How soon mirrorless will replace DSLR for Pros?

jaomul wrote in post #17043829
Many pros now use mirrorless

Source? Reference?
Not challenging you.

But it did occur to me as I was posting above, does anyone have any evidence Pros are not already using mirrorless?

^^ look up Damian Mc Gillycuddy as one example. Most of his studio stuff is with an EM5. Type in m4/3rds weddings in a Flickr search, all these people are not doing free weddings. I'd say the amount of mirrorless pros is a minority, but they are there

I've shot some studio (family) using my Einstein's and OMD em5. I'll have to say the images came out excellent!!!

For running and gunning a "pro" using a camera body using "contrast detection" is absolutely gambling with a clients memorable moments. Keeper rates with a phase detection is by far the most reliable accurate form of AF. I have used my OMD alot and fully understand the quirks and behavior of the camera and even for a backup camera that'd be rolling the dice.

M43 is totally useable for taking photos at a wedding but not ideal by any means. Its literally like the photo albums people make with an Iphone with add on lenses. Just because you can do it doesn't mean its the right tool for someones cherishing/pivotal moments in a clients life.

IF the m43 or other brand mirrorless camera's have phase detection this would be more acceptable for my books. For an Olympus OMD em5 or GH3 I own its never going to be used for serious still photography work for events. The Gh3 however is still one of the leading camera's on the market for video (one of many).

The relatively inexpensive m/43 panasonic 100-300 (200-600 equiv) IMO surpasses the image quality of the canon 100-400L. This is slow moving/static subjects. Until a person hasn't used a mirrorless system its hard to describe how well the image quality can be.

Choderboy wrote in post #17043842
Source? Reference?
Not challenging you.

But it did occur to me as I was posting above, does anyone have any evidence Pros are not already using mirrorless?

Pro does not mean famous... I've seen plenty of professionals on this forum and even more so on the Fuji Forum who have made the complete switch from DSLR to mirrorless.

jaomul wrote in post #17043851
^^ look up Damian Mc Gillycuddy as one example. Most of his studio stuff is with an EM5. Type in m4/3rds weddings in a Flickr search, all these people are not doing free weddings. I'd say the amount of mirrorless pros is a minority, but they are there

Cheers.
1st pic of Damian's I found was of Isle of Man TT.
(common for these discussion to lean towards more static objects for mirrorless use)

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17043934
Pro does not mean famous... I've seen plenty of professionals on this forum and even more so on the Fuji Forum who have made the complete switch from DSLR to mirrorless.

Hopefully at least Xe2

AlanU wrote in post #17043955
Hopefully at least Xe2

Mostly X-T1 or X-Pro1. For studio work though even the X-E1 is perfectly up to the task. I've used mine for paid sessions without batting an eye.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17043963
Mostly X-T1 or X-Pro1. For studio work though even the X-E1 is perfectly up to the task. I've used mine for paid sessions without batting an eye.

cool!

I bet the sessions would look great with the fuji signature colours!!

My comfort zone is still my canon gear for event photography.

AlanU wrote in post #17043968
cool!

I bet the sessions would look great with the fuji signature colours!!

My comfort zone is still my canon gear for event photography.

I'm definitely a big fan of the Fuji colors, but I still have a 6D too. Like I said, it's perfect for a lot of shooters out there, including pros, but it's definitely not for everyone.

DC Fan wrote in post #17043308
No.

Among the photographic needs of working professional photographers are the use of supertelephoto lenses. So-called mirrorless cameras do not have lenses such as the commonly employed 400mm f/2.8 units so often found at field events such as all codes of football, baseball, and athletics.

Mirrorless cameras also have yet to overcome the problems of image lag and blackout in their electronic viewfinders. For a working professional who needs constantly decisive and accurate sighting through a viewfinder, lag and blackout are unacceptable.

