DSLR soon obsolete

JeffreyG wrote in post #17351342
I think mirrorless is carving out a significant market in the 'advanced amateur' arena, but they are not hitting the top end or the entry level quite to much, do to performance and pricing.

The 7D mark II is an aps-c camera with an advanced AF tracking system and a array of AF points clustered around the center of the frame, and shoots 10fps. It costs $1,700

The Sony a6000 is an aps-c camera with an advanced AF tracking system and an array of AF points that cover the entire frame and shoots 11fps. It costs $600

GregDunn wrote in post #17350223
Mirrorless will not be competitive until the manufacturers can solve the glacially slow autofocus problems and provide a viewfinder which rivals live view. Meanwhile, those of us who shoot sports will only be mildly curious about them.

Interesting reading about the autofocus performance of sony's A6000:

http://petapixel.com …our-de-france-sony-a6000/

Not as slow as you make it seems to be.

mystik610 wrote in post #17351352
The 7D mark II is an aps-c camera with an advanced AF tracking system and a array of AF points clustered around the center of the frame, and shoots 10fps. It costs $1,700

The Sony a6000 is an aps-c camera with an advanced AF tracking system and an array of AF points that cover the entire frame and shoots 11fps. It costs $600

Maybe I'm not understanding the Sony system, but I do not see any appropriate lenses in the E-mount for sports. My understanding is that A-mount lenses can be adapted, but the performance is not great with adapted lenses.

I have to admit though, I have not messed around with the Sony stuff much. My rough take is that they have a lot of mounts with very thin lens coverage so far. They kind of lost my interest initially when their initial rounds of mirrorless bodies all featured very impressive sounding frame rates....but then the EVF would simply lock and the AF would stop tracking during bursts. If they have fixed that stuff then they are on the way to being useful, now they just need to fill out the lens coverage.

DutchinCLE wrote in post #17351361
Interesting reading about the autofocus performance of sony's A6000:

http://petapixel.com …our-de-france-sony-a6000/

Not as slow as you make it seems to be.

I like the part in that review where the guy is shooting an EF 200/1.8 L USM manual focus on his mirrorless body and misses the shot because he cannot focus. He could have used a dSLR but he "didn't want the weight."

Once you have a 200/1.8, the weight of the camera is nearly an afterthought. My new 120-300/2.8 is 3.4 kg, roughly 7.5 pounds. Mirrorless cameras don't really save a lot of size or weight on the overall rig when you talk about shooting sports.

Anyway, I'm not trying to dismiss these mirrorless cameras. They are hitting some markets well and innovating and getting better. I just don't think that means they represent the end of the SLR. If saying mirrorless cameras are pointless is hyperbole, saying they will kill off the SLR is simply hyperbole with the opposite stance.

he missed that shot using the Olympus of which he even mentions the horrible auto focus, not the Sony A6000.
Don't get me wrong, if I was a pro-photographer making my $$$ with getting that one shot right, I'd take a 1Dx or D4. I was just pointing out that the auto-focus of the new mirror-less cameras is all but slow.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17351415
Maybe I'm not understanding the Sony system, but I do not see any appropriate lenses in the E-mount for sports. My understanding is that A-mount lenses can be adapted, but the performance is not great with adapted lenses.

I have to admit though, I have not messed around with the Sony stuff much. My rough take is that they have a lot of mounts with very thin lens coverage so far. They kind of lost my interest initially when their initial rounds of mirrorless bodies all featured very impressive sounding frame rates....but then the EVF would simply lock and the AF would stop tracking during bursts. If they have fixed that stuff then they are on the way to being useful, now they just need to fill out the lens coverage.

They recently released a 70-200 F4 lens for the new FF FE mount. It will take them time to fully flesh out the FE lens portfolio, but they're releasing them pretty aggressively. (7 lenses in its first year, and 3 more announced for the beginning of 2015 already).

The Sony a mount adapter actually has a built in dedicated mirror, so it actually focuses as fast, or faster than a Sony DSLR. Pretty good solution while Sony builds its lens lineup. AF with non Sony lenses is terrible though.

