Full Frame Mirrorless: Sideline or Replacement of dSLR?

[YuengLinger]

From what I've read in this forum and elsewhere online, and heard from camera-club friends, the major drawback to mirrorless at this point is the electronic viewfinder. Either it lags a bit or it just doesn't feel right compared to an optical viewfinder.

Another point against has been ergonomics, the comfort of holding and using the body when various lenses are attached. Some feel Sony's FF mirrorless bodies are too small. (As to this, there was a time when smaller smartphones were being marketed, but as more functions were crammed in, overall size, driven by screens and user demand, began to grow again.)

With consumer feedback, marketing savvy, and clever engineering, the negative aspects of mirrorless will be greatly reduced. Technically, perhaps, an EVF that truly satisfies and wins over longtime dSLR users will be the toughest challenge, but it will be overcome.

Which leads to the question: Do Nikon, Canon, and Sony plan to phase out dSLR's, or are the big three approaching mirrorless with uncertainty? If Canon and Nikon create FF mirrorless that win over the vast majority of professionals and dedicated enthusiasts, what incentive do they have to keep producing dSLRs?

With one or two generations of FF mirrorless winners, dSLR's could be entering the sunset phase of production. This could be as soon as seven years.

Personally, I predict dSLR's might then be going the way of vinyl turntables. Available, but only as a tiny niche product that can't be supported by the big three. (I foresee a time when Canon licenses some dSLR lines to Chinese and Indian manufacturers who can make a small profit off a dwindling volume of sales, dependent in part on used and cheap third-party lenses.)

Perhaps a small quantity of professional bodies, priced very high to be worth producing, would still be sold to a handful of sports photographers, but I think the EVF will soon reach the point where it is superior at tracking action. The market for rugged dSLRs in the hands of journalists is evaporating, as print publications are disappearing, and many news organizations have already dropped staff photographers altogether.

The SLR has been one of the most successful masterpieces of design in any industry, with the first 35mm version appearing back in 1936 in Germany. It has made the amazing leap, with few mechanical changes, from analog to digital. The age of a technology doesn't predict its end, as can be seen with the internal combustion engine, but it does allow time for competing technologies to develop, outperform, and out-sell.

Once the EVF and ergonomics of FF mirrorless are as good or better than what a dSLR offers, why would the big companies keep producing dSLR's? Beyond a tiny subset of photographers who cling emotionally and/or habitually to the familiar, older tech, what would be the market?

 

[amorse]

Tough questions that may not have answers at this point, really.

I don't think Nikon or Canon are really sure what's going to happen or plan to phase out anything at this point. Both companies are heavily invested in their DSLR systems and will not likely want to release that market share to wade into unfamiliar territory. With that said, Canon has done very well with their APS-C mirrorless lineup already, so their barrier to entry may be lower really. Nikon has openly stated that both systems will remain available so far, and I would suspect Canon thinks the same - at least for now. Sure, if demand dries up for DSLRs, most companies will shift their production to respond to the market just as they did with film cameras.

With respect to what benefits DSLRs still have, assuming improved performance of EVFs and improved ergonomics, DSLRs can still be somewhat functional with the camera off. I often do a lot of hiking for days at a time, and if my batteries start to get low, I tend to compose all my images on tripod with the camera off: only turning on the camera to finish focusing and take the photo. Obviously with no battery power a mirrorless camera won't show you anything, so this wouldn't be possible. Certainly a very niche use to be fair, but I wonder if there could be a niche for ultra low power consumption cameras?

Also, just because a technology is better doesn't mean it will take hold or become standard - lots of things will impact success. For instance, I'd be hesitant to buy into a mirrorless system on day one if it meant that all my current equipment was no longer useful, even if it was the better decision in the long run - I'd want to see where the platform goes before I invest. If too many people think that way and early uptake is disappointing, investors could get concerned and push manufactures in a different direction. Marketing will certainly play into this as well - if the general public continues to see small cameras as inferior to bigger clunky cameras then professionals turning up for a job with a small yet high-quality mirrorless body could give the client the impression that they are less than a professional. It wouldn't be an accurate perception, but it doesn't need to be accurate to cause problems for the photographer.

