# Are DSLR's a dying breed?



## PhotoFrenzie (Nov 24, 2012)

Okay, i'm the kind of person who cares about being future proof. I don't like buying things and then have them be obsolete in a few years, or in this case invest in a certain system. 

So, here's my dilemma. I wouldn't say that I am a complete beginner with photography. I have taken classes at my school but it was with film. I want to invest in a digital system but don't know which one. Nikon d3200 paired with a 35 1.8 and then expand from there or a macro 4/3's system? (Don't know which one yet)

Here's my worries about investing in a dslr system. I have read and seen many people talking about how macro 4/3's is the future of photography and that dslr's will be a thing of the past in the next 5 -10 years. I don't know what to think, but I do know that every product has a product cycle and this could very well be the direction were headed. The thing about the macro 4/3's is they seem a little to small for me, I want something with bulk and that feels good in my hands. My dad owns a dslr and I like the way it feels. I just don't want to buy into a dying system. 

This is more of an opinion question, just want to know what you guys think about the path dslr's and macro 4/3's cameras are going.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 24, 2012)

No. DSLR's aren't going anywhere. Maybe for the hobby shooter who wants a small camera that they can put in their pocket as well as change lenses the 4/3 is a solution, but the DSLR market is still growing every day and it's not going anywhere in the foreseeable future. Pro's are not going to switch to 4/3, the sensor size is a problem for us.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 24, 2012)

In photography, nothing ever seems to die.

There's still a market for technologies that were replaced more than 100 years ago. DSLRs as we know them today will eventually cease to dominate, the market, but they won't outright die for.. shoot, it's anyone's guess. I expect there will still be someone making camera more or less like the DSLRs of today well after I am dead. The current DSLR systems aren't going to go away until well after anything you buy today has worn out.


----------



## usayit (Nov 24, 2012)

You're dealing with technology... there's no such thing as "future proof"

Besides...

Just because something better comes out, doesn't mean that the current equipment suddenly stops working.  Concern about stuff going obsolete is completely within the mind.... its only a problem if you make it so.


I believe that micro 4/3 will always have a place and DSLRs days are numbered.  I just don't necessarily think that micro 4/3 will be the one replacing DSLRs.




FOR ME... micro 4/3 has replaced my Canon (1dMark II, 5d, plus a whole list of L lenses) but it was driven by other factors.


----------



## molested_cow (Nov 24, 2012)

You should just do nothing and wait for the future.


----------



## skieur (Nov 24, 2012)

Yes, DSLRs are a dying breed but it is not yet certain what they will be replaced with.  It may not be the 4/3 but rather a mirrorless camera with a large sensor and full frame capability as well as interchangeable lenses.

The advantages of NO flipping mirror and a high resolution electronic viewfinder are:

1. real time feedback through the viewfinder on the visual effect of camera adjustments.
2. less vibration so sharper handheld photos at lower shutterspeeds. (I have handheld at 1 second with a usable result)
3. adjustments, electronic level, histograms, etc. can be displayed in the viewfinder
4. 100% viewfinder coverage even on a non-full frame camera as opposed to 95% on others.
5. Continuous phase detection autofocus when shooting video.

skieur


----------



## TheFantasticG (Nov 24, 2012)

usayit said:
			
		

> You're dealing with technology... there's no such thing as "future proof".



That was my first thought.

I am willing to bet that the DSLR from factor will remain but eventually become mirrorless once the tech catch up.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 24, 2012)

Totally. 

I mean, all of the professionals are using little Sony NEXs and Olympus PEN cameras right? I'm right aren't I?

Even when the flipping mirror goes away I'm sure they'll keep the DSLR form factor. I really hope they do.


----------



## snowbear (Nov 24, 2012)

The Nikkor lenses aren't going anywhere.  I have a 25- to 30-year old AIS macro lens that use on my D40 (with a couple of limitations).  I'm sure, if taken care of, my future grandchildren will be able to use it on whatever Nikon body is around in 25 years.


----------



## usayit (Nov 24, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Totally.
> 
> I mean, all of the professionals are using little Sony NEXs and Olympus PEN cameras right? I'm right aren't I?
> 
> Even when the flipping mirror goes away I'm sure they'll keep the DSLR form factor. I really hope they do.



Both Olympus and Panasonic have recognized that the smallish PEN format will not appeal to all...

The size of the latest Olympus, OMD EM-5,  is about the size of the Nikon D3100

Compare camera dimensions side by side

The size of the latest Panasonic, G5, is about the size of the Nikon D3100.

Compare camera dimensions side by side

Along with the small form factor.  The E-PM1 is smaller than most high end P&S. There's a micro 4/3 camera for everyone....    What is much smaller are the lenses.  My 12-35mm f/2.8 (24-70 f/2.8 equiv) is about the size of a Canon 85mm f/1.8.  My 35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200 f/2.8 equiv) is about the size of the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro.   My 12mm f/2, 20mm f/1.7, 45mm f/1.8, and 75mm f/1.8 are all smaller than the Canon 50mm f/1.4.   That's the appeal of the micro 4/3 system.... its a nice balance between sensor (and IQ) with packaging.  



I'm sure Canon is thinking the same exact thing.... with their mirror less camera, sensor (bigger), and backwards compatibility.


Nikon... well... they went with an even smaller sensor than micro 4/3 so I'm not exactly sure where they are headed...  :er:



What's interesting here is not whether one system will over take the popularity of DSLRs but whether or not the flippin mirror is still necessary.  I predict mirrorless cameras that continue the EF and Nikkor line of lenses in their current mount and sensor sizes.



It think as mirrorless (with interchangeable lens mounts) enter mainstream... another will start to appear.   Fixed lens, full-frame (or larger) sensor, mirrorless, cameras such as this one:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/...view-part-1-an-intro-to-a-compact-powerhouse/

Apparently, when you design the lens and camera together you can squeeze out even more image quality and resolution.  For those that may consider high IQ a priority over the flexibility of changing lenses.   I can see myself carrying two of these cameras with me... one with 24mm equiv and another with 50mm equiv.


----------



## KmH (Nov 24, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> You should just do nothing and wait for the future.


 Sage advice!

Since the rate of change continues to accelerate, it won't be to much longer before the Future and Now are concurrent.

Smaller than full size 135 format (35 mm) image sensors, like the APS-H, APS-C, 4/3,  and smaller image sensors, make it difficult to achieve a very shallow depth-of-field.

Consequently, DSLR image sensors seem to be gravitating to all DSLR camera's having a full frame image sensor.
The current questionable feature in a DSLR is the mirror/viewfinder system. However, a pellicle mirror (beam splitter) was first used in a Canon camera in 1965.
Canon also offered pellicle mirror cameras in 1972 and 1984. Sony calls their pellical mirror a Translucent Mirror.

There are difficulties with pellical mirrors, notably the reduced transmission of light to both the viewfinder system and to the imaging media caused by the mirror splitting the light.


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 24, 2012)

My guess for the "future" will still be DSLR's.  But probably a fixed mirror shutterless camera.  Where the fixed mirror is electronically controlled to act as a shutter (reflective or clear)!  But I still see a need for SLR platform. 

Now for normal consumers there have always been a demand for point and shoots.  From polaroids, disc, 110's, p&s 35mm, etc.  Having digital versions of these now a days is no different.  

