Is there a future for DSLR?

[PeterN]

If you look at the sales figures of camera companies, there seems to be a trend: DSLR sales goes down, Mirrorless sales goes up. We've seen some disruptions in the past overhauling industries. Think of harddisks and typewriters. Each disruption starts with a technology that is initially inferior to the established technology and is only adopted by a small group of people. Gradually the technology improves and more people/companies adopt the new technology until that technology becomes mainstream.

I am wondering if that's happening to the DSLR market. If true, what about our investments in lens systems? Will Nikon and Canon be able to make their existing lens lineup available for mirrorless systems? Or will they have to develop new lenses?

There is no dispute that contemporary DSLR systems still have their edge, either because of camera features and ergonomics or because of available lenses and vested interests (i.e. lenses purchased). But mirrorless systems are catching up quickly. When mirrorless systems become DSLR-equals in terms of AF-speed and accuracy, writing speedm ergonomics, viewfinder quality, batterylife, sturdiness, etc. what will be the point of having a camera with a mirror?

There are also new sensor developments, such as organic sensors which - if I understand correctly- will offer full-frame IQ in (much) smaller format.

What are your thoughts? Will DSLRs become nostalgia for a small group? Or will it remain mainstream?  What needs to be done by vendors of DSLR systems to remain mainstream?

When someone asks you what to do: buy a new DSLR system (incl lenses) or invest in a mirrorless system, what would you recommend?

Just curious what you think!

PS: mods: feel free to delete this post if it has been discussed before. I searched but could not find anything.

[Mike G]

Peter, IMHO mirrorless is the way things will inevitably progress. In my very brief experience of m,less gear the size and weight of the big black lumps albeit excellent in their output is just too much weight to tote about unless you have a very good reason! Mirrorless gear is on the road to maturity and I'm sure will get better and better as time goes by.
So in answer to your question I would have to reccommend a mirrorless system!

[Andy]

Well, I guess it depends, how you define future:
Seen (really) long term, my guess is: No, no future for DSLR (in actual usage). Longer life in nostalgica.

The ability to change lenses might stay much longer - don't know if the core platform business component of Nikon, the F-mount, will be flexible enough to survive into future systems.

I consider myself to be a member of the "old school" - my point of familiarity and experiences are the SLR and D-SLR. Measuring and comparing many of the new developments against my personal "reference".

I still have issues with the slow startup times of mirrorless systems, can't accept the time lag in the EVF versus and optical viewfinder, find it hard to use an EVF in night photography and I am constantly suprised how bad battery life is in mirrorless systems (vs. what is already available).

Yet, I will not be the future for Nikon. I will most likely die earlier than the new customer generation currently growing around the planet. Born almost with a built-in familiarity for touch screens, a point of speed reference a mobile phone provides, an image quality experience many of us would say no to, priorities and patterns unfamiliar to many of us. Coming from this angle, a mirrorless system is a significant step-up. It is fast, provides incredible image quality, is flexible with lens changes, no need for getting to "fullframe" sensor, as they haven't experienced the old film days many of us have fond memories for.

There is an easy test to find out which camp someones belong to:

Put a D-SLR on a table. Ask a few persons what they see on the table.
If the response is "a digital camera" -> this person most likely belongs to the "old camp"
If the response is "a camera" -> you might have a millenial in front of you

Now ask yourself: What is on the table? 

rgds,
Andy

[richardHaw]

the sales figures can be deceiving. DSLR users do not buy new cameras as much since usually we buy stuff every other release unless we need to buy the current best. mirrorless on the other hand is a growing market where people buy into the system since they do not have the gear yet and is deciding to switch or not 

mirrorless will be the way of the future, but not in it's current form.

[Almass]

It is sheer physics of the optical variety.

Nevermind the sensor size and res. The issue is with the lenses......long lenses - ultra wide lenses.

It is possible to mount a mirrorless onto a long lens......but the balance is thrown out and the whole point of mirrorless goes out of the window.

