Full Frame Mirrorless: Sideline or Replacement of dSLR?

[BillB]

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.

It seems unlikely that Nikon and Canon would decide to end DSLR production at the same time. More likely, we could at some point have 3 FF mirrorless manufacturers and one DSLR producer. At that point, I doubt there would be much new DSLR camera or lens development, but production might continue for quite a while (especially if lenses were easily usable by either DSLR or mirrorless cameras).

 

[Don Haines]

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.

I am one of those people. I would LOVE to get a 400F5.6 IS lens, but I think the chances of that happening are similar to that of my cat having a litter of puppies...

Now a 500F5.6... I can actually imagine a remote chance that one is coming.... I am not holding my breath waiting,,,,

And a 50F1.4 IS.... That one surprises me I really don't understand why it does not exist....


As for mirrorless cameras, Obviously there is a market for mirrorless crop cameras, and at the same time there is also a thriving market for mirrored crop cameras. I expect the same to hold true with FF cameras, but remember, the numbers of FF cameras is/will be smaller than crop.

 

[BillB]

I am one of those people. I would LOVE to get a 400F5.6 IS lens, but I think the chances of that happening are similar to that of my cat having a litter of puppies...

Now a 500F5.6... I can actually imagine a remote chance that one is coming.... I am not holding my breath waiting,,,,

And a 50F1.4 IS.... That one surprises me I really don't understand why it does not exist....

My guess is that there are several things at work that have held back the appearance of a 50mm f1.4 IS. One is the availability of some pretty good normal zooms that cover 50mm. Another is that a new 50mm was apparently behind the 35mm f1.4 and the 85mm in the lens development backlog. (Speaking for myself, I find a 50 less interesting than either a 35 or an 85.). Then there the old 50mm f1.4 which has its good points, is quite inexpensive, and still sells well (not to mention the 50 f1.8 or the 40mm). Clearly a new 50 f1.4 hasn't been a high Canon priority, but it seems likely one will eventually show up.

 

[Loswr]

My guess is that there are several things at work that have held back the appearance of a 50mm f1.4 IS. One is the availability of some pretty good normal zooms that cover 50mm. Another is that a new 50mm was apparently behind the 35mm f1.4 and the 85mm in the lens development backlog. (Speaking for myself, I find a 50 less interesting than either a 35 or an 85.). Then there the old 50mm f1.4 which has its good points, is quite inexpensive, and still sells well (not to mention the 50 f1.8 or the 40mm). Clearly a new 50 f1.4 hasn't been a high Canon priority, but it seems likely one will eventually show up.

You forgot the biggest reason for the delay – ahsanford wants one, and Canon likes to see him perpetually frustrated.

 

[ahsanford]

You forgot the biggest reason for the delay – ahsanford wants one, and Canon likes to see him perpetually frustrated.

I'm honestly getting to the point that Canon might just refresh the lens with the same 1993 optical design and just call it good. After all, who am I to demand a new optical design for a 25 year old instrument if we don't even need new optical designs on flasgship 70-200 f/2.8 lenses these days?

Annnnnnnnd we're OT already. #stayontarget

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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.”)

In principal, no. LiveView functionality could be made to work just like mirrorless does through the EVF. It's effectively the same tech.

...except for that bit about holding the camera up to your eye and controlling it stably/intuitively/efficiently as intended. Because without that, as much as LiveView is the core of the mirrorless conversation, holding and shooting a $3-5k rig+lens like it's an iPad just screams 'unmet user need' to me.

- A

 

[docsmith]

I think the original list is solid, but would also throw out CA as a potential issue of mirrorless if it has the shorter flange distance. I hadn't connected the dots between the CA I can see in TDP's ISO charts on Sony's lenses and the short flange distance, but it is really prevalent.

As for the "end of DSLR" forecasts, I think we are premature. A lot will depend on how well EF lenses work with Canon's FF mirrorless camera as a lens transition would cause more to hold onto their DSLRs for longer, but, I am still in the group that just doesn't see mirrorless as a revolution. There is not driving feature that makes photography easier/better in many situations compared to a DSLR. Perhaps my favorite feature is seeing the dialed in exposure right in the EVF. That is nice, but limited to specific situations. Zebras---specific situations, etc. I also would love more control over FPS. More than just 3 modes (single, middle, and high).

This isn't film (costly, inconvenient, slow, etc) to digital (per picture less expensive, convenient, and instantaneous output). I just do not see the driving force that would motivate a rapid change to the masses. For a few individuals or regions that have a strong preference for a specific feature or desire for "new", sure, they'll jump. And I think we've seen that in some instances already. But I expect the masses to take awhile.

As I write this, I also wondering if part of my perspective is geographic. I am in North America where the numbers indicate the masses are holding onto their DSLRs. But in Asia, it seems that there is a higher rate of adoption of mirrorless. So, my thoughts could be more relevant to NA.

 

[fullstop]

Transition to entirely mirrorfree cameras will happen pretty fast. There are no disadvantages and lots of advantages if implemented "really right". And mirrorfree cameras are cheaper to produce, even if non of us can provide evidence of "how much", since we don't have access to camera makers internal cost accounting numbers.

Mirrorfree cameras will be the last (short) phase in the overall transition from mechanical, analogue, chemical-film cameras with sizeable stacks of ground optical glass in front (18th(19th/20th century) to "truly digital", computational imaging, with minimal physical gear (a sensor, a CPU, a touchscreen, a few plastic or fluid filled lenses, rest is software) ... 21st century.

Looking forward to it. I reyll love completely de-materialized conversion of photons into electrons and de-materialized storage of them. It is the most elegant, efficient and effective solution, until direct neuronal interface to human brains will take over. Which is 2 steps away.

 

[ahsanford]

Transition to entirely mirrorfree cameras will happen pretty fast.

I believe it will happen -- but not quickly at all.

Just curious: can someone name me an instance of a crop or FF DSLR/DSLT getting obsoleted / shutdown in recent memory? Bonus points if mirrorless was a clear reason or driver for it. Just scratching my head:

• Canon keeps making them all, in fact increasing the number of SLR lines the past few years (unless we want to get pedantic about 760D vs. 77D)
• Nikon keeps making them all to my knowledge (though the D6XX line is nearing 5 years old...)
• Sony keeps making them all, but appears to have deprioritized the energy they are pumping into their SLT lines.

- A

 

[Loswr]

I believe it will happen -- but not quickly at all.

Just curious: can someone name me an instance of a crop or FF DSLR/DSLT getting obsoleted / shutdown in recent memory? Bonus points if mirrorless was a clear reason or driver for it. Just scratching my head:

• Canon keeps making them all, in fact increasing the number of SLR lines the past few years (unless we want to get pedantic about 760D vs. 77D)
• Nikon keeps making them all to my knowledge (though the D6XX line is nearing 5 years old...)
• Sony keeps making them all, but appears to have deprioritized the energy they are pumping into their SLT lines.

You're presenting facts. Just curious: can someone name me an instance of facts having an impact on AvTvM's opinion in recent memory?

 

[BillB]

I believe it will happen -- but not quickly at all.

Just curious: can someone name me an instance of a crop or FF DSLR/DSLT getting obsoleted / shutdown in recent memory? Bonus points if mirrorless was a clear reason or driver for it. Just scratching my head:

• Canon keeps making them all, in fact increasing the number of SLR lines the past few years (unless we want to get pedantic about 760D vs. 77D)
• Nikon keeps making them all to my knowledge (though the D6XX line is nearing 5 years old...)
• Sony keeps making them all, but appears to have deprioritized the energy they are pumping into their SLT lines.

- A

Sony did pull out of DSLR production, iirc.

Shutting down lines could happen if one (or more) manufacturers end up in a serious cash crunch which might or might not be related to the inability of their DSLR line to compete with mirrorless models. My guess is that the dynamics are likely to be more complex than everybody buying mirrorless instead of DSLR's. Either there is going to be enough money coming in to keep all three making FF mirrorless and Canon and Nikon making DSLR's or there is not. Cost management could become a big factor. So could something like a healthy line of aps-c cameras.

From Canon's point of view, it doesn't make that much difference whether I buy a Sony or whether I just keep using the Canon cameras and lenses I already have. Canon is not making money off me either way.

 

[ahsanford]

Sony did pull out of DSLR production, iirc.

Not so sure they abandoned DSLRs to pitch the mirror, though. It was my understanding that they flipped their entire line from DSLR to DSLT as a technology/strategy direction around 2010 or so, and they still make those DSLTs today.

