Trey Ratcliff Updates "DSLRs are a dying breed"

[toomanycars]

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2013/10/09/nikon-and-canon-failin/

What's your opinion on Trey's conclusions?
Are "DSLRs are a dying breed"?

Sony's Announcement today on two full frame mirrorless cameras.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-a7-a7r-rx10-and-fe-lenses-officially-announced/

 

[wiigirl]

 

[zackiedawg]

I think DSLRs, as with pretty much all cameras, are an evolving breed, rather than a dying breed. Sure, the physical aspects of a digital single-lens reflex camera (ie: internal mirror, penta-prism or mirror based optical viewfinder, dedicated PDAF sensors, etc) may no longer hew to the 'DSLR' moniker, I think the spirit of what a DSLR is - a large bodied, ergonomic, control-laden camera body that synchs well with large lenses, has good balance, large buffers, and long battery life - will continue in some fashion, but it just may be a new type of internal system (such as mirrorless, with on-sensor PDAF, hybrid viewfinders, etc).

I also see today's 'mirrorless' interchangeable lens cameras continuing on as a completely separate line - compact-bodied interchangeable lens cameras that spiritually carry on the old rangefinder form and purpose. Be they entry-level mirrorless APS-C, full frame, or even pro-style, cameras like the new A7 and the old NEX and M4:3 to me are like the modern day evolution of rangefinder bodies, while the new full-bodied mirrorless cameras that seem likely to be the future will carry the DSLR torch as an evolution of that type of camera. Likely we'll move away from naming camera types around some specific part or function, and start referring to them as compact interchangeables or semi-pro/pro body interchangeables...or maybe 'full bodied' ILCs.

I've been happily shooting with a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera and a DSLR for years now, and likely will continue to have both body forms in my collection - whether the future ones will be mirrored or mirrorless, APS-C or full frame, OVF or EVF, I can't say. But I'll definitely have one larger, full body with extensive control and good ergonomics for long lenses, and one more compact, rangefinder-style body for lighter weight and greater portability.

 

[havoc315]

Largely what keeps dSLRs fairly strong (even with declining sales, they are stronger than other types of cameras) is a matter of public perception. It will take a while before the public perceives a little mirrorless camera being the equivalent of a big dSLR.
Americans especially, compared to other parts of the world, really aren't technologically as aware as we like to think we are. So for a while longer, you're going to have fairly affluent buyers looking to buy a "serious camera" and falling to the assumption that they have to get a dSLR.

Then of course you will have people already invested in a system. I have about $1500 of Sony A-mount lenses (some are 20 year old Minolta lenses, a couple of Tamrons, and several Sonys). Thus, I wouldn't be anxious to "start over" with a different system. And while you can technically use the lenses with an adapter, you lose some functionality. (Sony has an adapter to keep autofocus, but you'd lose the benefit of image stabilization).

And personally, there are still things I prefer about a dSLR, namely the ergonomics, faster phase detection autofocus, and the big assortment of lenses. But I realize those things are changing quickly....
If I wasn't already invested in dSLR glass, the Sony A7 would be very very tempting.

 

[traylorc]

I'm not totally opposed to considering a mirrorless system...but I'm sticking with my DSLRs for the forseable future. Like Havoc, I am also heavily invested in my Nikon Glass. Additionally there are still situations where my DSLR is better than a mirrorless body to get the job done.

 

[havoc315]

I'm not totally opposed to considering a mirrorless system...but I'm sticking with my DSLRs for the forseable future. Like Havoc, I am also heavily invested in my Nikon Glass. Additionally there are still situations where my DSLR is better than a mirrorless body to get the job done.

Those situations though, are admittedly getting fewer and fewer. The biggest difference remains autofocus, but that gap is closing quickly.

The other "biggie" is lens availability. For example, for the new cameras, Sony is going to introduce a 70-200 f4 lens at a premium price. Why not 70-200 f2.8? Technologically, there is nothing that prevents a 70-200 2.8, except for the fact that such a lens is HUGE, and would defeat the key selling point of a "small" mirrorless system.
So I wonder ultimately, for those consumers who do use some big zoom lenses, would they prefer to have their massive lens on a tiny body, or is the balance better putting such a lens on a big dSLR body. Functionally, the cameras would perform the same way of course.

