The DSLR will probably die...

[Luke_Miller]

Since virtually every viewfinder design ever developed can be found in a current production camera - I suspect the DSLR will not die. While the EVF in mirrorless cameras are great for most situations, there are other cases where an optical viewfinder is superior. I believe EVF and optical finder cameras will coexist for a long time.

 

[FredAzinger]

The DLSR will probably die - along with everyone reading this - happens to everyone/everything.

Yes, it is inevitable, but why the rush???

It works well (better than without a mirror if we're talking shooting sports).
It's known technology with all costs wrung out.
It's what the MFG lines are tooled to make....what the software is written to expect.

Change all that for 16mm of thickness and a chance to re-buy all my glass? I think not.

 

[AlJohnston]

For some reason I'm reminded of Churchill's reaction to Nye Bevan: "He foresees the end of Capitalism, and is prepared to play a part, any part, in its downfall, except that of mute."

 

[73Z1]

For some reason I'm reminded of Churchill's reaction to Nye Bevan: "He foresees the end of Capitalism, and is prepared to play a part, any part, in its downfall, except that of mute."

Churchill also said, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened."

The DSLR isn't dead, but it is doomed, the way carburetors were doomed by fuel injection and film bodies were doomed by digital sensors. The Z6 and Z7 are like the D1 and D2 series, just the beginning of the Z mount evolution. Check out this video for an excellent report (IMHO), on the differences between the Z6 and D750.

Note that at 4:35 the author starts listing the good and bad aspects of the Z6 EVF in comparison to the D750. At 5:40 he shows the difference between the D750 viewfinder and the Z6 EVF. At 6:56 he shows side by side images that illustrate the difference in view for low light shooters. The difference is huge.

Not only event and concert shooters will appreciate the difference in capability, so will wildlife shooters who shoot early in the morning or late in the day. Once the bodies become more mature, the MUCH greater sensor coverage of the AF sensors and the capability to shoot at higher frame rates without a mirror flopping around inside will completely replace the DSLR. See this 2 year old video comparing the Sony a9 with the D5.

Note that during the running trail tests, the 24mp Sony was able to shoot at 20 fps, while the 20MP D5 was limited to 12 fps. In each test the D5 was quite loud in comparison to the silent Sony as they rattled off the shots. In one side-by-side AF test using a running subject, the Sony created more in focus images (105/106) than the D5 (60/63). Even allowing for user error, the Sony with its quiet electronic shutter at a 90% success rate would have created more in focus images than the D5 at 100% accurate.

Note also the Sony has 693 phase detection auto-focus points covering 93% of the sensor area. As far as overall sensor coverage, the best that Nikon offers in the DSLR AF systems is 153 points in the D500, (due to its smaller sensor), and that pales in comparison to the Sony or the Z6/Z7 coverage. In the not too distant future, "focus and compose" using AF, will be as foreign to most photographers as pulling the slide on a 4x5 film holder, or crank starting the Model T. This will engender a significant sales boot for the camera companies and create new imaging opportunities for the photographer in every realm.

 

[TonyW]

I guess change rather than death.

Film is dead, well it never quite died and now it seems a resurgence.

Death of the diesel / petrol internal combustion engine over ‘greener’ alternatives (petrol heads will fight this one I am sure). Just bought a diesel X3, expect to run it for 5 years and I predict its replacement will be either all electric or hydrogen or some other non carbon fuel.

Some very good mirrorless from Sony, Hasselblad and Fuji seem to point to an interesting future, not to mention Nikon’s foray of course.

 

[DynaSport]

A few years ago I switched from a dslr to a mirrorless camera. I’m in the process of switching back. If I had more disposable income at the moment I’d keep both, but right now I need to sell off my mirrorless gear to fund my dslr equipment. There are some things I definitely prefer about mirrorless cameras and I expect to go back one day. But at the moment the D500 makes action/wildlife/bird photography easier for me and that is my main interest. It’s easier for me to track action with an ovf and the c-af is better at present. But I expect those things to improve and that’s when I’ll eventually go back. I miss seeing the exposure change in the viewfinder as I make changes and some of the manual focus aids mirrorless provides. Right now both cameras are compromises of some sort, but I do think mirrorless is the future and I’m fine with that. Since I’m buying Nikon glass now, I’m hoping Nikon’s mirrorless leads the way and plays nice with the legacy glass.