A lot of people talk how good their cell phones are as cameras.  It's when people look to do more, they realize the limitations they are working with by not having SLR type equipment.  They will be around at least a couple more decades.  I think you would get your monies worth by the time they are declared dead!!!


----------



## Light Guru (Nov 24, 2012)

Well the R in DSLR is definitely going to have to be dropped as things move to a mirror less but I don't see the basic form factor that the DSLR uses going away any time soon.


----------



## Patriot (Nov 24, 2012)

I don't want to get old. I just love technology! I want to see what the future brings to our next couple of generations.


----------



## Light Guru (Nov 24, 2012)

benhasajeep said:


> My guess for the "future" will still be DSLR's.  But probably a fixed mirror shutterless camera.  Where the fixed mirror is electronically controlled to act as a shutter (reflective or clear)!  But I still see a need for SLR platform.



There are no mirrors at all in electronic shutter cameras. Three eye peace has a LCD that shows what the sensor is seeing. 

I would not be surprised to see a pro body full frame Mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera (MILC) on the market in the next year or two. 

Does this mean that your current DSLR camera will be obsolete? Absolutely not.


----------



## molested_cow (Nov 25, 2012)

We will all know on 12/21 ok! Guys, save your breath!


----------



## TheFantasticG (Nov 25, 2012)

Totally forgot about that. Well, never mind what I said earlier. Completely irrelevant with it all ending next month.


----------



## Light Guru (Nov 25, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> We will all know on 12/21 ok! Guys, save your breath!



And now we know why it's ending. 
http://www.daily-comix.com/facebookview.php?id=1696


----------



## Fred Berg (Nov 25, 2012)

At the electronic stores I shop in they have  camera sections, and in these departments the better cameras are in display cabinets that are locked. Two or three years ago these cabinets were dominated by DSLR cameras and lenses to match. Nowadays the DSLR cameras have about a third of the available display space. 

I have seen the future and there are were no mirrors involved in the creation of this vision.


----------



## Brandon Hill (Nov 25, 2012)

Buy a dslr. You'll be a better photographer for it.  Sell it when the time is right naturally.


----------



## orb9220 (Nov 25, 2012)

> _"Here's my worries about investing in a dslr system. I have read and seen  many people talking about how macro 4/3's is the future of photography  and that dslr's will be a thing of the past in the next 5 -10 years. I  don't know what to think"_



Think about buying a dslr that you can grow into over next 2-5 years. As such wouldn't invest into entry camera's. But next step up like a D7000,D600 or replacement for D300 next year? Stop worring about the Decade lasting thing.

And Use that time to concentrate on learning and taking great photogrpahy. And not so much how long the tool will last as an investment. But a skill value invested for the future. It's inhert value is as a Tool in achieving great images.

Stop approaching it from a Bean Counter Slant. But more from an Artist vision of using it as a Tool for Results.
.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 25, 2012)

Get a film camera then you dont have to worry about technology


----------



## molested_cow (Nov 25, 2012)

If you are letting this "obsolete" issue steering your decision, then clearly you are not making this purchase for the right reason.

It's not about fashion. It's about relevancy. I bought SLR/DSLR because of the control and options I want to have. Quality of the photos is what I care. Then I use my camera phone for all the not-important photos for documentation purpose. So people with specific purposes will acquire the appropriate equipment. If you don't know what your specific priority is, then you should wait till you figure it out. Perhaps after 12/21, when I hope people will be less stupid about it.


----------



## Overread (Nov 25, 2012)

Like others have said I can also see the market for digital cameras broadening out and the newer, smaller Micro 4/3rds mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras might well steal the bulk of the casual market. The thing is this won't kill the "DSLR" style cameras, all it will do is extend the range of camera types on the market and generally mean that your casual average person might well use the smaller cameras over the bigger, bulkier and heavier DSLRs type ones. 

That said the market for the DSLR I think will change; already we are seeing a slow move toward them possibly dropping the crop sensor in favour of 35mm sensors across the board (essentially returning us back to the days of film in that respect). I doubt that the camera manufacturers will drop the investment in their crop sensor lenses, however I can see them lessening that market to potentially only having it present for entry level cameras and that midrange and higher will be dominated by the 35mm sensor. 

The other change is that I suspect we might (and I stress the might) see the mirror system replaced with a camera and video system. This won't replace the cameras and I suspect their overall shape will even remain broadly the same, but it will change the internals of the camera itself. This might not come to pass for a long time though and might also be bypassed in favour of retaining the mirror assembly (like it or not there are bonuses to this such as reduced power consumption). 


But suffice to say Canon and Nikon are not going to dump their vast investment in 35mm sensor DSLR lenses - heck Canon and Nikon are having a massive overhaul of most of their line just to keep up with the increasing resolution demands of high MP sensors. It's just too big an investment in time and resources for them to just dump all the lines - the worst they can do is potentially change the mount type on the lenses (however whilst Canon has done this in the past I suspect they wouldn't want to perform such an action in the current financial climate - you need affluent times to force such a change).


----------



## manaheim (Nov 25, 2012)

Having a mirror and a shutter IS a little silly when you think about it.  I mean there are certainly some benefits (look through the lens without an LCD to power, keeping dust off the sensor, etc.) but it's obviously not so much necessary as a logical evolutionary step for traditional SLR manufacturers.

Well that and it sounds cool.

FLIP SHICK FLIP SHICK FLIP SHICK!


----------



## Overread (Nov 25, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Having a mirror and a shutter IS a little silly when you think about it.  I mean there are certainly some benefits (look through the lens without an LCD to power, keeping dust off the sensor, etc.) but it's obviously not so much necessary as a logical evolutionary step for traditional SLR manufacturers.
> 
> Well that and it sounds cool.
> 
> FLIP SHICK FLIP SHICK FLIP SHICK!



I wish I could turn all the shutter sounds off sometimes when I want to be stealthy shooting 
Sadly even a modern DSLR still has to flip the mirror at random points even if shooting in liveview - I've no idea why it has to, but I assume its got something to do with internal mechanics or something.


Ps - one reason we might keep the DSLR mirror assembly for longer is because, at present, the focusing system used by live-view is noticeably slower than the regular AF sensors which steal part of the light from the mirror assembly (which is why you get a slightly dimmer viewfinder view than on older film DSLRs because some of the light is stolen and reflected down into the AF section). 

Moving toward a full video setup is likely to happen, but I'd honestly prefer it to be a late move for the DSLR and to retain its full functionality and only move when the alternative exceeds the current option (instead of moving earlier just because its a new and shiny idea).


----------



## TheFantasticG (Nov 25, 2012)

Future of Canon Mirrorless Cameras, Should You Invest in It?

I thought that was an interesting take on it. The writer thinks that MILC (or CSC or whatever) mirrorless cameras aren't going to be around for very long, and compact cameras will go the same way because of cell phone camera technology is increasingly better.


----------



## SCraig (Nov 25, 2012)

Well, let's think about this in a cynical and logical manner.  Nikon, Sony, and Olympus are probably the three largest manufacturers of mirrorless cameras right now.  They also manufacture DSLRs with Nikon releasing 5 new models this year.  As long as they are still pouring money into R&D to introducing new models I think it's highly unlikely that they are going to cut their own throat.

