Will Mirrorless Kill the DSLR? (I had to ask, as it's all I seem to hear about!)

[Nikon_Josh]

I love the DSLR and find it an incredible photographic tool in many aspects... all I keep reading at the moment though is how the Sony NEX 5n will kill the DSLR etc..

I will eventually invest in mirrorless myself to supplement my DSLR as I feel they are great tech, but I feel the DSLR is still a true photographic tool and I would be saddened if mirrorless does indeed kill it!

Your views on this?

I know this has most likely been asked before, but it seems right now this is becoming the biggest debate in photographic equipment, especially as the Japanses are buying them like they are going out of fashion... it also feels rather strange to have invested so much in my DSLR system over the last year (New D90, 4 lens purchases= quite alot of my wages), to be told by internet analysts that my gear will become obsolete very soon. I'm sure Derrel will have something 'good' to add here.

 

[dots]

Which internet analysts are telling you that your DSLR gear will become obsolete? When you say 'mirrorless' do you mean the fashion-cult for dinky cameras..or do you mean a Nikon D6x without a mirror?

 

[JAC526]

I'm sure someone asked the same question about film and digital....

How'd that turn out?

 

[usayit]

* Not in the near future. Contrast AF has a bit ways to go for moving objects.
* Possibly way down the road.
* Mirrorless is good enough for professional videographers....

Keep an open mind....

Film guys said the same with digital
MF guys said the same for when 35mm started to take on market.



Think of it this way.... Mirror mechanism in DSLRs where used to give the photographer a TTL view since we couldn't "see" what was projected on the film plane... pretty ingenious actually. The mechanism itself may be obsolete because we now can display what the film plan errr.. sensor sees in real time.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Which internet analysts are telling you that your DSLR gear will become obsolete? When you say 'mirrorless' do you mean the fashion-cult for dinky cameras..or do you mean a Nikon D6x without a mirror?

It's just the general reviews I seem to be seeing for the new Sony NEX line. I understand this could well be internet hype, but am curious as it seems to be such a hot topic, I am curious to know what everyone on here is thinking and feeling about this new trail of innovation.. When I say Mirrorless, I mean the M43's and... especially the Sony NEX's that seem to be a match for DSLR IQ.

 

[dots]

When I say Mirrorless, I mean the M43's and... especially the Sony NEX's that seem to be a match for DSLR IQ.

Yes..i think it's a possibility that 'consumer' style DSLRs will somehow converge with mirrorless. But NEX's use of 23x15mm sensors is not the same thing IMO as M43. It's a different format.

Aren't Sony also working on this transparent mirror thing? Which is cheaper (or more profitable) to implement and market? HiQ live-view or mirrors that don't move?

 

[Nikon_Josh]

When I say Mirrorless, I mean the M43's and... especially the Sony NEX's that seem to be a match for DSLR IQ.

Yes..i think it's a possibility that 'consumer' style DSLRs will somehow converge with mirrorless. But NEX's use of 23x15mm sensors is not the same thing IMO as M43. It's a different format.

Aren't Sony also working on this transparent mirror thing? Which is cheaper (or more profitable) to implement and market? HiQ live-view or mirrors that don't move?

They are yes, the SLT's are interesting concepts aswell.

 

[usayit]

They are yes, the SLT's are interesting concepts aswell.

Not really a new concept...

Canon Camera Museum | Camera Hall - Film Cameras

There's also a canon pellix SLR from the 60s or 50s time period.

Pellicle mirror cameras have been in the market in years past. The issue is generally loss of light to the film plane.

 

[Derrel]

Well, OF COURSE mirrorless will kill the d-slr. All we need to do is to go back and look at instances where "better" technology killed off older technology that had fewer features. For example, painting died when photography was invented. In photography, glass plates were eventually killed off by sheet film, and then later roll film. Of course, these were the "early-stage" developments. Mirrorless cameras, of the "new" style being made by Panasonic and Nikon and Olympus and Sony--well, these are "new, modern-era" improvements, from the period roughly 100 years into the development of the "hand-holdable, small camera." SO, more-modern technology advances are where we ought to look for comparison.

So...again...let's look at how "better technology" has absolutely killed off older technology with fewer features. Radio was hurt pretty badly by talking motion pictures, especially at the 3 cent and 5 cent admission price points of the late 1920's and early 1930's. Motion pictures were killed off and died when television came into being. Vinyl records and tapes were killed when disc-style recording became popular: music on vinyl records and tapes was replaced by music on DVD discs. Motion pictures on Beta and VHS tapes were replaced by motion pictures on DVD discs. Floppy discs were replaced by CD-ROM drives, and later DVD drives. As you know, these new technology adoptions took place overnight (meaning within one month of the new hitting the market). [not really; both grafs above are sacasm!!!]

