Do you think in the future Mirroless cameras will replace DSLR cameras ?

[goodguy]

This might have been asked in the past so excuse me for asking again.

I have been hearing a lot of debate and argumants in regards Mirrorless cameras replacing DSLR cameras.

What do you think ?
Is the mirrorless cameras directed at a different photographer croud ?
Will the mirrorless cameras match or surpass DSLR in the picture quality ?

Since I am relatively a novise I would hate to invest in good lenses only to find mirrorless will be kind in the future and I will need to buy their lenses too.

 

[dxqcanada1]

Hmm ... difficult predict the future is, young padawan.

It is possible that Mirrorless will replace the SLR, it is possible that both with co-exist, it is also possible that Mirrorless will be a niche market.
Some will say that there are Mirrorless cameras that match or surpass many current DSLRs.
Leica shooters will tell you about mirrorless ...

Some Mirrorless systems have adapters to fit many different DLSR lens mounts.
Pentax uses the same K-mount.

 

[Light Guru]

Will the mirrorless cameras match or surpass DSLR in the picture quality ?

What would having a mirror or not have to do with quality? Ansel Adams used a 8x10 view camera and those doesn't have mirrors.

Perhaps you do not understand why DSLR cameras have mirrors. It allows you see what the lens sees and then it flips up to let the light reach the film or digital sensor. You could actually have two cameras with the exact same digital sensor one in a DSLR body and one in a mirror less body. So again I ask you, What would having a mirror or not have to do with quality?

One of the big marketing and selling points in the mirror less cameras on the market is that they are smaller but still offer interchangeable lenses. Consumers like smaller things especially for travel. And that's great there is nothing wring with that.

Most professional and advanced photographers prefer a larger body style like a DSLR because the larger body allows for all the important controls to have physical buttons that can control them. Having to go in to a menu system to change ISO, shutter speed or aperture would often mean missing the shot. A good photographer will know their camera better then the back of their hand and would be able to adjust all the important settings without looking. The this reason I do not see pro cameras loosing the larger form factor.

That said I see no reason why larger pro camera body's could not also benifit in some ways from a mirror less system. Landscape photographers for example often use a feature called mirror lockup to repent the sensor from being shaken by the mirror movement thus insuring a sharp image. A mirror less camera would have no need for the mirror lock up feature.

Once DSLR style cameras start using mirror less just remember to not call them DSLRs as the R stands for reflex and with no mirror system there Weill be no mirror reflexion.

 

[cgipson1]

WOW... this topic again... amazing!

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/mirrorless-cameras/307433-entry-level-dslrs-dead-water.html

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...dslr-i-had-ask-its-all-i-seem-hear-about.html

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rless-cameras-dslrs-will-become-obsolete.html

and many others....

 

[Derrel]

Some day, perhaps mirrorless cameras will become a major part of the camera market, but currently, they are not faring all that well world-wide. Camera makers need to make a solid profit, and right now, they seem to be focused on legacy systems that currently have very large and widely-distributeded installed user bases. Over the decades, the camera makers have occasionally tried to create what I call, "The Next Big Thing", in an effort to sell more products. The problem now is that smart phones have tremendously impacted the camera business on the lower end, and have reduced net demand for all conventional cameras. I honestly think that additional advancements in smarty phones and their camera features and functions and capabilities might mean that small,light, mirrorless cameras will be...found in the smartphones of the future...

Multi-function electronic devices seem quite desirable these days...as I understand it, MANY younger people actually prefer a multi-function device to a single- or limited-function device. With that in mind, I think that it's very possible that the small,light, compact mirrorless camera market might never come to the kind of development level that the 35mm and digital SLR type camera systems were allowed to go through.

In a simple manner of speaking, a smart phone camera is also a "mirrorless camera"...some camera types have almost totally died off: the twin lens reflex for example, or the high-end rangefinder were at one time VERY popular with hundreds of makes and models made in the 1930's,1940's, and 1950's...but today...dinosaur-like. Same with the APS-C film format systems... DEAD, dead, dead, dead.Instant film systems...now pretty much dead-ended. 35mm point and shoots?? Once hugely popular, but now??? Mostly not made, and selling for $4-$6 at Goodwill for former $189-$259 Olympuses and Pentaxes and Nikons. And yet--the old swing'in mirror, REFLEX-concept camera introduced wayyyy back in the 1880's by Graflex and others??? Huh....still being refined...still being made....still being lusted after...

 

[goodguy]

Will the mirrorless cameras match or surpass DSLR in the picture quality ?

What would having a mirror or not have to do with quality? Ansel Adams used a 8x10 view camera and those doesn't have mirrors.

Perhaps you do not understand why DSLR cameras have mirrors. It allows you see what the lens sees and then it flips up to let the light reach the film or digital sensor. You could actually have two cameras with the exact same digital sensor one in a DSLR body and one in a mirror less body. So again I ask you, What would having a mirror or not have to do with quality?

One of the big marketing and selling points in the mirror less cameras on the market is that they are smaller but still offer interchangeable lenses. Consumers like smaller things especially for travel. And that's great there is nothing wring with that.

Most professional and advanced photographers prefer a larger body style like a DSLR because the larger body allows for all the important controls to have physical buttons that can control them. Having to go in to a menu system to change ISO, shutter speed or aperture would often mean missing the shot. A good photographer will know their camera better then the back of their hand and would be able to adjust all the important settings without looking. The this reason I do not see pro cameras loosing the larger form factor.

That said I see no reason why larger pro camera body's could not also benifit in some ways from a mirror less system. Landscape photographers for example often use a feature called mirror lockup to repent the sensor from being shaken by the mirror movement thus insuring a sharp image. A mirror less camera would have no need for the mirror lock up feature.

