Is SLR dead?

[preppyak]

The DSLR market as it is today really doesnt depend on the average Joe if you ask me, the average Joe was happy with his compact and is now probabley happy with his camera phone so never bothered with a DSLR in the first place.

Go to any major vacation destination and it will blow your mind how wrong you are. There are usually as many, if not more, users with a DSLR than there are with a compact camera. And its only going to be more true as people aren't gonna supplement their iPhone with a P+S camera, they'll supplement it with a m4/3 camera or a DSLR. Now, many of them are wasting the potential of a DSLR, by putting a super-zoom on the front, never learning settings, and using it like a P+S; but without those users, DSLR's would cost 2-3x what they do.

Canon would never had considered things like a touch-screen if they didn't care what the average joe was used to.

Canon should also make a 30mm f2.8 EF-S for the Rebel. That will really make the Rebel close to the size of some "interchangeable lens mirrorless". Both will have much better Ergonomics than any mirrorless.

Even then, the body of those mirrorless cameras are still half the size of a rebel. An NEX with a pancake lens can fit in your jacket pocket; a T4i with the 40mm probably can't, at least not conveniently.

It makes it smaller, which is nice, but the very nature of the EF mount means that Canon's DSLRs aren't gonna match the small size of a mirrorless. But, as you pointed out, ergonomics are the trade-off for having a small camera

 

[Orangutan]

Apologies, but I just read the first post and tl;dr the whole thread.

Short answer: yes. Reason: IQ.

What, you ask, does SLR vs mirrorless have to do with IQ?

Just google for "3chip camera." Bayer filters currently filter about 2/3 of all incident light. A mirrorless pro-level camera with a 3chip design would allow closer to 100% of incident light to be used, and without the other problems introduced by the Bayer pattern (sharpness). I.e., would you rather have a 36MP camera with a Bayer pattern, or a 24MP camera with 3 individual color sensors, and three times the light absorption? (Yes, of course I pulled those MP numbers out of the air, but it's got to be cheaper to build three lower-density sensors, without Bayer or AA filter, than a single higher-density sensor with Bayer and AA.)

As soon as manufacturers find a way to make an EVF fast and accurate enough for pros there will be no reason to stick with SLR's, and they should be left in the gutters of history.

Besides, when I take a picture I don't want to see the world the way it really is, I want to see it the way my camera sees it.

 

[weixing]

Hi,

Apologies, but I just read the first post and tl;dr the whole thread.

Short answer: yes. Reason: IQ.

What, you ask, does SLR vs mirrorless have to do with IQ?

Just google for "3chip camera." Bayer filters currently filter about 2/3 of all incident light. A mirrorless pro-level camera with a 3chip design would allow closer to 100% of incident light to be used, and without the other problems introduced by the Bayer pattern (sharpness). I.e., would you rather have a 36MP camera with a Bayer pattern, or a 24MP camera with 3 individual color sensors, and three times the light absorption? (Yes, of course I pulled those MP numbers out of the air, but it's got to be cheaper to build three lower-density sensors, without Bayer or AA filter, than a single higher-density sensor with Bayer and AA.)

As soon as manufacturers find a way to make an EVF fast and accurate enough for pros there will be no reason to stick with SLR's, and they should be left in the gutters of history.

Besides, when I take a picture I don't want to see the world the way it really is, I want to see it the way my camera sees it.

Err... I think 3chips camera and this thread is not related as you can built a 3chips DSLR also.

Anyway, DSLR probably will not be replace by the mirrorless camera for the next 10 years.... But I think mirrorless system definitely will replace DSLR some day in the future as the main camera system once manufacturer able to produce an EVF or the live view as good as the optical one and improve the focusing speed to as fast as the DSLR at an affordable cost.

Have a nice day.

 

[Orangutan]

Err... I think 3chips camera and this thread is not related as you can built a 3chips DSLR also.

It seems like the trichroic beam splitter would need to be where the mirror is located in a DLSR, so it would throw off the geometry. I haven't done the calculations, so I could be wrong. Also, if it were possible someone (like Sony or Pentax) would have tried it by now.

Anyway, DSLR probably will not be replace by the mirrorless camera for the next 10 years

I would guess it'll start inside 5 years with studio-oriented models.

Have a nice day.

And you as well.

