
The demise of the DSLR - jseliger
http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/08/24/the-demise-of-the-dslr/
======
foolrush
Cannot think of a larger, albeit seductive, load of codswallop.

Techno Utopianism ideologies appear predicated on the belief that
technological advances can always implicitly trump physical design
constraints.

The well trodden technological aesthetic differences of larger sensors, and /
or spherical or anamorphic lens elements immediately spring to mind. The
article appears lacking a significant bit of insight into the mathematics
behind optics and creative image capture.

If anything, the lesser capable world of smartphones etc. have provided the
agency to give people a means to pique their interest in photography and
expand their tools.

Suggesting a demise would seem to be anchored against evidence to the
contrary[1].

[1]
[http://www.robgalbraith.com/content_pageecb5.html?cid=7-1166...](http://www.robgalbraith.com/content_pageecb5.html?cid=7-11667-12092)

~~~
wmf
NEX has the same size sensor as mainstream DSLRs yet the camera is much
smaller and lighter. It will be interesting to see what the NEX-FF format
looks like.

~~~
pedrocr
Rumor is that the NEX FF will not be much larger than a current NEX-7. The
Sony RX1 is also a good example of how small you can make a fullframe
mirroless camera.

~~~
reeses
In addition, the VG-900 shows that the e-mount will accommodate a 35mm sensor.
Mind you, the e-mount lenses are almost universally crap, but I've had good
luck using my NEX-7 as a digital back for my M glass.

~~~
pedrocr
What is strange in the rumors is that the full-frame NEX is supposed to
include antishake as well. Anti-shake and fullframe was supposed to be the
combination that couldn't work on the NEX bayonete size.

E-glass has been pretty crappy so far. They're now launching a few good ones.
I'm excited about the alpha mirrorless opportunities though. Maybe we'll
finally be able to have a SLR-like body that's agnostic to mount.

------
chickenboot
I'm personally a m4/3 convert - I exchanged my D700 and some great lenses for
a full Olympus OM-D kit, and aside from a few quirks, I couldn't be happier.
However I am not ashamed to say that the D700 and the glass I had was more
camera than I needed; I would wager I'm not the only person who covets (and
spends perhaps too much on) new and better gadgets though...

I made the switch after a holiday with a new baby - trying to carry a serious
DSLR and nice lenses around with a baby just didn't work. The whole m4/3
camera and lens kit feels to me like it weighs about as much as one of the
serious lenses I used to have!

A real fear is that, despite how happy I am (and clearly the author of this
article is too), I don't think they're selling enough across the board (if you
don't already, I'd suggest any avid photographer read Thom Hogan's stuff, and
he talks about this often - e.g. here: [1]).

[1] [http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-m43-users-are-
nervou...](http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-m43-users-are-nervous.html)

~~~
Stratoscope
Another Micro Four Thirds convert here: got an Olympus E-P5 and several great
lenses a month or two ago and have been having a blast with them. I got the
17mm f/1.8 that comes in the kit along with the VF-4 viewfinder. (Thank you
Olympus for putting a _good_ lens in the kit!) Also picked up the Olympus 60mm
f/2.8 macro, 45mm f/1.8 portrait lens, the Panasonic 45-175mm, and the
Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5mm fisheye. They are all very fine lenses, but the
macro and the fisheye have to be my favorites for pure fun factor.

(Tip: the same fisheye lens is sold under all three names. Amazon carries all
three and the prices bounce up and down wildly in the $250-$350 range. So put
them all in your cart and check it once in a while to see when one of them is
down close to $250.)

The quality of these lenses combined with their small size and light weight
makes the system a real winner for me.

I've never actually owned a DSLR. I used to shoot with a Nikon FE film SLR
with some nice lenses, but switched to compact cameras when I went digital.
The Canon S95 I used for the last couple of years takes great pictures. But I
wanted to be able to get fisheye photos (for panorama stitching) and better
macro shots, and the m4/3 has really delivered.

Thom Hogan is right that Olympus and Panasonic are having trouble selling
enough of these cameras and lenses, and it probably is because people aren't
moving from DSLRs to m4/3 but instead just using their smartphone cameras. For
most of the photos people take most of the time, that's more than good enough.

But I also agree with his conclusion: no one should be scared away from m4/3
because of these uncertainties. You can get great cameras and great lenses
right now and use them for many years.

These were taken with the Olympus and various lenses (except for the stained
glass photo that I took many years ago). Some are just snapshots, but a few
I'm really pleased with. All are straight out of the camera except for
cropping, and defishing in the photo of the two dogs:

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/geary/](http://www.flickr.com/photos/geary/)

------
616c
I am surprised this comment is needed on HN, but a tool is a great tool in the
hands of a professional, and a shitty one in the hands of an amateur.

Jokes aside, as a kid once very interested in photography and took courses, I
was shocked one night to watch TV and see one of those garbage entertainment
gossip shows in passing mention how one Sports Illustrated Smiwsuit
photographer's camera choice would shock you: he was using point-and-shoots
(not all the time, but a good portion of the time).

Surprise, surpise, I search and I find him: Terry. Richardson.

[http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/25/terry-richardson-
talk...](http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/25/terry-richardson-talks-about-
the-snapshot-and-connecting-with-people/)

A DSLR, like a programming language, is good in some contexts and not in
others, and timing vs equipment needed does make a difference like he says,
but the death of DSLR? Were we not discussing the slow death of PHP in the PHP
thread a few hours ago? Haha. Good tools die, bad tools die, but they will
remain tools with supporters and detractors.

------
ChuckMcM
One point the author misses is that phones have cameras now that eclipsing the
'budget' point and shoot models (often the profit centers for camera makers),
and the 'pro-sumer' M4/3ds cameras are eating away at the DSLR high end. Not a
fun time to be a camera company. (well profit wise, lots of pressure to
innovate and try new things like a camera that "Oh hey! Its a phone too!")

