Mirror, mirror on the wall...

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
11:22 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
Do you think there is a future for the DSLR? It’s come a long way from the early film SLR with no instant return mirror or auto diaphragm, but it still has the problems with focus and vibration and the complex mechanics inherent in a mirror. All of this may be outweighed by the sheer magnificence of the viewfinder image. After all, photography is about seeing.

It used to be that the simpler mirrorless camera was smaller in size and price, but the electronic viewfinder was godawful compared to the finder image of the DSLR. But the electronic viewfinders in the mirrorless cameras keep getting better, much better. Does this mean that the DSLR is going to go the way of the Speed Graphic, that the great king will age and be replaced? It’s the photographer, or at least his buying habits, that will decide. So, based on your photography, will the DSLR be replaced by the mirrorless?
 
Somehow I don't think so. My standard for a SLR viewfinder is my 40 year old OM-1. The last EVF i got to look through (I have to drive a 200 mile round trip to actually handle any current modern camera) was an Olympus OMD EM5 and compared to my 40 year old view..... well i'd say that camera was about 25% of the way there.
 
Maybe but not until you can buy an APS-C mirrorless camera with a built in EVF that as good or better then the one in the Leica SL for under $1000.
 
Problems with focus?

As a heavy SLR user, it's an entirely effective tool for my usage.
Even the full frame mirrorless options are spoken of in terms of "almost DSLR focus speeds".
Well I already have DSLR focus speeds, "almost" isn't something that tempts me in the slightest.

The other issue is lens compatibility, I'm not changing my entire system unless I absolutely have to. My lenses are chosen carefully and do what I want them to do, how I want them to. I don't want to have to find "the closest" alternatives.

Plus my DSLR lenses work with my film SLR bodies, the layouts are largely the same, and switching between them is a breeze. That's not going to be the case with introducing a mirrorless body.
 
Yes! Once the marketing department gets onto the idea that a professional level, 'Mirrorless' camera lens does not have to look like a DSLR lens. Zuiko 85 talks of the OM1 and that is a good place to begin, keep the smaller ergonomic package and shrink the lenses to suit and the world will beat a path to your door. We are almost there and I predict that the generation coming through now will look at the DSLR and say "no thanks".
 
At this time the DSLR is in a position of being best tool for certain photographic goals. About four years ago it was the only digital choice for the majority of photographic goals.

For decades camera manufacturers controlled photographic choices by controlling camera stores. In those days one went to a camera shop and the employees guided you down the path to a purchase. This system is now obsolete and the camera companies have lost influence over the purchase process. This is still the case where I live. There are two camera shops in a market of about 1 million people. One is a small local chain and the other caters primarily to dedicated hobbyists and pros. When you go in the small chain's stores they direct you to Canon or Nikon. If you want a smaller camera system they hand you a Canon or Nikon alternate. If you seem unconvinced they hand you an m4/3. Only as a last resort do they take you all the way to the back of the store to the Fujifilm counter.

While the Smart phone has eroded DSLR sales, the mirrorless segment is slowly gaining momentum. People will reference CIPA data that shows mirrorless' impact is small. But almost every single mirrorless sale was at the expense of a DSLR sale.

Because there will always be a lag in EVF display times, the mirror box will have a place in action photography for some time to come. Otherwise the mirror box is redundant. The mirrorless systems' current deficiencies of contrast-detection and even phase-detection AF are already minimal. More powerful on-camera CPUs combined with more sophisticated AF firmware algorithms will soon level the playing field.
 
Probably yes.. but I don't expect it to be soon.

And that is due to the nature of the two. Basically, because of their internal architecture, the DSLR is a stills camera that does video as an extra, and a mirrorless camera (with its streaming imaging pipeline set-up) is a video camera that can capture stills.

This architectural difference permeates in what they excel at. If you're into video, then the clunky mirror-up/finder black out of a DSLR is a pain. And if your goal is shooting stills all day, the time it takes to fill the imaging pipeline from sensor to EVF and all that lies in between at every power-down/sleep/power-up is a really bitter pill.
 
The EVF imager from the Leica SL is now a commodity product from Epson, so expect an improvement in EVF quality in most of the mirrorless product lines over the next year or so.
The time lag can be addressed by faster, but more expensive, electronics. Broadcast TV camera EVFs have a about a one frame (1/30 sec.) lag.
When it gets dark, even the current so-so EVFs are utterly superior to the best OVFs.
In bright light, it's the opposite.
 
From reading the replies, and the marketplace, I'm guessing that priorities are ordered much differently for different people. Some people are a lot more obsessed with size and weight differences than I am. I'm one of those obsessed with viewfinder clarity instead, and who thinks that, as a practical matter, the size difference between my F6 and my RX1 is just a rounding error, while the EVF on the Sony, and all the other EVFs I have used, is just sad compared to the F6 viewfinder., which means that I would much rather shoot with the F6. The file results from the RX1 are beyond superb, but putting that thing up to your eye is such a letdown.....sigh.... It's not the EVF lag that is the most annoying, it's the relative lack of clarity. And, the Leicaflex viewfinder, which someone else mentioned, is even better. As far as an EVF being better than an excellent OVF for shooting in the dark, I understand the argument, it's just not been my experience, though I tend to not shoot in anything darker than a nightclub. I realize that EVFs will get better, I just don't see them approaching the clarity and color accuracy of a good OVF anytime soon. Obviously, for some people, this does not matter as much to them as having a somewhat smaller camera body, or the ability to see vast amounts of printed data splashed across the composition in the finder. The market will decide, if it hasn't already.

Larry
Who finds his "squinty" IIIg viewfinder experience to be better than any EVF
 
What is a DSLR ? Is it like an SLR but without the choice of films to use and a silly fixed sensor thingy that gets dusty and is a PITA to clean ? Give me a Nikon film SLR every time !
 
As long as there is a National Football League there will be DSLR's. They excel in fast action photography.
 
EVF is the next place where I suspect we will see smart manufacturers focusing some computer power and effort. At the high end perhaps it will have it's own CPU, though that sort of thing will suck up more power (larger battery pack)

I suspect that the market DSLRs is shrinking, not in the professional area, but from the next step down and it will continue to do so as the quality from smaller sensors is improving.

B2 (;->
 
Slr/dslr is a thing from the past. A whole generation is growing up with evf and does not recognize the differences. Evf belongs to digital, like a mirror or rangefinder belonged to film. Mirrorless is the most logical choice for digital.
Me?
A few months ago I decided I will spend the remaining 20 or 25 years of active photograpy (I hope) with film. The OM I bought 41 years ago, the Rolleiflex a few years later and the Hasselblad just 6 months ago. Never got enthousiastic about digital.
Frank
 
DSLR's are not cool any longer. Not too long ago, people liked to sport big camera bodies and long lenses, this has completely changed in the past few years. Sleek Apple design had something to do with that. Miniaturization is in and big and bulky is out. Other than form, size and weight, people are looking for multi-gadgets....phone, music, photography, texting etc... all in one small package. The moment the mirror-less forces are able to meet DSLR specs, the big and bulky are destined for the museum. I would not be surprised there will be a dedicated DSLR.com site soon.
 
It has taken DSLRs until now to be as responsive as a Nikon F-2 or F-3. I am having a tough time imagining shooting baseball, football, or soccer with a mirrorless camera? How well does a 300 f2.8 balance on one of those thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom