[Rondec]

I think historically, SLRs were the predominant cameras that average folks used. As others have said, they had nice viewfinders and as time went by, they incorporated new tech like auto focus. When the digital era rolled around, there was a benefit to buying a dSLR, mainly because the mounts remained the same and you could simply transfer your F or EOS mount lenses over to your new digital SLR camera. Lenses that worked well on film generally worked decently on digital, although there were some issues with fringing that did show up.

[Jonathan Mac]

DSLRs were prominent because that was where the technology had lead us in the days of film. If you wanted to focus properly your choices were SLR or rangefinder. It was not possible to check the focus on the actual film before taking the photo, for obvious reasons. It took some time for that to really change. When I started in digital photography even live view was not at all universal as only some sensors were capable of reading out their data fast enough for it, so they were essentially in the same position as in the film days. The sensors in compacts were smaller and could read out faster but weren't suitable for high quality results due to their very limited size. It was only later when sensor technology improved that digital cameras that weren't DSLRs or rangefinders became a possibility.

[jersey]

I think @biz-engineer nails it. I would add that it all corresponds with rising smartphone revolution. I doubt no one at HQs of big camera manufacturers did not predict it pretty early (ok, maybe Pentax did not) and they decided that in a world where low level SLR/P&S will be almost completely replaced by smartphones and medium level sooner or later too they need to find a way to sell cameras and lenses to people who already have a perfectly fine camera and set of lenses. Or at some point they will be reduced to repair/replace manufacturers.

So discouraging DSLR and encouraging MILC is only natural from manufacturer point of view.

[ehrwien]

Some good points brought up, thank you all.

To summarize, one could perhaps say: Economics on the manufacturer side, ergonomics on the user side? The distinctive emphasis on the latter being one of the key reasons many of us have decided to get a camera by and stay with Pentax, I guess?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_camera#History

MFT, Samsung NX, Sony NEX, Pentax Q, Nikon 1, Fuji XF, the K-01, Canon EOS M, Sony Alpha,... 2008 to 2013.

5 more years until the "old bulls" Nikon and Canon introduced their full frame mirrorless systems.
Could one say it was the success of Sony Alpha that left them no choice in the end but commit to it fully?

[jersey]

I think it was more of a mix of success of smaller MILC cameras replacing low level DSLR (and perhaps medium) and the fact that they did not need to introduce MILC "now" as they had very successful DSLR cameras in high and pro levels. They just waited for market to mature and want MILC, leaving promoting and money spending to others that needed to do this to stay on market.

[Wheatfield]

The question arose in some other discussion by someone who I guess is not as involved in photography, he asked: "What led to the paradigm change, why were DSLRs ever predominant?"

DSLRs were predominant because that was the obvious platform to build them on. It wasn't some sort of paradigm change, it was the natural way for cameras to move into the digital era. Camera makers had complete lens lineups for film SLR cameras, so it was easiest and best to just continue with the same basic platform and exchange the film stuff for digital stuff. This gave the consumer a familiar looking product and didn't require camera manufacturers to change platforms.

[smrk]

The question arose in some other discussion by someone who I guess is not as involved in photography, he asked: "What led to the paradigm change, why were DSLRs ever predominant?"

Many of the other posters have given very good answers but I would like to add a few more things that I remember.

One of the biggest things for me in the early days of digital photography was the horrible shutter lag.

One thing you have to remember is the early sensors suffered from increased noise when they got hot.

And guess what? by simply powering up the sensor it would get hot.

So in order to use the sensor to frame your shot (and display it on a EVF or the panel on the back) they would have to shut the sensor off for a moment to let it cool and then power it back on to take the picture.
This resulted in you pressing the shutter button and waiting for a moment (a good second+ on a couple of the ones I tried) before the picture happened.


Some of the early digital cameras tried to resolve this by using the rangefinder approach, a separate optical view finder than the main taking lens and sensor.
But as others have mentioned rangefinders were viewed as a lower cost cameras at the time so they didn't sell as well

it didn't help that the camera manufacturers also viewed them as such and only used this on the lower end cameras, which would have less powerful processors which resulted in horrible shutter lag.

