it won't happen. But it is not going to happen in a couple of years. More likely 5-7 years

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I suggest that you read the review of the Z7 on DPR before writing off DSLR's. The Z7 underperforms Nikon DSLR's on almost every statistic, even low cost ones. After reading their review, I felt kind a bad for Nikon, but it illustrates what Canon has said, the current technology of mirrorless is still not good enough to match DSLR's. There may be a very limited area like weight where they excell, but once you add a lens, its not significant.

 

[jd7]

I suggest that you read the review of the Z7 on DPR before writing off DSLR's. The Z7 underperforms Nikon DSLR's on almost every statistic, even low cost ones. After reading their review, I felt kind a bad for Nikon, but it illustrates what Canon has said, the current technology of mirrorless is still not good enough to match DSLR's. There may be a very limited area like weight where they excell, but once you add a lens, its not significant.

Yes, from what we know at this point, I think yet again there is going to be a real gap between what the headline specs of a piece of equipment might suggest and what it's like to use as an actual photographic tool. I am keen to read about the Z cameras for interest sake but certainly at this point I have no desire to buy one.

DSLRs may give way to mirrorless at some point, but I don't think it will be any time soon ... And I'm actually not 100% certain it will happen. DSLRs and mirrorless each have their pros and cons so maybe there will remain a place for both.

 

[Bennymiata]

Mirrorless is just a fad.
I'm not saying that they will die out soon, but good DSLRs are going to be around for many years.
I know this goes against the stream but current mirrorless cameras (and I've tried Sonys and a Hasselblad as well as owning an M5) are just too slow for the type of work that I do.
Events need a camera that can focus and expose almost instantaneously, and mirrorless cameras just aren't anywhere close enough.

 

[fullstop]

Mirrorless is just a fad.

LOL. I am sure this motto in big letters hangs framed on the wall of every Canon exec office in Tokyo.

----------------------------------------------------
| MIRRORLESS IS JUST A FAD |
----------------------------------------------------

 

[Kit.]

With Nikon launching it's mirrorless and Canon to follow soon, it seems like to me - maybe I am not the only one, that soon mirror slappers will soon belong in museums and studios of obstinate photographers.

135 format film is still selling.

Reason for this thinking: Neither of these companies would make mirrorless cameras unless they thought they would be better then older technology. Simple.

That sounds exactly like it sounded during the APS film hype.

APS format film is not selling anymore.

 

[jd7]

Reason for this thinking: Neither of these companies would make mirrorless cameras unless they thought they would be better then older technology. Simple.

I'm not so sure. Those companies are in the business to make money, so if they have the capability to make a product they think has a market which will allow them to recoup their R&D cost and make some money, why not do it? There is nothing to stop them selling both DSLRs and MILCs if they want. And sometimes a product is made simply because it enhances the image of a brand and that helps sell other products of the same brand, even though the product itself will never make money (although I'm not saying I think that is what is happening with Nikon's Z system).

 

[LDS]

Shouldn't phones kill cameras wholly? Mirrorless have some technical hurdles to overcome still. But I'm sure in twenty years they will be replaced by AR glasses controlling drone-mounted cameras.

 

[Mikehit]

Shouldn't phones kill cameras wholly?

Nope.
But then again, are today's phones really phones? I think they are more about being multifunctional devices, one component of which is a phone
I say that only because at the point they do what you say I wonder if they will be what we recognise as a phone anyway.

 

[neuroanatomist]

With Nikon launching it's mirrorless and Canon to follow soon, it seems like to me - maybe I am not the only one, that soon mirror slappers will soon belong in museums and studios of obstinate photographers.

No, you're not the only one. But then, apparently quite a few people believe the earth is flat.

Nor are you the first. Remember all those predictions that the DSLR would be dead in 5 years? That was back in 2012. But hey, Charlie Brown...go ahead and run at that football again, I'm just sure Lucy will let you kick it this time.

I'm not so sure. Those companies are in the business to make money, so if they have the capability to make a product they think has a market which will allow them to recoup their R&D cost and make some money, why not do it? There is nothing to stop them selling both DSLRs and MILCs if they want. And sometimes a product is made simply because it enhances the image of a brand and that helps sell other products of the same brand, even though the product itself will never make money (although I'm not saying I think that is what is happening with Nikon's Z system).