All of that said, just don't think mirrorless cameras are poised to replace DSLR's for professional sports shooters (yet). But the technology had progressed to a point where they offer a complelling alternative, with distinct advantages, to many DSLR consumers.

One thing that no one has mentioned on here, we are a photography site I know, is the growing use of dslrs in movie production. That is a growing market. A fast growing market that is all the rage right now. On top of countless tv shows both the Avengers and Thor were shot largely on dslrs. I know quite a few people who shoot short movies and even feature length and have just started building large collections of dslrs and equipment.

I do agree with you, I think completely. This is why I think professionals will use DSLRs for the next several years...maybe even 5-10, who knows. At the same time, when you look at XT-1, especially the silver grey edition....and you want to use it for street and portraits only...then it is very hard to imagine that you will pick DSLR instead. Personally, I have a feeling that 5D MK IV or 3D will be my last DSLR.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17351342
That's not a difficult AF situation at all. The kind of thing that are difficult for AF is tracking athletes running at the camera, like guards in basketball. Or changing subjects and distances quickly, like shooting the pass, the set and the hit all in a single sequence in volleyball. There are no mirrorless cameras that can do this competitively with SLRs so far, and it isn't even close.

I also agree with DC Fan's assessment. When mirrorless came out several years ago, my initial take was that these new smaller cameras would displace SLRs, especially at the low end. Now I'm a lot less sure. They are almost all priced higher than entry level dSLRs, especially when stacked up head to head on features. And typical entry-level dSLR buyers are looking for the kind of AF performance the SLR gives them to shoot their kid's soccer game or whatever. They don't see the value, and I don't blame them. That's why there is still a huge stack of D3X00 or T5i two lens kit boxes near the door at Costco, but no NEX or Fuji kits sitting there.

I played with a Fuji XT-1 recently for a week. Very nice camera, and I can see why demanding amateurs would love these for events, portraits, travel, landscapes etc. But I tried it out at a basketball game on a lark, and it was hopeless compared to my SLRs. I think mirrorless is carving out a significant market in the 'advanced amateur' arena, but they are not hitting the top end or the entry level quite so much, due to performance and pricing.

gmm213 wrote in post #17351518
One thing that no one has mentioned on here, we are a photography site I know, is the growing use of dslrs in movie production. That is a growing market. A fast growing market that is all the rage right now. On top of countless tv shows both the Avengers and Thor were shot largely on dslrs. I know quite a few people who shoot short movies and even feature length and have just started building large collections of dslrs and equipment.

Largely is an overstatement there were just a couple of scenes filmed with DSLRs in Avengers. I also think that Canon will split the video systems from a regular DSLR

gmm213 wrote in post #17351518
One thing that no one has mentioned on here, we are a photography site I know, is the growing use of dslrs in movie production. That is a growing market. A fast growing market that is all the rage right now. On top of countless tv shows both the Avengers and Thor were shot largely on dslrs. I know quite a few people who shoot short movies and even feature length and have just started building large collections of dslrs and equipment.

Given that the mirror flips up when shooting movies in a DSLR, there's absolutely no reason why nirrorless cameras won't eventually take over the video realm as well . I'm fact, the low light performance of the sony a7s + the ability to mount lenses for a variety of mounts, makes it the best video cam on the market right now

mystik610 wrote in post #17351146
A little marketing is all it takes to change consumer mind-sets and perceptions about mirrorless cameras.

From a marketing perspective, the reason mirrorless cameras haven't taken off on a broader scale in the US is because the big shakers in the consumer camera arena (Canon and Nikon) have resisted entering the mirrorless arena, and have opted to squeeze as much as they can out of DSLR's......why push a new format which will require the development of new technology and accessories, when you're still enjoying growth with existing product lines?

DSLR sales, however, haven't necessarily slowed because of the quality of smartphones...there is a distinct improvement in quality from a smartphone to a DSLR that many still appreciate. Go to any family event, and you'll see lots of people who agree. DSLR sales are slowing down because camera manufacturers are not producing products that compel consumers to upgrade from their DSLR's from 3-4 years ago. For consumers who care nothing of sensor and AF improvements, the rate of innovation has hit a plateau, and DSLR sales have followed in suit

Smartphones have, however, killed the lucrative market for P&S. As such, camera manufacturers are facing a decline in two ares: huge decline in P&S cameras, and a decline in DSLR sales.

