Full Version: The mirroless future
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2


18 years ago the SLR/dSLR time is counting down and soon we will dont need those mechanics , mirrors prisms, optics etc.
It is 2018 - what is the situations now?
Strange, dSLR are still dominating the highend segment.
Most people are using smartphones including some sport journalists.
Small group - most are techical savy guys use mirrorless.
The promised ML advantage is still not there

My short summary - Please correct me if i'm wrong.
We are back to 1960...1980.
1. SLR is the workhouse  - It is reliable, complete system /in terms of FL/macro&lighting/ and give good IQ for magazine and famility albums and even more that we want - like large meduim format in 70's
2. ML  takes place of RF. Great light setup with 1 UWA zoom & 21,35,50,90 primes. - no more no less. Also great for films. No wonder that this group is small. My 3cam smartphone offer something similar.
3.. The biggest part /99% of population/ is using smartphones. - something like SLR in 70's

I'm still puzzeling the mirrorless segment.
FL - 24...90mm is already covered by high-end smartphones.
Macro, 200mm++ range, mobile flashes is dSLR kingdom.

High quality filming seem to be the only one free space for mirrorless
What do you think?
I disagree with almost anything you've said.

Mirrorless cameras are usually performing better for macro shooting because most of them have much better live view experience and movable screens at least. So while they are not technically better because they are mirrorless, in practical situations they usually end up being the better choice anyway. Also it's easier to adapt any macro lens to a mirrorless camera.

200mm+ is only better with high end DSLR with very advanced AF systems and larger grips. Most mirrorless models with vertical battery grips offer similar grip area and they easily compete with most consumer DSLR models in AF performance. Only very select DSLR actually beat mirrorless cameras in AF performance and even less of them in AF accuracy.

Same for mobile flash, really. I agree, unless you add a vertical grip, most of them are really poorly balanced with a flash on top but on the other hand, mirrorless cameras will have EVF and LCD displays giving you a bright view of what's going around even if you're using flash in a dimly lit studio or interior. If you're using a trigger on your body instead of a full sized flash, balance is not an issue anyway.

Yes these days DSLR is the workhorse... of photography. Which is a dying sector, really. Video is the new king[citation needed] and while DSLR ruled there for a brief time, most have switched over to mirrorless. And at the same time, most mirrorless models are capable of what DSLR can do anyway and more and more people use them as workhorses.

It doesn't make sense to switch over to mirrorless to use ultra-teles, that's why DSLR are still the king of high-end cameras. Every single 35mm DSLR that costs more than 5k is a dedicated high-frame rate, high-AF-performance camera made for that job. And there are two of them, Nikon D5 and Canon 1DxII. That's it. There are also two similar performing cameras with APS-C sensors, 7Dm2 and D500 and again, that's it. All those four models are made for a specific job. That's like saying mirrorless/DSLR video is pointless because high end segment is all dedicated video camcoders.

Ofc there are a lot of people using DSLR but that number is getting smaller and smaller each year. Some of them switching over to mirrorless and some to mobile devices. Hardly anyone is picking up a DSLR as a starting point anymore and the ones that do are usually doing it because they think it's safe to go for a Canon or Nikon.

Will DSLRs die completely? Of course not! Film is still alive, isn't it? Hardly anything dies completely anymore. But expect to see less of them by each year. Especially the lower end models that nobody really cares about anymore.
I first didn't want to reply on this thread, there are multiple replications of the same or better worded question.

Miro, mirrorless cameras already are a solid majority. The word is only saying "no mirror in camera included", which means every smartphone, compact camera, bridge camera with superzooms, action camera, you get the idea.

Probably you meant mirrorless system camera with interchangeable lenses. What's the point in asking about their future, as this future is already happening? On one new DLSR body coming out  there are a dozen bodies without a mirror inside. The concern is not "do MILC have a future?" but more "what will be left for DSLRs?". I cannot add more to what obican already said, except: There are very few second hand models left which can take pictures on film and don't need a battery to do so - this will never happen with mirrorless digital cameras. But that's about it, and these models are not only SLRs.


Is video the real king, or is it that a modern camera must include the latest video features?