+1

DSLRs will be here for a long time to come.

 

[amorse]

Shouldn't phones kill cameras wholly? Mirrorless have some technical hurdles to overcome still. But I'm sure in twenty years they will be replaced by AR glasses controlling drone-mounted cameras.

Honestly, everyone is worked up about mirrorless ILCs, but I think the really interesting photographic advancement is happening in phones. I don't think phones will completely replace dedicated cameras, but they do seem (to me) to be a tool which will incentivize innovation and software advancement.

Think of it this way - most people have a phone with a camera on them at all times, and the camera has become one of the key features which drive people to upgrade their phones - people pay more to get a better camera on their phone. Phone cameras are inherently limited by their size, so manufacturers have to look for creative ways to advance performance. That incentivizes manufactures to invest in new systems and now many phones can use creative software to replicate (to some extent) the features which were previously limited to expensive and bulky equipment. Further, the open app development market means that the way people take or consume photos changes rapidly as well. Being able to take a photo and share/send it immediately was in my mind truly revolutionary.

While it's really interesting to see these developments, I'm more curious about how the ILC manufacturers will look to maintain a distinct identity and niche for their products. They have already tried to bridge some of these gaps by giving ILCs wifi which let you get photos from the camera to your phone so you can share immediately (like a phone), and they continue to stand apart by unparalleled capability and flexibility compared to a phone. But what happens which camera manufactures start looking at the automated features being found on some phones? For instance, I think I remember seeing an article which indicated a new phone came with a camera AI which actually reviewed a photo as you take it and gave you suggestions on improving your composition. Personally, I'd hate that but I would bet that some new photographers may like an assistant like that. I'm really curious to see where camera phones push the ILC market (if you can't tell).

 

[Mikehit]

I'm more curious about how the ILC manufacturers will look to maintain a distinct identity and niche for their products.

They have. It is better ISO performance, and better control over DOF. The fact is people wanting this are a very small minority. The only reason people before cameraphones had to learn this was because they had to - if you wanted a picture at all you had to bu a camera. Cameraphone are the equivalent of the 110 film size i the late 20th century in that people did not care the photo was relatively poor because all they wanted was the memory.

 

[amorse]

They have. It is better ISO performance, and better control over DOF. The fact is people wanting this are a very small minority. The only reason people before cameraphones had to learn this was because they had to - if you wanted a picture at all you had to bu a camera. Cameraphone are the equivalent of the 110 film size i the late 20th century in that people did not care the photo was relatively poor because all they wanted was the memory.

No doubt that ILCs set themselves apart using ISO performance and better control over DOF, and while the minority of people need this, a proportion of those people are willing to accept "good enough" and camera phones can deliver both of those things in some situations:

• Many cameraphones have a "portrait mode" which gives you a shallow depth of field using software to separate the subject from a background - it doesn't compare to an ILC, but for some it will be enough. Some cameras also use AI to create artificial equivalents for studio portrait lighting - again, it doesn't compare to the real thing, but for some it may be good enough.
• Other phone software can dramatically improve low light performance by using burst mode and then performing the equivalent of a median stack to reduce noise. I believe a google researcher did a presentation on his software which creates very clean night photos on a phone as a result (I think 2 or 3 years ago - I can dig up the link if you're keen). The Huawei P20 can capture the milky way in one photo right now (link): some DSLRs still struggle with that.

So in the example of DOF control and low light performance, these above examples will be good enough for some that may otherwise buy an ILC, which further erodes the the market for ILCs. My point is the ILC market has been constantly looking for ways to maintain their niche, and phones keep eating little bits of it gradually. I really don't believe it will kill the ILC market, but the ILC manufacturers may take bits of technology made for camera phones and really make them shine using the advantages of physics and larger sensors/bigger glass.

Here's an example where an app could be adapted to a full camera which I would find really exciting. Right now you can use the PhotoPills app to show you where the milky way is at any time of day: the app overlays a fake milky way using augmented reality on top of what your camera phone sees so you can tell where the actual milky way is even though you can't see it. If that functionality was added to a full frame camera, you could compose a milky way shot on your ILC's LCD using the overlay rather than guessing where the milky way will show up in your composition. I'd get pretty pumped about that, and I'm sure there are other advancements designed for phones which could advance ILCs further.

