Will Mirrorless "kill" DSLR?

gossamer88 wrote in post #17190768
The latest rumor is that the T6i will be mirrorless.

if they just take a rebel remove a mirror it will be rather boring camera.

Canon needs to follow current mirrorless trend, smaller, sleeker, retro, camera, don't just take a entry level dslr and remove the mirror.

For day to day use I am liking my XT-1. I was mainly using 35L or Sigma 35mm Art on my 5dmk3 but Fuji XT-1 with 23mm f1.4 or the 35mm f1.4 is giving me just as nice shots. I am being lazy and not even shooting RAW. Less time to spend in front of that computer.

Depends on the marketing folks and profits...

Interesting thread. It reminds me of a small group of caveman sitting around their fire and debating whether sabertooth tigers will replace the last dinosaurs. The truth is, technology has changed astoundingly simply in the last 2 or 3 years. Photographers who are much smarter than I am - and I include Thom Hogan in this group - have been predicting this for years. Sony's A7 series of cameras have redefined low-light photography, not just for mirrorless but for any cameras. Olympus's flagship E-M1 has redefined both EVF's and supposedly slower micro 4/3 focusing. Fuji's sensors and IQ's are powering generations of not merely advanced amateurs (like most of us) but a new group of pros who've gone entirely mirrorless and aren't looking back.

And, yes, there are certain niches where the older sabertooth tigers and dinosaurs of the photographic world, can still beat out the new-comers. But they are shrinking - and that, coupled with the size/weight advantages of mirrorless (which are very real for the majority of casual photographers, not necessarily 'us' but the market as a whole) and the iPhone/smartphone revolution (which has basically destroyed one of the largest market segments in digital photography overnight) - all of these are examples of "writing on the wall" which, now, is written in such large letters that if we can't see them....I'm afraid it's because our heads are buried in the metaphoric sands of time.

And yet...

There is still some truth to the old adage that - it's all about glass. It's all about lenses. Great lenses are what make great cameras and not vice versa. Going all the way back to the Leitz Wetzlar early days of Leica - to Zeiss's legendary optics - and coming up through modern times where Canon and Nikon aren't the only ones to manufacture great glass: don't forget the long and rich history of both Pentax and Olympus in that area as well. So maybe it's not mirrorless vs DSLR --- but rather glass vs glass - and as more and more lens makers start making truly quality optics for non-DSLR formats, another advantage of the dinosaurs goes by the wayside.

And no, we're not there yet. But we almost are. This stuff (technology) happens fast. Close your eyes for a second, blink - and everything's changed. Case in point: Sigma lenses. Over the past several years, Sigma has invested a lot of time, energy, and thoughtful innovation in making a series of great - and ridiculously affordable - lenses, not just for FF cameras, but for a variety of APS-C formats and most recently, the micro 4/3 mount. Many of these Sigma lenses aren't just 'good' - they're great. Thoughtful photographers like Ming Thein - who's posted several of the more thorough and interesting reviews of the latest 'super lens' the Zeiss Otus - pretty much admits that when push comes to shove, some of the high-end Sigmas are just as good. Roger Cicala, the guru over at lensrentals.com, pretty much says the same thing.

I like sitting around the campfire and debating the relative merits of sabertooths vs dinosaurs just as much as the next photographer, don't get me wrong. But in my own personal photography, after decades of shooting with superb analog cameras & lenses (mostly Leicas, Contaxes and Pentaxes) - and after transitioning to high-end Pentax DSLR gear for awhile (mostly because of some of those luscious and semi-affordable Pentax primes), I finally got sick of having to lug around pounds and pounds of camera body + lenses during a multiple hour hike. I've joined the ranks of mirrorless - with a superb (for what it is) Lumix GX7 (the favorite mirrorless of another great photographer, Carl Weese) - and also the hugely underrated Canon EOS-M which, with its ridiculous quality, and its remarkable (and remarkably tiny) 22mm pancake, and its upgraded firmware (not to mention the recent fire-sale prices, when Canon inexplicably dumped the EOS-M, for North American markets at least) may be one of the best semi-pocketable serious photographic tools available.

But sometimes those sabertooths can keep a person awake at night

Wouldn't say kill, but I do think they will take over the consumer,prosumer an a good chuck of the pro market. I love my M and NEX. The DSLR is now the backup.

I think first off the mirrorless market is going to need some consolidation. It would seem difficult for all the current players and all these formats to survive. 1 inch, Micro 4/3, APS-C, Full Frame. Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, and Fuji all fighting it out in this area. Seems like they are all just going to cannibalize each other.

If we had say 2-3 companies with an established format really putting marketing muscle behind mirrorless, it would really speed up the death of DSLRs in the consumer/prosumer market.

I personally think Micro 4/3 is the most threatened format. Kind of sad, because the format does seem to give the best balance of size/ IQ. But unless you are willing to invest in additional high quality lenses (which most consumers are not), even a super-compact M43 camera like the GM-1 provides no real advantage over a RX 100 III or G7X type camera. And Oly and Panasonic doesn't seem to have the marketing muscle of companies like Canon or Sony.

