Eric T
Well-known
Sony has abandoned the mirror with their a99. I suspect that Canon and Nikon will eventually forsake the mirror to save cost if for no other reason.
EVFs are improving dramatically these days. Both the Sony A7 and Fuji XT-1 have great EVFs. The Fuji XT-1 and Olympus EM-1 are terrific.
Speed of use, battery life, and resolution all need to be on par to compete with the dSLRs. So far, none of the mirrorless cameras competes well on battery life. Speed of use is close on the XT-1. Resolution is equal to the best with the A7r. But no mirrorless camera yet is as good as the best dSLRs on all fronts. But they are getting VERY close. I am hoping that the Sigma SD2 quattro gets rid of the mirror, improves speed, and low light performance.
We are fortunate to be in very interesting times. We have a lot of terrific options to choose from. Canon seems to be falling behind. They must have something up their sleeves.
EVFs are improving dramatically these days. Both the Sony A7 and Fuji XT-1 have great EVFs. The Fuji XT-1 and Olympus EM-1 are terrific.
Speed of use, battery life, and resolution all need to be on par to compete with the dSLRs. So far, none of the mirrorless cameras competes well on battery life. Speed of use is close on the XT-1. Resolution is equal to the best with the A7r. But no mirrorless camera yet is as good as the best dSLRs on all fronts. But they are getting VERY close. I am hoping that the Sigma SD2 quattro gets rid of the mirror, improves speed, and low light performance.
We are fortunate to be in very interesting times. We have a lot of terrific options to choose from. Canon seems to be falling behind. They must have something up their sleeves.
willie_901
Veteran
The momentum enjoyed by Canon and Nikon has long, long legs. And, Nikon has proactively decided to protect it's FX DLSR product line. Camera shops are completely oriented towards DSLR sales. When I ordered my new XT-1, the two camera shops in my city didn't even know the camera existed... and they had X100S and XE-2 kits on their shelves.
The smart phone has essentially killed the P&S camera. This has put pressure on all brands, but especially on Nikon (the least diverse DSLR and P&S company). The real issues are what fraction of smart phone users will become dissatisfied with smart-phone cameras? And, when they do, what will system will they buy?
Even though m4/5 systems have been widely available for almost 5 years, the DSLR still dominates. The Fujifilm and SONY are serious about mirror-less systems too. It remains to be seen what new Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company ends up doing. I personally doubt they will support both mirror-less and DSLR systems. Why would they do that?
In my view studio photographers will be happy with high MP DSLRs. The medium format digital market started small, is small and will stay small. Sports photographers need DSLRs. However this is mainly because Canon and Nikon choose not to transfer their technologies to mirror-less systems. Professional sports photographers don't need an OVF because they just fire off streams of bursts. They do need lightening fast and predictive AF and sub-millisecond auto-aperture. These things are possible without mirrors. I wonder how many sports photographers would like to use a system that weighed half as much as those they use now?
I no longer want the weight and size (and cost) of DSLR systems. This is my main motivation for switching from Nikon to Fujifilm for gigs. I never wanted the size and noise of DSLRs for my culture/social documentary work. I embraced the Fujifilm system for this work for the same reason I used a Zeiss Ikon M. While many disagree with me, I did not find the m4/3 system to be an adequate solution.
Eventually DSLR systems will be in the minority. Their manufacturing cost and complexity bring little benefit. If the smart phone revolution had not pressured DSLR sales, DSLRs would be around for a much longer time. But now the DSLRs are under attack from both sides. Mirror-less systems are attractive to many serious photographers and smart phone cameras are improving all the time.
I think the next five years will be very interesting for still photography.
The smart phone has essentially killed the P&S camera. This has put pressure on all brands, but especially on Nikon (the least diverse DSLR and P&S company). The real issues are what fraction of smart phone users will become dissatisfied with smart-phone cameras? And, when they do, what will system will they buy?
Even though m4/5 systems have been widely available for almost 5 years, the DSLR still dominates. The Fujifilm and SONY are serious about mirror-less systems too. It remains to be seen what new Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company ends up doing. I personally doubt they will support both mirror-less and DSLR systems. Why would they do that?
In my view studio photographers will be happy with high MP DSLRs. The medium format digital market started small, is small and will stay small. Sports photographers need DSLRs. However this is mainly because Canon and Nikon choose not to transfer their technologies to mirror-less systems. Professional sports photographers don't need an OVF because they just fire off streams of bursts. They do need lightening fast and predictive AF and sub-millisecond auto-aperture. These things are possible without mirrors. I wonder how many sports photographers would like to use a system that weighed half as much as those they use now?
I no longer want the weight and size (and cost) of DSLR systems. This is my main motivation for switching from Nikon to Fujifilm for gigs. I never wanted the size and noise of DSLRs for my culture/social documentary work. I embraced the Fujifilm system for this work for the same reason I used a Zeiss Ikon M. While many disagree with me, I did not find the m4/3 system to be an adequate solution.
Eventually DSLR systems will be in the minority. Their manufacturing cost and complexity bring little benefit. If the smart phone revolution had not pressured DSLR sales, DSLRs would be around for a much longer time. But now the DSLRs are under attack from both sides. Mirror-less systems are attractive to many serious photographers and smart phone cameras are improving all the time.
I think the next five years will be very interesting for still photography.
YYV_146
Well-known
On sensor AF will be slower than dedicated AF systems, that is pretty much certain for the given future. The sensor cannot feed to the EVF when it is capturing, hence one can expect blackouts on EVFs in the forseeable future. I have as much concluded that mirrorless bodies will never replace alternative technologies in terms of sports and action photography. The SLT may be a better solution, and I like the idea of two AF systems collaborating with each other. I still use Canon for sports work, but if Sony manages to deliver a body with 1D-level specs, I will be taking a long and hard look at it.
But outside of football games and the Olympics, I believe mirrorless will eventually replace DSLRs at every tier of the market. I'll list a few reasons below:
1. Body cost. It is much, much cheaper to build cameras without mirror boxes. Look at the $400 NEX (Alpha?) bodies and the $600 Canikon entry-level DSLRs, they basically have the same specs. The A7 is a well-rounded, decent-performing FF body, the equal of the D610 or 6D sans AF speed. How much is the A7 in China and Japan? $1,200. The kit is cheaper than the D610 body, and people are noticing. Sony's lenses remain expensive, but how much of problem would this be when you can save close to a grand on the body?
2. Low cost of switching systems. I work in a place with Canon sponsorship, but I can use all of the lenses with the A7 and NEX-7 via a $250 adapter. AF and stabilization still works, too. Compared to the cost of, for example, switching from Canon to Sony Alpha mount, adding a mirrorless body to the existing system is essentially costless, and paves the way for a full-scale migration.
3. EVF is more practical for both pros and beginners. People may prefer OVFs to any generation of EVFs, but nobody can doubt that being able to preview exposure, white balance and focus indications over the entire frame makes life easier. I believe that there is still much potential to be tapped from the EVF interface - zebra, peaking and split image overlay are good examples of existing implementations. Entry-level DSLRs also often have small, dark optical finders that I find even less enjoyable than cheap EVFs.
I might be the outlier here, but when Sony announced the NEX-3 in 2010, I expected to see an FF NEX in 5-6 years and deep integration with the Alpha mount. So I bought an NEX-3 and later a C3, held back on APS-C E-mount lenses and instead loaded up on Leica M and Minolta gear. With the A7 I can finally juggle between Canon, Sony/Minolta and Leica with a single body, and use all of these lenses at the focal length and DOF they were designed for.
YYV_146
Well-known
Sony obviously has the highest stake in mirrorless. I don't see E-mount as cannibalizing A-mount sales, more so a diversification of customers according to demand. E-mount buyers will not buy an A-mount body if the adapters are good enough, and A-mount buyers won't even look at E-mount cameras, especially if they've invested enough on A-mount lenses.
Fujifilm doesn't need the X system to make money. The bulk of their income comes from other sectors, and my impression is that they can both be more courageous than the competitors or less because of their position.
M43 is excellent as a system, but I doubt that many people will choose such small sensor against Fuji and Sony's much more high-performing (and occasionally) cheaper offerings. M43 needs to meaningfully distinguish itself, either by making smaller cameras or faster ones.
In the long run I doubt any company would want to support two non-compatible systems, though. Sony is a bit better in this regard, but something similar to an A-E-mount hybrid would really help shore up both mounts.
maddoc
... likes film again.