Of course, the overwhelming majority of non-professional consumers don't own 70-200 2.8 lenses..... Most just own a kit lens, maybe also a kit-type zoom. For such buyers, it's hard to see many advantages of a dSLR over a good quality mirrorless.

To me, also in danger, could be the micro 4/3 mount. If you can start putting fullframe sensors in the same-sized body... if pricing isn't astronomical, then what is the advantage of micro 4/3? Slightly smaller lenses?

 

[nbaresejr]

I am monitoring this very carefully. I am looking to move to Full Frame in the next year or so. In doing so I will only have 1 lens that i can move from my current line up to the new camera (canon 70-200L IS f/4).

I was looking to get a 6d but with this announcement I want to see how the sony stacks up in thinks like ISO and functionality. Most likely the mirrorless systems will still have some catching up to do but these my well be the wave of the future and the DSLR as we know it could be a thing of the past.

 

[havoc315]

I am monitoring this very carefully. I am looking to move to Full Frame in the next year or so. In doing so I will only have 1 lens that i can move from my current line up to the new camera (canon 70-200L IS f/4).

I was looking to get a 6d but with this announcement I want to see how the sony stacks up in thinks like ISO and functionality. Most likely the mirrorless systems will still have some catching up to do but these my well be the wave of the future and the DSLR as we know it could be a thing of the past.

To be honest, I'd expect ISO to surpass the Canon 6d, simply because Sony sensors typically surpass Canon sensors in high ISO. The Nikon D600, which uses a 24 mp Sony sensor, is higher ISO rated than the Canon 6d. Looking at APS-C sensors, the Sony NEX 6 is higher rated than the Canon t5i for ISO. (and also for dynamic range and color depth).

My only IQ concern for the Sony A7/7r, would be the short flange distance -- I wonder if it will affect corner image quality.

To me, the main advantage of a Canon 6d, would be if you prefer a larger camera body, and also the much greater availability of native lenses, especially native affordable lenses. The native full frame lenses being released for the A7 looks very very pricey.
But if you don't actively prefer a bigger body, and you only shoot with a couple of lenses anyway.... truthfully, it's hard for me to see an advantage of a traditional dSLR over the A7/7r. Time will tell, need to see some real use reviews.

 

[photo_chick]

Havoc hit the nail on the head. Public perception is everything.

The average consumer has this idea that Big DSLR=Great Photographs. And the average consumer is the one who is driving the DSLR market in the US right now. This consumer doesn't generally know the difference between SLR and SLT either. Most will go with Canon or Nikon simply because the general perception is that they are the best brands. Until companies like Pentax, Sony and Olympus put the kind of money Canon and Nikon have spent on marketing out there the big two will always be the sales leaders.

And just an aside... the D600 can't match the 6D's high ISO performance when it comes to noise and the D600 doesn't have the same range. The D600's regular range stops at 6400, expanded at 25600. The 6D's regular range stops at 25600, expanded at 102800. And that 25600 is very useable on the 6D, where as the D600 is starting to get a bit Monet like at that point especially in the shadow areas. The D600 has better DR across the board and other nice features but noise is the reason a lot of consumers step to full frame.

 

[2Tiggies]

I'm not totally opposed to considering a mirrorless system...but I'm sticking with my DSLRs for the forseable future. Like Havoc, I am also heavily invested in my Nikon Glass. Additionally there are still situations where my DSLR is better than a mirrorless body to get the job done.

I'm with you guys on this. In fact, I've just forked out for another lens in the last week, albeit an upgrade on one that has now been sold.

The reason I prefer my big heavy camera to a lighter one is the same reason I bought my first DSLR: I like a solid camera in my hands. I just don't do well with the little guys. Capabilities aside, I find them harder to hold steady, I easily forget I have one dangling on my wrist and it gets knocked against something, or even left behind and forgotten .....

