Bill Pierce
Well-known
Now we have mirrorless cameras that no longer have the disadvantages that came with the earlier LCD viewfinders. Image quality, size and responsiveness have been improved in cameras like the full frame Sony a7R and the APS C Fuji X-T1. Combination phase detect and contrast detect autofocus are giving us both fast and accurate autofocus. (Oh, and mirrorless cameras are cheaper to manufacture and can be sold at a lower price than a comparably featured DSLR.) Cameras come and go. The rangefinder was king. It was overthrown by the SLR. Are mirrorless cameras going to eventually replace DSLR’s?
In its first days, the 35mm SLR existed to overcome the limitations of the rangefinder camera which dominated 35mm photography. The SLR could do close ups and use long lenses. Leica’s Visoflex attachment converted a Leica to an SLR, and manufacturers like Exakta made full SLR’s. There was just one big problem. There was no instant return mirror and no auto diaphragm. The cameras weren’t really any good for quick general work. That changed when Pentax added those features, although the instant return relied on gravity and didn’t work if you held the camera upside down and the auto diaphragm only closed the diaphragm. You had to cock it open again by hand.
The SLR caught on as a general purpose camera because it offered a different viewing experience. If they rangefinder’s bright line frame was like the Speed Graphic’s wire frame sports finder, letting you see near to far sharply and see outside the final frame, the SLR offered an isolated image that clearly showed where the focus was located. The rangefinder probably excelled in allowing you to predict and capture moments. The SLR was the king of previewing the effects of framing and focus placement. One allowed you to take pictures, and the other allowed you to make pictures. Actually, when a wide angle or normal focal length lens, the strong suit of the rangefinder, was placed on an SLR, it did a pretty good job of both making and taking pictures. It soon dominated the world of 35mm photography.
Are mirrorless cameras going to eventually replace DSLR’s? They haven’t so far on the marketplace, and that’s what counts to a lot of manufacturers. Will they eventually take over? Your thoughts…
In its first days, the 35mm SLR existed to overcome the limitations of the rangefinder camera which dominated 35mm photography. The SLR could do close ups and use long lenses. Leica’s Visoflex attachment converted a Leica to an SLR, and manufacturers like Exakta made full SLR’s. There was just one big problem. There was no instant return mirror and no auto diaphragm. The cameras weren’t really any good for quick general work. That changed when Pentax added those features, although the instant return relied on gravity and didn’t work if you held the camera upside down and the auto diaphragm only closed the diaphragm. You had to cock it open again by hand.
The SLR caught on as a general purpose camera because it offered a different viewing experience. If they rangefinder’s bright line frame was like the Speed Graphic’s wire frame sports finder, letting you see near to far sharply and see outside the final frame, the SLR offered an isolated image that clearly showed where the focus was located. The rangefinder probably excelled in allowing you to predict and capture moments. The SLR was the king of previewing the effects of framing and focus placement. One allowed you to take pictures, and the other allowed you to make pictures. Actually, when a wide angle or normal focal length lens, the strong suit of the rangefinder, was placed on an SLR, it did a pretty good job of both making and taking pictures. It soon dominated the world of 35mm photography.
Are mirrorless cameras going to eventually replace DSLR’s? They haven’t so far on the marketplace, and that’s what counts to a lot of manufacturers. Will they eventually take over? Your thoughts…
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Very good description of RF and SLR.
My thoughts:
Once it is digital it is keep on shrinking.
Mobile phones are new P&S and lomography, mirrorless are new DSLRs, DLSRs are new MF, digital MF is new LF.
The takeover of "take-it-easy-way photography" isn't only in cameras market.
In museums they started to show pictures on digital frames and less gelatin silver prints are shown in favor of this new "prints".
My thoughts:
Once it is digital it is keep on shrinking.
Mobile phones are new P&S and lomography, mirrorless are new DSLRs, DLSRs are new MF, digital MF is new LF.
The takeover of "take-it-easy-way photography" isn't only in cameras market.
In museums they started to show pictures on digital frames and less gelatin silver prints are shown in favor of this new "prints".