If you want to speculate about the future of camera systems you need to compare the camera markets also. The majority of the camera producer are located in Japan, where the mirror-less camera have more or less replaced the DSLR in the higher level consumer market because here in Japan camera-size (small) combined with integrated gadgets (EVF, WiFi, easy connection to printing systems without a PC) are big sales points.
However, the mirror-less system cameras seem to be not so popular outside of Japan (or Asia) in general, so there might be still a reasonable market for DSLR in Europe/America.
Another point is that the iPhone/Android/Ipad now is the leading main consumer camera-system. "In-camera" processing via apps, instant sharing in social networks via one button-push became the key-features.
However, the mirror-less system cameras seem to be not so popular outside of Japan (or Asia) in general, so there might be still a reasonable market for DSLR in Europe/America.
Another point is that the iPhone/Android/Ipad now is the leading main consumer camera-system. "In-camera" processing via apps, instant sharing in social networks via one button-push became the key-features.
GaryLH
Veteran
The ovf on the xp1 and x100 from Fuji does not have any blackout issue. These cameras will have blackout or stutter only when shooting in evf or LCD mode..
Gary
YYV_146
Well-known
No, but I doubt a side optical viewfinder is much good for long lenses essential to sports...How would you accommodate zoom lenses or very wide lenses, both of which are common for action photography?
As someone else has mentioned, it doesn't really matter if you can see the subject well, as long as the tracking system can...
GaryLH
Veteran
The Fuji will change frame lines w/ their own zooms. As far as long lenses are concerned, it is the same as the Leica rf but the Fuji ovf does have a mag function to help w/ the long lenses available w/ use of the lever under the shutter releaee by holding it down for over 1 second a magnifying lenses swings over the ovf window internally.
The frame lines of the ovf can be adjusted for manual focus lenses as well. Where the frame lines reaches its limit is too wide (wider than 14) or too long where the magnifier function does not help any longer. Once the limits are reached or frame lines are not to your liking, nothing stops u from using the evf.
Plus unlike the ovf of a dslr, there is no tunnel vision effect, u can c outside the frame lines unless we are talking about a really wide lens.
The ovf that Fuji did on the xp1 and x100 families pushes the envelope and is quite different then the older ovf's on p&s cameras or even their own x10/20 series.
If u need fast af and predictive, right now mirrorless is still not there w/ the best of the dslrs. They are getting better and better each year though...Not everyone needs it, so there are other options.
Gary
The frame lines of the ovf can be adjusted for manual focus lenses as well. Where the frame lines reaches its limit is too wide (wider than 14) or too long where the magnifier function does not help any longer. Once the limits are reached or frame lines are not to your liking, nothing stops u from using the evf.
Plus unlike the ovf of a dslr, there is no tunnel vision effect, u can c outside the frame lines unless we are talking about a really wide lens.
The ovf that Fuji did on the xp1 and x100 families pushes the envelope and is quite different then the older ovf's on p&s cameras or even their own x10/20 series.
If u need fast af and predictive, right now mirrorless is still not there w/ the best of the dslrs. They are getting better and better each year though...Not everyone needs it, so there are other options.
Gary
Pioneer
Veteran
People sell what other people will buy. Right now that is smartphones with cameras. I know that it is not a popular position but the smartphone camera is the forerunner of the disruptive technology that will change cameras as we know them. The future does not belong to Leica, Canikon, Sony or Fuji. It belongs to Apple and Samsung. It may take another 50 years, though I doubt it does, but it will get there. Packing a bulky old Leica M9 will become tomorrow's equivalent of carrying a Deardorff V8 around town today.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Agreed
If Apple were to do a serious iCamera with larger sensors (maybe even multiple sensors), apps and connectivity.... sell it for $500 or even $1000.... nearly everyone on this forum would end up with one within 18 months.
On the end of the spectrum, that new RED camera that outscored the D800 on those whatchamacallit tests.... means that you could extract still frames from video footage that are superior to our current DSLRs. Give storage and batteries time to catch up and in a few years maybe everything gets shot, 24/7/365, from multiple angles and drones. At which point we become editors "finding" the right frames to call art.
I might stick with my M12 though.