Mirrorless are sinply replacing P&S cameras and sitting between DSLR's and Mobile phones.

Today technology is not able to reduce the size and weight of glass optics.......this means that DLSR's are staying until this technological feast is solved.

........back to our regular program.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Mirrorless would make more sense for film than for a digital sensor. We had them in the form of rangefinder cameras.

Digital capture sets different demands and in fact, having optical "long" systems in which rays are better collimated when they hit the sensor enables higher quality and/or less expensive optics.

Besides often being too small to provide optimal handing, mirrorless cameras seem to have a very unfinished user interface. The EVF system is simply not tuned to the human eye characteristics and fail by being too bright when it shouldn't be and inadequate discerning when the external light is bright. The lagging of real-time events is improved, but still has a way to go. And so on.

Had mirrorless camera been designed by working photographers instead of clueless engineers, their development probably would be far more advanced.

As far as I know, sales of mirrorless systems is simply not the run-away success some people claim. Their marked share may increase, but a low pace. The compact camera really suffer, but they shouldn't be regarded as mirrorless even though they in principle are.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

To answer a question about the lenses: any manufacturer who chose to ignore an existing lens base in the 100 Mill figure is just plain stupid.

[PeterN]

To answer a question about the lenses: any manufacturer who chose to ignore an existing lens base in the 100 Mill figure is just plain stupid.

lol. that is well said.

Mirrorless would make more sense for film than for a digital sensor. We had them in the form of rangefinder cameras.

Digital capture sets different demands and in fact, having optical "long" systems in which rays are better collimated when they hit the sensor enables higher quality and/or less expensive optics.

That's very interesting. The mirror is just relevant for viewing, right? The optical length is relevant during the image capture. So are you saying that it is beneficial to produce longer-sized lenses? Although I can't verify the differences in length between comparable Fuji and Nikon lenses, in my memory the Fuji lenses are shorter. Yet, they are considered to be top-of-class. So I am somewhat confused.

[Erik Lund]

DSLR is my recommended camera to any pro, scientist, advanced amateur and hobby photographer as a main camera for action, sport, PJ, wedding, event, architecture, landscape, catwalk, safari, children, babies and babes.

Rangefinder is my recommended camera to any pro, advanced amateur and hobby photographer as a main or second camera for PJ, wedding, landscape, babies and babes.

M34 is my recommended camera to any pro, advanced amateur and hobby photographer as a second camera for PJ, wedding, event, children, babies and babes.

The sales figures of DSLR and Mirror-less has nothing to do with each other. It is not either or.

The people I meet have almost all of them several different systems; DSLR, mirrorless and rangefinders.

The only market suffering is the point and shoot cameras - they are replaced by mirrorless and phones...

[bjornthun]

lol. that is well said.

That's very interesting. The mirror is just relevant for viewing, right? The optical length is relevant during the image capture. So are you saying that it is beneficial to produce longer-sized lenses? Although I can't verify the differences in length between comparable Fuji and Nikon lenses, in my memory the Fuji lenses are shorter. Yet, they are considered to be top-of-class. So I am somewhat confused.

Rangefinder wide angles designed for film, like many Leica M compatible wide angles will have problems when mounted on a mirrorless camera, due to characteristics of the sensor and sensor cover. Wide angles designed for mirrorless are designed with the sensor characteristics in mind, so they don't have problems, and indeed they are excellent performers. A wide angle for mirrorless typically have a short distance from the rearmost lens element to the sensor and won't work on DSLRs, like Leica M wides for film, but those for mirrorless are designed to be more telecentric, which means that the light rays will hit the sensor at less extreme angles. So Fuji (APS-C), Sony (35mm full frame) and micro 43 all have excellent native autofocus wide angles today. Fuji, Zeiss, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic have all solved the problem of designing great mirrorless wide angles.

Native, excellent wide angles with is not a problem for mirrorless anymore.