 

[Pa]

The DSLR isn't dead, but it is doomed, the way carburetors were doomed by fuel injection and film bodies were doomed by digital sensors. The D6 and D7 are like the D1 and D2 series, just the beginning of the Z mount evolution. Check out this video for an excellent report (IMHO), on the differences between the Z6 and D750.

Note that at 4:35 the author starts listing the good and bad aspects of the D6 EVF in comparison to the D750. At 5:40 he shows the difference between the D750 viewfinder and the D6 EVF. At 6:56 he shows side by side images that illustrate the difference in view for low light shooters. The difference is huge.

Two points in that video resonate with me: the advantages of the electronic viewfinder and the ease with which he got sharp photos using an AI-S lens.

Almost I am persuaded...

 

[italy74]

Maybe for a certain kind of photography, mirrorless might be more suitable, however DSLRs still have several advantages up their sleeves - if ever I don't think we'll see a real turnover before 10/12 yrs (period in which also mirrorless could change or see another "competitor" not foreseeable now)

 

[Pa]

... - if ever I don't think we'll see a real turnover before 10/12 yrs (period in which also mirrorless could change or see another "competitor" not foreseeable now)

I think it will be much sooner than that, but it will be fun to watch.

 

[crazy]

My guesstimate for mirrorless to overtake DSLR is < 5 years.

 

[7006]

Still some way to go, but not far.
We are not far from parity between SLRs and non SLRs.
View attachment 1627790

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201810_e.pdf

 

[italy74]

Jim.
Probably DSLRs (and everything else, very likely) will die when we'll wear variable optics with our glasses (think of a google glass improved and on steroids) so that everyone will have the (wrong) impression to be able not to need anymore the photographer (more or less what already happens with smartphone-followed ceremonies)

 

[73Z1]

My guesstimate for mirrorless to overtake DSLR is < 5 years.

+1 After 60+ years, in 35mm body development, the OVF is about as good as it will ever get. The EVF can and will improve with the advance of technology. The current Z mount bodies are high end consumer grade (IMHO). Once Nikon and Canon commit to releasing Pro quality mirrorless bodies, the market for DSLRs will collapse.

When using AF, no matter how sharp your lens is, if you cannot put AF sensors on the subject, your images are likely to be useless. More image sensor coverage by the AF system has multiple advantages. Having 93%+ coverage means that you can nail the grab shot where there isn't time to "focus and recompose". The best high-ISO sensor in the world does you little good if you cannot see the subjects and/or focus on them accurately. As demonstrated in the first video, being able to clearly see your subjects in the dark, means you can compose and use AF or manual focus (if necessary), to focus on the subject more accurately.

As they became available, I rented the D5, D500, and D850, to shoot paid gigs of Land Speed Racing Events before I bought the body that worked best for my needs and style of shooting. The D850 allowed me to shoot FX for cars and DX crop for motorcycles, with plenty of resolution in both modes, so it was better than the D5 or D500 in image size versatility, but like the D5, AF coverage area was FX limited. As many advantages as the D5 and D850 had over the D500, neither had as much AF sensor coverage of the image area, which is very important to me. Having shot the D500 and D850 side-by-side at one motorsports gig, it was clear to me that although it and the D5 were great cameras, their distant subject magnification in the viewfinder paled in comparison to that of the D500. Given the greater AF sensor coverage and better viewfinder image for distant subjects, the D500 was the body to buy for my needs.

The D850 and D5 both have DX crop modes, but that only masks the view to a smaller portion of the viewfinder image. Had the D850 used an EVF like the Z7, the potential for the viewfinder DX image area to be zoomed in in-camera would have made it the superior choice to the fixed view of the D500. With an EVF one can see the DOF and exposure real-time in the viewfinder, plus take advantage of a far greater AF coverage. Add the the potential of "in the EVF" zoom and low-light enhancement, and mirrorless will eventually replace the static OVF everywhere. The Z6/Z7 are not pro level yet, but it is just a matter of time....