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
The legacy effect, all those Canikon lenses out there, kept the faithful attached, literally, to their SLRs. Now we have the short back focus A7 class full frame to steal the game. Frame rate is about all that's left to conquer. Having said that with the resolution these new sensors have technique is more important than ever and some heft helps there, in camera stabilisation which is lens agnostic is thevanswer there. The SLRs had a good run but the writing is on the wall, if Sony crack the communication to the web, which is more likely than Nikcanon, giving a USP the end will come quite quickly. That assumes the phones don't win the war while we sit and watch, they almost have already if you look at compact camera sales.
Takkun
Ian M.
I agree with this trend, though I still see plenty of people buying new entry-level DSLRs. I don't sell cameras anymore, so I can't comment fully on buying trends.
(as for LCDs in museums--I've actually never heard of this aside from video installations and/or computer terminals with reference material relating to the show).
What I do find fascinating is that higher-end mirrorless products are being produced by companies that either didn't have (e.g. Sony) or stopped having (such as Olympus and Fuji) significant market share in higher-end cameras, while Nikon and Canon have yet to really put out a capable model.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight: No they didn't. This is Pentax marketing fluff. Every single feature on a Pentax had appeared on earlier cameras, though Pentax combined them well in a small, handy package. Leica's claims to have made the first 35mm camera are equally worthless. Never let marketing men loose when the facts can be verified: far better to let either camera stand or fall on its (considerable) merit.
Not entirely sure about your "take" and "make" distinction, either. It's always struck me as a bit precious, and I REALLY believe that even if you can bring yourself to accept the difference, you can't attribute it to RF/SLR.
Finally, as for the future prospects of mirrorless cameras, why don't we just wait and see? How will it affect how we take/make pictures, as long as we have a choice and are not forced into a marketing man's consumerist dream?
Cheers,
R.
thegman
Veteran
On one hand, an EVF is unlikely to ever be as nice to use as an optical finder. An optical one will never have lag, noise, or too low resolution. An EVF based camera can be made a lot smaller though, regardless of the size of sensor.
So if digital sensors start getting bigger than FF in the mainstream market, then EVF based cameras will be able to remain small, SLR style ones will not.
I think eventually though, yes, EVF will come to dominate all but the very high end, and even then, the high end will eventually go that way too. Cost to manufacture and fashion will be hard to combat.
So if digital sensors start getting bigger than FF in the mainstream market, then EVF based cameras will be able to remain small, SLR style ones will not.
I think eventually though, yes, EVF will come to dominate all but the very high end, and even then, the high end will eventually go that way too. Cost to manufacture and fashion will be hard to combat.
Mcary
Well-known
Personally I find mirrorless cameras like the Sony A7 just too small and would much prefer a system were the body was about the same size as the Canon 5D/7D but with smaller lens, say about 25-30% smaller while maintaining the features and build quality of today's lens whither they be L series or USM primes such as the 28mm F 1.8, 50mm F 1.4 or 85mm F 1.8.
The main reason I like the Leica M system is the body is full size but the lens are both compact and solid.
The main reason I like the Leica M system is the body is full size but the lens are both compact and solid.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I don't see anything replacing anything. Film rangefinders still live ( I use mine everyday). DSLR's still rule the professional roost. I do not see mirrorless cameras (I have one and I love it) taking any huge bits out of the DSLR. Remember we are dealing with consumers: "Bigger is Better" crowd. But then the future is always a surprise.....now where is that roll of Tri-X? I put it somewhere.
GaryLH
Veteran
These days it is all about the marketing. It is rare that u c a from the ground up approach like what was done w/ the foveon sensor and that little startup company that Mr. Merrill created now owned by Sigma. Nikon and Canon basically own the dslr space and Leica the drf. I don't think these companies felt comfortable going after the drf segment given history of what happened w/ Epson Rd or Konica RF or Minolta CLE.
Other camera companies are looking for their survival niche.. Mirrorless cameras was something that they felt could work on premise of lighter, smaller camera body and lenses.
