Would mirrorless will take over DSLR very soon?

[TonyUSA]

Would mirrorless will take over DSLR very soon like DSLR took over film? I was planing to buy more lenses and some pro body(1DX III) next year. Not sure if it is better to hold off and wait for Canon mirrorless pro body and lenses. Just got 400mm 2.8 III and not sure if I made the right decision since I seen somewhere that Canon 300mm 2.8 for mirrorless will coming out sometime. I am very sure that my 400mm price will go down like crazy when mirrorless taking over the market.

Thank you,

 

[ac12]

Not any time soon.
Mirrorless has a ways to go to catch up and surpass dSLR.
But this also depends on the specific shooting situations.

• At a concert, the mirrorless is SILENT. Beats all the pro dSLRs even in their "silent" mode.
• You can see and adjust exposure, BEFORE you press the shutter. This is really useful in difficult lighting situations.
• Out in the bright sun, I can see the results of the shot in the EVF, whereas the glare on the back screen of my dSLR makes it useless.

Mirrorless lags in a few areas where it still needs to catch up.

• Battery life STINKS, in comparison to a dSLR. Run time is measured in HOURS, vs days on my dSLR.
  
  • My Olympus EM1-mk1 will only run 4 HOURS, continuously on, vs. 2+ DAYS for my D7200. And if I use the 12-100/4, it drops to a painfully short 2-1/2 HOURS.
    
  • This means carrying spare batterIES (note the plural) is mandatory, especially on vacation.
    
    • On my last vacation, I brought 3 batteries, and #3 was almost empty at the end the day. That was cutting it too close. Next time I am taking FOUR batteries.
  • And on vacation, you have to bring multiple chargers, to charge all the batteries you used during the day.
    • I brought 3 batteries and 2 chargers, and had to charge in 2 shifts (1st as soon as I got to the hotel, and 2nd shift was overnight).
  • Putting the camera to sleep and powering down to save power drain becomes a mandatory SOP. But in a continuous event, that is not possible.
    
  • The mirrorless battery NEEDS to to BIGGER than a dSLR battery, to handle the extra power drain of a mirrorless camera.
    • Olympus learned that, the battery for the EM1-mk2 has 40% more capacity than the battery for the EM1-mk1.
    • The Nikon Z6 and Z7 uses the same battery as the dSLR. I do not know what the Z6 run time is, but I think Nikon should have designed the camera to use a LARGER battery.
• Viewfinder has a very slight lag, vs optical viewfinder on a dSLR.
  • This is important for fast sports, but not relevant for most other stuff.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you, ac12.

 

[dxqcanada]

The Market (consumers) drives the rate of change ... and I don't see Canon or Nikon users driving to their mirrorless cameras.
Users of other manufacturers, like Sony, Olympus, Fuji, have already driven their companies to mirrorless.
... so my guess is not soon, as CaNikon users tend to me the ones that will push it over the edge.

 

[Derrel]

I do not think the change will be rapid and sudden like it was from film to digital. But who knows. My feeling is that for action and sports the traditional digital single lens reflex will remain at the top of the heap for at least 10 more years.

 

[ronlane]

The rumor is that there will be a pro mirrorless coming out that will be in line with the 1Dx II next year. But even then the adapter that the EOS R works really well with the EF lenses.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you everyone for your input. I heard that pro body 1Dx III will be the last dslr and will go mirrorless after that but not really sure if it that true.

 

[TonyUSA]

The rumor is that there will be a pro mirrorless coming out that will be in line with the 1Dx II next year.

Oop! you beat me. After I clicked post rely I seen your posted.

 

[Dacaur]

For me, battery life is a biggest issue right now. On my DSLR I often look through the viewfinder with the camera off to save battery, something impossible to do with a mirrorless. The mirrorless m50 looked really tempting to me till I found my old lenses won't work. Yea there are adapters, but that's not a great solution imo.

 

[Overread]

Given enough time I'm sure that it will all go mirrorless at some point. The interesting thing will be if DSLRs will use that full conversion to actually put some erganomics into the design of the camera. Even today where we don't have film the camera body is still basically holding a brick up to your face and doesn't really take into account things like noses.

That said I agree with the above, the battery life isn't there yet and the viewfinder lack with mirrorless is an issue. It's not just sports, fast moving anything will create oddities like bending helicopter blades (for example). So there's still good reason that a reflective mirror beats video. But that limit is coming down all the time and with DSLRs getting more video heavy I'm sure we'll start to see them improve in leaps and bounds, esp as processor technology advances.