It's difficult in the camera market to go against the grain...looking back, numerous formats have been developed, then died out. AMong them, just a few: 117,127,110,disc format,828,620,APS-C, SuperSide,half-frame 35mm, as well as others. As far as "types" of cameras, there have been legions of camera types that have had a brief run, then been replaced or discarded...the 35mm rangefinder, the 35mm fixed-lens viewfinder, the twin lens reflex, the press camera, the view camera, the 35mm AF compact with one lens focal lengthm, the 2-FL 35mm compact, the 35mm super-zoom camera, the 126 Instamatic-type camera, the 110-Instamatic, the 110 reflex, as well as Polaroid's first large, bellows-style folders, clear on up to Polaroid's SX-70 SLR models. KODAK even had a bevy of instant-film/instant print cameras. At some point in history, most of the above camera types were "popular".

The camera industry always, always has tried to find "the next new big thing", and once they do, they try and sell the chit out of it.
Some notable successes were the automated 35mm SLR with auto-winder, for example the Canon AE-1: SO ADVANCED IT'S SIMPLE.

After a decade, the camera makers went to the 35mm autofocus cameras, first with one lens length, then two, and then the "35mm superzoom", as exemplified by the Pentax IQ Zoom series of cameras. Now that the d-slr market is matured, the camera companies will look for the next, new, big thing.

 

[KmH]

In doubt mirrorless will kill the DSLR in your lifetime.
Investigate the Drawbacks to MILC.

 

[quiddity]

yes

 

[investmenttechnology]

does anyone know if the newly announced Nikon 1 cameras can use Nikkor FX lenses?

 

[clanthar]

Hopefully.

The mirror in an SLR does some really good and important things and until we can get those things done adequately in a more efficient and effective manner the mirror has to stay. But the mirror also does some really bad things and as soon as we can dump it and maintain functionality so much the better.

The mirror cage and mirror lift mechanism in an SLR is very complicated mechanics. It causes an EVIL delay. When you press what is miss-named the shutter release on your camera you're really releasing the mirror. It should be called the mirror release. When the mirror finally lifts out of the way it closes a switch that releases the shutter some time after you intended. It's a short delay but many photographers have had reason to curse it.

The mirror requires clearance to lift out of the way. That clearance forces a radical redesign of all short focal length lenses such that their performance is compromised. In other words, without the mirror your wide angle lenses could be as good as the wide angle lenses on a rangefinder.

To get the mirror out of the way fast enough to make that delay as short as possible it has to be moved with considerable force. Then the force has to be dampened just before the mirror hits the top of the camera. To make this action vibration free requires too long of a delay. The rock and hard place here is simple: No vibration from mirror shock and too long a delay or shorter delay and mirror shock vibration.

When I switched from film to a DSLR I sold this mirrorless camera system:

Sure would be nice to go back to a mirrorless camera system. I'll keep hoping.

Joe

 

[dxqcanada2 1]

Kill is such a harsh word ... technology transitions to something different and most of the time an improvement over what we used before ... but mostly is changes the way we do things.

As others have brought up, this is something that continuously occurs.
Some here cannot understand why we used to shoot with roll film, or even sheet film ... why we bring up the old days of cameras with bellows ... heck, I am still trying to like my digital camera ... and don't even know what those things are ... so those new photographers in the future may wonder why we bothered with having a mirror/optical viewfinder that doesn't even show you what your really taking a picture of.

 

[Markw]

I think, eventually, something like a mirrorless camera will, indeed, replace the DSLR. I don't think it will be that clear-cut, though. I think the mirrorless-like technology will be implemented in a DSLR-like body. I think they will remain the size they are now, or just slightly smaller, and that they will implement much more technology into the transition before any major DSLR camera-maker will implement the technology. What will this additional technology be? I have no clue. But I can't see them just transitioning directly from DSLR to Mirrorless. But, the invention of mirrorless technology will definitely give way to the future of photography equipment. Whether it's an improved version of the pellicle mirror, or the EVF (good lord, I hope not.), one of these technologies will be implemented into DSLRs, whenever any company are on stable enough ground, and have the other technological advances to boot, to take the risk (Sony will probably be the first). It'll be fun watching. But I would never switch from a DSLR to a mirrorless, EVF-driven "DSLR" just because of the EVF. I don't like them at all.

Mark