Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
DSLR vs Mirrorless sales
- Thread starter MCAsan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Photography can be an expensive hobby, full of trade-offs. That's the conundrum of a photographer; no matter the price point of your equipment there are trade-offs aplenty.
I personally would rather lug around the big 'ol camera and L glass and get the shots I envision than not be able to get the shots I want.
Agree. If I don't get a good shot, I know it's not the equipment that failed. It was probably me!
The wife and I reached the point that we could not each lug around 50 pounds of 35mm bodies and L glass. So the option was to go smaller/lighter or stay home. We can now carry 2 M43 bodies, 4 lenses, and a Macbook in each of our messenger bags. We are enjoying photography again. Your milage may vary. 
I am not sold on the m43 factor and would rather carry around the camera and glass.
As photographers, we should be happy there isn't one size fits all.
As photographers, we should be happy there isn't one size fits all.
Do you even know what a DSLR is?
A Hasselblad H5D is a DSLR. A Pentax 645z is a DSLR. Leaf is a relatively obscure company so I did have to google that one. They make digital backs for SLRs.
Not a problem with a full frame F-mount mirrorless camera, and tiny to boot
If you don't get the "shot" it is not the camera...
Except maybe video. Many of the DSLRs I've used really stink at this, maybe cuz they are optimizing for optical viewfinders. And while some could argue that video is a silly add-on (like wifi) to an otherwise good still camera, others might appreciate the versatility.
I have everything from keyring camera to DSLR and they all have their uses; sorta a horses for courses thing. Somebody might sneer at wifi; I've needed it for time lapses and stealth shooting by remote. YMMV.
I just think that as long as manufacturers are putting computers into cameras (M43, DSLR, or PS)(and they all do) they should at least make a good interface (aren't touch screens a duh?) and have features that are useful to some. Just like most of the features on most cameras, not all will be used by all people. The key to whether all those art filters are a nuisance/bloat or whether they aren't is in the design of the interface.
I sometimes think DSLRs/M43 for hobbyists (a bigger market than pros?) is kinda like ham radio. Sorta archaic, but it just trundles along. And a weird mix of cutting edge tech and ancient stuff. And sometimes influential beyond its numbers. After all, most phone camera stuff appeared first on real cameras. Be nice to see more innovation (OTOH you can get a Lyttro real cheap at Woot...).
Not a problem with a full frame F-mount mirrorless camera, and tiny to boot
If you don't get the "shot" it is not the camera...
I'll stay with my dslr, really don't like mirrorless and evf. To each their own.
A camera phone is not capable of getting "the shot".
I was at the USS Arizona memorial last month, and I wanted to take a picture of one of the plaques on the wall. I stood about 30 feet away where I cold shoot straight at it and get a nice straight-on shot. Despite the dim lighting, my picture is razor sharp and shows every texture detail of the metal.
I had to wait for an iPhone user to get out of my way. His phone had no range, so he was about 5 feet from the plaque, where he was forced to lean sideways over a rope and shoot at a 45 degree angle. His plaque looks like a trapazoid and lacks the detail. I could see his screen through my viewfinder.
Not to mention the shots from land of my family members standing in front of the nice big memorial dominating the shot. With the iPhone, the memorial is a tiny unrecognizable spec in the distance.
I almost feel bad for the people willing to spend $$$$$ on a trip to Hawaii and won't even buy a sub $1000 DSLR kit so all they take home are iPhone snapshots. And they don't even know what they are missing out on, because they talk to idiots who say all you need is an iPhone, look at this National Geographic photographer who shot a spread with an iPhone, look at this fashion photographer who shot a runway show with an iPhone….
Fine, then use a scan back on your LF of choice. Absolute image quality, DSLR loses. Ok?
Last edited:
The wife and I reached the point that we could not each lug around 50 pounds of 35mm bodies and L glass. So the option was to go smaller/lighter or stay home. We can now carry 2 M43 bodies, 4 lenses, and a Macbook in each of our messenger bags. We are enjoying photography again. Your milage may vary.
"So the option was to go smaller/lighter or stay home."
That's a pretty important statement to consider. It's especially relevant for me. I'm still more than capable of lugging DSLR weights up mountains and everywhere I go and I do so because I want the quality and flexibility. There are times in my outdoor activities where I really want "one hand operation" and my FF DSLR can be too much. By that I mean being able to get it out of the holster, compose, and shoot one handed. I can do that most of the time with the D750 as long as it's set up and ready to go. I'm interested in mirrorless full frame cameras because of this. The weight savings as well, but the D750 with a single lens is pretty light. I know a few professional adventure/outdoor photographers who have gone to the Sony mirrorless series because of this.
