Will Mirrorless Cameras Make Our Current DSLR Equipment Obsolete?

[expatinasia]

Dylan, I remember that you had a RX-1 in your signature. Did you trade it for the 2nd 5D3 body?

Didn't he say his wife "borrowed" it off him and never returned it! ;D

As much as I appreciate the excellent IQ and fast AF on a DSLR, I have really started to consider eventually switching to compact system with large sensor and great lens.

I think that the enthusiast and consumer camera markets are going to go in similar lines as to what you highlight. I see so many consumers with bulky DSLRs and a whole assortment of lenses, to produce stuff that will likely only ever be seen on FB, and the occasional mantelpiece at your, and possibly a relative's, home. Even the 5D Mark III was heavily marketed in some markets to consumers, with billboards of still and video ads showing off how great it is. But for most consumers and enthusiasts, a M, RX1, RX100 ii and the like, are more than enough, and even better in some ways as they are so easy to use, so portable and just more fun, and I think many will start thinking the same.

 

[northbyten]

interchangable lens Sony RX1 made by Canon with good AF = gg large DSLRs

it's inevitable and honestly I look forward to it because lunging such big things is a pain

 

[M.ST]

For over 90 percent of all users mirrorless is the future.

Most people don´t need a mirror, a mechanical shutter, a big body and heavy and expensive lenses to have fun with photography.

Look at the image quality of the RX1 and the G6/GF6 AF system that beats ALL the latest DSLR AF systems in speed and hitrate.

 

[Zv]

I have moderate sized hands and find the rebel bodies / SL1 size camera to be uncomfortable to hold and use over long periods of time. I have two fingers just dangling in mid air. Walking with a 7D in hand feels secure. For working pros I think there will always be a demand for the 5D sized bodies. The 6D is an OK size too, prob the smallest I'd want to use. I'm not a fan of the 1D body though, the extra size has no clear advantage to me esp when you can stick a BG on a normal body anyway. And these days the batteries last forever. If anything I'd say those 1D bodies days are numbered.

For those who like p&s size but also like to have decent IQ the ML stuff is perfect and will fill that need. So I think we might see a decline in the lower end DSLR market once ML becomes more advanced. Also it will fill that "back up" body need too. Canon need to add more lenses to the system though. With the EF adapter and a mid sized lens you might as well just use a rebel body. No real size adv there.

 

[bycostello]

yes

 

[Hillsilly]

Mirrorless cameras are already a viable alternative for many people, but obviously not for all. Its always a balancing act - a particular camera will have features that appeal to some. Alternatively, they'll lack essential features and will be unacceptable to others (or for use in certain situations). I recently purchased a Fuji X-E1 to augment my Canon gear, and I've been quietly impressed with it. While it isn't as responsive or feature-packed as most Canon cameras, it is very enjoyable to use. I love it. My Canon cameras are getting very jealous as they sit on the shelf, gathering dust 90% of the time.

The only reason I've kept my Canon bodies is that I think of myself as an intrepid wildlife photographer that needs a weather sealed FF body with big white lenses to be taken seriously. After all, when was the last time the Wildlife Photographer of the Year was an APS-C shooter? But I suspect by the time the X-Pro3 comes out, they'll be good enough to at least consider abandoning the DSLR. I doubt I'm the only one thinking that.

 

[funkboy]

Nothing is going to obsolete my nice bright optical viewfinder & focusing screen for a long, long time.

Which is why I've taken a serious look at the Fuji X-Pro more than once...

If they can get their hybrid system up to the point where the optical experience is close to that of a 7D I might consider it in the future.

 

[bholliman]

For one, you can't really make lenses any smaller than they are, and in some cases, you also can't bring them any closer to the focal plane (think about any f/1.2 lenses - light is already striking the sensor from such an oblique angle that there are problems with the amount of light which the sensor "sees").
The overall body/lens package needs to be balanced - current "pro" bodies are "about the right size" to use with a lens like a 70-200 f/2.8.
It would also be difficult to pack all the controls you need on a pro body into anything much smaller without compromising ergonomics.