Anyway, choice is good for us all, even if u don't like mirrorless or cell phone cameras for that matter, because both Nikon and Canon have had to respond w/ some pretty good entry level dslr IMHO. Leica is another matter...
Gary
Other camera companies are looking for their survival niche.. Mirrorless cameras was something that they felt could work on premise of lighter, smaller camera body and lenses.
Anyway, choice is good for us all, even if u don't like mirrorless or cell phone cameras for that matter, because both Nikon and Canon have had to respond w/ some pretty good entry level dslr IMHO. Leica is another matter...
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
I don't see anything replacing anything. Film rangefinders still live ( I use mine everyday). DSLR's still rule the professional roost. I do not see mirrorless cameras (I have one and I love it) taking any huge bits out of the DSLR. Remember we are dealing with consumers: "Bigger is Better" crowd. But then the future is always a surprise.....now where is that roll of Tri-X? I put it somewhere.
But the choice in film emulsions is getting worst every year.
Gary
Takkun
Ian M.
Prediction: optical finders will last for quite some time in the high-end cameras, if anything, because of battery usage issues. I still highly doubt Leica is going to pull the RF from their next generation, nor will Fuji dump the hybrid finder.
As for miniaturization, we're witnessing the upper (smaller?) limit being reached in mobile phones and computing. there's only so small things can practically get without being unusable on our hands.
As for miniaturization, we're witnessing the upper (smaller?) limit being reached in mobile phones and computing. there's only so small things can practically get without being unusable on our hands.
GaryLH
Veteran
Mirrorless market sales still falling
Mirrorless market sales still falling
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/ap-...l-sells-better-than-mirrorless-system-cameras
Well if these numbers are true.. We are still seeing declining sales number year over year in mirrorless..
I for one hope mirrorless survives. Right now my bets are on Sigma DP family and Fuji.. Yes, I still shoot dslrs, but my main cameras are the foveon and xtran based camera systems. It is a good thing Fuji makes their money in different businesses and Sigma in their lens business.
Gary
Mirrorless market sales still falling
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/ap-...l-sells-better-than-mirrorless-system-cameras
Well if these numbers are true.. We are still seeing declining sales number year over year in mirrorless..
I for one hope mirrorless survives. Right now my bets are on Sigma DP family and Fuji.. Yes, I still shoot dslrs, but my main cameras are the foveon and xtran based camera systems. It is a good thing Fuji makes their money in different businesses and Sigma in their lens business.
Gary
rscheffler
Well-known
Yes, mirrorless will eventually replace DSLRS.
Maybe DSLRs will stick around for niche applications, but I don't expect them to maintain any kind of technological edge over mirrorless in maybe 3-5 years. Subjectively, there may be advantages to the SLR design, such as the optical viewfinder (if done well), but from a technological perspective, I expect there will eventually be no advantage.
It's a matter of EVF, processor and sensor technology getting to the point where massive data processing is literally instantaneous, which will facilitate AF as good or better than DSLRS without any kind of EVF stutter or blackout. At that point I anticipate we'll be in an era of constant motion capture, from which snippets can be culled and individual frames extracted. The decisive moment will be 'soft' at time of capture and fine tuned later in editing.
Because current DSLR technology, such as AF, is generally better than what is available from mirrorless (at least in higher end cameras), I suspect the market leaders - Canon and Nikon - will bide their time until they feel they can no longer maintain acceptable market share, sales volume and profitability from their DSLR systems. I believe they're looking forward to mirrorless system evolution because of the opportunity it provides to push new cameras, and especially new lenses better optimized for mirrorless systems.
Maybe DSLRs will stick around for niche applications, but I don't expect them to maintain any kind of technological edge over mirrorless in maybe 3-5 years. Subjectively, there may be advantages to the SLR design, such as the optical viewfinder (if done well), but from a technological perspective, I expect there will eventually be no advantage.
It's a matter of EVF, processor and sensor technology getting to the point where massive data processing is literally instantaneous, which will facilitate AF as good or better than DSLRS without any kind of EVF stutter or blackout. At that point I anticipate we'll be in an era of constant motion capture, from which snippets can be culled and individual frames extracted. The decisive moment will be 'soft' at time of capture and fine tuned later in editing.