~~~
pedrocr
>Not a fun time to be a camera company.

It's not a fun time to be acting like an incumbent. Canon and Nikon are too
stuck to their old systems to innovate. Sony, Olympus, Samsung, Fuji and
Panasonic will eat their lunch, and if they don't watch out Sony will eat
their high-end as well. The Alpha 99 is a serious contender already.

~~~
bborud
What keeps Canon and Nikon in business is that the ecosystem is more worth
than the camera itself. If you buy a Nikon or a Canon there is a high
probability that if someone makes some cool gear, it will work with these
cameras.

The camera is the least important component since it is nigh on impossible to
find a terrible SLR. And you if you are serious about photography, you will
end up spending more money on lenses than on cameras.

~~~
pedrocr
That's what's amazing with mirrorless. Before it used to be pretty impossible
to do an EOS to alpha adapter (for example). Once you remove the mirror that
becomes much easier because of all the extra space. So even the argument that
you should value being able to get something exotic that only Canon/Nikon
carry will fade (their tilt-shifts are the only really good example I know
of).

~~~
bborud
Perhaps. But just look at the Petzval lens that just got funded on
kickstarter. They will make it for Nikon and Canon. At least initially.
Imagine the extra risk and extra cost of researching, designing,
manufacturing, stocking and selling that lens for half a dozen different
camera systems.

If you were making a lens, would you prefer to make one or two versions or 6-7
versions?

~~~
pedrocr
That's fine, and you'll be able to mount it to a NEX/m43 mirrorless camera
with full digital link using an adapter (it already exists). We're close to
being able to open this market wide open and be able to mount any lens on any
body. That's not good news for Canon/Nikon that often rely on making gear
that's good enough that people with an investment in the system won't make the
switch.

------
elorant
Surprisingly enough I’ve end up taking most of my photos with a smartphone. I
used to carry around a compact camera but even that felt meaningless after I
discovered how sharp photos can a modern smartphone produce. Plus software
like Lightroom makes it easy to enhance the quality of your pictures a lot. So
since the phone is the one device I carry with me all the time I see no point
of having yet another gadget with me. As for my DSLR it's eating dust in some
shelve on my library, I rarely ever use it these days.

I’d love to get my hands sometime in the future on the 40 megapixel smartphone
announced by Nokia.

~~~
jseliger
_even that felt meaningless after I discovered how sharp photos can a modern
smartphone produce_

Maybe, but I still find them inadequate and suspect that in a couple years a
lot of people are going to look at their smartphone photos the same way modern
people look at photos from the 1920s: [http://www.marco.org/2012/07/01/the-
camera-you-have-with-you](http://www.marco.org/2012/07/01/the-camera-you-have-
with-you).