 

[Pa]

It's pretty clear that the main challenge for high-end mirrorless cameras at the moment is in implementing a robust phase-detection AF system on the sensor. I've read how it is done, but there are some pretty serious inherent limitations compared to the system on a DSLR.

And contrast detection has no hope of matching DSLR autofocusing speed and accuracy.

 

[FredAzinger]

Don't forget - behind the mirror and up in the penta-prism are two high-refined SENSOR SYSTEMS that are not present in mirrorless cameras.
You loose the focus engine - that has it's own CPU.
You loose the metering engine.
Both are finely tuned specialized devices.

Sure you get hundreds of focus points in today's mirrrorless cameras.
But how many are cross-type? NONE!
How many work at F8? NONE!
We get lost in the hype of big numbers and lose the fact that these are not as capable.

Making one sensor do everything is not a win today and probably won't be for a while.
Sure it's cheaper. Delete the mirror and two special systems, one that requires alignment. These are good aspirations, but it's not as simple one thinks and it's not going to happen without several generations of iteration, tuning and compromise.

 

[Panther]

These are good aspirations, but it's not as simple one thinks and it's not going to happen without several generations of iteration, tuning and compromise.

I don't think anyone is saying that it's going to happen overnight - film didn't slide out of the limelight overnight, it took generations of digital cameras to do so....

 

[kilofoxtrott]

Well, I'm 60 now and I believe I won't change over to mirrorless.
I've bought my dream equipment for a lot of bucks over the years.

Why should I change?

Kind regards
Klaus

 

[fks]

I have no problems focusing with the 200-500mm VR + TC-14E (max aperture is f8 with that combination) on a Z7.

How many work at F8? NONE!

 

[Pa]

Don't forget - behind the mirror and up in the penta-prism are two high-refined SENSOR SYSTEMS that are not present in mirrorless cameras.
You loose the focus engine - that has it's own CPU.
You loose the metering engine.
Both are finely tuned specialized devices.

Sure you get hundreds of focus points in today's mirrrorless cameras.
But how many are cross-type? NONE!
How many work at F8? NONE!
We get lost in the hype of big numbers and lose the fact that these are not as capable.

Making one sensor do everything is not a win today and probably won't be for a while.
Sure it's cheaper. Delete the mirror and two special systems, one that requires alignment. These are good aspirations, but it's not as simple one thinks and it's not going to happen without several generations of iteration, tuning and compromise.

I have no problems focusing with the 200-500mm VR + TC-14E (max aperture is f8 with that combination) on a Z7.

The on-sensor phase-detection AF system on the Z-cameras apparently works quite well for most static and slow-moving subjects. It's in tracking fast action where it falls behind. Perhaps with a more powerful on-board computer and smarter algorithms future models will be able to match current DSLR performance. However, I'm sure the Z6 AF system is plenty good enough for me right now.

Well, I'm 60 now and I believe I won't change over to mirrorless.
I've bought my dream equipment for a lot of bucks over the years.

Why should I change?

Kind regards
Klaus

If you're happy with what you have then there is certainly no reason to change. I'll be 77 in two weeks and I fully expect to move to mirrorless fairly soon. If Nikon had introduced a DX mirrorless with all the advantages of the Z6/Z7 and a sensor with performance equivalent to the D7200 I would probably be changing now.

 

[bpdougd]

Jim, though you have me beat by about six and a half years (I turned 70 in June) we are of a similar mind and in a similar place.

My experience with m4/3 confirms your conclusions about AF. My experience is limited to Olympus but is probably representative of the entire m4/3 system. I found focus acquisition to be fast (faster than any DSLR that I have used) and accurate. It was follow-focus that I found lacking. Coupled with EVF blackout and lag it made shooting action very challenging with a low keeper rate. Add to that the poor low-light performance of the small sensor and that system fell short for me.

The Nikon Z system shows real promise. Right out of the gate, the large sensor with good low-light performance remedies one of my issues with m4/3. The fact that the Z cams are able, via the adapter, to use all of my existing lenses helps avoid the starting-completely-over issue with a new camera system.

I am still on the fence about the current Z cams. My initial inclination is to wait a while but time marches on (it actually seems to accelerate...). Like you, if there was a Z offering with an APS-C sized sensor with D7200-ish sensor performance I would probably be all-in.