(A vicious cycle).


A DSLR didn't have this issue, you used the optical viewfinder to compose your shot then hit the shutter button, leaving the sensor off.

The mirror slaps up and the sensor is turned on at the same time.
The mechanical shutter opens up for your chosen time, saving some programming in the sensor logic.
And the mirror slaps back down, and the sensor is turned off.


Minimal shutter lag (basically the same as a regular SLR camera) and the sensor stays cool because it is not powered on very long.


Just one more reason that DSLR's were the dominate choice for quite a whle.

[StiffLegged]

Sorry but wait a moment here. The demand for mirrorless is totally created by business, it was never requested by photographers.

Isn’t that true of many camera features and styles? We didn’t get rangefinder cameras because photographers asked for them, but because Ernst Leitz came up with the idea on a compact camera that used 35mm film - itself an innovation in still photography. We didn’t get the SLR because Japanese photographers demanded one from Asahi, we didn’t get the motor driven camera because Nikon were denied access to important markets unless they built one and we didn’t get multi-mode automatic exposure because photographers protested angrily outside Minolta’s corporate HQ.

These features were developed by manufacturers who thought they might be good ideas and people bought them because they were bribed and coerced into doing so, right?? No, people bought them because they suited their needs or ambitions.

Mirrorless cameras have succeeded because people buy them. The technology has advanced to the point that they can compare with DSLRs in shooting response and features. Manufacturers like the idea because some of the gubbins inside a DSLR isn’t needed with a MLC which makes them cheaper to make for the same feature set as a DSLR so the reduced sales volume these days makes it possible to still make money. If they didn’t make money you’d see all ILC manufacturing stop.

A competent retailer isn’t going to sell a camera to a customer because it’s mirrorless, but because it might suit the customer and it’s available. I still remember the salesman who sold my brother a compact film camera because he knew his stock and what should match my brother’s requirements. He was right and it was an easy sale for both of them.

[normhead]

On Flickr... users per day.
For Canon, the first mirrorless camera on the list is #13. The top 12 are all DSLRs.
In Nikon the top 10 are all DSLRs.

The top selling Sony with 465 average daily users would be in 5th place in Canon, or 4th place in the Nikon world. The reach of mirrorless cameras is vastly over-rated.


That's actual usage, not sales figures. Apparently most of the shooting world has yet to adopt mirrorless.

I'll believe mirrorless has taken over when actual usage numbers come close to matching the current sales numbers. Currently, mirrorless ownership (and definitely user-ship) appears to be a very small fraction of what DSLR ownership is.

Maybe we could hold off declaring mirrorless the new kid on the block, until it actually arrives.

The hype is deafening. The actual numbers make a mockery of the hype.

Honestly folks, who cares what current sales numbers are when DSLRs have the majority of the current user base by a factor of 5 to 10x.

Given the fall off in sales of Cameras that are not also phones, the ability of mirrorless to take a dominant position in the real world is greatly diminished. While DSLRs were dominant in sales, a lot more cameras were being sold.

[biz-engineer]

These features were developed by manufacturers who thought they might be good ideas and people bought them because they were bribed and coerced into doing so, right?? No, people bought them because they suited their needs or ambitions.