Those who paid attention to still cameras used at events such as the NCAA basketball tournament and the NBA playoffs would have seen the familiar shape of Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 in near-exclusive use by baseline floor photographers. No mirrorless cameras there.

It's already been noted that at the football World Cup, while Sony purchased the right to have their Alpha logo on photographers' bibs, still photographers actually used Canon and Nikon still cameras.

Mirrorless cameras are several generations of viewfinder development away from extensive professional use. You won't see anything like the near-overnight switch from film to digital cameras that happened in professional deadline photography around a decade ago, because mirrorless cameras aren't ready to meet the needs of deadline shooters.

Also, deadline photographers are immune to hobbyists' gadget lust.

Your post is a perfect example of "tool selection" for the job. Indeed the mirrorless has to evolve more to further meet the needs of many pro photographers.

The phase detection is a big step forward for the mirrorless world. This evolution will draw more pro's in due time. At this point in time mirrorless is still in its infancy for the pro world for certain applications.

Photography is documentation. Be it a mom taking photos of their child or a paid photog taking photos of sports/birds for monetary purposes..... both are equal in value to the operator of the camera. I know some photogs with 1dx or phase one medium format/hassie camera's used for personal enjoyment nothing to do with monetary gain. I guess those camera's are simply a toy/gadget with no lust since for those individuals who buy those camera's are simply cheap gadgets in their hobby

Deadline shooters would be silly to select improper tools. Phase detection mirrorless is a totally feasible tool for static/slow moving subjects for pro's.

Individual's right to select tools for their purposes. This has nothing to do with hobbyist gadget lust. I hope a deadline photographer hasn't been jaded in his line of work to create a rift between work and personal/hobby pleasures.

Reading the discussion....a very interesting one and I have to say people can express opinions without getting into fight

What I read is that depending on the subject, it will either be DSLR or Mirrorless.

I think for sports, wildlife....size and weight is not a problem, so mirrorless is not even needed, it will not add anything on top of what professionals have today.

For landscape, I see it totally differently. You do not need zoom lenses, mostly. I would say a compact full frame mirrorless body with 14-24 equivalent is what will make many landscape photographers switch. Weight is everything when you are hiking or travelling long distances with your backpack and if you can save even 1 kg and some size, it is a massive deal.

I will be on a tour with Marc Adamus next year, I will be sure to ask

One of the ironies of this debate, is that when we used to ask the same questions about sensor size and it's impact on camera and lens sizes, it was all pretty much poo-pooed by the majority. Many years later, it's seemed the poo-pooers have held sway with the continued migration to the more expensive and more bulky "ff" sensor sized bodies and lenses.

IMHO, Olympus was the only one really moving in the right direction a decade ago with 4/3rds. Canon's pioneering EF-S was coming close but not pushing it far enough to really reduce size dramtically, instead it was mostly reducing costs (and thus increasing profits) for Canon.

Anyway, it's interesting to see that tech has given us another avenue to reduced size with minor sacrifice. The only problem I have with all this reduced size, is controls. A good 4/3rd mirror-less could be very small, but could I use it?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17044107
One of the ironies of this debate, is that when we used to ask the same questions about sensor size and it's impact on camera and lens sizes, it was all pretty much poo-pooed by the majority. Many years later, it's seemed the poo-pooers have held sway with the continued migration to the more expensive and more bulky "ff" sensor sized bodies and lenses.

IMHO, Olympus was the only one really moving in the right direction a decade ago with 4/3rds. Canon's pioneering EF-S was coming close but not pushing it far enough to really reduce size dramtically, instead it was mostly reducing costs (and thus increasing profits) for Canon.

Anyway, it's interesting to see that tech has given us another avenue to reduced size with minor sacrifice. The only problem I have with all this reduced size, is controls. A good 4/3rd mirror-less could be very small, but could I use it?

Lots of mirror less have gone the retro look so ergonomics isn't ideal for photogs with large hands IMO.