GaryLH
Veteran
As much as I like Apple products, an Apple iCamera is my idea of a bad idea... But u could very well be right.. But your m12 may outlast all
Gary
Probably not completely.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Perhaps this is pertinent. Thoughts from a working pro whose blog I check into every day.
http://ripecamera.blogspot.com/2014/03/all-cameras-are-better-than-you-are.html
http://ripecamera.blogspot.com/2014/03/all-cameras-are-better-than-you-are.html
ferider
Veteran
A couple of thoughts:
A camera manufacturer can profit via a) competition and b) new, previously non-existing markets.
Yes, camera phones are a disruptive technology, but they benefit from a previously non-existing market, the Facebook generation. I am wondering if u4/3 systems benefit here, too.
Nothing prevents manufacturers to build smaller, mirror-based SLRs, with easier handling. I am waiting for the "OM1" of dSLRs, and am expecting at least a few hog-cycles of mirror-based vs. non mirror-based SLRs for a few years.
Roland.
A camera manufacturer can profit via a) competition and b) new, previously non-existing markets.
Yes, camera phones are a disruptive technology, but they benefit from a previously non-existing market, the Facebook generation. I am wondering if u4/3 systems benefit here, too.
Nothing prevents manufacturers to build smaller, mirror-based SLRs, with easier handling. I am waiting for the "OM1" of dSLRs, and am expecting at least a few hog-cycles of mirror-based vs. non mirror-based SLRs for a few years.
Roland.
dasuess
Nikon Freak
I have a Nikon F (with several lenses) I purchased new in 1972. If I were still shooting film, there is no film camera made anywhere or at any time that is better than that Nikon F.
Reading this blog post has settled me down from thinking about gettng a Nikon Df to use with my Nikon glass. My Oly (16 megapixel) EM5 and Oly glass is good enough. I've even made beautiful 12x16 prints from my lowly (12 megapizel) Oly EP2.
semordnilap
Well-known
My parents (late 60s) will never buy another digital camera. They both had P&S digitals which have been 100% replaced by their iPhones. And most people aren't on the upgrade path, they just buy whatever inexpensive canon or nikon dslr (or higher end compact) is available when they're about to have their first kid, and shoot with it for years, until they stop because their phones are good enough. Those are two huge markets that are being eaten alive by phones. A good friend of mine is a pro, shoots with full frame canons, and when our kids play together all his pictures are from his phone.
I think the enthusiast market for big DSLRs will die, if it's not dead already. We'll see if mirrorless can establish itself faster than the phones improve...!
Pioneer
Veteran
...and the camera phones will just get better and better, just like other digital cameras have over the years. The limiting factor at this point is probably the lenses, but even lens performance can be software enhanced. And interchangeable lenses are right around the corner.
To be completely honest, the digital camera fans should probably be the worried ones, not film users. I suspect that the smart phone camera has already passed "critical mass" and will overtake the traditional digital camera much faster than anyone believes, even for sports.
But, this is only speculation...right?
To be completely honest, the digital camera fans should probably be the worried ones, not film users. I suspect that the smart phone camera has already passed "critical mass" and will overtake the traditional digital camera much faster than anyone believes, even for sports.
But, this is only speculation...right?
Pioneer
Veteran
Has anybody played around using their i-Pad as the screen for their large format camera yet?
btgc
Veteran
Problem with smartphones is they are too invasive. There still are people who want just to take pictures and don't let for a row of companies to know about their life. My current cameras aren't smart and aren't connected to internet and I want to leave it that.
Don't use smartphones, someone will say. That's great advice as long as there are dedicated cameras without *stores and without OS allowing to run code written to gather your personal information. As long as there's choice between my own camera and one given me for free but permanently connected to global network.
I hear someone is arguing I should wear famous tinfoil helmet? Better use it to bake your own cakes while you are allowed instead of buying only legit food made by megacorps.
Don't use smartphones, someone will say. That's great advice as long as there are dedicated cameras without *stores and without OS allowing to run code written to gather your personal information. As long as there's choice between my own camera and one given me for free but permanently connected to global network.
I hear someone is arguing I should wear famous tinfoil helmet? Better use it to bake your own cakes while you are allowed instead of buying only legit food made by megacorps.
JPSuisse
Well-known
Like Frank, I also agree with the above. Except that unlike Frank and his M12, I will probably still be shooting film with my M, if I can still get film.