What mirrorless needs, is fast AF tracking, which remains a stronghold of the DSLR.

I find EVFs to be much better than the optical finders of a DSLR. The reasons for this is that there is easy access of a magnifier function for critical focusing, manual focus is much easier in poor light and it's easier to see the subject in poor light. EVF lag is less of an issue than it used to be. The viewfinder is a very personal thing, and no general advice can be given, I made my choice based on my needs. Thank you Sony!

I have found EVFs to be much less tiresome than OVFs for my eyes. YMMV.

I have sold off my DSLRs, and I think that DSLRs have a lmited future.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Some people find mirrorless finders a blessing, others as being tiresome and mediocre. I firmly belong in the latter camp. My Sony A7 cannot focus reliably with an f/1.2 Nikkor lens. Tried the Fuji X-T1 with not better results even using a native Fujinon lens.

Very short focal lengths with a non-retrofocus design  and digital sensors are a mismatch no matter what tricks the manufacturer tries to apply to the sensor and the signal processing therein.

What everyone should be able to agree upon is that manufacturers really need to pay more attention to the viewfinders of their cameras. The best lenses in the world and über-high megapixel figures are of little value if you cannot bring the lens to the optimal focus.

A further point is camera designs that allow better handling and that does NOT entail making the cameras smaller and lighter.

[Jan Anne]

Like with the transition from film to digital it took digital a few iterations to become a proper alternative, there were early adopters which wanted to discover the new potential and learned to live with the downsides like smaller than 35mm film sensors, terrible battery life, big battery packs, lower resolutions, etc, etc.

I can still remember the endless talks why digital was better than film and visa versa not even a decade ago. Now a few iterations later digital has more resolution than ever before, runs circles around film in the ISO and DR department and cameras can take thousands of images on a small battery. I can't remember the last new film camera being announced, film producers lower their production or stop entirely, film prices go up, can only be bought in specific places, etc. So digital beats film on all aspects besides nostalgia and the trend sensitive Hipster types so the conclusion is that digital clearly won the race.

The move from DSLR to mirrorless will follow the same path, we are still a few iterations away for mirrorless to become a proper alternative for all photogs. Again there are early adopters discovering the new potential while dealing with the limitations like terrible battery life, slow viewfinders, worse AF, etc but in a few iterations these will all be on par with a pro DSLR and probably beat them into oblivion like digital did with film. More will make the jump to mirrorless when the benefits of a DSLR disappear like snow under the sun and only a handful of photogs will keep shooting a DSLR for nostalgia purposes (and of course the trendy Hipster 2.0 types).

 

 

[stenrasmussen]

Mirrorless found a niche in the "small and capable" category.
Since then they've grown bigger, evolved in the EVF and AF department and will soon be ready to outclass traditional DSLR's. But not just yet.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Do not forget that there is no rule set in stone to have "one size fits all" camera. There will always be need for specialised or niche cameras optimised for that field of photography.

Plus, to repeat an earlier point, the better approach would be to make use of any already existing lens base. Optical designs aren't rattled out as peas in a pod, they take time to develop and even more time to fine-tune and make ready for volume production. A properly designed lens has longevity of many decades. People do want to use existing lenses on new cameras for a good number of reasons, not all originating in nostalgia.

[Jakov Minić]

A digital SLR put the analogue SLR to bed. I agree on that.
Why will a digital mirror-less camera put a digital SLR to bed is not yet clear to me?

Why do we have to chose, either - or?
Can't we see them as tools and use them in accordance with the assignment at hand?
When I bought the AW-1, I bought it to go under water, I didn't buy it because it was mirror-less

I have a question to all those mirror-less fans; when will the DSLR become obsolete as film is today?
Is the inevitability going to happen next year, in 3 years, in 7 years, in a dozen years, etc?

Smartphones are, as already mentioned taking over the market of point and shoot cameras. Perhaps they are a threat to both DSLRs and mirror-less cameras?