The Gh3 and Gh4 has more of a Canon SLi rebel "feel" so even that is not physically that small. The Panasonic GH4 costs more than the Canon 6d LOL!!! I ended up buying a GH3 instead of paying a little more for another full frame (6d) simply due to form factor and video capabilities. For large hands the control layout is probably "acceptable". I took sony a7 out of the equation because I already own m43 lenses (boy was I tempted though)

Sony mirrorless FF bodies are small but as you add a prime or zoom the benefits of smaller form factor diminish as it gets closer to a size of a rebel t5i.

My outdated Olympus OMD em5 with extremely cheap panasonic 14mm f/2.5 (28mm equiv) has equiv to better IQ than my 5dc with 35L. The OMD with panny/leica 25mm f/1.4 (50mm equiv) is substantially better than my 5dc with canon 50 f/1.4.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17043765
It entirely depends on the professional... there are many different areas of photography, not all can be covered by mirrorless cameras (yet).

I know of numerous wedding, portrait and event photographers who've already made that switch (most to the Fuji X-T1 or Sony A7 series) and couldn't be happier. For pretty much anything but sports, wildlife and in my case, low light high ISO requirements, mirrorless is just as good as a DSLR.

I brought both my 6D and X-E1 with me on vacation last week thinking I'd want to use the 6D quite a bit... I took maybe 30 shots with it the whole week, for everything else I just used my X-E1 and I couldn't be happier. It's so much smaller and lighter (and the 6D is already one of the lightest FF DSLR's out there) that I barely even noticed it was on me (which was great when I got sunburn). The lenses for it are awesome and so is the sensor. In good light you'd be hard-pressed to find much difference between a shot from my X-E1 and 6D.

So when will it replace DSLR's for pros? For many they already are. It depends entirely (as it always has) on the needs of the professional. I just let my dad play around with my X-E1 and now he and his wife are thinking of picking up an X-T1 themselves for low-key events where they want to make a smaller footprint, both of them have been working professionals for 30+ years.

^ this.

"Pros" is not very well defined and as above, a "pro" will use the best tool for the job. That isn't 100% based on AF performance or even high iso noise characteristics. A travel photog might do better to have a small mirrorless with him/her all the time than a big showy 1 series. Different tools for different jobs.

Personally, I think it is pretty awesome that there are so many choices available such that one isn't obligated to use a DSLR to get top image quality. Lovin it.

DC Fan wrote in post #17043308
...For a working professional who needs constantly decisive and accurate sighting through a viewfinder, lag and blackout are unacceptable.

A modern high-end EVF is not perfect but can often produce a more accurate view than an OVF. That is why DSLR shooters often "chimp" their shots -- they have no idea what the camera actually captured. Why do they not know? Because an OVF can't show that. They must tear their eye away from the OVF, possibly miss something, check the LCD, then go back to shooting. In reality they are already using a type of EVF -- just doing it the hard way.

Pros are good at compensating for this deficiency by chimping as little as possible, only when safe, etc. However they are working around a limitation which they've accepted for so long it doesn't seem abnormal. However it is.

DC Fan wrote in post #17043308
...Mirrorless cameras are several generations of viewfinder development away from extensive professional use...

Mirrorless cameras are in widespread professional use today. Professional use it not limited to photojournalists or sports photographers. There are professional landscape photographers, professional portrait photographers, professional product photographers, etc.

Below is a list of well-known magazine cover photos shot on RED cinema cameras. Note some date back to 2008. These cameras use EVFs -- they don't even have an OVF. They have no mirror so are by definition mirrorless cameras.

What these cameras can do today, the next generation of DSLR-like mirrorless cameras will do tomorrow. The generation after the GH4 or A7S will do this -- it is that close. In fact the GH4 already has significantly more dynamic range than the Red One had in 2008 (which shot some of the below magazine covers).

Just because some narrow specialized fields like sports photography will continue using DSLRs for a while has little bearing on the overall trends.

http://www.red.com/sho​t-on-red/photography