 

[silat shooters]

I think we're about to see some major improvements in Mirrorless cameras. As the iPhone forces camera manufacturers to improve their P&S and small Mirrorless cameras to offer consumers a reason to buy them, the DSLR is bound to get squeeze somewhat. But I recall 25 or so years ago, when film P&S cameras started incorporating zooms of 38-200mm, folks back then where saying the same thing. The SLR is dead, why would anyone buy one when you could get a tiny camera with a zoom range that covered 90% of most shooters needs.

Well, it seems the SLR weathered that storm. I have a Sony NEX 5N and it's a terrific little camera and far easier to carry than my Mark III. But as good as it is, the files are not as creamy. Thankfully the Mark III focuses in another stratosphere, so there are things my DLSR can do that my 5N can't. But I also have a GH2 and have played with the OM-D and both of those are very nice cameras. The GH2 especially, is the best hybrid camera to date. So the M4/3rd people have finally figured out a formula that works, and now their sensors are finally up to the game.

I think the DSLR will have to become more innovative with new technologies while retaining the optical viewfinder and continue to become more powerful with frame rates, AF, and yes meg count (it still sells cameras).

 

[paul13walnut5]

@orangutan

A mirrorless pro-level camera with a 3chip design would allow closer to 100% of incident light to be used, and without the other problems introduced by the Bayer pattern (sharpness). I.e., would you rather have a 36MP camera with a Bayer pattern, or a 24MP camera with 3 individual color sensors, and three times the light absorption? (Yes, of course I pulled those MP numbers out of the air, but it's got to be cheaper to build three lower-density sensors, without Bayer or AA filter, than a single higher-density sensor with Bayer and AA.)

Being from a video background I've often considered this very point. The Bayer grid has crap chroma resolution (but underpins it with full luma resolution, to be fair) I've looked at the foveon and fuji superCCD's etc and wondered could these, combined with a canon digic be any better?

The arguement against 3ccd cameras is the sheer bulk of the dichroic prism. It would vastly increase the depth of a camera body, once the prism, extra sensors (mounted perpendicular to lens mount) and flange depth were accomidated.

This is managable with 1/3rd, 1/2, 2/3rd sensors in large ENG bodies. Forget it with m43 or APS-C let alone full frame sensors.

If you need an example of this google the minolta RD-175.

 

[Orangutan]

The arguement against 3ccd cameras is the sheer bulk of the dichroic prism. It would vastly increase the depth of a camera body, once the prism, extra sensors (mounted perpendicular to lens mount) and flange depth were accomidated.

...

If you need an example of this google the minolta RD-175.

Interesting. It appears that a lot of the bulk came from the mirror assembly and relay optics needed to make the whole thing work. A mirrorless version likely could be smaller.

Fun speculation; we shall see...

 

[moreorless]

The DSLR market as it is today really doesnt depend on the average Joe if you ask me, the average Joe was happy with his compact and is now probabley happy with his camera phone so never bothered with a DSLR in the first place.

Go to any major vacation destination and it will blow your mind how wrong you are. There are usually as many, if not more, users with a DSLR than there are with a compact camera. And its only going to be more true as people aren't gonna supplement their iPhone with a P+S camera, they'll supplement it with a m4/3 camera or a DSLR. Now, many of them are wasting the potential of a DSLR, by putting a super-zoom on the front, never learning settings, and using it like a P+S; but without those users, DSLR's would cost 2-3x what they do.

Canon would never had considered things like a touch-screen if they didn't care what the average joe was used to.

It depends what you consider the "average joe" I spose, for me even someone using auto modes and a superzoom is likely to have alot more interest in the quality of there photos than the average man on the street.

These people probabley owned a compact camera for years before DSLR's prices dropped and quality increased. They've already made there choice as to how much they value quality and I think DSLR's have more to worry about from smaller options that can produced the same quality than they do compacts or camera phones.

 

[danski0224]

Phone cam vs P&S:

The camera built into the HTC Amaze far exceeds the P&S cameras I own: Olympus 850 SW and Canon Power Shot G2.

Unfortunately, the bluetooth feature of the HTC Amaze really sucks for my uses, so it has been replaced by a HTC Sensation, and that camera is still quite good (but it lacks the Sweep Shot function found in the Amaze that works rather well).

