Are DSLR's soon to be a thing of the past?

TheGenerous said:

Good optics is what matters, and as of today SLRs (analog and digital) outperform the micro four thirds cameras.



Honestly, it sounds you have little experience shooting. Through the viewfinder you get better composition, and better focus since your eye receives the proper amount of light. Your histograms will be good and will confirm your use of the viewfinder.

With out a viewfinder is like reading on an iPad under direct sun light at the beach. Not to mention during a concert or while metering light on night photography.

Click to expand...

You're right, the viewfinder can provide a more accurate view in some situations, but it fails in low light, long shutter exposures, etc. It's got just as many flaws as looking at a screen. And a screen can be a lot more convenient for getting a desired composition than putting your eye up to the viewfinder in perhaps every situation except direct sunlight. Exposure simulation is possible on a screen... not in a viewfinder.

But anyway, I think we agree, it's not the screen or viewfinder that separates these cameras... it's the quality of the images they produce.

danahn17 said:

Agreed that the baby DSLRs may be replaced by micro 4/3 cameras. I've tried a bunch of micro 4/3 (Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, Samsung, Nikon) and I'd rather take any of those than an entry level DSLR on my travels.

Click to expand...

Just to add – Sony, Samsung and Nikon don't make Micro Four Thirds Cameras. Samsung and Sony use APS-C sensors, which are exactly the same size as you get in entry/mid level DSLRs. Just in a smaller package. Of course the two remaining advantages the entry/mid range DSLRs have are focussing speed and lens choices.

colour said:

DSLR's will always be used by those that require that kind of control and scope in a camera, perhaps more on a professional level. People will still carry around flashes and lenses if they are avid photographers so really only the body will become smaller.

Click to expand...

It is funny as arguably what you have described is a compact system camera. You can carry around as many lenses and flashes as you like for a compact system cameras. You can also very much have creative control. The along thing removed is the mirror and prism. Which have been removed for the exact reason you cite: to make the body smaller.

colour said:

I see the smaller cameras, such as the ones you mentioned, becoming more affordable and there is a market for it, but most people will opt for whatever will be in their mobile phone which I'm sure will become incredibly sophisticated in the next few years.

Click to expand...

It might be sophisticated, but as some point you run up against the laws of physics. It's not really possible to include a bigger sensor without also making the lens bigger. Resulting in a bigger, bulkier phone.

danahn17 said:

But until you can create a micro 4/3 camera with full frame sensor, low noise (at high ISO), and with a wide selection of good glass, the higher end DSLRs will probably be here to stay for the foreseeable future. There's no way I could trade in my D700 for any of the aforementioned micro 4/3 cameras, especially when image quality--even in tough lighting situations--is of utmost importance (like say wedding in a dim church). 🙂

Click to expand...

Spot on! None of the 4/3 cameras will get close to my Canon 5d Mk2 with L glass. I expect the gap to close, but don't see the death of DSLR when you want the very best IQ

elppa said:

Just to add – Sony, Samsung and Nikon don't make Micro Four Thirds Cameras. Samsung and Sony use APS-C sensors, which are exactly the same size as you get in entry/mid level DSLRs. Just in a smaller package. Of course the two remaining advantages the entry/mid range DSLRs have are focussing speed and lens choices.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction! 🙂 I just tend to group them together because of their similar performances and size 😱 Will keep it in mind for next time 🙂

DSLR's are not going to fade away from the picture. With the amount of DSLR's I see around the necks of soccer mom's and dad's lately, I think, if anything, they have become more mainstreamed. Granted, these people have Canon Rebel's and Nikon D90's around their necks, not 5DIII's or D800's. There will always be the convienence of having a compact camera with you at all times (see the iPhone in your pocket). I have no issues carrying my 5DII around with me if I know I'm planning on taking pictures. Nothing can compare to the quality of images I get from my 5DII and L lenses.

