Nice article on the future of digital hardware.

[flamin lib]

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=5479&news=migration+to+mirrorless+ditching+the+DSLR+Olympus+Sony+Fuji

I was shooting my daughter's first Karate belt test with my OMD E-M5 and the do-jo's (sp?) official photog was using a 'Niconnon' with equivalent lens. His setup weighed 3 pounds, mine a few ounces.

Seems all the leading mfgs are joining the trend, a little late and a bit behind the curve but getting there. Good to see a resurgence of second tier product like Fugi, Sony and Panasonic kicking some Niconnon butt. (Nikon and Cannon have 70% of the digital market and that tends to stifle competition and development).

This is good news on two fronts; the best camera is the one you have with you and small is good (I carry my OM in a wrist strap!) and there will be some really good deals on used DSLR gear. I have an Oly E-620 with two lenses (28-300 mm equiv) that I can only get $300 for (less to a deserving home).

If ya' wanna go to DSLR now is the time to get in cheap as 5 years from now the genre will disappear even if it still makes great images.

[NV Whino]

1. Thanks.

Good article. And his images were stunning.

[hunter]

2. Back in the film days I loved my Olympus XA.

wikipedia

That was the first higher quality camera I ever bought and I took it everywhere.

For me having a small, rugged camera is preferable to carrying a larger camera around because the odds are I won't have the larger camera with me when I want to take a picture.

[sir pball]

3. DSLRs will disappear just like view cameras did.

Oh wait. They haven't gone, by any means, and DSLRs aren't going anywhere, either.

Now, I can see in the next ten years the consumer, even the "prosumer", lines dropping off. ILCs are finally there, with MFT or even APS-C sensors; I got a DSLR because it was dirt-cheap (one model behind) and I have nine F-mount lenses that have pretty much locked me in until Nikon makes an F ILC body. Which will look comical stuck to the back of my ancient, all-metal, five-pound, utterly exemplary 300mm tube. That, and I just can't with EVFs/Live View. Optical 4 lyfe!

But seriously, outside of our world where things like "price" and "portability" are any kind of consideration, the DSLR isn't going anywhere - there probably will never be an ILC that can match a sixty-megapixel MF sensor behind a Hasselblad lens.

[flamin lib]

4. Sure if you can afford to spend the cost of an average house

And expect to print murals measured in feet or yards instead of inches.

Some can and do. Virtually no body in the real world does tho.

I shot Kodachrome 25 for years to make 16x20s. My first cheap 5 megapixel had more resolution than the prime lens 35mm from back in the day.

The advantages to view cameras are in swings, shifts and tilts. When I first encountered the Schiemflug principal it took a week to wrap my head around it-really? You can do that with focus? Now software can replicate almost all that.

Na, just like film the SLR will fall into disuse for the vast majority of imaging. There are still people making their own emulsions and preserving the "dark (room) arts" but that's a different technology from digital, not a minor derivative of it.

See, cameras don't make images. They simply allow you to extract them from your head and show others what you've seen.

[groundloop]

5. I don't see DSLR's going anywhere in the near future

They certainly aren't the only game in town anymore, but they'll always have their place. If you don't care about being able to control depth-of-field, high shutter speed or super fast frames-per-minute for sports, etc. then certainly there are other cameras out there that can do well. But IMO people who are pretty seriously into photography will be using DSLRs for the foreseeable future.

[flamin lib]

8. All that stuff is comming soon to a mirrorless near you.

Meanwhile take advantage of the deals on DSLR stuff as it ages out.

[groundloop]

9. What's the real advantage of mirrorless over DSLR????

Sure, a mirrorless camera is a little bit smaller than a DSLR, but you still need a quality lens to do top notch photos. My 70-200 lens coupled with a mirrorless is gonna' be just about as big a package as with it on a DSLR. I tried a mirrorless a couple of weeks ago. Sure, it worked ok, but there's a disconcerting lag between what's going on in front of me and what I see in the viewfinder. NO WAY could I shoot sports like that.