Once DSLR style cameras start using mirror less just remember to not call them DSLRs as the R stands for reflex and with no mirror system there Weill be no mirror reflexion.

Thats very comforting to hear, thank you for sharing this with me!
I think your argumant makes good sense and sounds very logical.

 

[JClishe]

The pro-sized bodies of today's DSLR's will always exist. The technology inside them will always evolve.

 

[KmH]

DSLR cameras have some inherent technical imitations.

Mirrorless cameras also have some inherent technical imitations.

Which inherent technical imitations are you willing to put up with?

 

[Overread19 7]

Also don't forget that its not just a tech game, its also a marketing game. The DSLR has decades of marketing behind its name and concept, for the unwashed masses of consumers its still "the pro camera" even if its entry level in the DSLR scales. That is something I suspect many camera developers will be unwilling to give up with in marketing terms, chances are DSLR might become a name more than an acronym in the future as they might drop the mirror system. That said the mirror system still has its advantages and alternative options can't yet beat it.


Also from what I can see mirrorless is almost sitting side by side with the DSLR - many who pay for mirrorless that I know are DSLR shooters wanting a small compact camera, but unwilling to really use a point and shoot or bridge camera.

 

[kundalini]

....... Also from what I can see mirrorless is almost sitting side by side with the DSLR - many who pay for mirrorless that I know are DSLR shooters wanting a small compact camera, but unwilling to really use a point and shoot or bridge camera.

Yes!

The current industry for m4/3 is still in its toddler stage. It has begun to walk and is gaining momentum. I see a bright future ahead.

 

[BrianV]

If manufacturers come out with a global shutter (all-electronic) that preserve full-dynamic range, and come up with an electronic viewfinder that has as much resolution as an optical finder without time-lag, then the DSLR will lose it's advantage over mirrorless. Today, u43 format detectors lose 10dB of dynamic range used in global shutter mode vs the same detector used with a mechanical shutter. So there is a ways to go. 20 years ago the question was will digital cameras ever replace film cameras.

I have not bought a new DSLR since the D1x. I bought an Olympus EP2 and had it converted to full-spectrum. That suits my needs in the Lab. For personal use, Rangefinders. Defined in this forum as "Mirrorless".

 

[Derrel]

I have not bought a new DSLR since the D1x.

Wow...ancient technology Brian...things have come a looooooooooong ways in d-slr land since the D1x. Not sure what your needs or wishes are for a camera, or if you even have any need for an F-mount body, but I must say the newer Nikon cameras now have such incredible scene dynamic range capture potential, and utterly astounding post-exposure recovery capability in software that, to me at least is so amazing that the last two generations of sensors in Nikon bodies represents a simply astounding, thrilling, unexpected level of flexibility. Coming from the Nikon D2x and Canon 5D classic, the "new Nikon" is a simply HUGE leap in terms of exposure and DR and resolution.

 

[gsgary]

Wow...ancient technology Brian...things have come a looooooooooong ways in d-slr land since the D1x. Not sure what your needs or wishes are for a camera, or if you even have any need for an F-mount body, but I must say the newer Nikon cameras now have such incredible scene dynamic range capture potential, and utterly astounding post-exposure recovery capability in software that, to me at least is so amazing that the last two generations of sensors in Nikon bodies represents a simply astounding, thrilling, unexpected level of flexibility. Coming from the Nikon D2x and Canon 5D classic, the "new Nikon" is a simply HUGE leap in terms of exposure and DR and resolution.

Why would he want a new Nikon digital when he has M9 and Monochrom

 

[BrianV]

Nikon lost me as a customer when they started encrypting data in the .nef files and hiding behind the Digital Millenium Copyright act. That was with the D2x. The agreement with Adobe is still full of weasel words from Nikon. The D1x is my third Nikon DSLR, after the E3 of 1997 and the D1. I still use my Film Nikons, range from the Nikon M to the Nikon F3AF. I use Nikkor lenses with the Leica's.

For use in the lab, technical documentation, I'll still use the E3 with the SB-29 and 70~180 Micro-Zoom-Nikkor. The E3 is basically a Nikon F4 with relay optics to acheive full-frame digital. Maybe 100 were made. I use the Olympus EP2 for Infrared. My first Digital IR camera was over $12K, a DCS200 bought in 1993- a Nikon N8008s with 1.6MPixel Kodak back. It still works.

 

[usayit]

If manufacturers come out with a global shutter (all-electronic) that preserve full-dynamic range, and come up with an electronic viewfinder that has as much resolution as an optical finder without time-lag, then the DSLR will lose it's advantage over mirrorless. Today, u43 format detectors lose 10dB of dynamic range used in global shutter mode vs the same detector used with a mechanical shutter. So there is a ways to go. 20 years ago the question was will digital cameras ever replace film cameras.

Agreed.. but I will add improvements to CDAF (or integration of PDAF) that allows tracking of subjects in motion as well as current DSLRs. The Olympus EVFs are very close to being just as good as Pentamirrors (maybe not as good as Prisms) but with some distinct advantages.

WOW... this topic again... amazing!

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/mirrorless-cameras/307433-entry-level-dslrs-dead-water.html

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...dslr-i-had-ask-its-all-i-seem-hear-about.html

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rless-cameras-dslrs-will-become-obsolete.html

and many others....

A while back.... a few of us (Me included) had a long "debate" about the viability of mirrorless and specifically the micro 4/3. Many eluded that it simply would be a fad that fades.... very quickly. All these threads regarding mirror-less versus DSLRs as well as entrance of Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Sony, etc.. into the mix seems to be a bigger indicator of future direction than any. ha!