The writing on the wall

[nitsujwalker]

I would love for Canon to have lower prices but am also happy that they aren't losing money. I don't believe that they have always been overpriced, but the trend with new lenses and the 5Diii seem to show it's going that way. That said, Nikon lenses cost an arm and a leg as do several other brands. Looking at the specs of the 5Diii i'd rather pay the $500 extra and purchase it over the D800. This is just my 2 cents. Overpriced? Probably.. Still going to buy stuff from them? Probably.

Probably? You must have more self control than I do... Canon will definitely be getting more of money... I really can't do anything to prevent that, it's like an addiction really, I can't stop. Help me.

hahaha yeah... I understand that.. My 'probably' is definitely an understatement.

 

[Hillsilly]

Tend to agree with the long term premise that Sony will be Canon's main competitor in the future. Currently, they are second behind Canon in many markets. They can't be too far off from overtaking Nikon in total camera sales.

But to say that the SLR will be gone within 12 months is a big call. Then again, for 90%+ of photography, a mirrorless camera could perform as well as an SLR. And most people that are buying their first DSLR would probably consider a mirrorless camera if they thought it was good enough. My 12 month prediction is that we'll see a few more sub $1,000 DSLRs released this year. But after that, mirrorless cameras will own that market. Canon will always have an entry level DSLR, but its sales and popularity will decrease over time. However, DSLRs will own the over $1,000 category.

 

[crasher7]

Re: The writing

I must say even though I do not agree with the OP I believe the post was very well written and convincing to a point. The point was where it started to leak like a sieve. Still, very well written fiction.

 

[Meh]

I would love for Canon to have lower prices but am also happy that they aren't losing money. I don't believe that they have always been overpriced, but the trend with new lenses and the 5Diii seem to show it's going that way. That said, Nikon lenses cost an arm and a leg as do several other brands. Looking at the specs of the 5Diii i'd rather pay the $500 extra and purchase it over the D800. This is just my 2 cents. Overpriced? Probably.. Still going to buy stuff from them? Probably.

Probably? You must have more self control than I do... Canon will definitely be getting more of money... I really can't do anything to prevent that, it's like an addiction really, I can't stop. Help me.

Perhaps we should have something like AAA.
Would you like some one to be your sponsor?
Volunteers?

Haha... CanonRumors.com is secretly AA for photo gear freaks like us. Imagine how much time we'd all be spending hanging out in camera shops tempted to buy stuff if we weren't on here bickering all the time over nonsense ;D

 

[Brendon]

Tend to agree with the long term premise that Sony will be Canon's main competitor in the future. Currently, they are second behind Canon in many markets. They can't be too far off from overtaking Nikon in total camera sales.

But to say that the SLR will be gone within 12 months is a big call. Then again, for 90%+ of photography, a mirrorless camera could perform as well as an SLR. And most people that are buying their first DSLR would probably consider a mirrorless camera if they thought it was good enough. My 12 month prediction is that we'll see a few more sub $1,000 DSLRs released this year. But after that, mirrorless cameras will own that market. Canon will always have an entry level DSLR, but its sales and popularity will decrease over time. However, DSLRs will own the over $1,000 category.

Agree with this. DSLRs are here for a long time to come. The low end market may move to mirrorless but you wont catch a serious sport photographer with a mirrorless camera and a 400mm lens anytime soon. I certainly cant imagine shooting a wedding without the big viewfinder. Sony has made strides in the electroic viewfinders but take one out in the cold for a winter shoot and you will quickly cry for your mirror back!

 

[Rocky]

Until manufacturer can make the mirrorless with AP-S (or even FF) sensor and have AF as fast as the DSLR. DSLR will be here to stay. Would you buy a mirrorless with 1/2 sec. AF and a sensor smaller than APS-C???

 

[kdsand]

Tend to agree with the long term premise that Sony will be Canon's main competitor in the future. Currently, they are second behind Canon in many markets. They can't be too far off from overtaking Nikon in total camera sales.