Camera manufacturers will have to put more effort into the mirrorless market going forward, because it really is their only opportunity to continue to grow. A strong marketing push to educate consumers about the quality that mirrorless camera's provide in a significantly smaller package is enough to spark that growth. Consumers like products that are smaller, yet just as capable as their larger counter-parts. Its a pretty easy pitch, if the big players would put some effort into it

When was the last time you saw marketing for cameras geared toward the general market? An ad on tv or in a magazine by the supermarket checkout? The last I remember was those Ashton Kutcher adds for coolpix in the mid late 2000s right at the beginning of the smartphone craze.

As far as Canon and Nikon not being in the market of mirrorless who cares. Your target sales for any product are always general population not people already invested into a system or hobby. So the general population wouldn't care about nikon or Canon's carrying ons. On top of the fact that Sony seems to be dominating mirrored and if they really wanted to they wouldn't let either camera brand stop them selling the crap out of mirrorless. They are one of the largest tech companies in existence.

You mentioned they stop producing products that compel people to switch from they're current gear 3-4 years ago. But that also coincides with the emergence of heavy use of camera smartphones.

Yes there is a distinct improvement between camera phones and dslrs that many appreciate but from an overall picture who cares about many companies care about general populace. The general populace has two standpoints in tech, all tech not just cameras.

1. My device that I already have does 80% of that speciality device so why pay hundreds of dollars for it. (Consumers see the numbers manufactures went then to see, mp for cameras, resolution for tv and teach them to only care about those numbers. You see it in tv right now with 4k which is a bogus tech but the average consumer only sees bigger numbers. In cameras you see opposite. My phone has 13mp why spend 700 or more to get 21)

2.Consumers want 'pro' looking gear (dslrs) not the old simple p&s looking gear from 5-10 yrs ago (which even though there's a huge difference consumers buy on numbers and look.) Remember people who own 1000s of dollars of gear aren't there target Joe shmoe who wants the fanciest look I new tech toy is

Yep, it's not mirrorless that will really hit sales to the consumer market but the phone that killed the market.

The consumer market is not the same as the hobbyist market. In the next few years the pros will manly stick to DSLR, hobbyist will slowly migrate to mirrorless, and the general public have already gone.

From what I had read the Avenger filled quite a bit on dslr but you are correct. But many tv shows are filmed on them. As for no reason that mirrorless cameras shouldn't take over video you may be right, but technology trends don't follow reason they follow consumers. Look at the iPhone the most poplar single phone ever, the technology is 2-3 years old upon release yet people still line up around the block for a weekend for it, or 4k tv's, another old technology that is growing quickly, but looks badly when compared against a 1080 OLED that are truly new tech and rarely spoken of

Another observation on how people really react. I made a trip through Chicago's Union Station, a cavernous magnificent structure with an arched glass vaulted ceiling that runs the entire length of the building above massive classical support pillars. Everyone who walked through this structure took a picture of either the imposing architecture or the station's elaborate Christmas display. This scene was in one of the United States' largest cities and electronic markets where mirrorless cameras are readily available. The Chicago Tribune carried a big Fry's advertising section.

Still, no mirrorless cameras seen at the busy train station, nearly all smartphones with one older compact Canon point and shoot and a single Kit DSLR.

In addition, outside the train station, a woman was taking wedding photos of a U.S. Marine and the woman he was going to marry. That should have been an ideal place to use a mirrorless camera. However, the photographer was using a Canon DSLR with a variety of lenses.

Yet another series of real-world situations where people were not using mirrorless cameras.

gmm213 wrote in post #17351574
When was the last time you saw marketing for cameras geared toward the general market? An ad on tv or in a magazine by the supermarket checkout?

Last week, maybe this week. Canon's been buying big banner ads on cnn.com.