Will dSLR's be sustained only by nostalgia?

[YuengLinger]

No one actually prefers OVF!? If you use a camera plus lens to stare at wildlife between photographing it, then you may well change that sweeping comment! The DSLR has passed already!? Maybe mirrorless is already better for some aspects, but the vast majority of mirrorless are behind DSLR for rapid action of wildlife.

Can you envision a workaround for prolonged observation? Some kind of hybrid viewfinder? But then a mirror would be needed right?

I think the rear panel display would be good in certain light, but definitely not bright sunlight...

 

[Optics Patent]

I'm not talking about a workaround with current products, I'm talking about future improved EVF products that meet your needs. Inevitable.

 

[unfocused]

Another core misconception here is that mirrorless development will go forward, while DSLR development will remain stationary. That's not going to happen. Companies will continue to refine and improve DSLR performance, often using the technologies developed for mirrorless, just as mirrorless will move forward often using DSLR technology.

Many of the people here in the mirrorless "camp" conveniently forget or dismiss DSLR advancements.

 

[YuengLinger]

Another core misconception here is that mirrorless development will go forward, while DSLR development will remain stationary. That's not going to happen. Companies will continue to refine and improve DSLR performance, often using the technologies developed for mirrorless, just as mirrorless will move forward often using DSLR technology.

Many of the people here in the mirrorless "camp" conveniently forget or dismiss DSLR advancements.

Do any of the current dSLR's have a histogram display available through the VF?

And could we expect a mirrorless that has an EVF that can go transparent, in other words, a hybrid? Add automatic AFMA, what could be better? Then the wildlife and surveillance photographers could use either EVF or OVF, and no more fussing with lens calibrations.

While I admire your optimism, do you really think Canon wants to maintain two lens lines, with repairs, marketing, production costs? At some point, with the ILC market the way it has been, costs, efficiency, productivity must decide. Customers might love having the choice, but can Canon afford to keep it going this way?

 

[john kriegsmann]

Can you envision a workaround for prolonged observation? Some kind of hybrid viewfinder? But then a mirror would be needed right?

I think the rear panel display would be good in certain light, but definitely not bright sunlight...

I really don't think Mirrorless will replace Canon DSLR's until they create small high quality lenses to be a good fit for these smaller bodies. The only company that has done this right is fuji, they have a full suite of high quality lens with small form factor to match their compact bodies. Putting a huge 2lb plus RF 85mm f 1.2 lens on a small R body does not give you a small compact kit. It gives you a compact camera with a large heavy lens that looks silly on the body.

 

[docsmith]

When people talk about the advantages of a mirrorless AF system I think it relates more to the accuracy of the actual focus point position. A camera that tracks its subject and consistently places the AF point on that subject might yield more keeps than one that reliably focusses on what ever single point the photographer has selected. If you manually have to keep that point in the eye of a moving person or animal, it is to be expected that there are a lot of 'not quite perfect' shots.

As Canon just showed with the 1DX III, even the most sophisticated OVF AF can't accurately tell where it has to focus in order to nail the subjects eye - while in LiveView it has that capability, and based on the spec sheet significantly outperforms the R in this regard.

So, this is the type of claim I have seen. That eye detect AF is a "game changer" in that it is tracking your AF point so you can focus more on composition, etc. But, this is what I decided to put to the test. Do I have this type of problem? The answer I have reached after a few events shooting pretty wide open is no, I do not. I am completely satisfied with the 5DIV performance.

Don't get me wrong, some day, the combination of some improvements in a mirrorless body plus the RF lens lineup will convince me it is time to jump. But it is not nostalgia that is keeping with a DSLR. It is incredibly good performance. And based on initial impressions of the 1DXIII, that DSLR performance could increase.

 

[Optics Patent]

Another core misconception here is that mirrorless development will go forward, while DSLR development will remain stationary. That's not going to happen. Companies will continue to refine and improve DSLR performance, often using the technologies developed for mirrorless, just as mirrorless will move forward often using DSLR technology.

Many of the people here in the mirrorless "camp" conveniently forget or dismiss DSLR advancements.

You are making a prediction (though you confidently frame it as what "will" happen and what's "not going to happen").