- A

 

[BillB]

Not so sure they abandoned DSLRs to pitch the mirror, though. It was my understanding that they flipped their entire line from DSLR to DSLT as a technology/strategy direction around 2010 or so, and they still make those DSLTs today.

- A

Which much proves your point.

 

[ahsanford]

Which much proves your point.

I still think mirrors will (largely) go away. I just can't for the life of me gather when that will happen other than when Canon and Nikon decide it's time to. One generation we'll get a Rebel 850D and EOS M50 Mk II, the next generation we'll get a Rebel 950D and EOS M50 Mk III and then... poof: the next rev we'll get an EOS M50 Mk IV (or some new symbolic name) and we won't get another Rebel in that segment any more.

Lower trimline DSLRs (crop, and cheaper crop to be specific) will surely go first and then they'll climb up the line until only the high end DSLRs remain. That's always been my guess, but I've never been able to forecast when that would happen.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

I believe it will happen -- but not quickly at all.

Just curious: can someone name me an instance of a crop or FF DSLR/DSLT getting obsoleted / shutdown in recent memory? Bonus points if mirrorless was a clear reason or driver for it. Just scratching my head:

• Canon keeps making them all, in fact increasing the number of SLR lines the past few years (unless we want to get pedantic about 760D vs. 77D)
• Nikon keeps making them all to my knowledge (though the D6XX line is nearing 5 years old...)
• Sony keeps making them all, but appears to have deprioritized the energy they are pumping into their SLT lines.

- A

Words like quick and fast are subjective and relative. I believe most cameras produced will eventually have no mirrors in the optical path, and that it will happen quickly when compared to how long it took digital to mostly replace film.

 

[BillB]

What will happen is a often a lot easier call than when it will happen. Mirrorless market share is going to rise, but what is the curve going to look like? So far as we can guess, mirrorless has production cost advantages, especially at the low end, but are those advantages big enough to makes it worthwhile to spend money on new lines? Will video be a factor? Maybe some of the low end market just prefers DSLR.

Then there is the corporate piece of it. In Canon, Nikon and Sony, the photography guys have to keep the big guys happy, and that is largely about cash flow and return on investment. Things could change in a hurry if the numbers aren't working out.

 

[ahsanford]

Words like quick and fast are subjective and relative. I believe most cameras produced will eventually have no mirrors in the optical path, and that it will happen quickly when compared to how long it took digital to mostly replace film.

If you mean time from digital sensors first being made in a lab to mostly replacing film in photography, you might be right. That took quite a while.

But if you mean time from the first consumer and professional digital cameras showing up to mostly replacing film, that only took about... what, 10 years, give or take? Mirrorless ILCs are already that age now, and as I said above, we have yet to see a DSLR/DSLT line to get mothballed since mirrorless arrived.

So I still think there will be nothing quick about this as mirrorless is evolutionary and not revolutionary. As countless people have said here, pitching the mirror is hardly the gamechanger that getting away from film was.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

I meant from when the first digital camera was patented (1978, I believe). And of course I wasn’t making a prediction, just commenting on the use of words like “soon” in the realm of predictions.

 

[Bennymiata]

I wouldn't hold you breath waiting for dslrs to die..
I have used mirrorless cameras but there is still nothing that can compare to using a dslr.
Mirrorless cameras, including Sonys are just too slow for fast paced action at receptions and my fingers keep getting stuck between the lens and the body on Sonys. I reckon my M5 is much nicer to use.
Another thing is that no EVF will be as good or as satisfying to use as an OVF.

If mirrorless cameras are cheaper than dslrs, then why are crop dslrs cheaper than mirrorless cameras?

 

[Kit.]

But if you mean time from the first consumer and professional digital cameras showing up to mostly replacing film, that only took about... what, 10 years, give or take?

I'd say the main part of the obsolescence of the film-based SLRs was the failure of the industry to produce a 135 format film compatible "digital film" cartridge. Imagine the ability to switch digital sensors in the field - that could keep film-based SLRs selling till at least these days.

For DSLRs, the analogy would be with the hybrid viewfinder. Which, honestly, requires much less scientific and technological "optimism" to expect compared to "digital film", which needed almost AvTvM grade.