Will Mirrorless Cameras Make Our Current DSLR Equipment Obsolete?

[mbworldz]

I was talking to one of my friend last night and ask him is he is going get the Mark III. He said "It forgoes the SLR system that is outdated which allows for a much more compact body. Imagine having the functionality and image quality of a 5D mark III but with the size and weight of a compact point n shoot. "

That might be true in the future but I don't think mirrorless will replace our DSLR. Can you imagine we (professional wedding.....etc photographers all carrying a tiny small camera for the photo shoot LOL.

Professionals will also always need a veiwing system that allows them to still frame up shots when doing night photographer or heavy ND filter shooting. This is more difficult on a mirrorless with current ISO ratings because the image is shown on an LCD screen where as with a standard DSLR you're seeing the image the way your eye sees it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If your hands are as big as mine, having a tiny camera where my fingers cannot push less than 3 buttons at once is not appealing. On the other hand, I would not mourn the loss of the reflex mirror.

So far, over the past 60 or more years, many attempts have been made to get rid of that mirror, none of them successful. There are both film and digital mirrorless cameras, and the digital ones are getting more capable, but so are those with mirrors. It will take a while longer before we see a mirrorless camera that is the best available camera.
Two main things need to happen.
1. A viewfinder for mirrorless that's equivalent to a optical one, and so far we are 50% there. Images of moving objects still smear in even the best ones, but resolution is getting pretty good.
2. Autofocus that is as fast as phase detect, and we might be 50% of the way. (tiny sensor cameras have fast AF because the lens only has two or three positions to move to). This is also improving every year.

 

[m]

According to that theory, Leica would be what Canon and Nikon are today and vice versa.

 

[mbworldz]

I am not a big fan of mirrorless camera. I have the Mark III and 1D Mark IV. Last time when I went to the Camera expo, I got to play with the 1DX. Stunning! I am going to sell my Mark IV and get the 1DX lol.
This is what you are using ?

If your hands are as big as mine, having a tiny camera where my fingers cannot push less than 3 buttons at once is not appealing. On the other hand, I would not mourn the loss of the reflex mirror.

So far, over the past 60 or more years, many attempts have been made to get rid of that mirror, none of them successful. There are both film and digital mirrorless cameras, and the digital ones are getting more capable, but so are those with mirrors. It will take a while longer before we see a mirrorless camera that is the best available camera.
Two main things need to happen.
1. A viewfinder for mirrorless that's equivalent to a optical one, and so far we are 50% there. Images of moving objects still smear in even the best ones, but resolution is getting pretty good.
2. Autofocus that is as fast as phase detect, and we might be 50% of the way. (tiny sensor cameras have fast AF because the lens only has two or three positions to move to). This is also improving every year.

 

[meli]

Imagine having the functionality and image quality of a 5D mark III but with the size and weight of a compact point n shoot.

That might be true in the future but I don't think mirrorless will replace our DSLR. Can you imagine we (professional wedding.....etc photographers all carrying a tiny small camera for the photo shoot LOL.

Being able to have a p&s with the capabilities of a mk3 is half the equation in many cases.
On a pro level, things like ergonomics matters alot, either device ergonomics like the grip and controls placement either system ergonomics (eg head-camera-hand-lens, imagine a 70-200 attached to an iphone and you trying to shoot a 5hr event)
Plus, by the time you could cram a mk3 into a p&s volume, imagine what you could have in a 5d volume ;D

 

[Dylan777]

Sony RX-1 is a fine sample that small body camera can produce EXCELLENT images. If Sony can release RX-2 with exchangeable lenses....DSLR could take a big hit. And if AF speed can focus as fast as DSLR...well, I will drop all my current gear and say "hello" to Sony.

Until then...I'll enjoy my 5D III + L lenses

 

[noisejammer]

I think the change is already happening - I dipped my toe in the Fuji Kool Aid and found it worked really well. The image quality is comparable with my 5D2. Sure, it's not quite as good in all respects but let's give it a generation or two and then see. If a $1k Fuji is giving a $3k Canon a run for it's money (body plus comparable lens), it starts to sound ominous.

I think the change will come in a couple of waves. First the XXD series will be compromised, then it's the XXXD. At this point, there won't be enough sales to drive development of XD cameras at a reasonable price and they will also vanish. Since it's technically possible, the question might better be phrased "Is the camera-public willing to pay DSLR prices for a high end mirrorless camera?" I think they are.

As other have commented, there are a few things to fix. The obvious ones are build quality and robustness (this could be greatly improved), user interface (this has been improved), battery life (difficult if the camera's to remain compact), focus speed (already solved - see the X100s or OM-D), larger buffers (easy to fix), faster storage (easy but expensive), frame rate (processor dependent but maybe).

If pressed for a timeline, I'd guess the last generation of high end DSLR's will appear around five years from now. This is depressing - I have a small fortune tied up in glass.