Mirrorless tech would have to step it up. I haven't received my OM-D yet, but even with my E-P3, there's a lag between focusing and shooting unlike with my 5D MKII. The controls are more compact and it's easier to do something you're not intending. Plus, you still have to use menus and electronic changes for things you could otherwise do with a press of a button on a DSLR.

If mirrorless cameras could improve to where they exactly matched the performance of a DSLR, then it would come down to personal preference. Some people like sport bikes while others like cruisers. Unless they offered a DSLR shaped body with mirrorless internals, people would still be drawn to that form factor vs. a viewfinder style camera. Weight savings may matter for some but if I'm shooting a job, I don't mind carrying a gripped full frame DSLR with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS/OS/VR lens on it.

We'd have to see more with larger sensors as well and price would be an issue. I wouldn't pay more than $2,500 for a full frame mirrorless camera. I also would hesitate spending much more than $1,000 on a 4/3 sensor. Sensor size matters. If it didn't, we'd all be shooting with iPhones. Some people either want larger sensors or need them. Those that shoot where they're now used to getting very usable photos at 3200 ISO + with no additional lighting would scoff at using an smaller sensor with less performance. When I was shooting concerts, I would often shoot at 4000-6400 ISO and not even worry about it like I would when shooting about 1600 ISO with my old 30D. I also love my 15mm fish eye and 17-40 wide angle lens. I stick a 20mm lens on my E-P3 and I have the FOV of a 40mm lens. It's just not good for those of us that like wide angles. It would take a 8.5mm rectiliner lens to equal the FOV of my widest lens and then I'm wondering what the distortion on that would look like.

There are obviously other reasons, but I don't think DSLRs are going anywhere any time soon.

Since just about everyone owns a smartphone these days, they own what is essentially a serviceable p&s camera by default. So they're already more 'image literate' than their parents (even if the quality of their photos is questionable).

There'll be a market for DSLRs for a long time yet, I reckon, but in between the DSLR and the smartphone there seem to be a lot of camera formats fighting for market share... and it will take a few years to discover which one is the VHS of the photographic world... and which one is the Betamax...

I think they wil co-exist. P&S have are becoming less and less relevant because of smartphones. I think mirrorless cameras will take the place of P&S and become fairly standard and take much better pictures than both P&S and smartphones as well as giving the creative freedom of a manual camera with interchangeable lenses. Also the size makes it a viable option for those considering an entry level DSLR and the amateurs that know they won't be printing billboards with their shots. DSLR will probably probably still be used by serious amateurs and pros as they will still offer a better performance. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more portrait/studio/fashion photographers to start using medium formats as their price is coming down as well.

I wouldn't really mind sacrificing on lens choice and overall performance in order to have a camera I'd tote along with me everywhere. I don't see any of the formats disappearing, if anything, we'll see different formats suited for different needs. Heck even range finders like the fuji X series have a market.

TheGenerous said:

Good optics is what matters, and as of today SLRs (analog and digital) outperform the micro four thirds cameras.



Honestly, it sounds you have little experience shooting. Through the viewfinder you get better composition, and better focus since your eye receives the proper amount of light. Your histograms will be good and will confirm your use of the viewfinder.

With out a viewfinder is like reading on an iPad under direct sun light at the beach. Not to mention during a concert or while metering light on night photography.

Click to expand...

I think VR means he isn't fond of the physical process of using a viewfinder. Mashing a camera up against your face and squinting through a tiny opening isn't optimal, especially if you wear glasses like I do. Personally, I miss the days of pulling a dark cloth over my head and framing up on a large format ground glass, inverted image and all.

On the topic of micro 4/3, I don't think it will replace the DSLR or even effect the future of the entry level models like the Rebels from Canon. M4/3 has an advantage over DSLR in size and convenience. People who like to carry a camera at all times will lean that way as the price come down.

The main advantage DSLR has, on a process level, is that you see exactly what the lens sees. Seeing the scene and relevant photo info on an LCD isn't the same given the glare factor in daylight. Personally, I find the shooting posture of holding the camera away from my head distracting. I like to be right in their with the image I'm composing.

