Are DSLR's a dying breed?

[bribrius]

i have a idea. start a thread posting photos from dslrs, mirrorless, bridge cameras, point and shoots, cellphones. if you cant figure out that a dslr took it in at LEAST SOME OF THEM, well then you know the dslr is on its way out. Let people try to guess which ones a dslr took.

 

[ConradM]

i have a idea. start a thread posting photos from dslrs, mirrorless, bridge cameras, point and shoots, cellphones. if you cant figure out that a dslr took it in at LEAST SOME OF THEM, well then you know the dslr is on its way out. Let people try to guess which ones a dslr took.

Image quality isn't really the issue. It's lens selection, controls and other features that separate DSLR's from say mirrorless cameras. But I have heard of people switching to mirrorless already for studio work.

 

[Gavjenks]

In my experience with my 2 sony alpha's, the higher the fps the faster the refresh rate if that's what you want to call it. (I mean, it would have to be)

It doesn't "have to be" (it could simply start lagging in full burst but not single shot), and also, correlation =/= causation. It's quite possible and in fact likely that they correlate simply because both things are the result of paying more for higher end expensive cameras or cameras designed for sports.

It is a great example as an alternative.

No it's not an example of an alternative, either good or bad, because it's not an alternative in the first place. It is another member of the same category.
A DSLR cannot logically be "an alternative to DSLRs"...


Nor is it just a semantic quibble. A translucent mirror camera goes against the whole philosophy of mirrorless cameras just as much as do "traditional DSLRS" (odd choice of terms since translucent mirror designs were around long before digital cameras were). It doesn't save on any bulk, and it doesn't make wide angle lenses cheaper to design, and it doesn't make easier off brand lens conversions, etc.

 

[ConradM]

In my experience with my 2 sony alpha's, the higher the fps the faster the refresh rate if that's what you want to call it. (I mean, it would have to be)

It doesn't "have to be" (it could simply start lagging in full burst but not single shot), and also, correlation =/= causation. It's quite possible and in fact likely that they correlate simply because both things are the result of paying more for higher end expensive cameras or cameras designed for sports.

It is a great example as an alternative.

No it's not an example of an alternative, either good or bad, because it's not an alternative in the first place. It is another member of the same category.
A DSLR cannot logically be "an alternative to DSLRs"...


Nor is it just a semantic quibble. A translucent mirror camera goes against the whole philosophy of mirrorless cameras just as much as do "traditional DSLRS" (odd choice of terms since translucent mirror designs were around long before digital cameras were). It doesn't save on any bulk, and it doesn't make wide angle lenses cheaper to design, and it doesn't make easier off brand lens conversions, etc.

But dollar for dollar it makes the whole system a heck of lot faster and more efficient.

 

[Derrel]

"LaserDisc is the high-definition video format of the future! This new form factor makes all other formats obsolete! Buy your LaserDisc system now, and join the wave of the future, today!"

Oh wait...all the "experts" and pundits were...wrong...

 

[runnah]

The only constant is that things will get smaller and faster.

Just like my love life.

 

[Gavjenks]

But dollar for dollar it makes the whole system a heck of lot faster and more efficient.

Okay... but even if we assume for a moment that that is universally agreed to be true, what does it have to do with a thread that is asking about mirrorless vs. DSLR cameras?
It's like having a thread called "Will mammals go extinct soon?" And answering "I think tigers might take over control from humans!"
Do you see what I mean?

 

[ConradM]

But dollar for dollar it makes the whole system a heck of lot faster and more efficient.

Okay... but even if we assume for a moment that that is universally agreed to be true, what does it have to do with a thread that is asking about mirrorless vs. DSLR cameras?
It's like having a thread called "Will mammals go extinct soon?" And answering "I think tigers might take over control from humans!"
Do you see what I mean?

You're not seeing the correlation? Sony's new a6000 is boasting the fastest af ever and that tech was developed in the alpha series.

 

[JerryLove]

But dollar for dollar it makes the whole system a heck of lot faster and more efficient.

Okay... but even if we assume for a moment that that is universally agreed to be true, what does it have to do with a thread that is asking about mirrorless vs. DSLR cameras?
It's like having a thread called "Will mammals go extinct soon?" And answering "I think tigers might take over control from humans!"
Do you see what I mean?

You're not seeing the correlation? Sony's new a6000 is boasting the fastest af ever and that tech was developed in the alpha series.

Can you tell me how this relates to all your claims on the A77? I'd hate to think you were just jumping topics until you "win" by accident rather than arguing a point.

 

[JerryLove]

In my experience with my 2 sony alpha's, the higher the fps the faster the refresh rate if that's what you want to call it. (I mean, it would have to be) But there really isn't a refresh rate with the a77... to me there is no "delay" or lag that I can notice.

So you have two Sony DSLRs and the faster / more expensive, in your guess (you've not measured I take it) has a higher screen refresh rate? That's not a terribly good dataset.