Certainly mirrorless cameras have a place in the market and I suspect that over the next few years they will start to take a noticeable percentage of the market share.  But if they do, so what?  People say film is dead yet Nikon is still manufacturing 3 different film bodies and Canon 1.  By the time the SLR, be it digital or film, is dead many of us here will be to so I'm not going to sweat it.


----------



## snowbear (Nov 25, 2012)

Why, don't you know, the Lytro is the wave of the future!


----------



## Derrel (Nov 25, 2012)

As a boy, I remember all the Popular Mechanics and Popular Science articles about the air cars of the future! Yep, cars that were going to fly through the air, and have built-in collision avoidance and navigation systems. And which were of course, going to be powered by SUPER-efficient engines (methane,nuclear, hydrogen,etc.,etc..) 

To paraphrase Pogo, "Yup...*we have seen the future, and the future is us!*"


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 25, 2012)

snowbear said:
			
		

> Why, don't you know, the Lytro is the wave of the future!



We don't talk of that...thing...


----------



## Patriot (Nov 26, 2012)

The lytro is interesting however.


----------



## bratkinson (Nov 26, 2012)

I like to think that buying a car and "driving it into the ground" is the way to go. In nearly 50 years of buying cars, I've only driven 2 'into the ground'.

I thought I would do the same with my cameras through the years.  About 35 years ago, after I had bought my 2nd Canon EF body and 6-7 lenses I often used, I figured I would 'drive it into the ground' as well.  Sure, there were 'better', more 'full-featured' 35mm bodies that came along, but hey, other than the numerous varieties of films available, there wasn't much difference from one body to the next.  I wanted a motor drive like everyone else, but figured they were invented by Kodak to sell more film.  And, as the EF bodies were not motor-drive capable, I simply stayed with 'tried and true'.  The FD lenses weren't going anywhere, and would last forever.  Little did I know or expect my situation to change 20 years later and I put down the camera for good.  My interests had simply drifted elsewhere.

Enter the digital age...I knew film was gasping its last breaths, so I picked up a Canon G3...a nice-featured point and shoot that allowed full manual control.  2-3 years later, I wanted more pixels, so I got a G5.  When it finally died 18 months ago, I decided to 'try' a DSLR.  I found a used 30D with grip and 18-135 lens on ebay and soon became addicted to photography again.  6 months later, the 30D gave way to a new 60D and several Canon L lenses.  I figured I was all set...but...Time to FEED that HABIT again!!!  So, 3 days ago, I ordered another 'junkie boost'...a 5D3.  The low light capabilities and drop-dead sharp photos produced were too much for me to refuse!

Hopefully, I'll still be shooting with the 5D3 and Ls until they put me in a box.  I seriously suspect they will outlast me.  All I have to do is avoid the 'addiction' of "new, improved, super-camera..." and stay put with what I have.  

It's inevitable that "new and improved" is just around the corner.  As mentioned previously, the trend to mirrorless is unstoppable, as is the forward march of technology.  10 years ago, when world was happy with 6-8mp, who'd have thought 22mp was possible?  Or 35mp?  

For now, my wallet says the addiction needs to stay put.  But I know the DSLR form will continue to evolve, obsoleting what we have now, and only the real die-hards will be shooting 5D3s 20 years from now.  And, of course, Canon will just HAVE to introduce some new mount, making the EF mount obsolete, and my Ls with it...


----------



## Bebulamar (Mar 27, 2014)

How can a DSLR got obsolete? A film camera got obsolete not because they stopped making them nor that most people don't use them any more. They are obsolete because you can't (or right now difficult and or expensive) buy the consumables needed to use them. So I can see a DSLR is obsolete when you can't buy battery for it. A DSLR isn't obsolete if they don't make them any more or that nobody is using them. As long as you can use it, it's not obsolete. So whether you should buy a DSLR depends whether or not it meet your need/want. 
Oh yeah if you buy a camera to be trendy then it's important to know if they still making them in the future.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 27, 2014)

Dude, when you make your first post, it probably shouldn't be to resurrect a thread that's a year and a half old.

Jus' sayin'...


----------



## photofree (Mar 27, 2014)

When digital emerged the bodies did not look like our SLRs. We didn't like this so they went back to the SLR. And then we cried out for replacement backs to make our SLR a DSLR. The profit margin was too small for them. So, when they have something cheaper to produce that we will pay more for and research says we are ready for it, it will appear. I love a real view finder. So it may be awhile before I am able to switch. As long as we are making pictures, whatever you use will be fine.

profound thinking about stuff


----------



## 71M (Mar 27, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol. If you need a sympathetic ear, you know..address your fears..talk it through. Don't fear the Lytro dude.


----------



## 71M (Mar 27, 2014)

Lytro is good. Lytro is friend.


----------



## ConradM (Mar 27, 2014)

Bebulamar said:


> How can a DSLR got obsolete? A film camera got obsolete not because they stopped making them nor that most people don't use them any more. They are obsolete because you can't (or right now difficult and or expensive) buy the consumables needed to use them. So I can see a DSLR is obsolete when you can't buy battery for it. A DSLR isn't obsolete if they don't make them any more or that nobody is using them. As long as you can use it, it's not obsolete. So whether you should buy a DSLR depends whether or not it meet your need/want.
> Oh yeah if you buy a camera to be trendy then it's important to know if they still making them in the future.



DSLR's as far as reflex mirrors will be obsolete soon IMO. They're slow and clunky. I believe the form factor will stay around though.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 27, 2014)

DSLRs will be around as long as cheap bastards like me keep ours and don't feel the need to have the newest and best. Like this thread. It's not new. It's not the best. But it's a thread and stuff and SCIENCE


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 27, 2014)

71M said:


> Lytro is good. Lytro is friend.


It's inherently limited for still photography in a way that will probably make it never take over (or any tech like it) in that sector entirely. Namely, you only have so much light, and the more different redundant angles you spend it on, the smaller your effective apertures can possibly be. Also, the more redundant sensor sites, the lower your resolution. Yes, they can make bigger glass and smaller sensor site, but so can the guys who aren't using redundancy (normal cameras), so they'll never catch up because both improve at the same rate.

However, I think future versions of it hold potentially a LOT of promise for a few specific other applications. Most of all indie filmmaking... because you can save a huge amount of money by not needing a focus puller and by only keeping your taltent on set for a tiny fraction of the time they otherwise would be, if you don't have to rehearse specific paths and focal distances for action sequences, etc. ahead of time. Being able to nail focus AFTER shooting means a single dude could accomplish a scene in a couple hours that looks like it took 4 dudes days to choreograph. And then hand it off to a minimum wage tech or a software program to match focus to faces or whatever you want.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 28, 2014)

I'm a bit of a gadget guy. I'm very interested to see what's coming next, to see what happens in the next few years. Will something pop up that demolishes DSLR image quality/price? Is something revolutionary on the horizon? Is my hovercraft full of eels? Only time will tell.


----------



## Warhorse (Mar 28, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> DSLRs will be around as long as cheap bastards like me keep ours and don't feel the need to have the newest and best. Like this thread. It's not new. It's not the best. But it's a thread and stuff and SCIENCE


I said the same thing about 35mm SLR's...what happened there?


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 28, 2014)

This whole interwebs thing?