Professional photography is a large business supporting a huge number of small businesses. Just look up "photography" in your local area if you don't agree. You won't find these people with M4/3 or mirror-less cameras on tripods in their studios, but they might start to show up as a second camera for wedding or event photography. Given that professionals use DSLRs as their working platform, there will always be entry level DSLR cameras on the market. On the Canon side, the jump from from M4/3 to 7D or 5D is way too much of a learning curve. The Rebel series isn't going away.

My 2€ worth.

Dale

I think there will be a place for each camera type down the road. Each individual will have their own needs for a camera so there will be trade-offs for each kind. Whether it be features, price, weight, etc., I think there will be a market for all of them.

Personally, I love my T3i however I wish I could have something a little lighter to tote around with me. I had looked at the Sony Nex camera as an alternative but I was a noob then and didn't fully understand what the benefits/differences were between the two. Now, I'm still a noob, but slightly more educated than before 😛 Had I opportunity to do it over again, I probably would've gotten the Sony Nex as it would fit my needs a little better than the T3i. Then again, I only take random pics like on vacation or whatever, nothing serious by any means so I wouldn't necessarily need anything over the top. Overall though, still happy with my T3i and if/when it dies/gets lost, I may switch up and get something comparable but slightly smaller.

Prodo123 said:

Because once the frames blur together at 24fps, you really can't notice the noise unless you encoded it badly.
With stills, it's one stationary frame that you observe with detail.

Click to expand...

It's still the garbage in - garbage out rule. For the best output results, you're going to want to record in RAW for stills _and_ video. Sure, the majority have to do with compressed video acquisition. A larger number of still photographers have a choice.

Sure, the brain can ignore a lot when it comes to video, but only to a point. A bad video or a bad JPEG is still irritating. That 7GB 1080p video will look like crap compared to the 50GB file, even given a master encoder did the work. So much information has to be lost to achieve such a high compression. Given the opportunity, I'll take the 50GB distribution file, or disc.


As for the real subject of this thread, I agree with a lot that has been said here. DSLs will become a higher end niche market well something like the 4/3 cameras will take over the low end of the DSL range. Point and shoots will always exist because there are plenty of people that want more capability than their cell phone provides or perhaps simply don't wan to mix the two.

What I'd like to see is an industry API standard for software developers to control cameras. Usable from USB, WiFi and Bluetooth, you could have a large array of devices such as an iPhone control all aspects of your camera. This would extend the capabilities of your camera, lens and flashes to new heights that the camera manufactures refuse venture into. Even the iPhones API is lacking.

xStep said:

It's still the garbage in - garbage out rule. For the best output results, you're going to want to record in RAW for stills _and_ video. Sure, the majority have to do with compressed video acquisition. A larger number of still photographers have a choice.

Sure, the brain can ignore a lot when it comes to video, but only to a point. A bad video or a bad JPEG is still irritating. That 7GB 1080p video will look like crap compared to the 50GB file, even given a master encoder did the work. So much information has to be lost to achieve such a high compression. Given the opportunity, I'll take the 50GB distribution file, or disc.

Click to expand...

The difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about is that I like to watch movies. If I was working on them then yes I would use the highest quality possible. Otherwise I recognize that 7GB is more practical than 50GB and prefer lossy compression.
This is why I root for a Blu-ray drive on the MBP. Then there would be no need for lossy compression.

Prodo123 said:

The difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about is that I like to watch movies. If I was working on them then yes I would use the highest quality possible. Otherwise I recognize that 7GB is more practical than 50GB and prefer lossy compression.
This is why I root for a Blu-ray drive on the MBP. Then there would be no need for lossy compression.

Click to expand...

