Is the DSLR going extinct?

In 2021, the CIPA numbers show 2.1 Million dSLR vs 3.2 Million mirrorless delivered to buyers. So the dSLR is not yet 'extinct'. And figures demonstrate that the absolute market size of mirrorless bodies sold is NOT GROWING, over the past 10 years the numbers in 2021 were about the same as in 2012.

Given the price disadvantage for the user of new mirrorless lenses, the dSLR may take a while to go 'extinct' in terms of new body sales. There are a lot of used EF lenses out there. And the used market for dSLRs will persist for a very long time.

Wilt wrote in post #19431709
In 2021, the CIPA numbers show 2.1 Million dSLR vs 3.2 Million mirrorless delivered to buyers. So the dSLR is not yet 'extinct'.

Extinct is such a loaded word. Of course the DSLR will be around for a while, but as a product the asteroid has hit and it's just a matter of time before it joins the ranks of other camera technologies which were replaced by newer tech.

Wilt wrote in post #19431709
And figures demonstrate that the absolute market size of mirrorless bodies sold is NOT GROWING, over the past 10 years the numbers in 2021 were about the same as in 2012.

Given the price disadvantage for the user of new mirrorless lenses, the dSLR may take a while to go 'extinct' in terms of new body sales. There are a lot of used EF lenses out there. And the used market for dSLRs will persist for a very long time.

2021 was a horrible year for cameras in general and the dSLR especially. But if you look at 2022, the mirrorless cameras are holding on with a slight gain from 2021 but the dSLRs are continuing their slide. August numbers just came out and and SLRs are down 332K from Aug. 2021 (1.17m) while mirrorless are up 427k from Aug 2021 (2.49m). It's better seen when you look at a 2 year trend line graph. Below is a snap from CIPA data for 2022 and 2022. The top line is mirrorless and the bottom SLR. I suspect at some point the SLR slide will flatten a bit but if manufacturers no longer put out any new bodies, it's only going to go down.

I got curious and took a look at the Canon Museum. It looks like the 1DXm3 was the last SLR Canon put out in Feb 20, then the 90D and SL3 in 2019, the T7 in 2018, the 6DII in June 2017 and before that one was the 5DIV, T6, 1DXm2, 80D in 2016. Looks like 2016 was the last year most lines got upgraded. It wouldn't surprise me maybe we see one more 1D refresh and that's the end of the SLR bodies.

Yes, the dSLR market is shrinking. But one has to wonder why the mirrorless market size is not growing, but is stagnated in size! Traditional camera buyers are not apparently abandoning their dSLR in great numbers to buy a mirrorless equivalent, as evidenced by annual unit volume...why?

Wilt wrote in post #19431905
Yes, the dSLR market is shrinking. But one has to wonder why the mirrorless market size is not growing, but is stagnated in size! Traditional camera buyers are not apparently abandoning their dSLR in great numbers to buy a mirrorless equivalent, as evidenced by annual unit volume...why?

I think it's because phone cameras are getting that much better and for the vast majority of images (sharing online and small, many times just on another phone) a phone is more than adequate.

gjl711 wrote in post #19431944
I think it's because phone cameras are getting that much better and for the vast majority of images (sharing online and small, many times just on another phone) a phone is more than adequate.

Folks still have kids, and the kids are in school plays, they graduate from elementary to middle to high school, and some to college if not a trade school. Kids play individual and team sports, too. Smartphone cameras are totally inadequate to do a good job with all of those, yet folks don't buy better cameras that do a good or reasonable job of covering all of the forementioned activites/milestones?! I suppose cost is a barrier to entry with mirrorless, compared to the Rebel line-up and the competitor equivalents to the Rebel cameras.

The economy probably has something to do with flat sales. A new DSLR or Mirrorless camera is a luxury unless you're a pro and it's paying for itself. Crypto crashed so I'm sure that took some buyers out of the game. I'm starting to see a few hardly-used R5s and R6s show up on Craigslist. I suspect the market downturn is involved in some of those listings.

I want to lump DSLRs and Mirrorless into one category I'll call Big Cameras. They're in the same market category. Big Cameras are big and expensive and hard to learn how to use. They take a big investment in money and time to be able to get anything special at all from them. You gotta really want to make something special if a Big is the right tool.

If you're shooting wildlife or wars or weddings, you're looking for special and you want a Big. But for everything else, there are options these days. Has anyone tried making a landscape on a phone camera? I haven't. But I've seen phones that will write raw files, so I'm thinking I could probably make a special-enough image from one of those in post that I could share on the web.

But I'm wondering if the medium doesn't need Big cameras anymore. Does special matter enough in still photography? There are so many images out there, nearly all of them trash, that nothing can stand out. And as artists, standing out is a big motivation. If the photography community starts to see still photography, as we talk about it here, as an artistic dead end, they'll move on to or create other new light-capture artforms. Maybe you'll need a Big camera for that, maybe not.