If DSLR's are going to become the minority in the market, I don't expect it's going to be any time soon. Many folks are heavily invested in their camera systems with all the accessories to accompany them and the only reason to surrender their use entirely would be either if they suddenly declined in value to the extent that there were imminent risk of substantial loss or if availability for replacement parts and accessories became hard to come by. They don't just disappear overnight.

 

[HPS3]

I think the corner issue will be solved. Sony realized the problem with the Nex 7 and wide rangefinder lenses. They had the colorshift problem.

I remember back in 2012 when I was in WDW shooting with my Nex 7 and I would get crazy looks from people with DSLRs and the big camera complex. I can't wait till I get my hands on one of these maybe next year. For most people's shooting, mirrorless is all thats needed. Its also awesome for landscapes and ND filters because you can focus with the filter on.

 

[mom2rtk]

I'm with you guys on this. In fact, I've just forked out for another lens in the last week, albeit an upgrade on one that has now been sold.

The reason I prefer my big heavy camera to a lighter one is the same reason I bought my first DSLR: I like a solid camera in my hands. I just don't do well with the little guys. Capabilities aside, I find them harder to hold steady, I easily forget I have one dangling on my wrist and it gets knocked against something, or even left behind and forgotten .....

If DSLR's are going to become the minority in the market, I don't expect it's going to be any time soon. Many folks are heavily invested in their camera systems with all the accessories to accompany them and the only reason to surrender their use entirely would be either if they suddenly declined in value to the extent that there were imminent risk of substantial loss or if availability for replacement parts and accessories became hard to come by. They don't just disappear overnight.

I could have written this myself.

My unsteady hands NEED some weight to take a sharp photo. I had been considering a switch of some sort, but instead just upgraded one of my lenses as well. So I'm committed for a while.

But then I'm rarely on the cutting edge of any trend. And I can't afford to be fully invested in 2 systems right. And I prefer not to have 2 partial kits. So for right now I'll just continue on the path I'm on.

 

[PrincessInOz]

I'm happy to come back in 5 years and check the tea leaves.

Personally, I think there is room for all sorts of systems and as someone who is also heavily invested in my lens systems, I'm happy to have the 5 years to run them into the ground....so to speak.

As someone who took I took my dSLR into Antelope Canyon country and also hiked a little way down and up the Grand Canyon recently, I also expect that if circumstances allow, I may get a mirrorless camera to complement my existing range. There will be times that I will want to ditch the weight for a more lightweight option; and sacrifice a little bit on photography capability.
But I'm waiting to see what Canon will come out with, if any; rather than invest in two separate systems. For now, I'll wait and see.

 

[traylorc]

I'm with you guys on this. In fact, I've just forked out for another lens in the last week, albeit an upgrade on one that has now been sold.

The reason I prefer my big heavy camera to a lighter one is the same reason I bought my first DSLR: I like a solid camera in my hands. I just don't do well with the little guys. Capabilities aside, I find them harder to hold steady, I easily forget I have one dangling on my wrist and it gets knocked against something, or even left behind and forgotten .....

If DSLR's are going to become the minority in the market, I don't expect it's going to be any time soon. Many folks are heavily invested in their camera systems with all the accessories to accompany them and the only reason to surrender their use entirely would be either if they suddenly declined in value to the extent that there were imminent risk of substantial loss or if availability for replacement parts and accessories became hard to come by. They don't just disappear overnight.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Again...I'm not opposed to eventually making a change. But if I do I don't want to have any regrets. I do not want to settle for a limited selection of lenses, or low light performance that is not on par with what I have become accustomed to with my DSLR, or an autofocus system that is almost as good my current DSLR. When mirrorless bodies emphatically close the gap between themselves and the top DSLRs, then I have no problem considering a change in systems.

 

[havoc315]

It's only a matter of time before Canon and Nikon simply remove the mirrors from their dslrs -- whether across the board, or as an option in some models.
The Canon 70d live view AF is being heavily praised as more accurate than the mirror based AF, and only slightly slower. So the purpose of the mirror at this point is primarily to provide an optical viewfinder. Some people will always prefer an OVF but many consumers would be just as happy, or happier, with an EVF.
Removing the mirror would potentially reduce costs, allow for lighter and smaller cameras (to some degree.. If keeping the same lens system, some dimensions would need to stay the same), possibly allow faster shooting and other benefits.