 

[GmwDarkroom]

Very much depends on what you want to do. I could see that for casual or landscape. Not sports or wildlife.

For that matter, here's a simple test: any of the 70-200 lenses -- the lightest of which is 1 1/2 pounds -- and a DSLR in live view mode only. How long would or could you hold that lens out in front to view the back? Now try it with a 300mm or 100-400. Holding a camera at a steady shooting position without a tripod/monopod becomes much more difficult as well.

 

[unfocused]

It may just be the generation I am from (aging baby boomer) but I cannot imagine using a camera without a viewfinder. It just doesn't work with the way I shoot.

So, I agree with Mt. Spokane that until digital viewfinders are as good or better than traditional optical viewfinders, I don't see mirrorless replacing DSLRs. I also wonder what the point might be. Reliable, simple designs usually trump more complicated designs. It seems like a simple mechanical mirror has been pretty reliable and a compelling case would need to be made to replace it with electronics.

I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm just suggesting that it's hard to predict what direction future technology will take us. A more light efficient translucent mirror for example? DSLRs in a smaller form factor than the Canon SL1?

Right now, Fuji seems to be doing the most interesting things with mirrorless and they could be showing the path to the future. I wouldn't mind a Canon brand X-Pro Style body that uses the existing Canon lens lineup, but that wouldn't fit the small form factor that some prefer.

Finally, I wonder if lens design may be the biggest limiting factor. If the goal of a mirrorless body is to reduce the bulk, it doesn't seem to save much by the time you mount a decent zoom on the front.

 

[Don Haines]

If your hands are as big as mine, having a tiny camera where my fingers cannot push less than 3 buttons at once is not appealing. On the other hand, I would not mourn the loss of the reflex mirror.

So far, over the past 60 or more years, many attempts have been made to get rid of that mirror, none of them successful. There are both film and digital mirrorless cameras, and the digital ones are getting more capable, but so are those with mirrors. It will take a while longer before we see a mirrorless camera that is the best available camera.
Two main things need to happen.
1. A viewfinder for mirrorless that's equivalent to a optical one, and so far we are 50% there. Images of moving objects still smear in even the best ones, but resolution is getting pretty good.
2. Autofocus that is as fast as phase detect, and we might be 50% of the way. (tiny sensor cameras have fast AF because the lens only has two or three positions to move to). This is also improving every year.

100% agreement from me. The form factor of a DSLR with the eyepiece viewer (optical or digital) is hard to beat for following objects or stability. A good solid stance and proper hand/arm position gets more and more important as lenses get bigger.

We might be a bit closer than 50% of the way there, but we are most definitely not there yet... At least on the first point. It will be interesting to see how fast the new live-view focus is, plus it works at F11!

 

[pharp]

Of course - the only question is when and what it'll look like. Videographers somehow manage without an OVF - even those that do sports and wildlife. I picked up an OM-D some time ago and while I wouldn't mind it being a little larger, it handles like a regular DSLR - the eye level EVF is very good, not OVF good in bright light, but on the other hand, the EVF's auto brightness control (while a little noisy) really shines in low light situations - quite a bit better than an OVF in my opinion, especially for macro. I also love the MF assist - just touch the focus ring and the EVF is magnified 5X - really helps nail the focus - absolutely wonderful feature and something that really isn't possible (practical) with an OVF.

Canon is purportedly working on an M with eye level EVF - for many situations, I can see many folks picking up a mirrorless - lens for lens the M's are quite a bit smaller - compare the EF-S 10-22 with the new EF-M 11-22 - cargo pocketable

 

[Random Orbits]

Mirrorless will eventually replace DSLRs but the lenses are obstacle. It'll take a long time to replace all the EF lenses with mirrorless variants. I can see a half-way there product: a mirrorless camera with the same external dimensions (and flange distance) as a DSLR. Gone will be the mirror and phase detect array to be replaced by high FPS sensor, and the pentaprism replaced by an EVF. That will give sports shooters an edge over existing offerings.

For a FF mirrorless design, fast primes and quality zooms will always be larger than the camera could be, which means a FF mirrorless will never be pocketable for significant segments of the DSLR user base. Larger sensors will always have advantages over smaller sensors. If the sensors improve such that smaller sensors are good enough for indoors/sports/dim settings, then FF may go the way of large and medium formats -- niche products. Until then, I'll choose the FF DSLR and lenses for its better IQ.

 

[moreorless]

I was talking to one of my friend last night and ask him is he is going get the Mark III. He said "It forgoes the SLR system that is outdated which allows for a much more compact body. Imagine having the functionality and image quality of a 5D mark III but with the size and weight of a compact point n shoot. "

If he wants the same coverage of focal length and aperture then this is likely physically impossible.