But to say that the SLR will be gone within 12 months is a big call. Then again, for 90%+ of photography, a mirrorless camera could perform as well as an SLR. And most people that are buying their first DSLR would probably consider a mirrorless camera if they thought it was good enough. My 12 month prediction is that we'll see a few more sub $1,000 DSLRs released this year. But after that, mirrorless cameras will own that market. Canon will always have an entry level DSLR, but its sales and popularity will decrease over time. However, DSLRs will own the over $1,000 category.

Agree with this. DSLRs are here for a long time to come. The low end market may move to mirrorless but you wont catch a serious sport photographer with a mirrorless camera and a 400mm lens anytime soon. I certainly cant imagine shooting a wedding without the big viewfinder. Sony has made strides in the electroic viewfinders but take one out in the cold for a winter shoot and you will quickly cry for your mirror back!

2 years from now I think I might know
5 years from now I don't know if I know ???
7 years from now I know I don't know

 

[jrista]

With Sony and Nikon working together, they’re developing faster sensor technology. I know what you’re thinking, so how does this affect Canon? Well, Canon doesn’t have the money to invest fully in a dying technology as mirrored DSL’s. In fact, it’s hard to believe, but DSL’s with mirrors are done after this year. We will see the last of them from now to the end of this year.

Yup. Just like the disposable film camera replaced actual cameras. Just like we never saw film again a couple years after the advent of the DSLR. Just like APS film killed off 35mm film within three years. Just like we stopped seeing large format film and contact printing since the advent of 35mm film.

Sorry...what a load of crap. The advent of mirrorless is simply the DIVERSIFICATION OF MARKET OPTIONS. DSLR's won't be going away. Many people, such as myself, much prefer the larger body format to the small size of mirrorless bodies or the disproportionate nature of lenses to mirrorless bodies as a matter of ergonomics. Many people, such as myself, prefer to see a REAL image through the viewfinder, rather than a replicated one on a tiny electronic screen with limited resolution. It will be quite some time before there is a major shift from DSLR type cameras to mirrorless cameras, and the two service partially different demographics that simply overlap...neither cover exactly the same range of photographer types.

Nothing ever entirely replaces anything else, and unlike film cameras (of all formats, which are still used by millions upon millions of people around the world today, and which in many respects has made a resurgence in recent years with the renewed manufacture of popular or specialty films like Velvia 50, independent resurrection of various forms of discontinued instant films, etc.), DSLR cameras have far more life left in them. Unlike film...which has consistent and continuous costs associated with developing it, DSLR technology requires only the initial investment in gear and a computer. The hundreds of millions of DSLR cameras that exist in the world today won't be going anywhere...they'll be resold, handed down, and the percentage of photographers who never actually leave the DSLR format for something else will continue to buy new ones.

Markets diversify, and only after decades do some submarkets shrink to a small percentage of what they were...few ever actually disappear for good. Film was still largely considered superior to digital until only a few years ago, and only with the advent of cameras like the 5D Mark II did that perception begin to really change. Film manufacture is still the largest single consumer of silver in the world, and photographic film is still a gargantuan market. It will take some time for manufacturers to perfect mirrorless technology, build up lens profiles that are even a fraction as impressive as those for DSLR's, etc. If I had to predict, I would say we might see the DSLR market shrink to an equal size as the mirrorless market 5-10 years from now...possibly. I think it would be decades before the DSLR market was actually a minor submarket of photographic equipment in general and second to mirrorless...and again, it would depend on where mirrorless goes.

The current state of mirrorless cameras particularly appeal to a certain demographic who want smaller, trendy, and new. We'll need to see DSLR-size mirrorless bodies with the same handling and ergonomics, full frame sensors, with extremely high resolution EVF's, that don't require dumping existing gear for one system and replacing it with gear for another system, before any kind of true shift occurs.

 

[Bennymiata]

I've read these posts with great interest, both the for and against DSLR's and their logevity.

No, DSLR's will not go away, not in my lifetime and probably not in your's either.

One thing no-one has been asking about is the value for money aspect of the mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras.
Have you seen the prices of them and their lenses and other accessories?