Of course these are not insurmountable hurdles, but the real question is whether or not the approach the manufactures take to surpassing these hurdles will be successful. I think mirrorless has the opportunity to change the photography landscape, but predicting the death of the DSLR at this point could be premature without knowing how manufactures will approach the issue, and whether or not those approaches will be successful.

 

[dak723]

Most folks buying camera probably don't care - and many probably don't even think about - whether there is a mirror or not in the camera. What they may notice is if the viewfinder is OVF or EVF and whether they care either way. They may also be interested in battery life, as that is especially a big issue with birders who often need to look thru the viewfinder for hours at a time.

Ergonomics is not a mirrorless vs. DSLR issue, it is a big vs. small issue.

Ultimately it will depend on what sells. My guess it will take a lot longer than 7 years to determine the long term trend.

If EVF and battery life of mirrorless continue to improve, then very few will notice or care if their camera is a DSLR or Mirrorless. They are for the most part the same type of camera.

 

[BillB]

Right now, there are 2 companies selling FF DSLRs and 1 company is selling FF mirrorless. It looks like pretty soon, there will be 3 companies selling FF mirrorless and 2 companies selling DSLRs. What is going to happen? Everybody has a plan, but some of these plans may not work out. Canon's plan may be to keep producing DSLRs, or maybe not. Same thing for Nikon.

Depending on how things go, Canon, Nikon or Sony corporate management may decide it is time seriously rethink their camera business strategy. My guess is that five years from now there will not be 3 companies selling FF mirrorless and 2 companies selling DSLRs.

 

[slclick]

I had serious issues with the lag in my Olympus Pen F but none in my M5.Very small almost imperceivable lag, the colors the contrast, much better. So when Canon comes out with something even better I cannot imagine it being anything other than close to perfect. But for me it won't be anything but a compliment unless it has a 6D ergonomics size and a 5D joystick. I don't care how good any features are if it's tiny.

 

[Kit.]

Sorry for being late to the party, was taking pictures of the moon (live view for such a dark moon sucks, did anyone have it better with EVF?).

Anyway, photography as we know it now will soon cease to exist, thanks to drones and AI image processing. Mirror-slappers and big whites will probably die the last.

 

[unfocused]

Sorry for being late to the party, was taking pictures of the moon (live view for such a dark moon sucks, did anyone have it better with EVF?).

Anyway, photography as we know it now will soon cease to exist, thanks to drones and AI image processing. Mirror-slappers and big whites will probably die the last.

You might be being sarcastic, but your prediction is probably pretty close. If cell phone cameras continue to improve at even half the pace of recent years, the market for both Mirrorless and DSLRs will continue to shrink. Add to that the impact of technologies like light field computing plus the ever improving magic of post processing and there may be very few people under 60 who own a traditional camera. Put in the larger perspective, the worries over Mirrorless vs. mirrored cameras may essentially be like deciding if you want your buggy whip in brown or black.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Camera companies do not make the determination, they make whatever sells, even if it does not make sense. So, if buyers want Mirrorless, they will be made, if they want DSLR's, they will be made, if they prefer smart phone cameras, they will be made.

So, unless DSLR's do not sell well, they will continue to be made. It really depends on the buyers. To complicate things, some parts of the world place a high value on compact form factors while others like large form factors.

 

[degos]

Camera companies do not make the determination, they make whatever sells, even if it does not make sense. So, if buyers want Mirrorless, they will be made, if they want DSLR's, they will be made, if they prefer smart phone cameras, they will be made.

That is a very charitable view of the industry. It also seems to be incorrect. The manufacturers determine what to offer buyers based on marketability, yes, but most importantly on potential margin. The buyers then get to choose from that selection.

How many people have been crying-out for a 400mm 5.6 IS or a 50mm 1.4 IS for years? Per your theory they should be available to buy right now.

DLSRs have been made for the past two decades because mirrorless technology wasn't quite good enough. Now it is nearly there, why would any company want to retain the flappy mechanical mechanism which results in so much compromise of the design, servicing and warranty? They could sell the 'same' camera without those complex bits and make even more margin!