What I'm really searching for now is an easy access carry system that is as small as possible (D750 + 1 lens attached) that protects the camera and keeps it snug against me. I can see that their might be more options for that with mirrorless systems.
To give you an idea on weight reduction, we now shoot on Feisol legs and Sirui ballheads. The weight of both the legs and head is less than either the Gitzo legs or RRS 55 ballheads we used to use.
When we have been on photo shoots surrounded by Canon and Nikon shooters all with Gitzo and RRS sets, they start asking in a day or so why we have such small equipment. Then then start looking at our photos, checking the size and weight of the equipment and are totally surprised. On one of the Van Os shoots one of the other shooters started a dialog with us about the equipment. He was facing health problems and no longer carry tons of equipment. He went home to Dallas, sold off his Canon equipment, went M43 and could continue enjoying photography for several more years. In one of the clubs we joined, around 1/4 of the members have migrated to M43.
Obviously M43 is not for everyone. Neither are 35mm Nikon nor Canon. Everyone needs to select the equipment family that best fits their budget, photography goals, and ability to transport.
When we have been on photo shoots surrounded by Canon and Nikon shooters all with Gitzo and RRS sets, they start asking in a day or so why we have such small equipment. Then then start looking at our photos, checking the size and weight of the equipment and are totally surprised. On one of the Van Os shoots one of the other shooters started a dialog with us about the equipment. He was facing health problems and no longer carry tons of equipment. He went home to Dallas, sold off his Canon equipment, went M43 and could continue enjoying photography for several more years. In one of the clubs we joined, around 1/4 of the members have migrated to M43.
Obviously M43 is not for everyone. Neither are 35mm Nikon nor Canon. Everyone needs to select the equipment family that best fits their budget, photography goals, and ability to transport.
My exact reasons for considering a move to FF mirrorless...
----------
Hahahahaha, you couldn't be more wrong
It is 2015, while smartphone cameras are not on par with a FF DSLR, they are very good in the right hands...
My exact reasons for considering a move to FF mirrorless...
----------
Hahahahaha, you couldn't be more wrong
It is 2015, while smartphone cameras are not on par with a FF DSLR, they are very good in the right hands...
And the right circumstances. Capturing movement in low light situations will always look poor on a camera phone, even if used by a pro.
Always is a very LONG time...
You'll just say anything, won't you.
You just replied to me saying it's 2015 and smartphones are very good in the right hands. Now always is a long time to give smartphones time to catch up?
Hahahahaha, you couldn't be more wrong
It is 2015, while smartphone cameras are not on par with a FF DSLR, they are very good in the right hands...
And this is where your twisted view is most harmful.
First of all, now they are not good at all in the right hands. In the hands of someone skilled enough to understand the limits of a smartphone camera (no reach, horrible dynamic range, horrible optical resolution, etc), they can take a picture under ideal circumstances to mitigate those shortcomings and come up with a decent picture, in a special case.
Hence you get the articles that idiots use to say if it's good enough for National Geographic, it's good enough for you. And the end user doesn't even know what they're missing out on.
Second, we're not talking about a seasoned pro-photographer. We're talking about an average user who doesn't understand that their family room at night is about 8 stops darker than it was outside that afternoon. The iPhone may work in the latter lighting, but in the former, you may as well just leave it in your pocket, you'll get an equally useless shot.
At a retirement party recently, the "festivities" were happing in front of a bright noon-time window and all the "photographers" were shooting towards the happy retiree. And none of them even knew why all they were shooting were silhouettes. I guess you'll just say they should have known to download an app that lets them shoot manual and set the exposure a few stops brighter?
Wow, you didn't even understand the posts... Read it a little closer
----------
Twisted view
are you serious... The current incarnation of consumer DSLRs are as dead as buggy whips... A majority of people who buy DSLRs never get out of automatic and never use anything but the kit lens, for these people the smartphone camera is all they need (in the future the smart phone camera will only get better). Just look at
's move away from Aperture and to Photos (a purely consumer photo cataloging app).Just read any piece on "Disruptive Technology". Will DSLRs go away? No. Will DSLRs be the go to camera for the masses? No. Their day has come and gone.