In my experience, the phone cams or P&S models do not come close to the functionality of a DSLR.

It took a long time for me to go back to the (D)SLR format after getting my first digital P&S camera which basically replaced all of my film shooting, but never quite matched the 35mm film camera experience. The expense of the digital part held me back along with the evolving technology. I paid something like $800 for my G2 when it was new... not exactly chump change at the time. I still do not "like" this disposable digital camera technology where one can spend over a thousand dollars on something that becomes obsolete unlike a 35mm film camera.

I know a couple of people that have those Sony digital mirrorless cameras with the OVF, and I am not impressed at this time, but that tech will catch up.

 

[aznable]

the phones camera doesnt excedes anything…except for the nokia one with a big sensor size

 

[Rocky]

The expense of the digital part held me back along with the evolving technology. I paid something like $800 for my G2 when it was new... not exactly chump change at the time. I still do not "like" this disposable digital camera technology where one can spend over a thousand dollars on something that becomes obsolete unlike a 35mm film camera.

I know a couple of people that have those Sony digital mirrorless cameras with the OVF, and I am not impressed at this time, but that tech will catch up.

Unfortunately, you bought the G2 at the "Infancy" of digital camera. I bought the G1. I spent more than $800. You can spend less than $800 to get a Rebel with a semi-decent lens now. I do not think it is fair to call the digital camera a " disposable technology". Whether you want to obsolete your digital camera is a frame of mind. I know people that are using 4 or 6 years old DSLR and P & S. They are perfectly happy. I also know people that will change camera every year because they want to be up front with the newest ( may not be better than what they have already owned). Also The amount of pictures being taken per digital camera per year is a lot more than film camera. Just imagine if you take 5000 picture a year, what will it cost you. Most people will take 5000 digital picture per year without thinking about it. Even in the film days, most camera maker will come up with new model every other years. So it is the situation for the people that will chase the newest model.

 

[Fleetie]

A few thoughts :

I have an Olympus OM2-SP (Spot/Program) SLR dating from the mid-1980s. It is black, and I was very lucky to find such a mint example on eBay in perfect working order. It is a Beautiful Thing (TM). I caress it and admire it. Owning it, and the 50mm f/1.2 lens and the 55mm f/1.2 lens, makes me Happy. It's about 27 years old and mint, as is the 50/1.2.

I am also lucky enough to own a 5D3 and a 7D. The 5D3 especially is also a Beautiful Thing. It actually makes the 7D feel plasticky! And the 7D is NOT plasticky!

But in 27 years' time, apart from the fact that I'll be dead, will the 5D3 be usable? Unfortunately, I fear not. I doubt that USB will be around in any compatible form, or indeed compatible card-readers.

On the other hand, although 35mm film, and will by then be a rare commodity indeed, and processing services more so, I expect that film SLRs will still be usable, for those who really want to use them.

The film SLR could in a sense be seen as an "heirloom". Maybe not so much for an Olympus camera, but consider a Leica M-series rangefinder film camera. They are heirlooms. The M9? No, it can't be; it won't have the necessary longevity, I fear.

I find this all rather depressing. The 5D3 and the M9 and so on are wonderful, high-quality pieces of engineering, but they seem doomed to be ephemeral.

I don't REQUIRE my 5D3 to last many years; if I'm still around and into photography and still cashed up in 4 years' time, no doubt I'll buy a successor, but that's not the point I'm making. It seems a shame that such wonderful things won't last 20, 30, 50 years and still be usable by most people.

(I'm just old and sad!)

 

[paul13walnut5]

Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 are backwards compatable, and these will be the ports used for the next 10 years, beyond that will folk deem USB 2.0 devices worthy of use (By that time canon might be making a lightfield 3D DLR and 2D is seen as old hat, who knows...)?

For example, a 10D will not work with windows 7. So folks who own and still use them (and why not? Perfectly servicable camera that can deliver good A4 prints) have to use a card reader.

Will JPEGS still be around in 20 30 years time? Will CRW files be readable?

I do know that I am finding it harder and harder to track down anything other than basic colour 200 or 400 print 35mm film these days. In the UK Jessops carry less and less, Jacobs have shut down, and a trip to the calumet store isn't always that easy (when I do make it they seem to have more reduced out of date film in a sale bin than fresh film in the fridge)

High street film developing is starting to disappear with Boots the chemists reducing their capacity by around a third.

