This is a logical, well-reasoned post that deserves some reasonable responses
K said:
Mirrorless is the future.
Possibly, but possibly not. However, I'd not going to let this questionable statement derail the conversation.
K said:
Mirrorless, even the Sony A9, is still in its infancy. Although, the A9 finally makes a few key advancements that brings mirrorless to the table for the first time, barely. Overall, mirrorless needs many generations before it is viable enough to displace DSLR in a serious way.
There are still more cons than pros to mirrorless, regardless of how unique and awesome certain features are (such as the viewfinders)... Mirrorless take over will be slow - because mirrorless ONLY features must prove to be of greater worth. This is a tough, slow sell...
...some people do not want a smaller camera. They actually want a physically larger camera that is comfortable to hold all day, that fits the hand...
...Tell me how your hand feels after that trying to hold onto the point-and-shoot/travel style body of the current mirrorless cameras. Yeah, and you'll need about 7 batteries too.
All correct.
K said:
I would like to see a future where the pro 35mm world has larger mirrorless camera bodies that accepts "sensor backs" like the medium format cameras do but of course on a smaller scale...
...This is extremely unlikely.
That's an understatement. Sensors and bodies are so closely intergrated that I doubt it would be possible, practical or even desirable to separate the two.
K said:
...the only revolutionary change will be to pull stills from video. Mirrorless that reaches 20+ FPS is just about in that realm.
Lots of people fantasize about this, but they don't understand stills or video. To be smooth, video relies on the intentional blurring of one image into another. Still capture requires each frame to be sharp. As one who shoots a lot of sports, I could never use a video frame capture because it would be too blurry. If I were shooting video, a shutter speed of 1/800th of a second to stop action is going to mean jerky video.
K said:
...Or, 35mm just dies off entirely and pros stick with medium format, whose prices will come down.
Not bloody likely. All of the progress being made is toward smaller sensors with greater resolution. Medium format is a tiny niche market and is likely to get even tinier, as full-frame cameras approach 100+ megapixels (which really isn't necessary for anything other than pixel-peeping anyway. Today's cameras are more than capable of producing billboard sized images (I've done so with the 5D and 1DX.)
Plus, there is no way to overcome physics and medium format requires huge lenses.
Smaller, better sensors are much more likely. That's where the research dollars are going and that's where the progress is being made.
K said:
We've only seen about 10 years or so of smartphones. What will the next 10 years look like for their cameras? The innovation and evolution in their cameras has been significant and shows no sign of slowing down.
True, as I said, that's where the research dollars are going.
K said:
...Those users who want to be creative and create images that cell phones can't because physics dictates certain lenses be used for which cell phone will never be able to. How many and how big this market is could vary a lot.
True
K said:
Will be mirrorless only of course.
False, or at least no evidence to support this.
K said:
I think it depends on the industry's ability to educate and market to a whole new generation or users the value and merits of photography. They have to build the demand and interest. They have to do that by emphasizing the differences and the quality and creative potential. ...A point where it isn't economically sustainable to create these cameras any longer.
Partly correct. It does depend on the industry's ability to market to a new generation. But, I don't think it can be assumed that the market now filled by DSLRs, etc., is necessarily unsustainable. The camera industry goes in waves. In the 60s and 70s interchangeable lens cameras were all the rage. Then they hit a long, dry spell until digital arrived. Canon and Nikon survived those dry spells and it's plainly evident that Canon is positioning itself to survive the next dry spell as well.
K said:
Social media and sharing is with us for the long term. To this day, not a single dedicated camera has a decent, easy and reliable way to quickly share photos. This is a massive problem and the biggest engine driving cell phones ahead.
I've been preaching this for years. In my view, Canon, Nikon and Sony have been rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic for years. Competing on "features" while failing to provide professionals and advanced amateurs with the basic features that everyone with a smart phone already has. People on this forum like to argue over trivia like dual card slots, when the real argument ought to be why can't any manufacturer seem to produce a camera that can help a professional using a $6,000 camera get a picture uploaded to the web in the same time and with the same ease that it takes a smartphone to do the job?