 

[takesome1]

With Nikon launching it's mirrorless and Canon to follow soon, it seems like to me - maybe I am not the only one, that soon mirror slappers will soon belong in museums and studios of obstinate photographers.

Reason for this thinking: Neither of these companies would make mirrorless cameras unless they thought they would be better then older technology. Simple.

Eventually DSLR's will die off. Many people will buy mirrorless and to them DSLR's are a thing of the past.

But, as long as the Camera Companies can make money selling DSLR's, there will be DSLR's.
It has nothing to do with old or new technology, and everything to do with making money.
That will determine both the death of DSLR's and the release of new mirrorless cameras.

 

[Dylan777]

With Nikon launching it's mirrorless and Canon to follow soon, it seems like to me - maybe I am not the only one, that soon mirror slappers will soon belong in museums and studios of obstinate photographers.

Reason for this thinking: Neither of these companies would make mirrorless cameras unless they thought they would be better then older technology. Simple.

Canon can't turn off the DSLR switch over night, while millions EF lenses still alive(same for Nikon with F-mount). Canon first FF mirrorless will more likely inline with Nikon Zs, just enough to bandage the wound.

Sony & Fuji will cont. to push boundaries in mirrorless market.

 

[Sporgon]

Canon can't turn off the DSLR switch over night, while millions EF lenses still alive(same for Nikon with F-mount). Canon first FF mirrorless will more likely inline with Nikon Zs, just enough to bandage the wound.

Sony & Fuji will cont. to push boundaries in mirrorless market.

"Turning off the dslr switch" has nothing to do with anything unless the consumer has stopped buying them. But whilst there is (enough of ) a demand they will be made. As far as larger cameras go there will always be a demand from me (and others of the same ilk who do not like EVF). In fact if the 200D / SL2 had been made as a quality metal build with decent pentaprism, maybe no pop up flash and twice the price I'd have bought one instead of the M5, no question. It's worth remembering that the so called "mirrorless revolution" came about because Sony, Fuji and Olympus couldn't compete in the dslr space. Over the next coming twelve months the internet is going to be humming with FF mirrorless chatter, with many 'tube commentators simply orgasmic in their praise for the new toys and how they're going to revolutionise your photography. And people will keep buying dslrs.

 

[Dylan777]

"Turning off the dslr switch" has nothing to do with anything unless the consumer has stopped buying them. But whilst there is (enough of ) a demand they will be made. As far as larger cameras go there will always be a demand from me (and others of the same ilk who do not like EVF). In fact if the 200D / SL2 had been made as a quality metal build with decent pentaprism, maybe no pop up flash and twice the price I'd have bought one instead of the M5, no question. It's worth remembering that the so called "mirrorless revolution" came about because Sony, Fuji and Olympus couldn't compete in the dslr space. Over the next coming twelve months the internet is going to be humming with FF mirrorless chatter, with many 'tube commentators simply orgasmic in their praise for the new toys and how they're going to revolutionise your photography. And people will keep buying dslrs.

I'm sure people will keep buying dslr, just like film.

 

[Don Haines]

Let me summarize......

Market A is profitable for Canon. (mirrored cameras)
Market B is profitable for Canon. (mirrorless cameras)

Mirrored cameras are better at some things, mirrorless are better at other things, and most of the time it really does not matter. Both markets will have strong adherents (fanatics) but for the vast bulk of users, they really do not care!

Canon will continue to develop and sell in both markets as long as they are profitable.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm sure people will keep buying dslr, just like film.

Film to digital was a paradigm shift.
Taking the mirror out of a DSLR isn’t.

Incidentally, you’re analogy is perfectly spot on, although probably not in the way you intended. There were about 11 million ILCs sold last year. But there were also close to 8 million Fuji Instax camera sold last year and they use...film. So, while I suspect you meant your analogy to suggest that people will stop buying DSLRs just like people stopped buying film...they didn’t. So, an analogy for your analogy is a rake, one that you step on and the handle flies up and smacks you in the face. Well done!