I think APS-C is the best format for mirrorless cameras, and Sony/Fuji seem the most promising in that area, until Canon comes up with more competitive products.

I've had my M for only a coupke weeks and all I can say is wow. It's not perfect for all situations, but definitely fits most of my style nicely. My only complaints is that there isnt the depth of available lenses (dedicated M mount lenses that is) as there are for its big dslr cousins, and the battery life kinda stinks... but I can always buy a couple more batteries

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17199553
I've had my M for only a coupke weeks and all I can say is wow. It's not perfect for all situations, but definitely fits most of my style nicely. My only complaints is that there isnt the depth of available lenses (dedicated M mount lenses that is) as there are for its big dslr cousins, and the battery life kinda stinks... but I can always buy a couple more batteries

The EOS-M did a lot of things right imo. Offering a high quality f/2 35mm-equiv pancake prime as a kit lens was a terrific decision. And I believe at the time it was released it was the smallest (or at least one of the smallest) APS-C mirrorless bodies you could buy. The other kit lens had good IQ as well. Plus I thought useability was very good (as usual with Canon).

Unfortunately Canon crippled the camera with the slow AF (partially addressed with the Firmware update) and the high initial MSRP.

I do hope Canon doesn't give up on the mirrorless arena.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17199572
Unfortunately Canon crippled the camera with the slow AF (partially addressed with the Firmware update) and the high initial MSRP.

I do hope Canon doesn't give up on the mirrorless arena.

canon COMPLETELY blew it with the M. I think 500 max and with the capable AF done in the firmware fix was where it should have been. The AF is decent with the fix, and the fact that they dumbed it down THAT much..... shame on Canon.

The did a lot of things right with the camera for their first mirrorless attempt. I have no doubt canon can make a great mirrorless option.

Charlie wrote in post #17199591
canon COMPLETELY blew it with the M. I think 500 max and with the capable AF done in the firmware fix was where it should have been. The AF is decent with the fix, and the fact that they dumbed it down THAT much..... shame on Canon.

The did a lot of things right with the camera for their first mirrorless attempt. I have no doubt canon can make a great mirrorless option.

Yep. How do you think a retro-SLR style Canon mirrorless would do? Kind of like the Fuji X-T1 but using the EOS-M mount and maybe styled after the AE-1? I

Instead of coming up with all these rebels and SL1 etc. they should come with nice mirrorless which can compete with Fuji XT-1. I think Canon can do it if they wanted to.

I have M but after getting Fuji, I haven't touched M. M did some things very nicely like touch screen etc.

bobbyz wrote in post #17199684
Instead of coming up with all these rebels and SL1 etc. they should come with nice mirrorless which can compete with Fuji XT-1. I think Canon can do it if they wanted to.

I have M but after getting Fuji, I haven't touched M. M did some things very nicely like touch screen etc.

Couldn't agree more. I was going to buy M but the slow AF, lack of viewfinder, and lack of build in flash (which I need for portraits, fill in flash mainly) made it not worth it for me. Ended up with Sony. Canon can take a huge chunk of APS-C mirrorless market - they know how to make great yet relatively inexpensive lenses, and their old sensor is still OK. But they need to be serious about it, and realistic with pricing.

It still takes a large lens to make a quality portrait, regardless of the camera size (it is simple geometry: you need a large aperture for shallow DoF). So the main perceived advantage of mirrorless systems - smaller size - works as long as you don't do serious photography. For serious stuff you'll be lugging around pounds of quality glass, so the camera size is kind of irrelevant.

I still believe that mirrorless will eventually replace DSLR even for pros, but for a different reason: it just makes sense to get rid of those moving parts in the camera, which severely limit the lifetime of the camera and produce too much noise. Once EVFs and on-the-sensor AF are good enough for most pros, the transition will take place.

I believe mirrorless cameras will be mostly full frame. High end cell phones will replace the current mirrorless markets (m43 etc), once they learn how to put quality zooms in them. (I've seen some promising developments). So there will be only two kinds of cameras: mirrorless FF for serious photographers, and cell phones for the masses.

Given that 35mm didn't kill medium format and digital didn't kill film (urmmm, not totally sure about that last one) I highly doubt that mirrorless will kill DSLRs.

But they will change the market.

pulsar123 wrote in post #17200576
It still takes a large lens to make a quality portrait, regardless of the camera size (it is simple geometry: you need a large aperture for shallow DoF). So the main perceived advantage of mirrorless systems - smaller size - works as long as you don't do serious photography. For serious stuff you'll be lugging around pounds of quality glass, so the camera size is kind of irrelevant.

?? Are you sure about this? What about all the quality Leica lenses you get that are very small compared to DSLR equivalents. For example the Leica Summilux M 50mm f/1.4 is only 54mm diameter and 53mm long. Used on a full frame body like the M9 and the DOF is the same as you would get with the 50L on full frame Canon at f/1.4. Plenty of people doing "serious" photography with small Leica lenses