As has been said the other side of the debate is that a lot of people actually like the size of current DSLR's, look at something like the GH3 and its clearly much larger than it needs to be.

I'd add as well that to me there doesn't seem to against potentially going the Fuji route with DSLR's and having a viewfinder that can switch between an OVF and an EVF to potentially get the best of both, I won't be shocked if we see this from Canon in the future given the amount of focus there putting on video.

 

[tcmatthews]

Eventual but by then our Current DSLR Equipment (camera bodies) will already be Obsolete. Lens will likely be usable on what ever mirrorless replaces them. For Sony that is Fy2014 all upcoming cameras both A and E mount will be mirrorless. That includes a full frame mirrorless Amount camera. My nex6 is fantastic with Canon Fd lens.

I think that there will always be a need for select optical viewfinders (at least until EVF are as large, bright and fast as OVF). The question is will there be consumer models with this feature.

Personally I am hoping someone will develop a really good SLR hybrid viewfinder. With a translucent mirror transmitting to both Optical information form the mirror. (It would be dimmer like a penta-mirror instead of a penta-prism camera) Then overlay information in the form of the EVF over the optical image such as focus peeking histogram ect in the viewfinder. It could be made selectable, EFV overlay off, mirror up full EFV or hybrid.

Lets face it a hybrid Optical EFV would be awesome. It would have all of the benefits of a EFV with out the drawbacks.

Do not assume that mirrorless means small. Large telephoto lenses will likely need larger camera bodies or a mount system for the camera lens cap.

 

[Don Haines]

And one of the advantages of going mirror less is no more need for AFMA. I, for one, will not miss having to calibrate lenses...... And I can certainly live with F11 autofocus.

 

[gmrza]

I was talking to one of my friend last night and ask him is he is going get the Mark III. He said "It forgoes the SLR system that is outdated which allows for a much more compact body. Imagine having the functionality and image quality of a 5D mark III but with the size and weight of a compact point n shoot. "

If he wants the same coverage of focal length and aperture then this is likely physically impossible.

As has been said the other side of the debate is that a lot of people actually like the size of current DSLR's, look at something like the GH3 and its clearly much larger than it needs to be.

I'd add as well that to me there doesn't seem to against potentially going the Fuji route with DSLR's and having a viewfinder that can switch between an OVF and an EVF to potentially get the best of both, I won't be shocked if we see this from Canon in the future given the amount of focus there putting on video.

To clarify this point a bit:
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.

 

[Etienne]

I'm not concerned. As long as mirrorless performs as well as, or better than SLR's, that fine. And I like the size of the 5DIII.

Ergonomics are not likely to change much for pro bodies, and Canon is not likely to abandon it's huge selection of high end EF lenses, so even if 1D / 5D lines go mirrorless, they'll still take all of my lenses.

By all means make the 5DIV or 5DV mirrorless, as long as it performs better than the 5DIII.

 

[Don Haines]

I was talking to one of my friend last night and ask him is he is going get the Mark III. He said "It forgoes the SLR system that is outdated which allows for a much more compact body. Imagine having the functionality and image quality of a 5D mark III but with the size and weight of a compact point n shoot. "

If he wants the same coverage of focal length and aperture then this is likely physically impossible.

As has been said the other side of the debate is that a lot of people actually like the size of current DSLR's, look at something like the GH3 and its clearly much larger than it needs to be.

I'd add as well that to me there doesn't seem to against potentially going the Fuji route with DSLR's and having a viewfinder that can switch between an OVF and an EVF to potentially get the best of both, I won't be shocked if we see this from Canon in the future given the amount of focus there putting on video.

To clarify this point a bit:
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.

If you went mirrorless, you could shrink the distance to the sensor, but you would need to redesign all the lenses and in the end, the space savings on a lens, particularly longer lenses, would be negligible.... Seems like too much trouble for too little gain.

 

[Phenix205]

Sony RX-1 is a fine sample that small body camera can produce EXCELLENT images. If Sony can release RX-2 with exchangeable lenses....DSLR could take a big hit. And if AF speed can focus as fast as DSLR...well, I will drop all my current gear and say "hello" to Sony.

Until then...I'll enjoy my 5D III + L lenses

Dylan, I remember that you had a RX-1 in your signature. Did you trade it for the 2nd 5D3 body? Any feedback on the Rx-1? In a recent overseas trip with my family (I have two young kids), I found the little S100 recorded far more memorable moments than my 5D3 + 24-70II, simply because I pretty much had the S100 on my belt all the time. 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.

 

[Strobe the globe]

I think professional photographers would not mind having a much smaller camera to carry around. As for the button size - I'm sure Canon would be able to produce an ergonomic hand grip and easy to use buttons (they are very good at this).

For me, having a true-to-life viewfinder would be the main issue.

Either way, I am sure Canon would make current equipment at least semi-compatable with any new designs.