It'll pass...


----------



## sonicbuffalo (Mar 28, 2014)

I read an interesting article about the new HTC One phone and all the things the camera can do....i.e. change white balance, adjust bokeh, adjust angle of objects in the picture, etc.  I think smart phones will keep Canon & Nikon on their toes in the near future.


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 28, 2014)

sonicbuffalo said:


> I read an interesting article about the new HTC One phone and all the things the camera can do....i.e. change white balance, adjust bokeh, adjust angle of objects in the picture, etc.  I think smart phones will keep Canon & Nikon on their toes in the near future.


 Sensor size is the first problem. Lenses are the second. This disadvantages camera-phones for low-light performance, DoF control, and (of course) telephoto. 

It does seem that camera-phones have far more development dollars thrown at them right now. I might argue that they are more advanced then the sensors / processors seen in DSLR's at the moment; though that advancement has not yet gotten to the point of overcoming the physical hindrances of the format. 

But I hope that camera-phones do indeed spur advancement in the ILC-market sensors. That can only be a good thing for me, the consumer. 

I do agree (and I believe I said this before) that the advantage of a DSLR over a "mirrorless" camera of a similar form factor is all but gone. Now that good phase-detection is do-able on-sensor, there are few advantages to a mirror (the one I see most cited is the superiority of a pentaprism over an EVF.. though EVFs can be improved to remove their limitations (image quality, motion blur), while penaprisms cannot (realistically: technically it's possible) be similarly improved to overcome theirs (working with existing light rather than being able to amplify the image)).


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 28, 2014)

> while penaprisms cannot (realistically: technically it's possible) be similarly improved to overcome theirs (working with existing light rather than being able to amplify the image)).


Transparent LCDs are a thing, and could do this quite nicely. Partially silvered mirror diverts a portion of light to the sensor, and a portion to the viewfinder, and the portion to the sensor then feeds into the transparent lcd in the viewfinder to contribute anything between 0% and 100% of the image you see.


----------



## ConradM (Mar 28, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> sonicbuffalo said:
> 
> 
> > I read an interesting article about the new HTC One phone and all the things the camera can do....i.e. change white balance, adjust bokeh, adjust angle of objects in the picture, etc.  I think smart phones will keep Canon & Nikon on their toes in the near future.
> ...



Those aren't really limitations anymore.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 28, 2014)

Sorry, but EVF time lag is STILL a limitation for certain types of photography, where **precise** framing, and timing, and viewfinder "feedback" is critical, like in portraiture, sports, and action shooting. Check Thom Hogan's extended use review of the Sony A7 and A7r here: Sony A7 and A7r Review | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

He mentions the sloooow start-up of the camera, as well as the viewfinder's laggy nature. He explores how these cameras stackl up as "D-SLR replacements". 

One nugget:, "As fast as the EVF is, if you try to time things visually through the EVF, youll likely miss peak moment. You have to learn to anticipate a little more than you do with an OVF-based DSLR. Note that just like a DSLR, theres blackout time in the EVF where no view is visible. That blackout is visibly longer on the A7r than on the A7, and coupled with the slower frame rate of the A7r in continuous shooting means its less likely youll like it as an action camera." 

Followed by, "For the less action-oriented things these cameras can suffice just fine and handle like a small DSLR. Start shooting intensely, though, and that DSLR-type feeling starts to go away. "

I personally demo's the A7, the 24MP model. I was disappointed by the view through the EVF. I am used to high-end Nikon d-slr viewfinders and their superb OVFs (optical view finders): D1,D1h,D2x,D3x. Frankly, I thought that the "video-y look" of the view through the EVF in the A7 *sucked*. For people who shoot slow-moving stuff that has no expression, no movement, or who use the rear LCD to frame, the EVF's limitations could be overlooked.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 28, 2014)

PhotoFrenzie said:


> Okay, i'm the kind of person who cares about being future proof. I don't like buying things and then have them be obsolete in a few years, or in this case invest in a certain system.
> 
> So, here's my dilemma. I wouldn't say that I am a complete beginner with photography. I have taken classes at my school but it was with film. I want to invest in a digital system but don't know which one. Nikon d3200 paired with a 35 1.8 and then expand from there or a macro 4/3's system? (Don't know which one yet)
> 
> ...



The m4/3 system has a NEW entry...Olympus's new 10-model in the OMD series is $799 with the 12-42mm zoom lens. Now THAT camera seems to me to be one hell of a value.

I see m4/3 and 16MP as a nice compromise between size, and weight, and image quality. YES, you can get higher technical IQ, but...today, most people will not be able to "see" the advantage of a 24- or 36-MP sensor unless they have great lenses, and print images.

I do not think the existing Canon/Nikon d-slr systems will be made obsolete within five, or even ten years. Canon's EF mount lenses and Nikon's F-mount lenses are the keys to the success of those two market giants; if they abandon their lens mounts, they are doomed. And NEITHER Canon or Nikon are members of the 4/3 consortium, which was formed as a way to try to defeat the two giants.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 28, 2014)

It seems like it should be possible to do a hybrid EVF and rangefinder type viewfinder, too.

Transparent or mirror or flipping LCD screen for the EVF, and then when it turns off (or flips out of the way or whatever), you can look through the same opening and get view through a slightly parallaxed optical viewfinder instead.

Then if you want to shoot action, use the optical look through, and if you want to set up precision wide angle composition, for instance, use the sensor-based EVF.



> I see m4/3 and 16MP as a nice compromise between size, and weight, and image quality.


You could easily fit even a *medium format* sensor in a perfectly compact, almost pocket sized body. M4/3 has nothing to do with size and weight inherently, since the sensor is already way smaller than the form factor.

It has more to do with data transfer speed -- smaller sensors are easier to have less laggy EVFs and LCDs and so forth than large ones are due to bandwidth and speed.

With processor advances and silicon cutting and boule-making advances combined, there's no reason why we should be able to soon fit FF or larger sensors in a mirrorless pocket sized body if we want to.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 28, 2014)

Well, okay actually, image circle is easier to make larger if you have more space behind the rear element of a lens, BUT you could fit that empty space into the LENS, not the body, thus allowing you to *choose *whether you have a pocket camera or a more versatile/powerful performer based on which lenses you choose. Like this hypothetical medium format mirrorless system:




The camera body and mount itself works however you need it to, and however you choose, based on lenses that go with it. ALSO by having such a super short flange to focal, any old medium format or large format lens can easily be adapted for non-compact "performance" type usage.

I mean, that's basically how it already works. I'm just pointing out that the same concepts can extend to anything up to almost large format without the cameras having to be larger than pocket size.




Note also that you could have a super compact lens there, and even though a lot of the medium format sensor is vignetted, you still have a crop or full frame sensor's worth of sensor in the middle, for times when you need to be ultra portable. Again all in the same camera system.


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 28, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I do not think the existing Canon/Nikon d-slr systems will be made obsolete within five, or even ten years. Canon's EF mount lenses and Nikon's F-mount lenses are the keys to the success of those two market giants; if they abandon their lens mounts, they are doomed. And NEITHER Canon or Nikon are members of the 4/3 consortium, which was formed as a way to try to defeat the two giants.


