[SteveM]

Everyone has a threshold level of performance that they require of their own cameras. As has been stated in this and other threads, most people aren't willing to work with large format despite the benefits because large format is too cumbersome. Many people here, on this DSLR photography board, think that the minimum level of acceptable performance can only be delivered by a DSLR. I have found that µ43 delivers ulta-accurate and quick focusing, excellent image quality, and I'm not hindered by the lack of OVF. For me, my threshold level of required performance is satisfied by mirrorless cameras (for the most part) and I'm not willing to put up with the extra weight of DSLRs. I have two young kids, carrying them and their associated bags of diapers and toys is enough for me, but they are my photographic subjects and I need a camera, and µ43 works great for me.

Nothing I do will convince some people that they don't need DSLRs. That isn't the point of this thread.

But I'm positive that DSLRs are going to be replaced by mirrorless cameras for the majority of people who would otherwise buy DSLRs, and these people will be happy. I say this as a former non-believer. Mirrorless cameras help me get the photos I want because (1) they are small enough to pocket, (2) there are good lens options, including the Oly 45mm/1.8 and P-L 25/1.4, (3) Eye Detection autofocus.

In 10-15 years, there will still be film users, still be large format users, still be those who prefer manual focus lenses, and still be DSLRs. But not the way we see them today.

The problem people have with this thread is the statement "end of the dslr" and the announcement by Ratcliff that implies that people will no longer need/use expensive lenses that they have purchased today.....and that all these dslrs and lenses will no longer be used by a majority within 5 years.

I'm not so sure anything has changed....today, 20 years ago or 5 years into the future. The majority of people had/have/will buy a pocket camera because they don't want to lug around anything more. It all depends on how you work the statistics. If you add cell phones into the mix, you could announce today that the dslr has been dead for some time. You could use the same stats when comparing APC-C to FF to claim that FF today is dead.

I personally believe there is a cycle to camera sales. Fairly soon the market will be saturated with dslrs and people that bought them, for the most part, won't be replacing them just because newer ones are better. They were bought to take good pictures of their kids and for holidays, nothing more. Many of these people may be more inclined to buy a mirrorless camera, but would more likley just use their cell phone as the quality gets better rather than replace their expensive camera with yet another one that is mirrorless. Photography itself will become less of a fad as has happened in the past.

As far as pros or prosumers go, if you chose your camera because the LCD swivels, then you're probably a candidate to jump into the mirrorless bandwagon. For some, placing the lcd inside the mirror box so that there isn't a mirror to move mechanically would be best. For others, they want to see the shot through their own eyes, not a reproduction on a small screen.

Right now, we have cameras that do both. When liveview kicks in, the mirror is up...no vibration is caused by the mirror to interfere with picture quality. Seems to me that Ratcliff is simply saying that the consumers will demand manufacturers remove the choice of having a mirror in addition to live view. Larger lenses will not be needed. I don't think this is a very balanced viewpoint.

[eddie1960]

the one thing i will wholeheartedly agree with is the Cell phone camera will be the predominant camera in the future. Heck it already is. most people dont want to make art they want memories. for these people the cell phone is as good as anything and likely with them all the time. There are numerous very good cameras in cell phones now. Cabn i take shots with good bokeh nope not a chance (though that will change once someone incorporates lytro tech into a phone)
But for many people (more than ever shot film SLRS for sure) the SLR will still be THE choice. With the growth and opening of the Chinese market it's a given since currently there is little high end camera penetration in the worlds largest population.

[Macario]

nothing will convince people that they do not need millions of lenses, that they don't need ultra zooms etc etc.
But when looking at the video when he speaks of the end of the DSLR, he is using a DSLR. How valid can you then be? There are many milc out there which produce excelent images, so why didn't he use one on the outing?
But personally, I do need a DSLR, as I use ultra tele lenses to shoot surf/bodyboarding. and no milc can even come close to being as practical as a DSLR for it. But for the all the other photography I do, I could very well use a Fuji X100 with it's fixed lens. I shot many photo's with just a 70's fixed lens rangefinder, so too bad I can't afford the fuji at the moment, cause I would like to own one. Don't really need more. But as I have a DSLR, I use it, mostly with a 35mm lens if not shooting surf. And as I have a k-7, with the lens it is very light. don't even notice I have it with me. Even with a bigger zoom lens if I am with my (young) kids, it doesn't bother me, or making me wish I had a MILC.
And even a MILC is too much for most people. The new canon with it's fixed zoom lens and large sensor is more than enough for majoroty of people that would buy a MILC.