For what you get, they are ridiculously overpriced.
After all, most of them are just a point and squirt camera, with small sensors and slow auto-focus, poor high ISO quality, questionable handling, and they all cost far more than the entry level DSLR's!
The people who are buying them, and they are only a very small percentage of interchangeable lens camera buyers (about 10% in the US) and I would say most of these are buying them as a step up from a P&S, and so they think they're cool, but not many DLSR owners are changing their cameras for a Mirrorless that I know of.

I would imagine that most of these mirrorless buyers are wanting is really made perfect by the Canon G1x.
It has a larger than normal sensor for a P&S, has a great lens and good IQ for what it is, and it doesn't cost an arm or a leg, like a decent mirrorless camera costs, and the included lens covers probably 90% of what people use, rather than having to buy 3 or 4 prime lenses at great expense.

Once you've been used to looking through a good OVF, holding a small camera with a huge lens out in front of you trying to see the image on a poor quality LCD screen in bright sun, and waiting for the thing to focus and getting a good shot, will be a frustrating experience.
I know it was for me when I tried out a few of these new cameras, and considering what you can buy in a DSLR for less money, I wasn't convinced at all.
IF thes emirrorless cameras are priced somewhere between a P&S and an entry level DSLR, then they can start taking big slices of the market, but at their current costs, I very much doubt they will have much impact.
The Nikon J1 and V1 sold strongly for the first few weeks here in OZ, but now they are just sitting on the shelves gathering dust.
The new Fuji looks really good, but you can buy a Canon 5D MkII for less money!

Nikon has a big problem, and that problem is a heavy reliance on Sony.
As Sony is losing money hand over fist right now, and their camera sales are really pretty poor in most countries, there is a chance that Sony will be forced, by its board and shareholders, to cut costs and get rid of loss-makeing areas of the business like thier DSLR's.
If that happens, Nikon will be in real trouble as it doesn't have the resources to make their own high quality sensors, and without the sales of Sony DSLR's, Sony may decide that the volumes they make for Nikon are just not enough to keep this sensor business viable either.
You must have noticed that Sony bring out a camera using virtually every sensor that Nikon uses, haven't you?
Pentax also relies heavily on Sony sensors.

I've been in manufacturing for 40 years, and know full-well that you can't be reliant on just one manufacturer for vital components, becausae if that supplier has a hiccup, it can ruin your business.
What will happen to Nikon and Pentax if Sony goes down?
I'm not saying they will, but even huge companies, like Kodak, GM, Chrysler etc can falter.

 

[kdsand]

Sony does have a track record of sticking with certain products come hell or high water. Heck there are likely long term reasons for them to stick with this. Right now they're in the ball game and playing with the big boys. So while they may not be competing at the very top they are competing, gaining experience and have grown in consumer awareness.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying Sony is good or going to lofty places - just that they could pull something out of their butt and surprise everybody.

I'm sure Nikon has plenty of contingency plans.

I guess I'll tack this on.
I have to imagine almost all DSLR consumers and even most enthusiast can't completely comprehend what a truly good optical viewfinder is capable of. You can't miss what you never had.

 

[Hillsilly]

The posts above miss the point. Mirrorless cameras will succeed over DSLRs in the entry level price ranges precisely because they are cool and trendy. It doesn't matter what argument you put up as to why they are inferior. As long as the mirrorless cameras are essentially up to the task, "cool and trendy" will generally trump the practical choice.

People don't need to see a big, fast focusing, full frame mirrorless camera before a major shift occurs. Looking at the sale figures for Japan and my market research from Australia and Europe (ie me looking around to see what type of camera people are using, but also backed up by some reports - eg http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/15/Cipa_publishes_mirrorless_sales_and_shipments), the shift has happened. Its already come. Doesn't necessarily mean that Canon has to compete or change its line-up. But I'd be surprised if they weren't trying to figure out how to put an EVF into the G1Xii.

 

[moreorless]

Many people, such as myself, much prefer the larger body format to the small size of mirrorless bodies or the disproportionate nature of lenses to mirrorless bodies as a matter of ergonomics.