One is not necessarily the other. Canon could introduce a mirror-less tomorrow that was a 70D with the mirror and dedicated phase sensor removed, the pentaprisim replaced with an EVF and just always ran in what is now "live view". No need to change mounts, form factors, or anything.

Or they could release the EOS-M with a "normal" body and the EF-M -> EF adapter already attached. Same difference.


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 28, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> It seems like it should be possible to do a hybrid EVF and rangefinder type viewfinder, too.
> 
> Transparent or mirror or flipping LCD screen for the EVF, and then when it turns off (or flips out of the way or whatever), you can look through the same opening and get view through a slightly parallaxed optical viewfinder instead.
> 
> Then if you want to shoot action, use the optical look through, and if you want to set up precision wide angle composition, for instance, use the sensor-based EVF.


 We do that already. We attach hoods over our LCDs and put the camera in "live view". On the new Canons (SL1, 70D, etc) we even keep phase-focus.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 28, 2014)

> We do that already. We attach hoods over our LCDs and put the camera in "live view". On the new Canons (SL1, 70D, etc) we even keep phase-focus.


Live view isn't the same as an EVF. EVFs wouldn't exist if it were. It's more annoying, distractingly/blindingly bright at night and too dim during the day, unless you constantly adjust it, and results in far less stable camera posture.

To replace the advantages of an OVF in a mirrorless camera, either the EVF needs to be so lag-free that it is indistinguishable from light-speed to the human eye, OR it needs to be able to flip back and forth to an actual optical input when light-speed is needed.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 28, 2014)

I am still waiting for the "air car" that was supposed to replace the road-driven cars of the 1950's. Popular Science and Popular Mechanics predicted the "_death of the automobile_" for years and years on end, beginning 60+ years ago.

We were told by Bill Gates that all computing would move to "the cloud" (before it was called the cloud).

Yeah. Right. Predicting the future is a very difficult endeavor. I remember back when Apple Computer was about to die. RFLMFAO.

Yeah. Right.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 28, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I am still waiting for the "air car" that was supposed to replace the road-driven cars of the 1950's. Popular Science and Popular Mechanics predicted the "_death of the automobile_" for years and years on end, beginning 60+ years ago.
> 
> We were told by Bill Gates that all computing would move to "the cloud" (before it was called the cloud).
> 
> ...


Commercialized air cars don't exist yet.
Commercialized versions of all of the above mentioned technology DOES already exist, in multiple forms.

There's a huge difference between predicting brand new technology that hasn't been invented yet in any format, and sayign it will be a paradigm change, versus simply predicting that the kinks in a current established technology will get ironed out over time.

And in this case, it's an especially iron-clad prediction, because the very technology that will effectively seal the advantages of mirrorless is the *SAME exact technology *that DSLRs require in order to continue to offer improvements (better/faster processors, better sensor-based phase detection, etc.). This is a key point. So it's not even really a gamble or a competition. It's more just an inexorable march toward an inevitable outcome as the DSLRS are stuck between the rock of mirrorless alternatives, and the hard place of not being able to advance their own tech without simultaneously advancing mirrorless tech.

I have no idea how long it will take. And in the meantime before that technology reaches the point of reducing DSLR advantages to zero, mirrorless sales can and will follow who knows what unpredictable patterns.  But once it reaches that point (and it will! Even if no mirrorless is being sold at all, because everybody is developing the same tech), DSLRs are done for, because they will no longer make any sense at all.


----------



## Overread (Mar 28, 2014)

Electronic viewfinders might well be the future - the trick is getting the setup to take up less space than the mirrorbox - have little effect on the lifespan of the camera batteries and have no lag compared to the mirrorbox. Ontop of that its really got to offer something "more" than the mirrorbox assembly. 

The trick there is that with overlays and other adjustments it could simply be that even as the electronic viewfinder tech advances the regular mirrorbox assembly tech and all its related components also advances. 


I suspect it might be the future but not before there are some major adjustments and advances in the technology.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 28, 2014)

> Ontop of that its really got to offer something "more" than the mirrorbox assembly.


 
Well THAT part's already inherent to EVFs. It has the clear advantages of WYSIWYG, and also the huge advantage of light enhancement for low light. For example, if I have my 10-stop filter on the lens, I could just compose and focus perfectly normally with an EVF, but with an optical viewfinder, I will see black uselessness.

(Or in situations where the camera's ISO is set to a level higher than your retina's "ISO" capabilities, which is likely to happen more and more often in the future, as our eyeballs stay the same, but ISO capabilities improve)

Oh and ANOTHER *HUGE *advantage: completely accurate depth of field preview. With optical, DOF preview gets super dark, and even then it still isn't accurate at very bright apertures beyond about f/2.8! EVF = fully bright and easy to see, with DOF obvious and utterly accurate at any aperture. May still have to hit a button to actually preview, but whatever. Still clear advantage.



It could even be set up so that the aperture by default closes to whatever you have it set to in most cases, and then only opens up to full when you are actually auto-focusing, or metering (i.e. holding the shutter halfway down), so that you could compose with DOF accurately without even needing to hit a special button. This is impractical for optical, because it would be annoyingly dim if they did that.


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 28, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > We do that already. We attach hoods over our LCDs and put the camera in "live view". On the new Canons (SL1, 70D, etc) we even keep phase-focus.
> 
> 
> Live view isn't the same as an EVF. EVFs wouldn't exist if it were.


 That's invalid logic. Not only does the same product often exist with two names, it's rather equivocative to stretch what I said into "identical". 

"Live view" is just a market term for "viewing through the sensor", which the vast majority of EVFs do. So EVFs are already "live view" (I think there are some exceptions that use a mirror to bounce into an EVF-exclusive sensor... but whatever).



> It's more annoying, distractingly/blindingly bright at night and too dim during the day, unless you constantly adjust it, and results in far less stable camera posture.


 Or put  a hood around it like I said in my earlier post.



> To replace the advantages of an OVF in a mirrorless camera, either the EVF needs to be so lag-free that it is indistinguishable from light-speed to the human eye, OR it needs to be able to flip back and forth to an actual optical input when light-speed is needed.


 That isn't what's being discussed. Please don't move the goalposts. You described a hybrid system where there was an OVF and an EVF. In yours, there was some vaguely-describe transition (Would have to be either or); but the idea is the same. 

I just pointed out that existing DSLRs already have through-the-sensor LCD... it's just larger and lower on the camera than the one you imagined.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 28, 2014)

Sorry I missed the word "hood" -- that fixes brightness but is also a huge, bulky hood.... and I don't see any advantages over EVFs.



> That isn't what's being discussed. Please don't move the goalposts. You described a hybrid system where there was an OVF and an EVF. In yours, there was some vaguely-describe transition (Would have to be either or); but the idea is the same.


I don't particularly like my suggested system, I was just saying it's possible (but no probably not terribly better or worse than a rear LCD with a hood).
The ideal is a pure 100% of the time EVF that simply updates at indistinguishably fast times where you can't see lag. And I think THAT is definitely better in pretty much every way, yes?


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 28, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> I don't particularly like my suggested system, I was just saying it's possible (but no probably not terribly better or worse than a rear LCD with a hood).
> The ideal is a pure 100% of the time EVF that simply updates at indistinguishably fast times where you can't see lag. And I think THAT is definitely better in pretty much every way, yes?