Because current DSLR technology, such as AF, is generally better than what is available from mirrorless (at least in higher end cameras), I suspect the market leaders - Canon and Nikon - will bide their time until they feel they can no longer maintain acceptable market share, sales volume and profitability from their DSLR systems. I believe they're looking forward to mirrorless system evolution because of the opportunity it provides to push new cameras, and especially new lenses better optimized for mirrorless systems.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Roger. Thanks for the Leica/Pentax correction.
As to the future of mirrorless, I am biased because of my working methods which are weird if you didn’t grow up in the journalism end of things. I always liked the small size of the Leica and, for a lot of work, the viewfinder of the SLR. In part the affection for the small size of the Leica won out because I tended to use multiple bodies with high-speed fixed focal length lenses rather than zooms. I certainly wasn’t man enough to carry the equivalent weight and size in SLR’s And now that I’m older and DSLR’s are bigger, I’m certainly not man enough. And, sadly, as an almost retired person, I’m not affluent enough to carry a bunch of M 240’s and Leitz lenses. One of my basic rigs is 3 APS C mirrorless bodies with the equivalent of 28, 50 and 90mm full frame lenses, pretty similar to what I standardized on with Leica rangefinders. I cheat; I carry bright line accessory viewfinders for those focal lengths and occasionally slip them into the accessory shoes of the mirrorless bodies. But, for the most part, I’m happy with the cameras out of the box. The image quality suffers more from my failures than the sensor’s. And I sure do like that lighter, smaller gadget bag.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
Sorry if I came across a bit heavy. I just get REALLY annoyed with those damn' advertising men, and with the people at the company who should know better but let the lies through anyway: a bit of a hobby-horse.
I see your point but deriving from your thread I just posed another question over on my own sub-forum: when is a camera too small/too light or too big/too heavy? For me anything much smaller than my Olympus Pen W is just too fiddly -- I never liked the Minox 35 -- and anything much bigger than my Alpa is inconveniently large and heavy to lug around. Current SLRs are mostly just silly, and have been since the early 1990s. Then there's ergonomics: an Alpa is bigger and heavier than a Hasselblad SWC, but vastly better balanced and easier to hold.
Cheers,
R.
Sorry if I came across a bit heavy. I just get REALLY annoyed with those damn' advertising men, and with the people at the company who should know better but let the lies through anyway: a bit of a hobby-horse.
I see your point but deriving from your thread I just posed another question over on my own sub-forum: when is a camera too small/too light or too big/too heavy? For me anything much smaller than my Olympus Pen W is just too fiddly -- I never liked the Minox 35 -- and anything much bigger than my Alpa is inconveniently large and heavy to lug around. Current SLRs are mostly just silly, and have been since the early 1990s. Then there's ergonomics: an Alpa is bigger and heavier than a Hasselblad SWC, but vastly better balanced and easier to hold.
Cheers,
R.
Takkun
Ian M.
I wish that when I was in school for journalism, mirror less cameras were where they are now. I'd have gladly shot an Xpro-1 instead of a D3 (which I also posted about in Roger's thread) for most of my work.
Roger, I appreciate that you don't buy into the doom-and-gloom ideology that the industry is making us all switch to EVFs and digital, especially with your experience. In undergrad, a good number of my professors were very quick to push the latest trends in journalistic photography to 'keep up'--resulting in the program switching from film to digital and to multimedia/video while I was there. I understand the desire to teach us young'uns the latest techniques in reporting, but it always felt that the attitude was now that ____ technology has arrived, every other technique is obsolete.
I remember not long after our program switched to digital, and I couldn't shoot my Bessa anymore and had to drop a semester's rent on a new camera, one professor came in with an M8 on his shoulder. He called it a museum piece. "You can't take pictures without autofocus anymore. Leica is dead."