BTW everyone: refresh likely isn't the problem. Ghosting is (which has a variety of causes).

It is a great example as an alternative. The fixed translucent mirror provides a host of advantages that traditional DSLR's just can't achieve. Just the the fact that one has an evf set's it far enough apart for it to be considered an alternative. It's by no means a traditional or conventional DSLR.

OK. Why SLR-A uses better tech than SLR-B is your subject. What are the host of advantages of a fixed translucent mirror (BTW: The Canon A1 had a translucent mirror 30 years ago)?

 

[pixmedic]

With such slow fps I could actually see that - However, my a77 is rated at 12fps so it's near instant. That being said, I don't see the evf in the a77 as having any limitations, only benefits. Namely pre-chimping.

1) What does FPS have anything to do with EVF responsiveness? If anything, higher FPS would compete for processor resources and tend to slow down an EVF. Not necessarily, but if anything, that. I see no great reason why high FPS would indicate faster EVFs, other than just a correlation with more expensive cameras in general.

2) Also, the A77 is a DSLR. So it's not really a great example of an alternative camera in a thread entitled "Are DSLRs a dying breed?" ...

DSLR = "Digital Single Lens Reflex" camera.
The "reflex" is short for "reflection," i.e. the fact that the image is reflected by the mirror. Since the A77 also has a mirror and reflects the image, and is digital and has a single lens, it is a DSLR.
("Reflex" does not refer to the swinging of the mirror, as becomes clear when you consider the class of cameras popular for some decades called "TLR"s, "Twin Lens Reflex" that do not have moving mirrors either)

The A7, by comparison, does not have a mirror, and is thus not a reflex camera or a DSLR.

huh....
All this time I have been thinking that it was a Duran Duran reference....




Next your gonna tell me that the entry level Canon line of cameras arent a tribute to Billy Idol...

 

[JerryLove]

i have a idea. start a thread posting photos from dslrs, mirrorless, bridge cameras, point and shoots, cellphones. if you cant figure out that a dslr took it in at LEAST SOME OF THEM, well then you know the dslr is on its way out. Let people try to guess which ones a dslr took.

Let me put my carefully lit tripod iphone 5S shot next to my poorly lit, handheld, ISO 16000, 1/15th second shot and prove that the iPhone is a better camera than any DSLR by anecdote?

Brilliant.

Can we prove that Mirrorless bridge cameras are on the way out to phones that way?

 

[ConradM]

Okay... but even if we assume for a moment that that is universally agreed to be true, what does it have to do with a thread that is asking about mirrorless vs. DSLR cameras?
It's like having a thread called "Will mammals go extinct soon?" And answering "I think tigers might take over control from humans!"
Do you see what I mean?

You're not seeing the correlation? Sony's new a6000 is boasting the fastest af ever and that tech was developed in the alpha series.

Can you tell me how this relates to all your claims on the A77? I'd hate to think you were just jumping topics until you "win" by accident rather than arguing a point.

To sum it up, this thread is about DSLR's been phased out... In terms of the moving mirror I think Sony in general is a good example of how they are being phased out.

 

[pixmedic]

I dont know why any of you are bothering with these single picture contraptions...
mirror, no mirror...wont matter.
pretty soon taking a single picture is going to be phased out by taking stills from video.

 

[robbins.photo]

You're not seeing the correlation? Sony's new a6000 is boasting the fastest af ever and that tech was developed in the alpha series.

Can you tell me how this relates to all your claims on the A77? I'd hate to think you were just jumping topics until you "win" by accident rather than arguing a point.

To sum it up, this thread is about DSLR's been phased out... In terms of the moving mirror I think Sony in general is a good example of how they are being phased out.

Umm.. nope. Nothing against Sony mind you, I know a couple of guys that shoot them and love them. But Sony is not going to be responsible for phasing out anything, they just don't have that kind of muscle in the camera market. Their market share is far to small. Now they might contribute in displaying the new technology but lets face it, even if Sony decided tomorrow that they would never produce another DSLR again and that they would go entirely mirrorless that would not signal the end of the DSLR. They just don't have that much of the market.

If the DSLR is replaced by mirrorless it will be either Canon or Nikon that starts that ball rolling. One of the two will most likely eventually come out with a mirrorless that will use their current lens lineup that works with their current DSLR's. The other will follow suit. My guess is it will be Nikon that releases first but that is just an educated guess, but Canon won't be far behind.

But I doubt you'll see such a release this year, or most likely even next. I think both are waiting for the point where they have an EVF system that can match OVF or outperform OVF in all respects, and frankly that just isn't the case at this point. I think the first release will most likely be fairly conservative, offered as an alternative rather than a replacement for the current line up. If the market seems to accept it then you'll see the slow phasing out of the DSLR. If not the mirrorless may wind up being nothing more than a niche market. Better technology doesn't always mean consumer acceptance, there are a lot of other market forces in play that might make or break mirrorless as the eventual replacement for DSLR.