 Agreed


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 28, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I am still waiting for the "air car" that was supposed to replace the road-driven cars of the 1950's. Popular Science and Popular Mechanics predicted the "_death of the automobile_" for years and years on end, beginning 60+ years ago.
> 
> We were told by Bill Gates that all computing would move to "the cloud" (before it was called the cloud).
> 
> ...



Hey, ok sure, maybe not all of that came true.  But you have to admit it's much nicer now that we are all living on the moon.


----------



## 71M (Mar 28, 2014)

Derrel said:


> We were told by Bill Gates that all computing would move to "the cloud" (before it was called the cloud).
> 
> Yeah. Right. Predicting the future is a very difficult endeavor. I remember back when Apple Computer was about to die. RFLMFAO.



IBM's vision in the 70s/80s: _the paperless office - _it's 2/3rds there_. _Apple very nearly ran out of operating capital at one point.


----------



## 71M (Mar 28, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> This whole interwebs thing?
> 
> It'll pass...


  It will. It becomes more parochial as time goes by.


----------



## ConradM (Mar 31, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I personally demo's the A7, the 24MP model. I was disappointed by the view through the EVF. I am used to high-end Nikon d-slr viewfinders and their superb OVFs (optical view finders): D1,D1h,D2x,D3x. Frankly, I thought that the "video-y look" of the view through the EVF in the A7 *sucked*. For people who shoot slow-moving stuff that has no expression, no movement, or who use the rear LCD to frame, the EVF's limitations could be overlooked.



With such slow fps I could actually see that - 



> Continuous Shooting Speed : Continuous shooting: Max. 2.5fps, Speed Priority Continuous shooting: Max. 5.0fps



However, my a77 is rated at 12fps so it's near instant. That being said, I don't see the evf in the a77 as having any limitations, only benefits. Namely pre-chimping.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 31, 2014)

ConradM said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I personally demo's the A7, the 24MP model. I was disappointed by the view through the EVF. I am used to high-end Nikon d-slr viewfinders and their superb OVFs (optical view finders): D1,D1h,D2x,D3x. Frankly, I thought that the "video-y look" of the view through the EVF in the A7 *sucked*. For people who shoot slow-moving stuff that has no expression, no movement, or who use the rear LCD to frame, the EVF's limitations could be overlooked.
> ...



Ok, a couple of quick thoughts here - I don't own an A77 nor have I tested one, but the fact that the camera can shoot 12 FPS in no way gaurantees that the EVF can actually keep up at 12 FPS.  I've actually owned a couple of cameras with EVF and high burst rates, and the EVF started to lag pretty quickly after the first couple of frames.  Now that's not to say that such is the case with the A77 but it does seem to be a common complaint among people who have tried some of the various EVF systems on the market.  

Is mirrorless the future?  Maybe.  A lot is going to depend on market forces and what sort of developments are made in the future.  Personally I think that at some point mirrorless will eventually replace the DSLR, however that when Nikon and Canon do finally switch that the cameras they start producing will most likely look and feel much like the current DSLR's, and that they will most likely be compatible with their current line up of lenses for their DSLR's.

To do otherwise would most likely be a marketing disaster of epic proportions.  But I don't think you'll see either Canon or Nikon release anything like this for a while yet, not until EVF technology can not only match OVF, but actually exceed it in many respects.  Until then I fully expect Nikon to do exactly what they are doing now, using the J series to help recover the costs of their research and development in the field and waiting until the point when they can put out a mirrorless that can truly match or exceed their current lineup of DSLR's in all aspects.

Then and only then will you start to see the demise of the DSLR, but I have a feeling we have more than a few years before that all comes to pass.


----------



## ConradM (Mar 31, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



It keeps up. Even my a33 @ 5 or 7fps keeps up. I've gotten hundreds of great actions shots with it. 

So when you consider most DSLR's that compete with the a77 can only manage 4 or 5fps having 10 or 12 is a pretty big advantage.


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2014)

Yes they are, PixelRabbit's just died today.


----------



## ConradM (Mar 31, 2014)

2 years ago I was out with a buddy taking riding pics. I had him take this sequence of me. I just locked the aperture and put it on continuous mode and told him to point, hold down the button and follow me. Again this is with my lowly a33.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 31, 2014)

ConradM said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > ConradM said:
> ...



I certainly wouldn't mind having something that could shoot 12 FPS.  But then again I don't have the confidence to invest in Sony's alpha system, at least not at this stage.  Too many concerns for me about the long term.  Don't need anything to put on top of the beta max machine that's been collecting dust in the garage now for a few decades.  All in all I'm pretty happy with my current Nikon setup, and really if I were going to upgrade at some point investing in a completely different system just wouldn't make that much sense for me personally.


----------



## ConradM (Mar 31, 2014)

That I could understand.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 31, 2014)

> With such slow fps I could actually see that - However, my a77 is rated at 12fps so it's near instant. That being said, I don't see the evf in the a77 as having any limitations, only benefits. Namely pre-chimping.


1) What does FPS have anything to do with EVF responsiveness? If anything, higher FPS would compete for processor resources and tend to slow down an EVF. Not necessarily, but if anything, that. I see no great reason why high FPS would indicate faster EVFs, other than just a correlation with more expensive cameras in general.

2) Also, the A77 *is* *a DSLR*. So it's not really a great example of an alternative camera in a thread entitled "Are DSLRs a dying breed?" ...

DSLR = "Digital Single Lens Reflex" camera.
The "reflex" is short for "reflection," i.e. the fact that the image is reflected by the mirror. Since the A77 also has a mirror and reflects the image, and is digital and has a single lens, it is a DSLR.
("Reflex" does *not *refer to the swinging of the mirror, as becomes clear when you consider the class of cameras popular for some decades called "TLR"s, "Twin Lens Reflex" that do not have moving mirrors either)

The A7, by comparison, does not have a mirror, and is thus not a reflex camera or a DSLR.


----------



## ConradM (Mar 31, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > With such slow fps I could actually see that - However, my a77 is rated at 12fps so it's near instant. That being said, I don't see the evf in the a77 as having any limitations, only benefits. Namely pre-chimping.
> 
> 
> 1) What does FPS have anything to do with EVF responsiveness? If anything, higher FPS would compete for processor resources and tend to slow down an EVF. Not necessarily, but if anything, that. I see no great reason why high FPS would indicate faster EVFs, other than just a correlation with more expensive cameras in general.



In my experience with my 2 sony alpha's, the higher the fps the faster the refresh rate if that's what you want to call it. (I mean, it would have to be) But there really isn't a refresh rate with the a77... to me there is no "delay" or lag that I can notice. 



Gavjenks said:


> 2) Also, the A77 *is* *a DSLR*. So it's not really a great example of an alternative camera in a thread entitled "Are DSLRs a dying breed?" ...
> 
> DSLR = "Digital Single Lens Reflex" camera.
> The "reflex" is short for "reflection," i.e. the fact that the image is reflected by the mirror. Since the A77 also has a mirror and reflects the image, and is digital and has a single lens, it is a DSLR.
> ...



It is a great example as an alternative. The fixed translucent mirror provides a host of advantages that traditional DSLR's just can't achieve. Just the the fact that one has an evf set's it far enough apart for it to be considered an alternative. It's by no means a traditional or conventional DSLR.


