[brisco]

Hi everyone,

its dificult to say, but do you think that we are seeing the end of the DSLRs?. Mirrorless system will be the present and future of photography?

If you see some webs or youtube channels (Jared Polin for example) the thinking about this is clear: DSLRs are dead. The Northrup, for example, has moved to Sony A7R (from Nikon DSLR). On the other side, I have heard in other channels that DSLRs are going to survive and in a 2-5 years it will return to be the best option. 

What do you think?

[Spinifex]

"DSLR are dead" is a clickbait that is often used by several more sensationalist channels. They still sell far more bodies and lenses than mirrorless cameras. It is true that R&D budget is moving to mirrorless cameras, but that's mainly because the DSLR systems are very mature at this point.

They are still the cameras of choice for sports and wildlife when you use longer focal lengths and have erratic subject movement. They still offer far better battery life.

Mirrorless and DSLRs will move side by side for many years still.

[Rover]

If The Northrup has switched, then it must really be the end.

Let's go home guys, we're screwed.

[mike]

Define dead? At this point for me I don't see a need for a DSLR. I'm happy with mirrorless. In a few years the technology will be to the point that there won't be a need to look through a lens. It's almost there for all cases now. The main drawback for mirrorless is the existing infrastructure; variety of lenses and accessories.

I think the question is are interchangeable lens cameras dead? Klaus just made a post about the new iPHone 11 pro. Most people are happy with the performance of their smartphones and the images they produce. People ask my why I'm using my camera when I have a smart phone that takes great pics. For the most part printing images is even dead.

At this point ILCs are more of a niche item than slr's ever were.

[Klaus]

Not dead but dying. Of course, the transition period will be fairly long - most will not abandon their prior investments just like that and old dogs will stick to their habits, of course.
There's just no conceptual advantage and many disadvantages (mirror slap, less accurate focusing, less focusing options (e.g. no eye-mode), cumbersome movie mode, lens performance penalty, dark viewfinder in DoF preview mode, no live histogram, no live color feedback, dismal manual focusing).

[toni-a]

A new system, doesn't always mean death of prior one.
Color film didn't kill black and white.
And digital didn't kill film.
SLR itself didn't kill rangefinder
So no SLRs will not die, but will no more dominate like in the past. Few will always use them

[stoppingdown]

DSLR... what? :o)

Seriously, I don't think that they are going to die soon, see answers above. But...

And digital didn't kill film.

Hmm... probably we have to define "kill". Interpreted in the strict way, true, digital didn't kill film. But looking at the fact that entire film companies dead, or completely repurposed, and that many film products disappeared, digital might have really killed film if we adopt a loose interpretation of the word.

[JJ_SO]

DSLR... what? :o)

Seriously, I don't think that they are going to die soon, see answers above. But...

And digital didn't kill film.

Hmm... probably we have to define "kill". Interpreted in the strict way, true, digital didn't kill film. But looking at the fact that entire film companies dead, or completely repurposed, and that many film products disappeared, digital might have really killed film if we adopt a loose interpretation of the word.

I don't know when the first mirrorboxes were introduced. They were a pragmatic help, because range finders could not focus properly tele-lenses, same with macro. Before the photgrapher had a matte-screen to check framing and focus. Pretty much the same concept as today's mirrorless.

I want to say, mirrors were never more than second best and it's no reason to stick to a concept which is overcome by a much better and directer concept. Disadvantage is basically the dependance of electrical energy.

So, in terms of energy saving while waiting for a certain situation (bird coming home), DSLR still have some fragile and tiny advantages. They just ruin them by making loud shutter sounds to scare the bird away.

Keeping the sensor constantly under tension causes heat problems, solution will be a clever standby concept with super short wake up delay.

DLSR will exist as long as there are bodies left to shoot with, but the development of them is dead.

[Brightcolours]

Actually, mirrors allowed to actually look through the lens, something rangefinders never could. That is the main reason they became so popular: looking through the lens. Many photographers prefer still the OVF over any EVF. And there are currently other reasons to prefer DSLR (among which are the mature flash photography implementations, and the "IR" low light AF flash functionality.

The DSLR market share will shrink as it is not the only option anymore, but that does not mean it will all of a sudden disappear.

[JJ_SO]

"Many photographers prefer still the OVF over any EVF."

That is as true as "many photographers still prefer a fixed LCD over any tiltable one".

I'd say, the majority of the "many" never tried a modern EVF, so they actually don't know what they are talking about, but they probably tried or had old ones from 10 years ago with 640×480 resolution or lower, flickering, showing a huge lack in sharpness control.

Same goes for tiltable displays, something no OVF can do. The ones who use one, often stick to their cameras because of that feature.