Will Mirrorless "kill" DSLR?

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17174098
You've clearly never used a high quality EVF... I was a skeptic too, but EVF's definitely have some serious potential.

Also, size and weight are HUGE factors for some shooters (like me).

EVF's also have a huge downside during low light (especially if you're using slower glass). It's pretty damn awesome if you've got fast glass, but even then, clobbering light levels, and your screwed.

How often do you see parents shooting harsh flash in super dark conditions? All the time

an EVF can definitely go to mud if you're shooting with no light outside, but an OVF can manage fine because your eyes can adapt to the situation.

even the simplest DSLR is a no nonsense tool. It does reasonably well at everything, dirt cheap, with an outstanding set of lenses.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17174089
This is how I feel, as well. Small size and light weight really don't matter to me. So, if you take size and weight out of the equation, then what is the advantage? Nothing? No advantage at all? I suspect this might be the case.

there are some advantages, like a huge view, which is easier to see, and super fast fps.

Charlie wrote in post #17174128
EVF's also have a huge downside during low light (especially if you're using slower glass). It's pretty damn awesome if you've got fast glass, but even then, clobbering light levels, and your screwed.

How often do you see parents shooting harsh flash in super dark conditions? All the time

an EVF can definitely go to mud if you're shooting with no light outside, but an OVF can manage fine because your eyes can adapt to the situation.

even the simplest DSLR is a no nonsense tool. It does reasonably well at everything, dirt cheap, with an outstanding set of lenses.


there are some advantages, like a huge view, which is easier to see, and super fast fps.

I understand that, and I agree (I shoot with both), but in time that will change, the technology will only improve.

Charlie wrote in post #17173851
mmm naw. DSLR's are super established, it'll take some huge strides to break through even the entry level market. Think of the slowest rebel available. it'll cost less than most mirrorless offerings, give similar IQ, and autofocus better. People on smaller budgets will still head towards DSLR.

And you don't think that a mirrorless "Rebel" would be less expensive? Where the mechanical mirror assembly has become software? Where the factory no longer needs to calibrate any AF? Where you no longer need a pentaprism or similar to get the image into an optical viewfinder? No ground focus glass to project AF points.

pwm2 wrote in post #17174142
And you don't think that a mirrorless "Rebel" would be less expensive? Where the mechanical mirror assembly has become software? Where the factory no longer needs to calibrate any AF? Where you no longer need a pentaprism or similar to get the image into an optical viewfinder? No ground focus glass to project AF points.

it's called the EOS-M, and it failed

moltengold wrote in post #17173946
with a slow focus and maybe with manual focus

Why? Canon lenses used with an adapter with a Sony mirrorless body is the result of a cross-brand "hack".

Canon lenses used with a Canon mirrorless need not need to be slow to focus or maybe even require manual focus. Remember that the 70D and the upcomming 7D2 can do phase-detection AF with the image sensor. That is "mirrorless" functionality in a current DSLR. And technology hasn't reached any physical limit - it's possible to improve on the 70D/7D2 solution and get the sensor-based AF to work even faster.

Charlie wrote in post #17173949
AFAIK, the digital rebel was among the first, if not the first consumer level DSLR to enter the market.... that was over 10 years ago.

when the mirrorless market soundly beats the current rebels, things may change, but it's not going to outprice the rebel, and it sure as hell isnt going to soundly beat the IQ either.

The buyers of Rebel bodies doesn't buy them because they are DSLR. They buy them because they get good IQ at a nice price. Remove the mirror and a mirrorless "Rebel" will still give people good IQ at a nice price - but now maybe even nicer price at the same time as they get an EVF that performs magic.

You look at current small-market offerings and think that the price is a relevant argument for not making mirrorless compatible. With mirrorless established by Nikon and/or Canon, you'll suddenly see way more lenses - and at nice prices. And the people who buy a new camera at a local store isn't going to consider if there are 100 lens models available or only 5-10.

It's enough that Canon makes one "nifty fifty" for EF-M mount and suddenly your argument "right nothing" falls. You think it would be a huge task for Canon to release such a lens if/when Canon decides to focus on a Rebel-M line of bodies?

You somehow think the buyer cares about the technology inside their camera body. They don't. They buy what the stores has on the shelves. So the day the big brands starts to push mirrorless replaceable-lens bodies, then the buyers will start to pick up mirrorless replaceable-lens bodies.

Charlie wrote in post #17173851
mmm naw. DSLR's are super established, it'll take some huge strides to break through even the entry level market. Think of the slowest rebel available. it'll cost less than most mirrorless offerings, give similar IQ, and autofocus better. People on smaller budgets will still head towards DSLR. People who shoot sports on a budget will also go DSLR (soccer moms). An avid traveler might prefer mirrorless. An avid amatuer photographer might prefer mirrorless.

Mirrorless has a long way to go to break through the entry level market IMO. Easier said than done.

Phones have broken through the DSLR market in a big way. Listening to an interview with the CEO of Sigma he says the DSLR market has shrunk down to 25% in sales from what it used to be. Guess what has picked up the slack? Might not be only mirrorless, but the phone camera market is a major threat to all but then niche markets like sports.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17173871
Super established in the consumer market is an oxymoron imo. In any product. Consumer level DSLRs were almost nonexistent 10 years ago, then almost overnight everyone had one. Same thing with things like Smartphones or Tablets. As fast as something gets "established", it can get taken down.