~~~
joosters
I suspect most people will never look at their digital photos at full
resolution, ever. We are already effectively throwing away image data from our
existing photos. Surely that's a good sign that our pictures are good enough?

~~~
pedrocr
That's only because people started looking at pictures on screens instead of
prints and screen technology has been stagnated for 10+ years.

Screens are finally catching up. A 4k screen has ~8MP of resolution. Modern
bayer pattern sensors (1 color per pixel) in SLRs are at 24MP which is
actually not a lot more resolution than 8MP at 3 colors per pixel and about
the same data (8M*RGB=24M).

------
superbeefy
I think there is always going to be a place for DSLRs. Now, thats probably not
going to be a market as large as it is now. However, DSLRs are not going away.
A large majority of consumers who buy entry level DLRs never really move away
for the kit lens or maybe one or two cheap lenses. These consumers will more
than likely move to the new EVIL systems. At the prosumer level you'll see
it'll be like a coin flip between people who want a more compact system and
don't need all the features that DSLR provides, and others who do.

However, at the professional level I don't see a demise of DSLR. There are
certain types of work where, at least with current technologies, it doesn't
make any sense. Sports photography you need high burst rates with fast
accurate AF. Also large optics, this is more of a feeling, but I would rather
be holding a large DSLR body attached to a 500mm super telephoto lens than the
equivalent on smaller camera systems, this feeling also applies to large
external flash units. Things just feel more sturdy in a larger camera system.
Other issue I would have with moving to a mirrorless system is weather
sealing, lack of ports like PC Sync and mic input, and flash sync speeds not
as fast.

------
eftpotrm
From a few months with an Olympus E-PL3 (last generation, I know) and a pair
of lenses - yes, but not yet.

For the bulk of what I do, the Olympus has real advantages over my Nikon
D7000. It's much easier to carry round and so gets photos by simple virtue of
presence. The ability to shoot waist-level on the screen is a major win, as is
the ability to actually see sensor response live. No more guessing dynamic
range and chimping, it's automatic.

It's not there yet though, and neither are other mirrorless I've handled - *
Many fewer direct controls. Simple things like changing ISO or switching AF
off are just fiddly. * I've tried shooting moving subjects - it's just not as
good as an SLR, you can't pick up and hold a subject anywhere near as quickly
and easily. * System scale. None have a flashgun as good as my Nikon SB800
that I've found. My ultrawide SLR lens is double the price. Only Fuji (well,
so far) seems to have really got quality fast glass in any quantity. Nine have
significant third-party support currently.

We're at a cross-over. In a few years the scene will look very different and
mirrorless will be the way of the future, but none of them are ready to take
over from SLRs properly yet, I'd suggest.

~~~
pedrocr
The Sony alpha line is moving agressively in that direction, and that includes
all the nice glass and other bits of a system going back to the very first
autofocus SLR (Minolta's). The lineup today no longer has SLRs they are all
SLTs, with a fixed semi translucent mirror just for the phase-detected
focusing system. The optical viewfinder was replaced by a screen fed from the
sensor.

The (very well confirmed) rumors are that they will be doing away with the
mirror completely, and going full mirrorless. Without the mirror there the
extra space should allow for all kinds of fun adapters to other systems.

Their existing mirrorless sytem (NEX) is also moving fast. They are about to
announce a SLR-shaped camera and the rumor is they will be moving NEX to full-
frame and adding in-body antishake at the same time.

When it comes to high-end mirrorless Sony is the one to watch.

~~~
eftpotrm
Willing to be persuaded otherwise, but the major win of mirrorless for me is
scale. A mount can lose its mirrors but the flange distance is still based
around a mirror box so there's no win there. NEX is nice in some ways but I'm
not convinced the site difference with a standard kit zoom mounted between an
NEX and a Nikon D3200 is worth a system switch.

~~~
pedrocr
NEX currently sucks because it has no good compact lenses, so as you say I
don't see the appeal of it versus a normal SLR. For me the real credible story
of a good mirrorless system would be something that I can mount a fast small
prime to and have a compact kit and yet also have the option of mounting a
70-400.

For the alpha the mirror box space being empty is a huge gain for people that
want to make adapters. Suddenly a Nikon adapter becomes possible when before
it wasn't because there simply wasn't enough space. If I was Sony I would do
the alpha mirrorless by keeping the same mount but moving it back, removing
the mirror box space. Traditional lenses would be mounted with an extension
tube to mimic the mirror box distance and you could build extension tubes that
switched the camera mount to Canon/Nikon/Olympus/whatever.