Wilt wrote in post #19431951
Folks still have kids, and the kids are in school plays, they graduate from elementary to middle to high school, and some to college if not a trade school. Kids play individual and team sports, too. Smartphone cameras are totally inadequate to do a good job with all of those, yet folks don't buy better cameras that do a good or reasonable job of covering all of the forementioned activites/milestones?! I suppose cost is a barrier to entry with mirrorless, compared to the Rebel line-up and the competitor equivalents to the Rebel cameras.

Not sure what it's like in your part of the country, but I here, the phone is the camera doing it all. We haven't had any school plays and such for a couple of years now but I routinely go to concerts and all you see are phone cameras. I stopped bringing my SLR years ago to events that allowed it. Just too big and clunky and my phone, though much poorer in quality, does well enough for the few posts I'm going to use the clip for. If I was hired to document the concert, clearly the phone would be a poor choice but all I need is a few snaps to send to family/friends to share the experience and for that, it's perfect. I suspect it's the same for a lot of people. School sports is a bit different but I suspect that there are few people that want to get into that.

This discussion has got me interested though and i plan on sending my social group (especially the younger members) the question. I am interested to here their response.

If you just look at the end results of either DSLR or MILC, then sure, the move to remove a mirror box, a pentaprism for the viewfinder, and a separate AF chip is just evolutionary (but saves the manufactures tons of money). In the end, you get a digital image, whoopty dooo.

However when you look at what MILC can provide now that a mirrored, phase detect fixed AF system cannot, then MILC seems more revolutionary.

a) 100% frame AF coverage
b) eye AF
c) electronic completely silent shutter
d) crazy burst rates
e) immediate feedback of exposure in viewfinder before the shot
f) see what you are shooting even in near darkness

Maybe DSLR design could have tacked one of these items and made strides there, but with MILC, you get all these in one package. The tools at one's disposal with MILC is much better than with the equivalent DSLR, if you need those advantages.

Sitting in a quiet venue shooting an event, and getting critical eye focus on any person on stage silently and at 20-30fps to get that one perfect picture and knowing the exposure will be correct before you hit that shutter is a blessing!

drsilver wrote in post #19431973
.
I want to lump DSLRs and Mirrorless into one category I'll call Big Cameras. They're in the same market category. Big Cameras are big and expensive and hard to learn how to use. They take a big investment in money and time to be able to get anything special at all from them. You gotta really want to make something special if a Big is the right tool.
.

.
I think there's already a well-accepted and widely-used term for the cameras you are describing, and it is "interchangeable lens cameras", a.k.a. ILCs.


.

The only people I bump into with dedicated cameras around Toronto GTA are majorly with DLSRs. And most of the are young ones.
This thread is just another example of doom and gloom and disconnect from reality.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19432047
.
I think there's already a well-accepted and widely-used term for the cameras you are describing, and it is "interchangeable lens cameras", a.k.a. ILCs.

.

By that definition, cameras that never had an eye-level viewfinder would qualify. For Canon, all cameras in M line are MILCs, even though only a couple have EVFs. I'm not sure that's what we're talking about here. It's the removal of the mirror box that distinguishes mirrorless big cameras from DSLRs.

kf095 wrote in post #19432082
.
The only people I bump into with dedicated cameras around Toronto GTA are majorly with DLSRs. And most of the are young ones.
This thread is just another example of doom and gloom and disconnect from reality.
.

.
Toronto must be a lot different, then, than the places where I see lots of photographers with dedicated cameras. Maybe it's just an urban / suburban thing.

Here in the United States, whenever I go to places where serious wildlife photographers are photographing wild animals and birds, the majority of them now have mirrorless cameras. . I am talking about serious photographers who shoot semi-professionally and professionally, who primarily shoot from $1,000+ tripods and whose lenses cost many thousands and thousands of dollars. . At least 60% of these photographers are using mirrorless - probably even more. . And those like myself, who are using DSLRs, are planning to go mirrorless with their next upgrade.

The people you see using DSLRs in the greater Toronto area, are they mostly hobbyists shooting for their own enjoyment, or are they very serious photographers who are shooting like their life depends on it?


.

I have the similar experience as Tom. I'll see an occasional ILC camera but not very many any more. (I'm not differentiating between mirrorless or mirrored cameras) As an avid hiker living next to one of Dallas' large lakes with many trails, we are on many bird migration routes. I'll see a few serious amateur photographers with the 400mm, 600mm, and even one 800mm lenses with some ICL camera but outside of that, they are almost non-existent. This summers trip to the zoo and our recent outing to the state fair where SLRs use to be rather common, now it's just a few.