[Aegon]

But when looking at the video when he speaks of the end of the DSLR, he is using a DSLR. How valid can you then be?

He wrote an article on this topic, on the same page as the video here: https://plus.google.com/105237212888595777019/posts/fbCZzoFEAz1

To answer your question:

Look, I hate to say it! I've spent loads of money on DSLRs and lenses for my Nikon. I'm not going to be using any of it in five years.

Personally, I'm not going to buy any more DLSR bodies or lenses. I’m waiting on the descendants of this first phase of 3rd Gen Cameras. Even though you can make a good case for great cameras like the Sony A77, the new lines of Nikons, Panasonics, etc etc -- I want to wait for a few more iterations -- but I won’t be waiting long.

3rd Gen Cameras are the clear future category for digital photography. Objectively, these cameras have more advantages than disadvantages. As Moore’s law clicks along, the disadvantages will dissipate like fog in the sunrise.

[riff]

Go stare at your pixels.

Was that remark necessary

[westmill]

I love the SLR because of the detachment it gives before pressing the trigger ! Its like two different Phychlogical plains in the head.
For this reason I love RF cameras too and had a huge love afair with my bronica RF 645.
You see the world as it is, just before you capture that moment in time.
I for one, have no wish or desire to see the world through a mini tv... no matter how sharp or accurate the pic or colours.
Thoughts of taking huge amount of photographs and retreiving the best is a horror story to be told to naughty children at bedtime.
Christ.... if thats what you want, buy a video camera and pic out the stills !
Photographers grow a bond with there cameras and you see the world together, you see it as it is, and record your interpretation of what you see.
Leica understand this, and thats why they are so loved. Its about emotion too. If i take a pic with my phone... its a snapshot..... no emotion.
It would be that way if it produced 40 milion pixels etc.
Any camera to me that doesnt posess a clear optical veiwfinder is no longer a camera, but an appliance or a gizmo that is
capeable of taking pics. One day, you shall be able to hold up a gizmo like an I pad with 10,0000 pixels.... no lenses needed... the pic is so big and clear you just choose the section you wish to veiw. Im just glad i wont be around to see it. A sad day indeed.
As they say...... they wont ever know what they are missing !

[pinholecam]

Was that remark necessary

+1 on this.
While everyone has some preference to camera types, I don't see a point making such strongly worded statements.


There certainly is enough room for everyone to breathe. At least for the next 3-5yrs. OVF, EVF, MILC, DSLR, Optical-Neuro implants, whatever, all can co-exist up to a point of time, since there will always be a transition phase between technologies. Ppl can even hoard up and choose to use the tech that they prefer. In the end, these tools all help to do image capture. There is no need to strangle each other over individual preferences.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

will they overcome it's limitations - not the light loss at the sensor. no matter what the DLSR variant with the same sensor should outperform it.

The light loss is 1/3 EV. That means that the performance graphs at dxomark get shifted right by 1/3EV. You can see this clearly when comparing the NEX-7 with the A77. All this is true. It is also of little importance - dxomark itself says that 1/3EV is "only slightly noticeable" - and that is a general statement, not one issued in defense of SLT cameras in particular.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

It all depends on how you work the statistics. If you add cell phones into the mix, you could announce today that the dslr has been dead for some time. You could use the same stats when comparing APC-C to FF to claim that FF today is dead.

I think the point is that until recently, if you wanted a camera with better IQ than a compact, the only option was a DSLR. The supercompacts provided larger zoom ranges, but not better IQ. Now it is possible to get cameras that are as good as any APS-C DSLR, but that are no longer DSLRs. And non-DSLR FF options will multiply too in a few years from now.

Of course, no tech disappears completely and DSLRs will be made for a while and will be purchased for a while. But fewer and fewer people will opt for a DSLR when they want to get more serious about photography. Their death is their death as the No 1 choice (the only choice, really, until now) for people wanting higher end IQ. Some will stick to DSLRs for whatever reasons, but in the end they'll represent less of the market share that FF represents now. I also doubt that there is any company that will ensure the long term survival of the DSLR design in the same way that Leica did for rangefinders. I expect that DSLRs will be overtaken in sales by MILC/SLT designs before the end of this decade: by 2020.