I agree. A p/s camera with tiny lenses is very different to hold than a camera with a decent sized chunk of glass.... And the "big whites" are another thing altogether. You need the size for balance, a good grip, and access to a reasonable number of controls. For example, the big difference between a 60D and a rebel is the shoulder display and controls... It makes it a far easier camera to use, plus the larger body is easier to hold(at least for me). Shrink the size too much and you loose functionality.

I agree. Unless there is a major technological breakthrough in the field of optics, lenses can't get much if any smaller. A big lens will need a good sized body to balance it.

I also agree that the currenty DSLR bodies feel right in my hands. I have a 6D and 7D and both feel good and are easy to operate. I used to own a 550D (T2i) and it was a little to small for me. I've handled an SL1 at a store and while I like the small size, I would not purchase one for me, as its just not comfortable to use for an extended period. For my wife, its a very nice size however.

I have a S100 P&S that I carry at times when an DSLR isn't an option or I just don't want to lug heavy equipment around. It takes decent pictures, but I would never be satisfied with it as a primary or only camera.

That said, none of us can predict the future and I'm sure there will be technological advances that none of us can anticipate now. So, lets see what unfolds in the world of photography equipment, I'm sure it will be an interesting ride.

 

[Mathias]

Those mirrorless cameras still consume way too much energy. I own a 1D X and it can take about 1500 shots, if I use the optical viewfinder, although one would think that moving the mirror up and down 1500 times needs quite a lot of energy. If you use Live View, it is only good for 300 shots or so (I have not tested that), even with that wuite large battery (compared to the ones of other cameras). That is a major step back. Even if battery life will grow in future, the optical viewfinder will still allow you to use your camera much longer. I would like to have a camera which allows me to go on holiday and take 5000 or 10000 photos without changing the battery.

Cellphones have the same problem. Ten years ago every cellphone worked at least two weeks with the same battery charge. Today some don't even last two days, just because of some function you really do not need to make a phone call.

 

[aj1575]

It has been said before, but I like to give my 2 cents on this too.

-There are physical limitations for the optics that make it impossible to make them smaller, without loosing some aspects of fotographie (DoF) and qualitiy (diffraction).
It does not make sense to build a small camera, and attach a big lens to it (ever seen a NEX with a 24-70 f2.8 Zeiss).

-The main problem with small cameras is, that there is not enough room for all the buttons needed for fast operation.
So ergonomics is another point why the formfactor of DSLR won't change that much. You can compare it to a laptop computer, it would be easy to make it much smaller with today electronics, but the display and the keyboard need a certain size.

I think that mirrorless (ILC/EVIL) will play a big role in the future of cameras. For many occasions they are a nice tool, small with great IQ. I also think that there will be bigger mirrorless cameras in the future, that will be positioned like a DSLR. Actually, it doesn't matter if there is a mirror or not, important is the image quality and the ergonomics.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

I would love to see the digital successor of the Canon EOS RT.
Yes, a mirror, halftransparent, silent, fast.
A friend of mine had it, and he borrowed it very often to me.

 

[AvTvM]

Yes.

Looking forward to it. My next camera will be a interchangeable-lens mirrorless camera with
* body size like a Sony RX-1
* FF sensor with resolution and IQ equal to or better Nikon D800
* on-sensor Hybrid-AF with performance equal to or better than 70D
* "Retina EVF" [350+ dpi] with ultra-fast refresh [no more visible smearing of moving objects]
* Electronic shutter, X-sync all the way to 1/8000s
* no mechanical parts whatsoever
* less expensive than a Nikon D800 today ... since it is way cheaper to make one.
8)

 

[wockawocka]

TBH, lens size isn't that big an issue. If you want F1.2 lenses then yeah, sure.

But the 85 1.8 is half the weight and size of it's L big brother. Why Canon haven't released a light series of L's is beyond me.

Same size of the 1.8 but better coatings and refined optics. I don't need 1.2L but I need the image quality.

 

[aj1575]

Yes.