My prediction is that the refining and improving of DSLR performance is already greatly reduced, and will be a smaller and smaller share of the R&D budget. There may be some DSLR improvements that are shared with mirrorless (like sensor advanced, IBIS, eye-driven focusing) but those general advances that may benefit a few straggling DSLR offerings aren't DSLR R&D as they apply to the mirrorless line.

Since none of us has access to Canon's R&D budget, all we can look at are the new product offerings. Some final life-support tweaks for flipping mirrors, and some shared benefits of advancing the overall digital imaging technology. Plus some band-aids for dslrs like hybrid viewfinders. But flipping mirrors are on the way out, and the overly-confident and even irritable tone of the DSLR defenders suggest that deep down they (and you) can read the writing on the wall.

Time will tell. We're all just guessing and making predictions.

 

[john kriegsmann]

Canon needs to make their next R camera with external controls that match their DSLR. You can do virtually everything on a Canon 5d4 without going into menus, including setting ISO speed, drive mode, f stop and shutter speed etc. This would make it easier for Canon users to transition to mirrorless. The Canon R requires too much use of menu changes to make settings that are available externally on almost all Canon DSLR's

 

[YuengLinger]

I really don't think Mirrorless will replace Canon DSLR's until they create small high quality lenses to be a good fit for these smaller bodies. The only company that has done this right is fuji, they have a full suite of high quality lens with small form factor to match their compact bodies. Putting a huge 2lb plus RF 85mm f 1.2 lens on a small R body does not give you a small compact kit. It gives you a compact camera with a large heavy lens that looks silly on the body.

You say "looks silly..." Have you actually shot with the combo? Exquisitely balanced, imo, better ergonomically than the ef 85mm 1.2L II on the 5DIV. I've had both, and I'm keeping the R and Rf.

If somebody giggles when they see you carrying an ILC, or, GASP, a tripod, are you going to be shamed into smartphone submission? Geesh.

 

[Optics Patent]

You say "looks silly..." Have you actually shot with the combo? Exquisitely balanced, imo, better ergonomically than the ef 85mm 1.2L II on the 5DIV. I've had both, and I'm keeping the R and Rf.

I agree. I read "looks silly" as "looks non-traditional." I see no benefit to adding needless bulk and weight to the rear end of a mounted lens, as long as the grip size and display are adequately sized.

That said, my small and light RP begs for more lenses as light as the RF35, and smaller still. It loves the RF70-200. And even the 400 III!

 

[YuengLinger]

Canon needs to make their next R camera with external controls that match their DSLR. You can do virtually everything on a Canon 5d4 without going into menus, including setting ISO speed, drive mode, f stop and shutter speed etc. This would make it easier for Canon users to transition to mirrorless. The Canon R requires too much use of menu changes to make settings that are available externally on almost all Canon DSLR's

There is a little bit of a learning curve with an R, but all the essential and most typically used functions of the 5DIV can be accessed instantly with buttons and dials--while the eye remains at the EVF. All of them. Spot metering, flash exposure compensation, etc. Certainly ergonomics can be improved--on any camera--but again I'm hearing you criticize a camera you've read about. Or maybe seen on youtube?

 

[IcyBergs]

I really don't think Mirrorless will replace Canon DSLR's until they create small high quality lenses to be a good fit for these smaller bodies. The only company that has done this right is fuji, they have a full suite of high quality lens with small form factor to match their compact bodies. Putting a huge 2lb plus RF 85mm f 1.2 lens on a small R body does not give you a small compact kit. It gives you a compact camera with a large heavy lens that looks silly on the body.

You are neglecting to mention the compromise that Fuji makes to give you that small form factor....the crop sensor. If you want to shoot fast primes and zooms on a full-frame you are going to have to deal with big heavy glass.

 

[Kit.]

I was being provocative to make a point. You “prefer OVF” simply because of what you see and its comparative benefits. You don’t really care what physical elements provide those benefits.

It’s like saying “I prefer film to digital” when it used to mean that one preferred rich colors and the lack of visible pixels.

My point is that when (inevitably, and soon) EVF provides

Aren't you doing the same mistake, though? The vast majority of the modern cameras has no viewfinder at all.

Viewfinder itself is a technology, not a functionality.

 

[unfocused]

I get that people want to have clarity and be reassured that if they have moved or are moving to mirrorless that they are making the right decision. But, how is that in Canon's best interest?