Wow, you didn't even understand the posts... Read it a little closer
----------
Twisted view
The current incarnation of consumer DSLRs are as dead as buggy whips... A majority of people who buy DSLRs never get out of automatic and never use anything but the kit lens, for these people the smartphone camera is all they need (in the future the smart phone camera will only get better). Just look at
Just read any piece on "Disruptive Technology". Will DSLRs go away? No. Will DSLRs be the go to camera for the masses? No. Their day has come and gone.
Image
Yep, the future of photography is that everything will look like it came from a camera phone.
Last edited:
Hey you kids, get off my lawn!!!
Arguing with dinosaurs is always a hoot
The tablet was viewed as a disruptive technology to the pc; yet there are all manner of desktops being sold. Those people who some need for internet connectivity for email and FaceTime don't need anything more than an old tablet. Years ago this choice did not exist. That canon is investing r&d into new bodies and glass says they believe in the dslr future.
Although I do believe in the aphorism:"the best camera is the one you have with you", a collorary is: "the best camera is the one that takes the shot you want".
The quality of your photo depends on the optics and the frame size. For example, the Sony RX1 (35mm f/2) has a full frame and I can get grain free photos in the dark, while the Canon T3i (50mm f/1.4) has a smaller frame and gets some grain. The 'bokeh' in both cameras look totally different because of the lens and the frame size. If I had a full frame DSLR and expensive lenses I'm sure the photos will be more flexible than those of the RX1.
Last edited:
I am not sure that the graph means much. I would need to see years prior to 2012. That was the year that Canon came out with the 5D Mark III and Nikon introduced the D800. I would think that year would be a high point for both companies (for bodies). The camera bodies is only a small part of the story. The number of lenses they have sold in those next couple of years would tell the other part of the story and it isn't presented here.
As for mirrorless vs DSLR. I think it is a matter of choice.
As for mirrorless vs DSLR. I think it is a matter of choice.
Wow, you didn't even understand the posts... Read it a little closer
----------
Twisted view
The current incarnation of consumer DSLRs are as dead as buggy whips... A majority of people who buy DSLRs never get out of automatic and never use anything but the kit lens, for these people the smartphone camera is all they need (in the future the smart phone camera will only get better). Just look at
Just read any piece on "Disruptive Technology". Will DSLRs go away? No. Will DSLRs be the go to camera for the masses? No. Their day has come and gone.
Image
That image doesn't really hold up with respect to imaging tech. Improvements that make their way to smartphones can typically be usedin larger cameras. Optics get better at a very slow pace. I don't think many people expect a huge breakthrough in optics in the next 15-20 years. Sure we'll have smaller, cheaper lenses that let more light in at a cheaper price but it won't be all that much. As for the sensors, I think we see about a stop better performance every 4 year (noise, DR, resolution, which ever way you want to cut it). Which kind of fits Moore's law... However, smartphones have roughly a 7 times crop factor. While DSLRs have recently started taking decent pictures in dimly light rooms it will take a long time for smartphone cameras to get there. It's pretty simple, if you want a camera stuck to a phone that fits in your pockets, it's going to be small, if the camera is small it gathers little light and has poor acuity...
But yeah I do agree with you, dedicated camera sales will dwindle. A dedicated camera makes little sense to people who want to get snapshots when they have a decent camera in their pocket. In one way, I think DSLRs were seen as the top cameras you could get. Lots of people were buying DSLRs only to use them as point and shoots and keep them in auto. The rationale being, I need a camera, I've got money and I want to look good, so I'll get a 600$ SLR. Another thing to consider is that DSLR have stagnated in innovation. My 5 y/o Canon 550D still takes great pictures, even when compared to newer models. DSLRs innovated quickly in the early 2000s, 2008 to 2010 marked the inclusion of HD video but since then, not a whole lot has happened.
With that said, I think social media has sparked an interest in photography in a new generation. Way more people want to share pictures, people and small businesses want to build a brand and a following. Most of the young people I see getting into photography and buying camera gear have started on Instagram. They start by taking snapshots, then they want to take better shots, get praise from friends and family and finally invest some more time and money into it. However, those folks have different needs - small, not too expensive cameras that they can quickly share their images online.
I've had a similar post earlier on this but the ILC manufacturer that will nail a camera for instagramers will have a hit.