History has shown this on numerous occasions and the DSLR today is no more than a chunk of electronics that are typically here today and gone tomorrow.

Charlie wrote in post #17174128
EVF's also have a huge downside during low light (especially if you're using slower glass). It's pretty damn awesome if you've got fast glass, but even then, clobbering light levels, and your screwed.

How often do you see parents shooting harsh flash in super dark conditions? All the time

an EVF can definitely go to mud if you're shooting with no light outside, but an OVF can manage fine because your eyes can adapt to the situation.

even the simplest DSLR is a no nonsense tool. It does reasonably well at everything, dirt cheap, with an outstanding set of lenses.


there are some advantages, like a huge view, which is easier to see, and super fast fps.

You seem to base your view on a tiny P&S with bad high-ISO performance feeding that EVF.

Debate the replacement of APS-C or full-frame DSLR with mirrorless and you suddenly have quite good low-light abilities from the sensor that will feed the EVF. I'd say it's in low-light situations you do want an EVF. Your eyes can't adapt well to low light. Your color vision takes a big hit. And the eyes needs lots of time to adapt after having been hit by a strong light source. And they will get worse with age. And EVF can adapt instantly, and make night into day for an older shooter. So an EVF can even allow people to do perfect MF in light situations where it's possible to manually focus with an OVF.

Charlie wrote in post #17173949
AFAIK, the digital rebel was among the first, if not the first consumer level DSLR to enter the market.... that was over 10 years ago.

when the mirrorless market soundly beats the current rebels, things may change, but it's not going to outprice the rebel, and it sure as hell isnt going to soundly beat the IQ either.

You've got a system, whether nikon or canon, that has a bunch of cheapie but goodie lenses. Mirrorless isnt on that level yet, not even close. The average consumer isnt going to know the differences between a variable aperture 18-55 from fuji and canon, but they sure as hell will know the price difference. Even M43 offerings wont be cheap and are they really any better?

What about a budget portrait lens? nifty fifty compared to..... right nothing.

take notice of all the mirrorless the next time you go to the amusement park, school graduation, christmas program. The initial rush is over, there's hardly any mirrorless shooters unless you count cell phone shooters.

Why can't a mirrorless camera out price a rebel. There are less parts in the mirrorless. They just sell for more today to keep their margins higher.

gjl711 wrote in post #17173971
That's true in the states, but travel to Asia and it's a whole different story.

As Canon found out and **** canned the EOS-M in North America.

pwm2 wrote in post #17174169
The buyers of Rebel bodies doesn't buy them because they are DSLR. They buy them because they get good IQ at a nice price. Remove the mirror and a mirrorless "Rebel" will still give people good IQ at a nice price - but now maybe even nicer price at the same time as they get an EVF that performs magic.


You look at current small-market offerings and think that the price is a relevant argument for not making mirrorless compatible. With mirrorless established by Nikon and/or Canon, you'll suddenly see way more lenses - and at nice prices. And the people who buy a new camera at a local store isn't going to consider if there are 100 lens models available or only 5-10.

It's enough that Canon makes one "nifty fifty" for EF-M mount and suddenly your argument "right nothing" falls. You think it would be a huge task for Canon to release such a lens if/when Canon decides to focus on a Rebel-M line of bodies?


You somehow think the buyer cares about the technology inside their camera body. They don't. They buy what the stores has on the shelves. So the day the big brands starts to push mirrorless replaceable-lens bodies, then the buyers will start to pick up mirrorless replaceable-lens bodies.

buyers care about a no nonsense solution to their photography woes. You do know that EVF's are terrible in low light right? You're only as strong as your weakest link.

you're seriously underestimating the OVF and lens selection offered by canikon. Sure, if they a cheaper alternative mirrorless arrives, the situation may very well be different, but I'm not talking about lens rumors, just stating the obvious. Lens development takes the longest amount of time, and it may take years for mirrorless to catch every angle.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17174089
This is how I feel, as well. Small size and light weight really don't matter to me. So, if you take size and weight out of the equation, then what is the advantage? Nothing? No advantage at all? I suspect this might be the case.

For you size and weight do not matter, but for many size and weight do matter...that is why the cell phone cameras are selling so well...size and weight and convenience.

Hogloff wrote in post #17174181
Why can't a mirrorless camera out price a rebel. There are less parts in the mirrorless. They just sell for more today to keep their margins higher.

beats me, they seem marketed towards advance amateurs that do lots of lens changes. Rebel kit users are probably the largest segment of the DSLR market, and it's a great value that gets the job done.

I'de say 2 years ago, there was a wave of mirrorless cameras at the school events..... they kinda disappeared.

Hogloff wrote in post #17174181
Why can't a mirrorless camera out price a rebel. There are less parts in the mirrorless. They just sell for more today to keep their margins higher.

Every once in a while you get absurd deals on mirrorless cameras. I believe the Olympus E-PM2 with twin kit lens kit was selling for as low as something like $399 at one point.

I already mentioned the NEX-6.

Canon's own EOS-M went on firesale.

So yea, mirrorless can be quite affordable once they are out on the market for a bit.