[westmill]

The OVF is a very important part of photography for a lot of photographers, including myself.
I can well beleive mirrorless camera will outsell DSLR with ease just as the compact does. They are shiny and new and produce the results
with lots of beat the Jonses appeal. Camera manufacturers are not stupid though, and will always produce SLRs for as long as there is a demand.
To suggest they wont be around in five years time, you would need be living on another planet. That would be like suggesting Nikon has just made
its last SLR with the D4 etc. Of course the camera manufacturers are putting money and development in it.... its a money spinner.
They would be stupid not too.

[normhead]

Was that remark necessary

Yes....
IN the end, if we're talking about a digital viewfinder...it's the difference between sitting and looking at a sunset... and setting up a video camera, and looking at the sunset on a little camera screen. One is an infinitely more enjoyable process than another. That needs to be acknowledged before this discussion can go any further. Once that's on the table.. we can start to speculate about the end of DSLRs. Cameras are more than producing pictures, cameras are about the enjoyment of photography. If what you are advocating is interacting with the outside world through a pixel based medium.. you need to understand the limitations of what you are advocating.

So... go stare at your pixels.

[bimjo]

Man, I loves me a good religious war.

[riff]

Yes....
IN the end, if we're talking about a digital viewfinder...it's the difference between sitting and looking at a sunset... and setting up a video camera, and looking at the sunset on a little camera screen. One is an infinitely more enjoyable process than another. That needs to be acknowledged before this discussion can go any further. Once that's on the table.. we can start to speculate about the end of DSLRs. Cameras are more than producing pictures, cameras are about the enjoyment of photography. If what you are advocating is interacting with the outside world through a pixel based medium.. you need to understand the limitations of what you are advocating.

So... go stare at your pixels.

Let's be clear about something normhead, in this thread I have not and am not advocating anything except polite discussion!
I found your reply to Laurentiu Cristofor to be rude, dismissive and completely uncalled for.

With all due respect Mr. Cristofor... you're delusional...Go stare at your pixels.

As far as this little post to me is concerned;
I have not and am not speculating about the end of DSLR
I don't care what your process is nor do I care what is "infinitely more enjoyable" to you.
Weather you enjoyed taking the photo or not is completely irrelevant to my ability to possibly enjoy viewing the photo.
If you are shooting a DSLR you will end up staring at pixels from the time you click the shutter onward just like everyone else.
"you need to understand the limitations of what you are advocating"
I will not be replying to any more of your rants, in this thread.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

it's the difference between sitting and looking at a sunset...

You can do this whenever you want to really enjoy a sunset regardless of what camera you use.

and setting up a video camera, and looking at the sunset on a little camera screen.

Talk about apples and oranges or strawman arguments. What you need to compare is:

A) setting up a camera, and looking at the sunset on a tiny OVF
B) setting up a camera, and looking at the sunset on a tiny EVF
C) setting up a camera, and looking at the sunset on a little camera screen

And really, none of them compares positively as an experience with simply:

ENJOY LIFE) just sitting and looking at a sunset

[RioRico]

Some points:

* A VF, *any* kind of VF, is better than no VF. Cf. "sports-finder". (Hint: just a wire frame.)
* Not all OVFs are created equal. Check out what passed for OVFs on vintage MF folders.
* Some big, bright OVFs are horribly distorted -- see some old 'TLR' box cameras. Yuck.
* Some classic RFs had eensy weensy teensy OVFs, with an even smaller RF window. Ouch.
* Some other classic RFs had nice big bright OVS but still had crappy little RF windows. Ick.
* In glarey situations, even a big bright SLR VF can be almost useless except for framing.
* Some SLRs and most TLRs had waist-level groundglass VF, also useless in bright light.

I don't try to build a 3D image in a VF, not with my deteriorating eyes. A nice image is nice, yes. Mostly I just try to frame the composition and wait for the Focus Confirmation green hex. I've used camcorders with EVFs, and no problem. I don't care much how the VF works as long as I can frame. And I hate VF-less cameras, like with only an LCD screen for arm's-length composing. I'd prefer VR goggles with the image WiFi'd in. Or an ocular implant.