----------



## ConradM (Mar 31, 2014)

That being said, the technology pioneered in the Alpha line is advancing and trickling over into the ax000 line. Now we have AF in a mirrorless design that bests any DSLR. 

So either way, things are happening that are going to make moving mirrors look archaic.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 31, 2014)

i have a idea. start a thread posting photos from dslrs, mirrorless, bridge cameras, point and shoots, cellphones. if you cant figure out that a dslr took it in at LEAST SOME OF THEM, well then you know the dslr is on its way out. Let people try to guess which ones a dslr took.


----------



## ConradM (Mar 31, 2014)

bribrius said:


> i have a idea. start a thread posting photos from dslrs, mirrorless, bridge cameras, point and shoots, cellphones. if you cant figure out that a dslr took it in at LEAST SOME OF THEM, well then you know the dslr is on its way out. Let people try to guess which ones a dslr took.



Image quality isn't really the issue. It's lens selection, controls and other features that separate DSLR's from say mirrorless cameras. But I have heard of people switching to mirrorless already for studio work.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 31, 2014)

> In my experience with my 2 sony alpha's, the higher the fps the faster the refresh rate if that's what you want to call it. (I mean, it would have to be)


It doesn't "have to be" (it could simply start lagging in full burst but not single shot), and also, correlation =/= causation. It's quite possible and in fact likely that they correlate simply because both things are the result of paying more for higher end expensive cameras or cameras designed for sports.



> It is a great example as an alternative.


No it's not an example of an alternative, either good or bad, because it's not an alternative in the first place. It is another member of the same category.
*A DSLR cannot logically be "an alternative to DSLRs"...


*Nor is it just a semantic quibble. A translucent mirror camera goes against the whole philosophy of mirrorless cameras just as much as do "traditional DSLRS" (odd choice of terms since translucent mirror designs were around long before digital cameras were). It doesn't save on any bulk, and it doesn't make wide angle lenses cheaper to design, and it doesn't make easier off brand lens conversions, etc.


----------



## ConradM (Mar 31, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > In my experience with my 2 sony alpha's, the higher the fps the faster the refresh rate if that's what you want to call it. (I mean, it would have to be)
> 
> 
> It doesn't "have to be" (it could simply start lagging in full burst but not single shot), and also, correlation =/= causation. It's quite possible and in fact likely that they correlate simply because both things are the result of paying more for higher end expensive cameras or cameras designed for sports.
> ...



But dollar for dollar it makes the whole system a heck of lot faster and more efficient.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 31, 2014)

*"LaserDisc is the high-definition video format of the future! This new form factor makes all other formats obsolete! Buy your LaserDisc system now, and join the wave of the future, today!"

*Oh wait...all the "experts" and pundits were...wrong...


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2014)

The only constant is that things will get smaller and faster.

Just like my love life.


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 31, 2014)

> But dollar for dollar it makes the whole system a heck of lot faster and more efficient.


Okay... but even if we assume for a moment that that is universally agreed to be true, what does it have to do with a thread that is asking about mirrorless vs. DSLR cameras?
It's like having a thread called "Will mammals go extinct soon?" And answering "I think tigers might take over control from humans!"
Do you see what I mean?


----------



## ConradM (Mar 31, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > But dollar for dollar it makes the whole system a heck of lot faster and more efficient.
> 
> 
> Okay... but even if we assume for a moment that that is universally agreed to be true, what does it have to do with a thread that is asking about mirrorless vs. DSLR cameras?
> ...



You're not seeing the correlation? Sony's new a6000 is boasting the fastest af ever and that tech was developed in the alpha series.


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 31, 2014)

ConradM said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > > But dollar for dollar it makes the whole system a heck of lot faster and more efficient.
> ...


 Can you tell me how this relates to all your claims on the A77? I'd hate to think you were just jumping topics until you "win" by accident rather than arguing a point.


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 31, 2014)

ConradM said:


> In my experience with my 2 sony alpha's, the higher the fps the faster the refresh rate if that's what you want to call it. (I mean, it would have to be) But there really isn't a refresh rate with the a77... to me there is no "delay" or lag that I can notice.


 So you have two Sony DSLRs and the faster / more expensive, in your guess (you've not measured I take it) has a higher screen refresh rate? That's not a terribly good dataset.

BTW everyone: refresh likely isn't the problem. Ghosting is (which has a variety of causes).



> It is a great example as an alternative. The fixed translucent mirror provides a host of advantages that traditional DSLR's just can't achieve. Just the the fact that one has an evf set's it far enough apart for it to be considered an alternative. It's by no means a traditional or conventional DSLR.



OK. Why SLR-A uses better tech than SLR-B is your subject. What are the host of advantages of a fixed translucent mirror (BTW: The Canon A1 had a translucent mirror 30 years ago)?


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 31, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > With such slow fps I could actually see that - However, my a77 is rated at 12fps so it's near instant. That being said, I don't see the evf in the a77 as having any limitations, only benefits. Namely pre-chimping.
> 
> 
> 1) What does FPS have anything to do with EVF responsiveness? If anything, higher FPS would compete for processor resources and tend to slow down an EVF. Not necessarily, but if anything, that. I see no great reason why high FPS would indicate faster EVFs, other than just a correlation with more expensive cameras in general.
> ...



huh....
All this time I have been thinking that it was a Duran Duran reference....







Next your gonna tell me that the entry level Canon line of cameras arent a tribute to Billy Idol...


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 31, 2014)

bribrius said:


> i have a idea. start a thread posting photos from dslrs, mirrorless, bridge cameras, point and shoots, cellphones. if you cant figure out that a dslr took it in at LEAST SOME OF THEM, well then you know the dslr is on its way out. Let people try to guess which ones a dslr took.


 Let me put my carefully lit tripod iphone 5S shot next to my poorly lit, handheld, ISO 16000, 1/15th second shot and prove that the iPhone is a better camera than any DSLR by anecdote? 

Brilliant.

Can we prove that Mirrorless bridge cameras are on the way out to phones that way?


----------



## ConradM (Mar 31, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...



To sum it up, this thread is about DSLR's been phased out... In terms of the moving mirror I think Sony in general is a good example of how they are being phased out.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 31, 2014)

I dont know why any of you are bothering with these single picture contraptions...
mirror, no mirror...wont matter. 
pretty soon taking a single picture is going to be phased out by taking stills from video.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 31, 2014)

ConradM said:


> JerryLove said:
> 
> 
> > ConradM said:
> ...



Umm.. nope.  Nothing against Sony mind you, I know a couple of guys that shoot them and love them.  But Sony is not going to be responsible for phasing out anything, they just don't have that kind of muscle in the camera market.  Their market share is far to small.  Now they might contribute in displaying the new technology but lets face it, even if Sony decided tomorrow that they would never produce another DSLR again and that they would go entirely mirrorless that would not signal the end of the DSLR.  They just don't have that much of the market.

If the DSLR is replaced by mirrorless it will be either Canon or Nikon that starts that ball rolling.  One of the two will most likely eventually come out with a mirrorless that will use their current lens lineup that works with their current DSLR's.  The other will follow suit.  My guess is it will be Nikon that releases first but that is just an educated guess, but Canon won't be far behind.