------
jemeshsu
Current mirrorless cameras still can not compete with DSLR for sports and
safari photography. Other than that I don't see the need to carry such heavy
equipment. Currently using Lumix m4/3 but is tempted by Fujifilm X100s.

~~~
pedrocr
>Current mirrorless cameras still can not compete with DSLR for sports and
safari photography.

You'll be surprised how quickly that changes. A 900$ Sony Alpha 77 shoots at
12fps, and a 6.000$ Nikon D4 does 10fps. The Nikon has a much more expensive
autofocus system and yet that system is disabled anytime you take a shot by
the mirror lifting while the Sony has it enabled throughout. Mirrorless is a
natural evolution for sports and safari because of this. On-sensor autofocus
has already been cracked so we should be seeing amazing mirrorless cameras for
sports coming out in the next Alpha refresh.

~~~
reeses
The A-mount Alphas are not mirrorless. They have a semi-transparent, non-
moving mirror that steals about 1/3 of a stop to send light to the AF sensor.
It gives most of the advantages of the DSLRs (phase-detect AF, but that's
creeping into higher-photosite-density mirrorless cameras) while making live
view and continuous AF much less complicated.

That's why Sony refers to them as "SLT" cameras and not SLR.

You'd be just as well served by comparing a $900 Nikon (D7[12]00?) or Canon
DSLR to the D4. If you can't justify the difference between, let's say, a D600
and a D4, then it's moot anyway. I imagine the D4 compares quite favorably to
the HST and Kepler on many axes as well. :-)

~~~
pedrocr
Read my comment more closely. My point was that SLT is already a big step
towards mirrorless and alpha will be completely mirrorless in the next
refresh. This will give you possibilities that haven't before been possible.

As for my example the D7100 you mention has the same 24MP sensor of the A77
and yet can only do 6fps. The point was that a 900$ camera could best a 6000$
one on dimensions that are very important to professional users like fps
because of mirrorless technology. Mirrorless will give you some things only
the very high-end could do before (or even the high-end couldn't do) at entry-
level prices, that's textbook Innovators Dilemma.

------
truxs
DSLR were always designed for a niche market.

The huge drop in prices allowed plenty of people to get one even if they
needed a point and shoot, just because they could look more 'professional'
(aka those only using automatic mode).

But there are just too many cases where DSLR are superior because of its
manual mode (shutter speed, adaptability, wide-angle, ...)

~~~
bnegreve
I am not sure that's the point. There are plenty of mirror-less cameras with a
manual mode.

In fact that's the opposite, the article foresees that in a couple of years,
_even_ professionals will use mirror-less cameras.

EDIT clarity.

------
andrewcooke
i suspect he's correct, but it's strange to see an article on the subject,
written by an apparent expert, that doesn't mention depth of field.

~~~
abirkill
With lenses like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, we are starting to see how depth of
field issues might be improved. There's a very long way to go though.

I agree that it's very likely to happen, although I'm not sure we're there
yet. The VF-4 EVF does finally have what I would call a 'barely-acceptable'
resolution, but I think 4K resolution EVFs will be required to really equal
the detail someone with good eyesight can see through a good optical
viewfinder.

The other issue I've had with all EVFs I've tried (which doesn't include the
VF-4) is the input lag is, although small, quite noticeable. Until that's
fixed, EVFs are very unlikely to replace optical viewfinders for sports and
wildlife photographers.

Similarly, it's hard to beat the speed of the phase-detect autofocus in
professional bodies at the moment. Again, that's fixable, probably with a
combination of better on-sensor phase detection and more advanced algorithms
to mix phase-detect and contrast-detect data together, but I think we're still
at least two generations away from a system that can accurately track a fast-
moving and erratic object.

Once those issues are resolved though, I can very quickly see the DSLR losing
significant market share. There's simply too many advantages to mirrorless
cameras -- no heavy, soft, expensive retrofocus wide-angle lenses, no
calibration issues between the focus module and the image sensor, no heavy
mirror to flip out of the way for every shot, full exposure simulation through
the viewfinder (and a host of useful overlays), etc. etc.

Some photographers, of course, don't need focus tracking, and can probably put
up with a less-than-stellar viewfinder resolution, which is why a lot of
landscape photographers (who also often don't need a narrow depth of field)
are already moving towards mirrorless, at least as a second camera.

Personally, apart from the investment I have in SLR glass, I am looking
forward to the advantages that mirrorless cameras will bring in a few years
time.