Canon is not going to walk away from a huge share of their market. They are going to continue to make DSLRs that people want. They are going to continue to make R models that people want. They will use what they have learned making mirrorless cameras to improve their DSLRs and they will use what they have learned about DSLRs to improve their mirrorless cameras.

I use both. I like both. The R does some things better than a DSLR. DSLRs do some things better than the R. Would it be nice if one camera could do everything? Of course. But, there are inherent differences in the formats and as one who has been using both formats consistently, I don't know if those differences will ever be reconciled.

I fail to see why so many mirrorless users are so caught up in the idea that one format must inevitably replace the other. And, I think its just plain goofy to think that Canon has an interest in forcing one format on people over another. In fact, it makes far more sense for them to keep improving both formats so that people want to own multiple cameras.

 

[YuengLinger]

I get that people want to have clarity and be reassured that if they have moved or are moving to mirrorless that they are making the right decision. But, how is that in Canon's best interest?

Canon is not going to walk away from a huge share of their market. They are going to continue to make DSLRs that people want. They are going to continue to make R models that people want. They will use what they have learned making mirrorless cameras to improve their DSLRs and they will use what they have learned about DSLRs to improve their mirrorless cameras.

I use both. I like both. The R does some things better than a DSLR. DSLRs do some things better than the R. Would it be nice if one camera could do everything? Of course. But, there are inherent differences in the formats and as one who has been using both formats consistently, I don't know if those differences will ever be reconciled.

I fail to see why so many mirrorless users are so caught up in the idea that one format must inevitably replace the other. And, I think its just plain goofy to think that Canon has an interest in forcing one format on people over another. In fact, it makes far more sense for them to keep improving both formats so that people want to own multiple cameras.

Consolidation for financial reasons. Easier for new photographers and even seasoned ones to consistently nail exposure. Precison AF like none I've seen from any dSLR...

I'm not sure Canon can sell enough of both types to continue producing both types for more than a few years. They are the ones that will have to choose.

We'll see! My bet is we are seeing the sunset (breathtakingly beautiful with the 1DX III) of dSLR's. Canon will continue to repair them for some time, release a few more because of the existing customer base, and, gently but relentlessly, move customers to mirrorless.

[Dramatic music sounding something like the soundtrack from Shin Godzilla swells.]

 

[Optics Patent]

Canon is not going to walk away from a huge share of their market. They are going to continue to make DSLRs that people want. They are going to continue to make R models that people want. They will use what they have learned making mirrorless cameras to improve their DSLRs and they will use what they have learned about DSLRs to improve their mirrorless cameras.

Same as with the transition from film to digital. Exactly the same. This is what it looks like when one technology replaces another. They don't "walk away" and they do "continue to make" and even "improve."

 

[Hector1970]

For me anyway while battery life is still so poor DSLR's are still very relevant.
I have a few mirrorless cameras and battery life really is poor.
Progress on batteries seems to be very slow.

As of today I still prefer OVF. EVF is handy for viewing images in bright weather. It's handy for showing you the current exposure.
Other than that I don't fine EVF currently an advantage. Visually I prefer to see the image as is rather than the electronic version of it in the viewfinder.
It will continue to improve.

Silent shooting and eye focus is handy but how many times either was critical to me has been small.

I don't think mirrorless is major advance. It's not comparable to the change for film to digital.
Mirrorless doesn't impact to the image itself.
It may help to get a better focus or expose it better but that's more to make up for bad technique.

Maybe I'm a dinosaur but I'd be quite happy to keep going with DSLR's (and I'm the sort of person who likes new technology).
Not having to change batteries often seems to be a powerful positive with DSLR's for me.

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

this debate sounds like the move track star wars the new hope. Behold the might of the fully operational Death Star.

having used range finders to fixed non finder view 35 mm just a hole to like up your subject compose and shoot. slrs date back to the 50s its not going away each view finder has its place and function. you say the same thing about the files them self's how long has jpg been in existence? then Raw files etc. but jpg still limps along in all of its 8bit glory. learn the art of taking images and mastering the light less on gas.

 

[Aussie shooter]

It all depends on whether or not they can eliminate noticeable lag and eye strain in the EVF. If they can. Then DSLR will not even be sustained by nostalgia. if they can not then there will always remain a small niche group(predominantly wildlife photographers) who stick with DSLR's for practical reasons)

 

[YuengLinger]

It would be nice to have an analog film camera and a few rolls of film to record what happened after an EMP attack.