But I doubt you'll see such a release this year, or most likely even next.  I think both are waiting for the point where they have an EVF system that can match OVF or outperform OVF in all respects, and frankly that just isn't the case at this point.  I think the first release will most likely be fairly conservative, offered as an alternative rather than a replacement for the current line up.  If the market seems to accept it then you'll see the slow phasing out of the DSLR.  If not the mirrorless may wind up being nothing more than a niche market.  Better technology doesn't always mean consumer acceptance, there are a lot of other market forces in play that might make or break mirrorless as the eventual replacement for DSLR.


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 31, 2014)

ConradM said:


> JerryLove said:
> 
> 
> > ConradM said:
> ...


 So when you bring up translucent mirror DSLR's like the A77, you are doing so to illustrate that the A77 is a dying tech?

I really got the impression you were talking about translucent mirrors as the way forward, not something whose time has passed. My bad.


----------



## JerryLove (Mar 31, 2014)

I think robbins.photo is pretty much dead on the money.. though I can imagine someone like Samsung or the m4/3 coalition leading the way. Sony is too fragmented and has too little history of success at setting standards; and they've already been in the market long enough to make the change if they could. 

If not of their own accord, pressure from the non-mirrored ILC cameras will push Canon and Nikon into adding them into their EOF / whatever lineup.

Honestly: Canon is already almost there. The EOS-M with an EF mount and "proper" body would be a mirror-less SL1. They could even skip the mount given that there's a very good adapter available (since they are electrically the same (almost?))


----------



## bribrius (Mar 31, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> I dont know why any of you are bothering with these single picture contraptions...
> mirror, no mirror...wont matter.
> pretty soon taking a single picture is going to be phased out by taking stills from video.


video in most occasions is usually better than photo. The problem with it might come from preserving the data or transferring that data to new devices over years. Files become lost, corrupt, data changes, the vehicle for data perservations change.
you take a photo, print it, its done.
On the other hand, if you can preserve that data for say fifty years, still have a means available of watching or print, you have preserved it in its original form. where as the photo will show its age.


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 1, 2014)

bribrius said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know why any of you are bothering with these single picture contraptions...
> ...


Preservation is possible: But I don't see how video is objectively better.

Certainly a still pulled from video isn't better, if for no other reason than the loss in resolution.

Video as an art isn't better, but is certainly more difficult.

Video as a way to capture memories is sometimes better and sometimes not.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 1, 2014)

Are DSLRs a dying breed? I dunno, mine seems to be holding up pretty well.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 1, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


because a photo cant relive the moment like a actual replay of the moment. It's just a photo. still image.


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 1, 2014)

> To sum it up, this thread is about DSLR's been phased out... In terms of the moving mirror I think Sony in general is a good example of how they are being phased out.


Attempt #4 or so at explaining this, with extra emphasis:
 Translucent mirrored cameras like the A77 *>>ARE<<* DSLRs.
DSLR does *not* mean "moving mirror." It means a digital camera with a single lens and ANY mirror.




> I dont know why any of you are bothering with these single picture contraptions...
> mirror, no mirror...wont matter.
> pretty soon taking a single picture is going to be phased out by taking stills from video.


Well perhaps sometimes, but:
A) Why take all that extra time later at home to sift through 4,000 frames of video to pick out the one almost identical copy that is in the best focus, etc, when you can just select the moment you want in the moment and be done with it? For a decisive moment of burst action? Yeah, totally. For a picture of a landscape? Not so much.
B) This assumes that you never want a photo that uses a slower shutter speed than 1/30th of a second.
C) Taking and storing a cache / buffer of video all the time would drain battery unnecessarily, which will continue to be a consideration long after they develop the processing power to make it a possibility.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 1, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > To sum it up, this thread is about DSLR's been phased out... In terms of the moving mirror I think Sony in general is a good example of how they are being phased out.
> 
> 
> Attempt #4 or so at explaining this, with extra emphasis:
> ...



really, I was being facetious.
but thank you for pointing out the concerns with going to a strictly video setup.


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 1, 2014)

Well it's kind of a good idea for just everyday walkaround photography! Less in the sense of just continuously running stored video, more like just what it would be like to have a 30 FPS still camera...

"Video" for as long as you hold down the shutter, stored as separate frames, with metadata saved to keep track of which groups of frames were part of the same shutter press if you want to export them AS a video, or not. And of course, if your shutter is slower than 1/30th it just does as fast as is valid otherwise. Simple button on the body similar to the ISO button can bring up a rapid toggle menu for:
 "lock to 1/30th or faster" (essentially bulb video / 30FPS hybrid mode) vs. 
"don't lock" (more like a 30 FPS still cam with no mucked up exposures but also no guarantee of usable video) vs.
"toggle mode" (normal video as we know it) vs.
"slow speed" (10 FPS or so to cut down on memory hogging and photo choosing headache later for non active subjects) vs.
"single shot"

_That_ would be great


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 1, 2014)

bribrius said:


> JerryLove said:
> 
> 
> > Preservation is possible: But I don't see how video is objectively better.
> ...


Video as a way to capture memories is sometimes better and sometimes not.

I did notice how all sculpture and painting stopped shortly after the invention of the movie camera. [where is that sarcasam font?]

I've got far more experience with videos than stills. There's a time and a place for either. To call one better than the other is to call painting in oils better or worse than water-color. 

Captures from video are inferior to dedicated still shots, and what I have hanging on my walls are all stills. Video is distracting as art.


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 1, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Well perhaps sometimes, but:
> A) Why take all that extra time later at home to sift through 4,000 frames of video to pick out the one almost identical copy that is in the best focus, etc, when you can just select the moment you want in the moment and be done with it? For a decisive moment of burst action? Yeah, totally. For a picture of a landscape? Not so much.
> B) This assumes that you never want a photo that uses a slower shutter speed than 1/30th of a second.
> C) Taking and storing a cache / buffer of video all the time would drain battery unnecessarily, which will continue to be a consideration long after they develop the processing power to make it a possibility.


D) There is no camera (reasonably accessable) that takes 20MP-36MP video.
E) Storage space
F) Flashes
G) I'm not sure there's a sensor in common use that can sustain 1/4000 sec shutter in video (though I could be wrong).


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 1, 2014)

*TOPIC DERAIL* Anyone think shutterless higher end cameras will be a thing? */TOPIC DERAIL*


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 1, 2014)

> G) I'm not sure there's a sensor in common use that can sustain 1/4000 sec shutter in video (though I could be wrong).


Why not? (Still at 30 FPS, I mean)
Not disagreeing, just asking. Don't know much about video tech.



> *TOPIC DERAIL* Anyone think shutterless higher end cameras will be a thing? */TOPIC DERAIL*


Well yeah. I think it's simply a bandwidth/processor issue that a mechanical shutter is needed at all. If you can wipe then transfer all new data off in 1/4000th of a second, then you don't really need a shutter for anything, no?
And that's the first moving part that usually breaks, so you get longer lived cameras


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 14, 2015)

Gavjenks said:


> Well yeah. I think it's simply a bandwidth/processor issue that a mechanical shutter is needed at all. If you can wipe then transfer all new data off in 1/4000th of a second, then you don't really need a shutter for anything, no?
> And that's the first moving part that usually breaks, so you get longer lived cameras



I can't imagine a day when I won't hear the click of a shutter. The Horror!!


----------