And mirror lag you say? When a camera can crank off 8 or more frames per second I don't see mirror lag as an issue.

[flamin lib]

11. Size is a big issue. The best camera is the one you have with you.

You shoot sports and I once shot formula 1 racing-- had a lot of shots with rear wheels only

Use what ya know but know what you're using will someday be obsoleted. I fought digital for years, afraid to lose my OM system. Now I'm converted, plus the gadgets are coming along as the genre matures.

I wept the day Olympus announced that they would no longer support the OM system. Keep your eyes and mind open, the future is just around the corner as image quality and features improve.

[sir pball]

14. The size difference between my D5100-35/1.8 and any ILC is insiginificant.

I don't mean relative to each other; there are a lot of ILCs that are smaller - though not by too much, removing the optics from the body takes the hump off but the width/depth are the same. What I mean is it's no easier for me to casually carry an X100/GX7/EM1 than my DSLR; I don't have any pockets that will fit either, and if I'm carrying a bag it's not so space-constrained that I can't fit the latter over the former.

We're running into a physical barrier - the truism that a "good lens will always beat a good sensor" is still quite in effect and even with somewhat smaller MFT sensors, you still have a rather large hunk sticking off the front of the camera, which DSLR or ILC makes stuffing it in a pocket quite the pain in the ass. Me, I have a small satchel that fits my body and a couple lenses, a vest that does the same, and a full on backpack that holds digital and film bodies, all my lenses, and a tripod. Realistically, dropping the size of the body by 25% or even a third would make no difference - an 18-270 zoom is a beast no matter what's stuck to the back of it, and I will never ever buy a serious fixed-lens camera

[liberal N proud]

6. As popular as point and shoot and I-Phone cameras are, they still can't compete with DSLR

When I want to take a shot of the sunset or anything else that has any quality resolution, I need a DSLR.


Point and shoot and I-Phone cameras are poor cameras for quality photography. Can you imagine hiring a photographer for an event and they show up with an I-Phone? If I wanted I-Phone pictures, I wouldn't hire a photographer. DSLR's are not going anywhere as long as there is professional photography. The laymen will take the cheap way out and wonder why their picture of the alps is grainy.

[flamin lib]

7. Not talking about p&s or cell phones.

Read the article. Ya' can't compare p&s to any of the modern mirroless cameras. Its the next step in evolution for digital. As processors and sensors get better there's no need for the bulk of mirror boxes plus they're faster without the mirror lag--an issue we dealt with in the film days.

No, DSLRs won't become totally extinct, but embrace the future.

[groundloop]

12. I'll embrace the future when it can meet my needs

Right now mirrorless technology hasn't caught up. One big issue morrorless still has to work on is autofocus (both in terms of speed of focusing and ability to focus in low light). Yes, they're getting better, but they still can't match the phase detection systems used in DSLRs. I imagine over the next several years the two systems will gradually merge, but until then I'll need the superior features of DSLRs.

[ManiacJoe]

10. The implied definition of professional seemed a bit restrictive in that article.

Sure, if you are doing mostly studio work, mirrorless can do a great job.

When it comes to size, smaller is not necessarily better.

[rdking647]

13. a jave a mirroless and a dslr

a nikon d600 and a sony nex-6
the only think holding me back from selling by d600 is the lack of lenses for the sony.
give me some good fast glass and something in teh super telephoto range (like the sigma 150-500) and the d600 will probably be sold

[sir pball]

15. That's a tall order

I've realized one of the big limitations of ILCs, at least non-EVFs, is the difficulty getting a stable shot with a long lens while holding it out to look at the back of the body. Being able to physically snug the camera into your body and prop your arms up on your body makes a huge difference. Sure, VR helps, a lot, but even that has limits - my Sigma is pushing it at 270mm and 1/50 sec, I don't think that would work with live view.

That, and like I said above, once you have a gigantic hunk of glass like an 18-270 or 150-500, the body size is irrelevant.