I get your point, my answer would be yes and no. What happens with innovation in general is that prototype products are created and based on the likelyhood of business success investment to try penetrate the market is granted. If all goes well, early adopters who like novelty get the innovative product, and if the investment venture manage to get enough earlier adopters to build momentum and get the ball rolling, further customers buy the new product based on the social proof from early adopters. In the vast majority of business cases, unless the product respond to an existing and painful need, the early adoption is made up by the force loss making marketing and sales expenditures. The early mirrorless apsc and full frame camera from Fuji and Sony were a disaster performance wise compared to DSLR of the time. But, Fuji and Sony created the early market via what they call "evangelisation", they paid professional photographers to organize photography workshops and use the workshops to introduce the products to customs. The workshops were heavily subsidized, up to the point of making the most part in income for the professionals. You even had a Fuji magazine , Fuji lovegrove, where basically the pro photographer was financed by Fuji almost entirely. Once Sony and Fuji had build the costly initial user base, they used it to convince retailer to sell Fuji and Sony , again with a lot of financial help to the retailers. The local shop here told me that Fuji gave them a lot of benefits that Pentax didn't offer, and eventually they decided to remove the Pentax shelf and use that space for Fuji, simply because Fuji finance them. At no point in the text above, customers pushed to get a mirrorless camera, the push was always from Fuji and Sony. The key to success is to gain enough momentum at the beginning to create a snow-ball effect via influencers, word of mouth and peer pressure. Today there is a lot of peer pressure against Pentax, and since most of the newly made sales come from mirrorless, all reviews go in the direction of betting their money onto the horses that are most likely to win the race. In life, you have a few alternatives: either you go against the stream, or you go with the stream , or you create your own side stream. If you go against the stream (Pentax) be prepared for a difficult life. If you got with the stream (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Pana..) you only have to put in partial effort to rip benefits, that's what most people do. If you create your own side stream (Fuji and Sony 10 years ago), you have to invest a lot, but if it works you get what's called the first mover advantage, potentially you rip more ROI but that's also more risky. In most cases, the customer is just a small part of the business equation , especially when the customer is numerous , divided and has no individual bargaining power (refer. to marketing chapter about B to C).

---------- Post added 21-01-22 at 16:04 ----------

The reach of mirrorless cameras is vastly over-rated.

Mirrorless arrived when people already had what they need with DSLR, and Canon, Nikon going all out in mirrorless was an attempt to fight against plummeting camera sales in 2016. Back in 2015 already, camera sales were going downhill and the outlook was scary, Canon/Nikon weren't even prepared, the first models EOS R was just a 5DIV with body design change and no mirror, sensor and image processing was the same. People who own a Canon or Nikon mirrorless system today never asked for it in 2015, they were just happy with a DSLR.

[normhead]

A competent retailer isn’t going to sell a camera to a customer because it’s mirrorless, but because it might suit the customer and it’s available. I still remember the salesman who sold my brother a compact film camera because he knew his stock and what should match my brother’s requirements. He was right and it was an easy sale for both of them.

I also saw a salesman sell a soccer mom a $15,000 Canon system to shoot her son's soccer games. I could have set her up for $5k, a third of the price. There are salesmen, and then there are salesman.

I know most people don't want to consider themselves to be heavily influenced by marketing, but the sad fact is, 95% are. And being of the opinion that most salesmen sell you what you need is overly optimistic. Most salesmen sell you as much as they can, whether they could help you get by with something cheaper or not. Half of the job is sizing up your wallet, and taking as much out of it as possible.

As for places like Best Buy or Costco where many buy their first camera, they depend almost completely on manufacturer generated hype to sell gear. A knowledgeable sales person is darn hard to find. And these days the vast majority don't know Pentax at a ll, so if a Pentax is the camera best suited to what you do (as it is for me) there are maybe 5 stores in Canada that have a person who could tell me that.

Look at what happened to Apple after they stopped using the people who didn't recommend their equipment (because they were PC weenies) and opened up their own stores to get around the problem of sales rep bias holding them back. The results speak for themselves.

It's long been known in the marketing industry, that good marketing makes top of the line product unnecessary.

[acoufap]

On Flickr... users per day.
For Canon, the first mirrorless camera on the list is #13. The top 12 are all DSLRs.
In Nikon the top 10 are all DSLRs.

The top selling Sony with 465 average daily users would be in 5th place in Canon, or 4th place in the Nikon world. The reach of mirrorless cameras is vastly over-rated.


That's actual usage, not sales figures. Apparently most of the shooting world has yet to adopt mirrorless.

I'll believe mirrorless has taken over when actual usage numbers come close to matching the current sales numbers. Currently, mirrorless ownership (and definitely user-ship) appears to be a very small fraction of what DSLR ownership is.

Maybe we could hold off declaring mirrorless the new kid on the block, until it actually arrives.

The hype is deafening. The actual numbers make a mockery of the hype.