Looking forward to it. My next camera will be a interchangeable-lens mirrorless camera with
* body size like a Sony RX-1
* FF sensor with resolution and IQ equal to or better Nikon D800
* on-sensor Hybrid-AF with performance equal to or better than 70D
* "Retina EVF" [350+ dpi] with ultra-fast refresh [no more visible smearing of moving objects]
* Electronic shutter, X-sync all the way to 1/8000s
* no mechanical parts whatsoever
* less expensive than a Nikon D800 today ... since it is way cheaper to make one.
8)

And what kind of Camera will you use up until then? It will take some years until everthing you like to have is ready. The main problem is the "Retina EVF", especially the ultra fast refresh/no lag. This will take a few years until it is ready. They already made huge improvements, but the 80% of the work is done in 20% of the time; the remaining 20% need 80% of the time...

 

[paul13walnut5]

I would love to see the digital successor of the Canon EOS RT.
Yes, a mirror, halftransparent, silent, fast.
A friend of mine had it, and he borrowed it very often to me.

Try Sony's range.

Canon didn't pursue the RT because they could come up with a conventional SLR that delivered 10fps. And that was probably a limitation of the film transport rather than the mirror. And it was also 13 years ago.

Do you need much faster than 10fps?

 

[paul13walnut5]

* on-sensor Hybrid-AF with performance equal to or better than 70D

And you have hands on experience obviously?

 

[Dylan777]

Dylan, I remember that you had a RX-1 in your signature. Did you trade it for the 2nd 5D3 body?

Didn't he say his wife "borrowed" it off him and never returned it! ;D

As much as I appreciate the excellent IQ and fast AF on a DSLR, I have really started to consider eventually switching to compact system with large sensor and great lens.

I think that the enthusiast and consumer camera markets are going to go in similar lines as to what you highlight. I see so many consumers with bulky DSLRs and a whole assortment of lenses, to produce stuff that will likely only ever be seen on FB, and the occasional mantelpiece at your, and possibly a relative's, home. Even the 5D Mark III was heavily marketed in some markets to consumers, with billboards of still and video ads showing off how great it is. But for most consumers and enthusiasts, a M, RX1, RX100 ii and the like, are more than enough, and even better in some ways as they are so easy to use, so portable and just more fun, and I think many will start thinking the same.

No...the wife still using it. I haven't use the RX-1 since..............I don't remember it : I doubt she would give it back.

Did sold my 16-35 II and returned 135L. This will help me getting closer to pull trigger on 300mm f2.8 IS II, 400mm f2.8 IS(version I) or 400mm f2.8 IS II

 

[moreorless]

TBH, lens size isn't that big an issue. If you want F1.2 lenses then yeah, sure.

But the 85 1.8 is half the weight and size of it's L big brother. Why Canon haven't released a light series of L's is beyond me.

Same size of the 1.8 but better coatings and refined optics. I don't need 1.2L but I need the image quality.

Its maybe not such a big issue for certain people who are happy with f/2ish primes in the wide to short tele range but how much of the market does that really make up? the majority of users still IMHO preffer to use zoom lenses with a recent range and on FF to get decent quality that means a minimum of 500g and a decent size.

I'm sure a decent sized market exists for FF mirrorless but I think the lens size issue is going to limate its appeal compared to ASPC where I do think mirrorless will gradually build market share as performance increases. Added to that of course the advanatges of an OVF are multipled on FF were as an EVF can be the same size on any format.

 

[skitron]

Soooo....this may be a dumb question....but is the new 70D mirrorless? It has phase detection imbedded in the image sensor and has EVF....so it kinda sounds like there may not be any point in it having a mirror?

My understanding is the entire purpose of the mirror in DSLR is to get a light path to the phase detection sensors which are mounted in a different location than the image sensor (in addition to VF).

 

[insanitybeard]

Soooo....this may be a dumb question....but is the new 70D mirrorless? It has phase detection imbedded in the image sensor and has EVF....so it kinda sounds like there may not be any point in it having a mirror?

My understanding is the entire purpose of the mirror in DSLR is to get a light path to the phase detection sensors which are mounted in a different location than the image sensor.

The 70D does not have an EVF. Still an optical viewfinder, pentaprism, 98% coverage, 0.95x magnification.