 

[Kit.]

Anyway, photography as we know it now will soon cease to exist, thanks to drones and AI image processing. Mirror-slappers and big whites will probably die the last.

You might be being sarcastic, but your prediction is probably pretty close.

I am not sarcastic: I work with machine vision for autonomous driving.

The camera sensor manufacturers in the coming years will thrive, but for the actual photographic cameras... the farther their areas of application are from smartphone cameras, drone cameras, and image enhancement technologies, the higher chances they will survive the next 20 years.

 

[old-pr-pix]

Having used both mirrorless and dSLR systems in parallel for several years, I can simply say I don't have a favorite. Sure their are differences and times when one is better than the other; however, both are excellent and a competent user should get the job done with either. My run-down:
EVF - latest generation ML EVF shows no perceptible lag IMO. Battery life - only an issue if one needs stare thru viewfinder for hours on end (e.g. wildlife, I do have battery grips for 3 of my ML bodies). Overall System Size/Weight - a false selling point for ML. Sensor size affects this far more than ML v. dSLR. Long FL lenses for big sensors are large and heavy. Want smaller lenses? Get a m43 sensor body.

Since Canon is now #1 in ML sales in Japan in front of #2 Olympus (BCN rankings), the transition is well underway. My guess is that new dSLR's will still be made for 10 years - although in limited numbers.

 

[sanj]

It is just a matter of time before DSLR are goodbye. Sooner than most oldies in this forum expect. Bye bye DSLR nice knowing you!!!

 

[3kramd5]

How many people have been crying-out for a 400mm 5.6 IS or a 50mm 1.4 IS for years?

At least 6.

 

[Bambel]

Hi,

i think that MILCs like EOS M close the gap between highend fixed lense compacts and entry level DSLRs. So at least for now it's a supplemental market position. Canons strategy for its EOS M line is clearly focused on small size and light weight. Most of that comes from the EF M lenses with their slow appertures and rather short focal length. While you can adapt EF glas, it's no fun at all with fast zooms and long FL on such small bodies. Sony has much faster FE lenses, but they offer no size and weight advantage. But Sony also does'nt have to protect it's own DSLR environment.

I expect Canon to follow the same principles on a FF MILC line like they did on the M, protecting it's EF mount cameras and lenses. So while we are at it, here is my bet:

Canon will release two "EOS MX" cameras, similar to the M50/M100. They have to be a little larger, especially wider, will have no popup flash but a hotshoe and hopefully a wheel dial around the four way switch on the back. Mount will be EF-M(!) and there will be "EF-MX" lenses with FF image circle. They can be used on EOS M as well as EF-M on the FF. Maybe the "sexy" part is several crop options like fixed 1.6, flex (using as much as possible depending on lense and zoom), square, full (crop in post). Kit lense is a 24-70/3.5-6.3 and there will be a 32/1.4 alongside ;D (kidding.. more like 28/2.0 or so) sensor will be an improved 6DII (26MP) with good high iso for the slow lenses. In essence: an EOS M on steroids, gathering 2.56 times the amount of light in only a little more bulky setup.

B.

PS: that does'nt rule out any EF MILC at some point, but i think technology is't quite there yet.

 

[moreorless]

I suspect in the short term you might well see Canon and Nikon looking for rather more targeted lens lineups in with their FF mirrorless lines rather than trying to directly replace typical DSLR use as Sony has done with its FE releases.

I mean personally I would say a lot of the reason the EOS-M line has done so well at APSC is because its successfully offered targeted lenses with excellent performance to price. Sony might have a larger range of lenses but Canon has the lenses more users actually want at a price they are prepared to pay.

The nature of mirrorless as a potential size saver does I would say naturally tend to shift things towards a smaller group of lenses as the most commonly used. I think if you put out good UWA and normal F/4 zooms plus 3-4 fast primes in the wide/normal range you probably cater to a pretty high percentage of the market.

Nikon of course could also view mirrorless as a way to fill in their weakness relative to Canon when it comes to ultra fast primes with the larger mount.