ML has been a boost to DSLR shooters......look at the D500/850.......Nikon knew they had to pull out all the stops.....

So for that I love mirror-less!


thanks for the feedbacks.
Iḿ kind of person who judge based on numbers. E.g. ought leneses based on PZ numbers.
In this topic I likes numbers too.
“But literally 98.4% of the consumer cameras sold in 2016 were built into smartphones – only 0.8% were compacts, 0.5% DSLRs, and 0.2% mirrorless.”

PS: with mirrorless¨ the author does not mean the JJ_SO definitition of mirrorless.
Your reasoning falls short. If someone asks you to send him a picture of your dog, desk, house, car or where you just are to have a coffee, the most convenient and sufficient thing to use is a smartphone - which btw. doesn't need a mirror to be convenient and sufficient.

Earlier days, people had to buy camera to just document their hobby, be it gardening, stamp-collecting, football - whatever. This and lot more reasons to buy photographic devices else than a smartphone are gone. And if today someone wants a "better" camera (usually more reach, less grainy pictures, better colours, manual mode / dials), there's not much reasons left to bite the DSLR apple.

The fact that so many smartphones are around is affecting more parts of life and bites a big chunk out of many pies: Be it PCs, video cameras, wearable music players, dictionaries, remote controls and a lot more stuff I simply don't realize because I use a dumbphone and leave smartphones to the needy ones. I had a pre smartphone life and I still have one without it although I see the benefits and the growing number of use-cases. Quantities of movie recorders compared to CCTV, smartphones, PC webcams, action-cameras? You get the picture. Or the film...

Smartphone aside: In your post, I only see the reason to discredit mirrorless system cameras from the perspective of someone who hasn't used them. And still thinks DLSR are the only serious type of "real camera". Their production numbers will never reach the level of 2010 - and even the 2016 one is gone - forever. If you're such a fan of numbers, how about a 2017 statistics? In 2016, 17 months ago, a lot of current cameras just were not available: No GFX 50 S; X-T 2 was just new, Sony had overheating problems and today has a better AF than most DLSRs (face-detection, coverage, number of focus points and how to select them). The new X-T100 is a tempting offer for around 600,- Significantly new models in DSLR world? Which one is not a repetition of former models, a bit higher numbers on the spec sheet? Yeah, Pentax still tries, but then why is nearly nobody buying a K1?

Ask for the future of DSLR, that's more interesting than bashing mirrorless systems. Contrary to DLSR, the number or sold mirrorless units is not diminishing.

Oh, and Statistics of 2017 camera sales, published by Photographylife.com you find some numbers for 2017. DSLR going slightly lower, mirrorless interchangeable lens systems are increasing. Not breathtakingly or competing to smartphones, but still... a little hint for their future one might recognize.


Please don´t get me wrong.
I agree mostly with you. What I tring to say in this post is - WHy it takes so long? Why ML still dont deliver their promises?
In 2001 I tought that at 2005..2008 Mirrorless will have
- better AF
- considerably smaller size
- Reliable - no mechanics and less optics
- considerably lower price due to fully automated production lines
Whaere we are now
- beter AF
- Increased weight to one dSLR system from 2001 - side result of megapixel race and pixel peepers.
- Reliable???? maybe
- considerably lower price no even worse they are more expensive - see https://www.digitaltrends.com/photograph...less-wins/
- considerably
Shortly ML still does not give their promices.

One more question - https://www.digitaltrends.com/photograph...less-wins/
The graph shows steep increase of Unit prices for SLR en ML from 2016 to 2017. Why?


Thnaks again for the link
The last chart is interesting
- ML in developed world shows flat line or decrease - Europe, America, Japan. around 13..22%
- ML Asia huge jump and big absolute value too - 35% -> 46%
Yeah, "Asia" is not developed.
Once Canon and Nikon release their full-format mirrorless systems, the final shift will be quick. CaNikon users have a legacy burden. Switching systems is always a pain in the a**e financially but if there's a proper (native) migration path it is merely a matter of exchanging the camera. Sony A mount was reasonably successful at its time as was Four-Thirds but soon after the release of the mirrorless systems, the respective DSLR system was dead. And history will repeat itself.
Pages: 1 2