Honestly folks, who cares what current sales numbers are when DSLRs have the majority of the current user base by a factor of 5 to 10x.

Given the fall off in sales of Cameras that are not also phones, the ability of mirrorless to take a dominant position in the real world is greatly diminished. While DSLRs were dominant in sales, a lot more cameras were being sold.

Maybe sustainable photography enthusiasts are those who post images on flickr or similar dedicated photography sites - like us. The other ones maybe post more on facebook etc.?

A friend of mine who shoots Fuji APSC, a former Canon shooter, told me recently that Canon announced they won‘t continue DSLR development. So the day will come when mirrorloss will rise also on flickr since many Canon users will go for Canon‘s mirrorless offerings, I guess. Future will show.

[normhead]

Maybe sustainable photography enthusiasts are those who post images on flickr or similar dedicated photography sites - like us. The other ones maybe post more on facebook etc.?

A friend of mine who shoots Fuji APSC, a former Canon shooter, told me recently that Canon announced they won‘t continue DSLR development. So the day will come when mirrorloss will rise also on flickr since many Canon users will go for Canon‘s mirrorless offerings, I guess. Future will show.

I generally don't pay much attention to speculation. There are a lot of ways this can play out. Not all of them will predict Mirrorless dominance.

It seems to me the camera companies are still selling a lot of DSLRs. It would be interesting to see numbers on how quickly mirrorless is gaining. If you look at the number of DSLRs sold, and the numbers of mirrorless sold, and current user bases, how long will it take mirrorless to catch up with DLSr usage. That the kind of investigation that would be meaningful. Are we looking 5 years? 10 years?

"They say it will happen but they won't say when." I have no idea currently if this is even relevant. The camera industry isn't going to release those numbers, because their goal in life is to sell new stuff. If they can convince you your 2 year old gear needs to be replaced, that's good for them, not necessarily for you.

[acoufap]

I also saw a salesman sell a soccer mom a $15,000 Canon system to shoot her son's soccer games. I could have set her up for $5k, a third of the price. There are salesmen, and then there are salesman.

I know most people don't want to consider themselves to be heavily influenced by marketing, but the sad fact is, 95% are. And being of the opinion that most salesmen sell you what you need is overly optimistic. Most salesmen sell you as much as they can, whether they could help you get by with something cheaper or not. Half of the job is sizing up your wallet, and taking as much out of it as possible.

As for places like Best Buy or Costco where many buy their first camera, they depend almost completely on manufacturer generated hype to sell gear. A knowledgeable sales person is darn hard to find. And these days the vast majority don't know Pentax at a ll, so if a Pentax is the camera best suited to what you do (as it is for me) there are maybe 5 stores in Canada that have a person who could tell me that.

Look at what happened to Apple after they stopped using the people who didn't recommend their equipment (because they were PC weenies) and opened up their own stores to get around the problem of sales rep bias holding them back. The results speak for themselves.

It's long been known in the marketing industry, that good marketing makes top of the line product unnecessary.

IMO - marketing, partnership and commission fees are keys for success. The quality of the product is second. Only people who know their demands and take time and try and study the products by themself will discover what products will fit their needs mostly, considering the individual acceptable compromises.

Since most people don’t want to dive that deep, marketing will lead the majority of people. Less good products will win market share and the best may die. Maybe in Video Beta 2000 vs. VHS is such an example. The sales winner was the VHS system if I remember right.

[ehrwien]

That's actual usage, not sales figures. Apparently most of the shooting world has yet to adopt mirrorless.

I'll believe mirrorless has taken over when actual usage numbers come close to matching the current sales numbers. Currently, mirrorless ownership (and definitely user-ship) appears to be a very small fraction of what DSLR ownership is.

Maybe we could hold off declaring mirrorless the new kid on the block, until it actually arrives.

Yes, very good point you're making here.

Given the massive decline in camera sales in the last decade (?!) that point might be another decade or more into the future, with people using their current gear for as long as they are content with it, keeping the gear in use by selling their old gear on the used market and with probably a lot of "new old stock" still being out there getting sold into the start of their new life cycle...