 

[toomanycars]

Those situations though, are admittedly getting fewer and fewer. The biggest difference remains autofocus, but that gap is closing quickly.

The other "biggie" is lens availability. For example, for the new cameras, Sony is going to introduce a 70-200 f4 lens at a premium price. Why not 70-200 f2.8? Technologically, there is nothing that prevents a 70-200 2.8, except for the fact that such a lens is HUGE, and would defeat the key selling point of a "small" mirrorless system.
So I wonder ultimately, for those consumers who do use some big zoom lenses, would they prefer to have their massive lens on a tiny body, or is the balance better putting such a lens on a big dSLR body. Functionally, the cameras would perform the same way of course.

Of course, the overwhelming majority of non-professional consumers don't own 70-200 2.8 lenses..... Most just own a kit lens, maybe also a kit-type zoom. For such buyers, it's hard to see many advantages of a dSLR over a good quality mirrorless.

To me, also in danger, could be the micro 4/3 mount. If you can start putting fullframe sensors in the same-sized body... if pricing isn't astronomical, then what is the advantage of micro 4/3? Slightly smaller lenses?

I think you're correct about the micro 4/3 system being in danger. There's just not that much size difference between the two formats camera bodies . With the full frame sensor you're going to gain so much more specially in lowlight.

On another note I believe the changing designs in the mirrorless camera world is to convince the consumer into the believe that it is a traditional DSLR. A quick look at the new models released by Panasonic, Sony and Olympus that include an integrated electronic viewfinder have a far more conventional familiar shape emulating a pentaprism style design.

 

[hakepb]

I'm with you guys on this. In fact, I've just forked out for another lens in the last week, albeit an upgrade on one that has now been sold.

The reason I prefer my big heavy camera to a lighter one is the same reason I bought my first DSLR: I like a solid camera in my hands. I just don't do well with the little guys. Capabilities aside, I find them harder to hold steady, I easily forget I have one dangling on my wrist and it gets knocked against something, or even left behind and forgotten .....

If DSLR's are going to become the minority in the market, I don't expect it's going to be any time soon. Many folks are heavily invested in their camera systems with all the accessories to accompany them and the only reason to surrender their use entirely would be either if they suddenly declined in value to the extent that there were imminent risk of substantial loss or if availability for replacement parts and accessories became hard to come by. They don't just disappear overnight.

Just curious, what DSLr accessories can't be used on the same families mirorrless?
The Sony a7 has the same hotshoe as the a99, same tripod, can likely use the same shutter release, with an adaptor it can use the same lenses (and filters)

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

I'm an OVF kinda guy, when they get to the point where the response time is spot on and the lenses are in place, ( I think its not practical a 400mm f4 on a tiny body), but who knows how long until optics get to the same point? Mind you I don't use a 400mm very often lol, however the 70-200 f2.8 is always mounted it seems. I'd love to play with an A7r with one mounted to see how it feels... (is that an oxymoron? To see How it Feels?)

 

[havoc315]

I'm an OVF kinda guy, when they get to the point where the response time is spot on and the lenses are in place, ( I think its not practical a 400mm f4 on a tiny body),

I suspect we will start to see "large body mirrorless" ---
So that 400mm F4 will mount just fine -- From the outside, the camera will be identical to your current Nikon/Canon/Sony/Pentax. But on the inside, there will be no mirror.

Sony dipped their feet into this water with a pretty pathetic entry level product -- The A3000. A mirrorless entry level NEX, thrown into a dSLR body. It appears poorly executed, as they really tried to make it as cheap as possible. But there is no reason that the same concept can't simply be executed better.

Remember also, younger people are quite used to "screens." I think for the most part, people who prefer OVFs are simply people who are used to them. I don't think they hold any special appeal for most young people who have always used LCDs/EVFs before.

 

[Experiment_626]

Double post  sheesh.