Mirrorless is a bit of the "new hotness" in many ways but I don't see it replacing the regular DSLR for a good while. Even if the mirrorless gets to a point where its sales beat the DSLR we are still likely talking DSLR sales into the millions; just not with the same level of insane market growth they've enjoyed in previous years. And to be honest any camera manufacturer knew that, even without mirrorless, the DSLR was eventually going to reach a saturation point in the market and dwindle. Even with the marketing and more affordable prices of today, its still a niche item - esp with mobile phones and the like eating up a good chunk of the casual market.

 

[Overread]

For me, battery life is a biggest issue right now. On my DSLR I often look through the viewfinder with the camera off to save battery, something impossible to do with a mirrorless. The mirrorless m50 looked really tempting to me till I found my old lenses won't work. Yea there are adapters, but that's not a great solution imo.

Honestly I've never done that in order to save battery life, I'd rather keep the camera on so I don't have to wait for it to power up and go through its start up. In fact the small power saving you likely get away with is likely not worth the hassle of missing shots because it wasn't ready. I'd ust bolt a battery grip onto the camera for two batteries and be pretty much save to shoot all day unless in the bitter cold (battery life diminishes)

 

[ac12]

. . . The mirrorless m50 looked really tempting to me till I found my old lenses won't work. Yea there are adapters, but that's not a great solution imo.

Same problem Nikon has with their Z cameras. Have to use the FTZ adapter to use F mount lenses, until the Z lens landscape fleshes in, which will take about 4-5 years.
Same problem Canon has with the R cameras. They have to use an EF to R adapter, to use the EF lenses, until the R lens landscape fleshes in.

The adapter is a good solution for two reasons.
One, it allows you to use the dSLR lenses on the mirrorless, while the mirrorless landscape is being fleshed in.
Two, it eases/reduces your transition cost, as you can use your dSLR lenses on the mirrorless. So you can replace dSLR lenses with mirrorless lenses gradually over time, rather than having to replace ALL the lenses AT ONCE.

Where it become a problem is if you are switching systems. Such as have dSLR brand X and get a Canon M50, and there is no adapter that will let you use your brand X lens on the M50. Then you have to buy EF lenses and the EF to M adapter, because Canon does not be the native EF-M lens that you want. Same with the Canon R and Nikon Z cameras.

If you want native Nikon or Canon mirrorless lenses, you have to be prepared to wait up to 5 years or more, until the mirrorless lens landscape is fleshed in, or the lens you want is produced.

Or, you buy into a mature system that has the native lenses.

 

[zombiesniper]

The answer in short is no not very soon.

Now for the long answer.
If we brake down the basics of the two types of cameras there really is only two differences.

1, no mirror

2, an EVF instead of an optical viewfinder.


Based on just this all that Nikon or Canon would have to do to their D5 or 1Dx is to remove the mirror and add an EVF with a the appropriate video board.

So could it be done. Yes and they have the tech to do it today.

Why don't they?
Nobody is going to sacrifice battery life and the inherent $ loss to buy this new camera when it would provide absolutely no benefit to the final product. So if they made the D6 or 1DX/M no body would buy them since mirrorless is not a selling feature to someone who cares about the final product.

Now if they were to combine the new mirrorless camera with a new sensor, better af, AND NOT CHANGE THE LENS MOUNT! They might have a chance.

This also brings up another problem. If you have $10k-$30k or more in lenses and in order to upgrade your camera body you also have to upgrade all of your lenses........why not look at other brands at this point to see what best suits your needs?
I know people will say "but they have adapters!" If I have to use an adapter then again why look at other companies and use their adapter?

 

[Jeff15]

Would mirrorless will take over DSLR very soon

YES

 

[petrochemist]

Would mirrorless will take over DSLR very soon like DSLR took over film? I was planing to buy more lenses and some pro body(1DX III) next year. Not sure if it is better to hold off and wait for Canon mirrorless pro body and lenses. Just got 400mm 2.8 III and not sure if I made the right decision since I seen somewhere that Canon 300mm 2.8 for mirrorless will coming out sometime. I am very sure that my 400mm price will go down like crazy when mirrorless taking over the market.

Thank you,

For some photographers mirrorless took over years ago.
There are some roles where mirrorless models are vastly superior to DSLRs, many roles they perform much the same, and a few roles where DSLRs are definitely superior.