This to me is really the key issue, I can imagine AF performance reaching reasonabley close to(if perhaps not IDX/D4) DSLR speeds in say 5 years but is there going to be anyway around the issue of unbalanced lenses? maybe kit zooms can shrink a bit more but is a f/2.8 zoom or even an f/4 every going to be that small? espeically tele lenses? If you end up needing a body of a certain size to balance the lens then why get rid of the mirror? alot of the potential advanatges of mirrorless(quiet, ultra high FPS, EVF exposure preview) seem like there perfectly possible to incorperate into a DSLR with something similar to Fuji's hybrid viewfinder.

My feeling is that you can actually get a good idea for the potential of mirrorless why looking at where rangefinders remained sucessful late in the film era. Seems like three main areas to me...

1.The cheap more casual end of the market where large appature and/or long.teke range zooms werent needed and size saving was desired.

2.Street shooters, more expensive bodies for users who again value size but are happy using primes that can balance well.

3.Medium format, lots of potential size savings and users who tend to shoot non action in the wide/normal range alot where lenses can balance more easily.

 

[jrista]

The posts above miss the point.

The point I was disputing was quite specific:

"Well, Canon doesn’t have the money to invest fully in a dying technology as mirrored DSL’s. In fact, it’s hard to believe, but DSL’s with mirrors are done after this year. We will see the last of them from now to the end of this year."

When someone states something as fact like that, when the reality is not even close, just requires a response.

As for statistics, I don't think its as cut and dry as "the shift has happened". Mirrorless, bridge camera, and the P&S market is a different beast than the DSLR market. Its the same market that saw the come and go of super cheap 35mm film cameras, the disposable film camera, instant film cameras, and a myriad of other products. Volatile, high volume market that is constantly changing because no one is ever satisfied, everyone in it follows trends, and its demographic is always itching for "the next 'best' thing." For any serious photographer, the SLR style interchangeable lens body has been the format of choice for longer than I've been alive. Statistically, there are numerous reports from the US and Eurpoe that indicate mirrorless camera growth has slowed or dropped in many major/faster markets, picked up a little more in slower growing markets, while DSLR sales have shown strong and consistent growth across the board (5-6% minimum last quarter 2011).

My point is, matter of factly stating that "DSLR is DEAD" is naive at best, and just plain dumb in general.

 

[jrista]

Many people, such as myself, much prefer the larger body format to the small size of mirrorless bodies or the disproportionate nature of lenses to mirrorless bodies as a matter of ergonomics.

This to me is really the key issue, I can imagine AF performance reaching reasonabley close to(if perhaps not IDX/D4) DSLR speeds in say 5 years but is there going to be anyway around the issue of unbalanced lenses? maybe kit zooms can shrink a bit more but is a f/2.8 zoom or even an f/4 every going to be that small? espeically tele lenses? If you end up needing a body of a certain size to balance the lens then why get rid of the mirror? alot of the potential advanatges of mirrorless(quiet, ultra high FPS, EVF exposure preview) seem like there perfectly possible to incorperate into a DSLR with something similar to Fuji's hybrid viewfinder.

Aye! Ergonomics and balance are a critical issue for me. I never realized it until I had a 7D, but even the relatively small size of my entry-level 450D DSLR body was too small for me to properly hold, and my panning and tracking technique suffered as a result.

I've tried both the Sony NEX and Nikon V/J series mirrorless cameras. I can't stand either. The disproportionate size of lenses to body is disconcerting, balance is off, and the whole setups feel almost toyish. On that note, what about ruggedness and weather sealing? Half the time I'm out photographing, its either extremely cold (sub-zero f° temps), snowing, raining, windy up to 60mph...or a variety of combinations thereof. I haven't heard anything about any mirrorless with decent (or any) weather sealing or rugged build capable of handling the kind of beating you might get with serious amateur or professional use.

I think @Hillsilly really kind of nailed it...at least for the time being: Mirrorless is just another option for the schizophrenic, trend-following, rarely-satisfied masses who were happy consuming disposable cameras, P&S digitals, bridge cameras, and are now enamored by the fancy and newfangled "mirrorless/evf/ilc". As a viable competitor for the serious photographer, I think we have a LONG way to go before we have the kinds of standard features found in prosumer and professional grade DSLR's in mirrorless cameras.