 

[neonlight]

I agree DSLR's will become history.
MIrrorless is very nearly there, but needs:
fast EVF
global shutter sensor
then no mechanical bits will be needed at all.
Canon's rumored FF MILC will no doubt have one or both of these features, but in the longer term eliminating all mechanical stuff (apart from the aperture perhaps) might disappear.
I expect Canon's FFMILC will have a mechanical shutter and conventional sensor at first outing.
Mechanical shutter may even, just possibly, be kept as a protection for the sensor.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

How many people have been crying-out for a 400mm 5.6 IS or a 50mm 1.4 IS for years? Per your theory they should be available to buy right now.

Canon actually has sales figures, and its virtually certain that the cost of developing a replacement would not be easily recovered without raising the price excessively. Canon is successful because they produce what sells best.

This is a good example, IMHO, the customer has determined that they prefer the 100-400mm L by purchasing many more of them.
Sure, there are those who want a updated 400mm f/5.6. I've had one, and do not. The issue is the length and the poor MFD, I could not get it to fit in my carry around bag while the 100-400 fits nicely, and to get a closer MFD, it would get longer yet. Physics determines the length of a lens, not wishful thinking, so its not going to ever get shorter unless Canon uses DO, and then, the price will put it out of the market.

There are always those with conspiracy theories, but running a small business myself, I pay close attention to what is selling, if I have a supplier produce my own design and its wrong, I lose a ton of money.

 

[Orangutan]

So, if buyers want Mirrorless, they will be made, if they want DSLR's, they will be made

That is a very charitable view of the industry. It also seems to be incorrect.

We have a pretty clear example not long ago with Sony. A few years ago Sony was using a lossy compression algorithm for their raw files. The uninformed forum hordes demanded uncompressed raw, while what they should have asked for was losslessly compressed raw files. Sony gave them what they asked for: huge, uncompressed raw files.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/sony-a7r/3
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection

Of course, that's just one example, but it's a good example of a company making the error of listening to the forum dwellers, rather than doing high-quality market research. What is worse than not making a product that some people want, is making a product that sorta looks like the product they want, but doesn't actually meet the need. Not only is it expensive in financial cost, but it also costs the goodwill of your customers.

 

[Mikehit]

I agree with the above: Mirrorless will likely sit alongside DSLR for quite a few years yet and only replace it when sales tell Canon (or Nikon) that DSLRs are no longer needed.
One big hurdle is EVF - a lot of pros seem to prefer OVF which is the first hurdle, but for new camera buyers there is something aesthetic about seeing 'life as it really is' rather than an electronic video of it and I think that is a big psychological thing to overcome. Yes, I know people will likely be coming from cameraphones and P&S where you use the LCD for framing but once you put that VF to your eye you have a different psychological take on what to expect. Experienced users see the benefits and part of their reason for switching is based on understanding the value of it, an understanding that a newbie does not have.

One huge interim for DSLR would be a hybrid VF to show highlight/shadow peaking which would at a stroke challenge one of the nice things for EVF.

 

[stevelee]

I agree with the above: Mirrorless will likely sit alongside DSLR for quite a few years yet and only replace it when sales tell Canon (or Nikon) that DSLRs are no longer needed.
One big hurdle is EVF - a lot of pros seem to prefer OVF which is the first hurdle, but for new camera buyers there is something aesthetic about seeing 'life as it really is' rather than an electronic video of it and I think that is a big psychological thing to overcome. Yes, I know people will likely be coming from cameraphones and P&S where you use the LCD for framing but once you put that VF to your eye you have a different psychological take on what to expect. Experienced users see the benefits and part of their reason for switching is based on understanding the value of it, an understanding that a newbie does not have.

One huge interim for DSLR would be a hybrid VF to show highlight/shadow peaking which would at a stroke challenge one of the nice things for EVF.

I’m neither a pro nor a complete novice, but I wouldn’t happily gove up an OVF.

Are there any kinds of readouts like peaking things or zebras or similar animals that can be displayed in an EVF but cannot be shown in live view? (And I mean “cannot” rather than just “currently” or “usually not.”)