In 20 30 years time? Again hard to tell, will film reach a level of consolidated user base where a few labs are viable (such as with super8?)

And whilst your OM2 is servicable today, what will happen if it breaks in 20 or 30 years time? Will anybody have the skills to repair the old shutter? Will there be enough parts or bodies to salvage for parts?

My 7D takes great pics, my AF works and I process my RAWs with proven NR settings. It will still take great pics in 10 years time, unless I drop it, or something burns out, but when the Rebel T7 / 1500D is in the shops and has better AF, better low noise, and 40MP and costs £300 will I be as loyal?

Maybe the answer is modular cameras ala medium format... buy a new back, buy a new AF prism etc.

 

[briansquibb]

Who can tell what will happen

Here is a picture taken on my 2001 D30 + 50 f/1.8 last week - D30 cost £35 - about $55. 3mp. 3 AF points, iso OK to 400

 

[AvTvM]

Who can tell what will happen

Here is a picture taken on my 2001 D30 + 50 f/1.8 last week - D30 cost £35 - about $55. 3mp. 3 AF points, iso OK to 400

subject does not look happy. Probably he resented being photographed with such outdated and cheapo gear. ;D

A static, brightly-lit subject like this could equally well be taken with any mirrorless system camera on the market today. That's no challenge. Try small kids or playing dogs with your D30 ... that's when it gets interesting and where you need a tracking-capable Servo-AF rather than a sorry old 3-point system.

 

[briansquibb]

Who can tell what will happen

Here is a picture taken on my 2001 D30 + 50 f/1.8 last week - D30 cost £35 - about $55. 3mp. 3 AF points, iso OK to 400

subject does not look happy. Probably he resented being photographed with such outdated and cheapo gear. ;D

A static, brightly-lit subject like this could equally well be taken with any mirrorless system camera on the market today. That's no challenge. Try small kids or playing dogs with your D30 ... that's when it gets interesting and where you need a tracking-capable Servo-AF rather than a sorry old 3-point system.

You missed the point - we are talking about using old cameras - this is already 11 years old

Well lit? Indoors under tungsten, 1/40, f/2.8, iso200. Sorry but the old 3 point AF still is accuate without AFMA. Who cares if it is mirrorless - totally irrelevant. It has servo mode although I can't vouch for its speed.

However the 2007 1DS3 tracks at least as well as any crop + 5D/5D2.

 

[AvTvM]

However the 2007 1DS3 tracks at least as well as any crop + 5D/5D2.

it better. The thing cost an arm and a leg more than any mirrorless system on the market.

Except the Leica M9, which is mirrorless but still does not count here, as it is nothing more than a anachronistic 1960's technology rangefinder with a digital sensor instead of film.


But again ... for static subjects and sufficient light, almost any camera will do.

 

[briansquibb]

However the 2007 1DS3 tracks at least as well as any crop + 5D/5D2.

it better. The thing cost an arm and a leg more than any mirrorless system on the market.

Except the Leica M9, which is mirrorless but still does not count here, as it is nothing more than a anachronistic 1960's technology rangefinder with a digital sensor instead of film.


But again ... for static subjects and sufficient light, almost any camera will do.

@AvTvM

You feekin OK m8 - thats two posts where Canon didn't get a jab. You could have said that in 2001 Canon were struggling to keep up with Nikon. Although in 2001 I suppose Nikon had nothing to match the D30 - the grandaddy to the Rebels.

Keep on trolling m8 - makes me larf

 

[wickidwombat]

I'm suprised you didnt get an old school 1Dmk1 with the 4MP kodak sensor
I sold mine for $500 a little while ago
they still take decent pics and while have tones of pattern noise still have pretty decent
iso performance up to 800
also for such an old duck still has a bad ass 45 point AF

 

[briansquibb]

I'm suprised you didnt get an old school 1Dmk1 with the 4MP kodak sensor
I sold mine for $500 a little while ago
they still take decent pics and while have tones of pattern noise still have pretty decent
iso performance up to 800
also for such an old duck still has a bad ass 45 point AF

$500 - I could have had one of those and a D800 for the price of the 5DIII

Mind you I would not have used the d800 because of the missed pictures due to the low fps