I like to look at pictures too, but do I want to download only RAW images. Nope. A decent JPEG or PNG is fine. They allow me to view the POTD thread multiple times a day if I want without waiting and waiting and waiting. We're both willing to give up something for practical convenience. 🙂

Vote me in wanting to see BR playback built-in to Mac OS. I doubt it will ever happen. Predictions are that the next MBPs will drop the DVD drive. There is also the intrusion of the BD standard into the OS that Apple doesn't want to deal with. Perhaps an external BD drive with Windows in an virtual machine or dual booted will be the only real option. 🙁

Several things:

Prodo123 said:

Until EVFs have near-nonexistent display lag, correct representation of color and exposure and don't give me headaches and fatigue, my OVF and DSLR are staying.

Click to expand...

I don't own it, but the OLED EVF display on Sony's A77, NEX-7 and optional attachment for the NEX-5N/NEX-F3 with its 2 million dot OLED screen is said to be one of the best ever made. So there is a EVF with no lag and accurate colour representation. Optical viewfinder is useless as you don't see what you get and coverage and composition is not 100% and obviously useless for macro. The mirror is great, but removing it is what enables us to get smaller mirrorless camera bodies.

TheGenerous said:

Good optics is what matters, and as of today SLRs (analog and digital) outperform the micro four thirds cameras.

Click to expand...

Mirrorless lenses are getting better, the Panasonic zoom with constant f/2.8 for micro 4/3, Carl Zeiss 24/1.8 (yes it's over US$1000) for the NEX system and up coming Sony G lenses seem to be excellent and I'm not sure how SLR lenses are better than mirrorless.

Better yet, you can use a variety of lenses (vintage) on system cameras, although I found really only the NEX with it's 1.5X crop factor to be useful with other lenses, the 2X crop in micro 4/3 creeps wide-angle into telephoto category and the 2.7X crop in Nikon just makes a lot of lenses telephoto ones. Samsung's 1.5X crop is useful but I heard about it being a pain in the backside to use vintage lenses on it (having the mount disassembled? not sure don't quote me).

elppa said:

Just to add – Sony, Samsung and Nikon don't make Micro Four Thirds Cameras. Samsung and Sony use APS-C sensors, which are exactly the same size as you get in entry/mid level DSLRs. Just in a smaller package.

Click to expand...

There seems to be this misconception by many that the term "mirrorless" and micro 4/3 can be use interchangeably. Many of the mirrorless camera use different sensor:

APS-C with 1.5X crop
Sony NEX, Samsung NX, Fuji X-Pro1

micro 4/3 with 2X crop
Panasonic LUMIX, Olympus PEN

Nikon "CX" with 2.7X crop
Nikon 1
(bit disappointing was going to get this instead of the NEX but the small sensor threw me off)

1/2.3" with (I think about 5.5X crop factor)
Pentax Q, only camera I know to use this point-and-shoot sensor

Tea-Aholic said:

I don't own it, but the OLED EVF display on Sony's A77, NEX-7 and optional attachment for the NEX-5N/NEX-F3 with its 2 million dot OLED screen is said to be one of the best ever made. So there is a EVF with no lag and accurate colour representation. Optical viewfinder is useless as you don't see what you get and coverage and composition is not 100% and obviously useless for macro. The mirror is great, but removing it is what enables us to get smaller mirrorless camera bodies.

Click to expand...

There is no EVF with no lag. The very definition of EVF constitutes lag. The EVF is only as fast as the camera's refresh rate, which in this case is 60fps. Thus there is always at least 1/60th second of lag.
Also, as I have previously stated in many other threads, OLED and AMOLEDs are ridiculously oversaturated. It is very hard to control this oversaturation, due to the nature of OLEDs. It absolutely sucks.
With OVFs and DSLRs, you see exactly what you get. It's useful for every and all applications. A mirror reflects what would be on the sensor to the pentaprism to your eye, thus allowing you to see exactly what the camera sees. Depending on the camera, you might also get 100% coverage, which means accurate framing. Finally, since you see what the camera sees, there is absolutely no lag.
What you talk of is rangefinders, which work by a completely different principle from EVFs and OVFs.