~~~
tekacs
> no heavy mirror to flip out of the way for every shot

... which brings, not least, a drastically increased lifetime. :)

~~~
bborud
Increased lifetime for what? By the time I get anywhere near the announced
lifetime of the shutter I will long since have upgraded to a newer model.

~~~
tekacs
Depends on who you are and what you're shooting - on models with moderately
low shutter limits (say ~100,000 as on the 5D Mk II) it's quite possible to
use up the entire limit within a month or two, if working on certain kinds of
photography...

~~~
bborud
True. If you use it for long time-lapses or other "less traditional uses" I
can absolutely see you running out of shutter cycles.

------
nawitus
I might go mirrorless if and when Canon releases a full-frame mirrorless
camera. Sony is apparently releasing one next year.

~~~
chrisbolt
Do you mean the RX1?
[http://duncandavidson.com/gear/sony/rx1/](http://duncandavidson.com/gear/sony/rx1/)

I have one, and it's pretty impressive.

~~~
jseliger
No, he's referencing the long-rumored "NEX Full Frame":
[http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-full-frame-mirrorless-
fro...](http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-full-frame-mirrorless-from-sony-
coming-in-almost-exactly-one-year-24-or-30-32-megapixel)

------
ddunkin
I've been kind of hoping for this, all that high-end DSLR gear will suddenly
become affordable on the used market.

With photography, at least to me, you don't need the latest and greatest
thing.

~~~
nzealand
There is nothing wrong with the low end gear. I rock a Canon XTI & 50mm 1.8
around the house. $150 all up.

~~~
ddunkin
Not complaining, but there are some nice tele-photos I would like to use, that
don't go for that cheap right now unless heavily damaged.

------
waivej
My mirrorless shots tend to nail exposure and composition more often than
DSLR. I've been waiting almost 14 years for the compact cameras to finally get
comparable sensors and interchangeable lenses.

------
bountie
That last paragraph is a downer... Unlike film cameras, DSLR cameras you
already own are going to be harder to maintain, if at all, and then what
happens to all the thousands we spent on dslr glass...

~~~
3pt14159
If there was a near-magical device that someone created that let you take
pictures with your eyes at any iso, angle, etc that you desired wouldn't you
be happy? The money we've put into glass is money towards an end. The end
being taking awesome photos. If tomorrow I could do with my phone what I can
do with my backpack + three or four lenses + 5D MII I wouldn't even blink. I'd
just say "SWEET!"

I love my lenses because of the photos they give me. And I totally disagree
with this article. For every DSLR person that goes mirrorless there are going
to be 10 iPhone photographers that go "pro".

------
gallerytungsten
An interesting article, but the author missed one main DSLR advantage: full
manual control. For a number of shooting situations, this control is essential
to obtaining the desired results.

~~~
teilo
No significant 4/3 mirrorless camera on the market is lacking full manual
controls, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Shutter, F-stop, ISO,
focus, everything can go manual.

------
devx
Mirrorless cameras are disrupting DSLR's, and smartphones are disrupting the
point and shoots (and possibly mirrorless cameras in the future - 10+ years).

~~~
potatolicious
The numbers suggest otherwise though.

Mirrorless cameras have been stealing some sales from DSLRs, but not as much
as anyone thought it would (or hoped). DSLR sales are collapsing on the other
hand, in a pretty dramatic way.

People aren't trading the bulky DSLR in for a svelte mirrorless, they're
trading it in for their phones. It turns out that a large portion of the
amateur DSLR market is dominated by people who are now perfectly happy leaving
their gigantor kit at home.

Contrary to what Canonikon et al predicted, the _entire_ low end of the market
seems to be collapsing - DSLR, mirrorless, and all.

------
malandrew
I'm looking forward to the serious glass lenses getting smaller because
sensors are getting better and smaller at the same time.

~~~
MRSallee
Check out micro 4/3 lenses, they're pretty small compared to typical SLR stuff
and even other mirrorless systems.

The Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is damn minuscule, yet renowned for image quality. The
Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 is just as sharp and even smaller.