 

[moreorless]

The posts above miss the point. Mirrorless cameras will succeed over DSLRs in the entry level price ranges precisely because they are cool and trendy. It doesn't matter what argument you put up as to why they are inferior. As long as the mirrorless cameras are essentially up to the task, "cool and trendy" will generally trump the practical choice.

I think we need to remember that entry level DSLR's are still outselling mirrorless plus "cool and trendy" obviously changes over time.

One aspect I see changing in the coming years is the obcession with interchangable lenses on mirrorless. My guess is that at least 2/3rds of users never use anything but the kit lens yet an interchangable mount is still marketed as the sign of a "serious camera" dispite making the design more difficult and bulkier. Perhaps not the 1DX itself(which seems aimed at a more serious market) but that kind of concept at a smaller size has a strong future IMHO.

 

[moreorless]

The posts above miss the point.

The point I was disputing was quite specific:

"Well, Canon doesn’t have the money to invest fully in a dying technology as mirrored DSL’s. In fact, it’s hard to believe, but DSL’s with mirrors are done after this year. We will see the last of them from now to the end of this year."

When someone states something as fact like that, when the reality is not even close, just requires a response.

As for statistics, I don't think its as cut and dry as "the shift has happened". Mirrorless, bridge camera, and the P&S market is a different beast than the DSLR market. Its the same market that saw the come and go of super cheap 35mm film cameras, the disposable film camera, instant film cameras, and a myriad of other products. Volatile, high volume market that is constantly changing because no one is ever satisfied, everyone in it follows trends, and its demographic is always itching for "the next 'best' thing." For any serious photographer, the SLR style interchangeable lens body has been the format of choice for longer than I've been alive. Statistically, there are numerous reports from the US and Eurpoe that indicate mirrorless camera growth has slowed or dropped in many major/faster markets, picked up a little more in slower growing markets, while DSLR sales have shown strong and consistent growth across the board (5-6% minimum last quarter 2011).

My point is, matter of factly stating that "DSLR is DEAD" is naive at best, and just plain dumb in general.

This to me is a very strong sign that large sensor mirrorless isnt replacing DSLR's but rather creating a new market, a market that is now reaching saturation and possible loosing some of its trendiness.

The market mirrorless is really taking a large chunk out of is I'd say small sensored compacts. While camera phones take the very casual compact users away the drop in sensor price means that many former users can now afford to move up in size with many wanting the same compact size.

Equally though I think were seeing many former film users return to SLR's now that price and performance is more competitive, I know I'v been seeing FAR more DSLR's in the hands of non pro's in the UK in the past 2-3 years.

 

[briansquibb]

Mirrorless
Backlit sensor
APS-C 28mb
Weatherproof
Full 1DX AF
10 fps
dual CF
Electronic Viewfinder

Unless Canon deliver this by April 1 for a price tag of less than $1000 then they will go the same way as Kodak

:'( :'( :'(

 

[kdsand]

Mirrorless
Backlit sensor
APS-C 28mb
Weatherproof
Full 1DX AF
10 fps
dual CF
Electronic Viewfinder

Unless Canon deliver this by April 1 for a price tag of less than $1000 then they will go the same way as Kodak

:'( :'( :'(

???
Ehhh?

Oh sarcasm!

 

[briansquibb]

???
Ehhh?

Oh sarcasm!

... and the date ....

 

[CJRodgers]

Out of interest,

If / when mirrorless cameras are as good as dslr in every aspect (assuming they would be in the market at roughly the same price), what would you prefer to use for professional work?

I am not a professional, but i hope to be one day. I get the feeling id feel more comfortable with something more substantial and robust in my hand than a mirrorless. I think it just looks and feels more professional. Does anyone else agree with this or am I being naive? Or is it just too hard to say that until the day mirrorless is as good as dslr.

But id probably still want a good mirrorless to take on holiday or even for casual walks etc