In short, I'm glad we have another option for photography, especially for enthusiasts who no longer need to buy and carry around a backpack of gear, but I don't buy into the alarmist (or optimistic) attitude that they'll take over any time soon, especially with the huge number of SLR lenses out there on the used market.
Roger, I appreciate that you don't buy into the doom-and-gloom ideology that the industry is making us all switch to EVFs and digital, especially with your experience. In undergrad, a good number of my professors were very quick to push the latest trends in journalistic photography to 'keep up'--resulting in the program switching from film to digital and to multimedia/video while I was there. I understand the desire to teach us young'uns the latest techniques in reporting, but it always felt that the attitude was now that ____ technology has arrived, every other technique is obsolete.
I remember not long after our program switched to digital, and I couldn't shoot my Bessa anymore and had to drop a semester's rent on a new camera, one professor came in with an M8 on his shoulder. He called it a museum piece. "You can't take pictures without autofocus anymore. Leica is dead."
In short, I'm glad we have another option for photography, especially for enthusiasts who no longer need to buy and carry around a backpack of gear, but I don't buy into the alarmist (or optimistic) attitude that they'll take over any time soon, especially with the huge number of SLR lenses out there on the used market.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Sony is manufacturing high-end cameras, but for professional video market.
So does FujiFilm in same marked, but under Fujinon name for high-end lenses, for video. Both doing it for decades now.
I went to Ontario Art Gallery around New Year. Photography exhibition.
One author with classic large gelatin silver prints. One with some very small difficult to see color P&S snapshots. One with one boring landscape shot projected on the wall.
And last one with sound and video round panorama of Mexican musicians. On TV screens.
Shortly after it, Royal Ontario Museum went with wild life pictures on LED screens with EXIF provided.
The guy who works in Toronto Art Gallery told me about many b/w old prints they are keeping in archive. No interest to share it with public.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ian,
That really is a horror story. Did no-one call him out on it? I'd have been much tempted to be equally combative and point out that if you know what you're doing, you can take a picture with anything -- and that autofocus is no substitute for a brain, coordination or experience.
Cheers,
R.
Takkun
Ian M.
Ko.Fe--What I meant about Sony and Fuji was with respect to still cameras for the consumer market. Sony is picking up the pieces from Minolta, and Fuji dropped the FinePix Pro series a long while back. And while I've seen a number of digital media installations in galleries (interesting display choice in some circumstances, but not my thing), I'm really amazed an established museum like ROM is displaying art pieces like that.
Roger- I definitely did. It was an odd interaction; after class, we were both packing our bags when I told him I used to shoot with a RF, too, when he made that remark. I was completely incensed. He was a head honcho and former photo editor of the Detroit Free Press, so I didn't really feel it was the place of a 20 year old to argue with him.
Another professor I had once said to always shoot with a camera with a motor grip, or else the public won't take you seriously.
Sigh. Thankfully the first photo professor I ever had, Stella Johnson, was one of those people that taught that equipment isn't the be-all-end-all, and, more importantly for me, that there is a place where journalism and art intersect.
Anyway, back to the topic...
Roger- I definitely did. It was an odd interaction; after class, we were both packing our bags when I told him I used to shoot with a RF, too, when he made that remark. I was completely incensed. He was a head honcho and former photo editor of the Detroit Free Press, so I didn't really feel it was the place of a 20 year old to argue with him.
Another professor I had once said to always shoot with a camera with a motor grip, or else the public won't take you seriously.
Sigh. Thankfully the first photo professor I ever had, Stella Johnson, was one of those people that taught that equipment isn't the be-all-end-all, and, more importantly for me, that there is a place where journalism and art intersect.
Anyway, back to the topic...
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Roger,
I actually did use a Minox 35. Actually, I didn’t use it, but I had it used. When Gary Gilmore was going to be executed by firing squad, I gave one of his lawyers (who would be one of the last people to see him alive) the camera to sneak into the jail cell and take a picture. The deal was I would get the film and he would get to keep the camera. I don’t even remember if I even got the film back. Whatever, Time didn’t use it if I did, thus sparing me from forever being known as a tabloid journalist.
Bill