[D1N0]

Mirrorless users have to pay for a lot more r&d and lens development. DSLR's are only developing incrementally. This will probably even out over time. Ricoh will have spend a bunch to develop the FF and new lenses though and that will have to be earned back.

[kenspo]

Pentax wont stop with aps-c. But a FF will also boost the sales of aps-c. Not kill it.

[Zygonyx]

This is what most people say when an innovation break the olds habbits. Not long ago in photography it was no way digital is going to replace film... Back in time people wanted faster horse and no way they would want a car powered by gazoline...

Even theses mirorless thing as they exist will be replaced. So for DSLR the question is not "if" but when.

For now I must admit there is not 1 serious mirrorless system that can replace current DSLR. Their registration distance is too short, the bodies are not that well suited for action/wildlife at all and they lack the huge echosystem DSLR have... They are expensive with somewhat low autonomy. But in 10 years?

I don't think the parallel with film/digital does apply.
Just because there is no significant breakthrough in term of technology btw ml and dslr.
No difference in IQ (or the difference is in favor of dslr - better absorbtion of oblique rays).
Only something missing or twisted with ml, that you pay a lot for a certain concept of compacity.

[mecrox]

The only way I see a "slow death" for SLRs is if cost wise they can't compete. I have been told many times that it is cheaper to make an EVF than to install an OVF. That may be true, but prices on similar mirrorless and SLR cameras at this point are awash, or the SLRs are actually cheaper. I don't know what will happen in ten years -- probably by that time most people will just be taking photos with their phones and traditional cameras will be super-niche market.

---------- Post added 07-14-15 at 06:11 AM ----------



I don't think Ricoh should just stay with APS-C. I just think the reports of the death of APS-C are exaggerated. As long as APS-C produces good image quality (it does) and offers cheaper cameras than full frame (it will for a long time) the majority of cameras sold will be APS-C, even if full frame cameras offer better image quality. That isn't to say that there isn't profit to be made on a good quality full frame camera with Pentax's own stamp on it. I just don't think it is likely to steal many sales away from lower end cameras.

It would not be a wild surprise if the next stage was some kind of super APS-C, to try to boost up the average retail price. Think a Nikon II series, like the Nikon I series but APS-C format and using the F mount. This would leave the traditional OVF APS-C down in bargain basement land - the D3xxx and perhaps 5xxx territory - not only because such cameras have the alleged "old-fashioned" mirrorbox but because they also lack the advanced and powerful electronics of the new cameras with all that follows from that in terms of frame rates, AF, apps and so on. There can't be much money in the traditional lower end anymore, if ever there was. I guess there is a risk that a conventional Pentax FF may become the last hurrah of the old guard just as a new generation of very advanced APS-C cameras enters the market from Nikon and perhaps Canon. If one of them does it, the other surely will too. The sheer cost of FF cameras is a deterrent to 90 per or more of all buyers, I'd have thought. For as long as that holds, there will still be a pretty big market for less costly cameras using smaller formats.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 07-14-2015 at 04:49 AM.

[JanG]

There can't be much money in the traditional lower end anymore, if ever there was. I guess there is a risk that a conventional Pentax FF may become the last hurrah of the old guard just as a new generation of very advanced cameras enters the market from Nikon and perhaps Canon. If one of them does it, the other surely will too.

While I think that the days of OVFs and DSLRs are counted more or less (please, no discussion of OVFs vs. EVFs and their respective (dis-)advantages again, I think the main advantage of ML cameras is their much simpler construction: Sony a7R teardown! Roger Cicala gets his hands dirty: Digital Photography Review that will turn into much cheaper or - at the same price point - much better cameras sooner rather than later) I actually doubt that Nikon or Pentax will ever have the ability to compete in ML cams. The reason is simply that they lack experience and innovative capability concerning all the numerous parts of a - except for the lenses - fully electronic cameras. Canon, Samsung and Sony all can supply the whole chain from sensor to memory card. Sony and Samsung still lack camera systems though and probably a full understanding of what photographers need and want. So I guess the systems of Pentax and Nikon may prevail for some time - like you can still buy typewriters and vinyl recordings today - but the future will be fully electronic. This even more when multi-sensor cams will enter the market and the size of todays lenses may be challenged.
And, please, do not flame me for this post. This is not about what I like or prefer, this is just how I perceive the development will be in the next ± decade.

[Pål Jensen]

Traditional DSLRs will certainly die a slow death eventually being replaced by Mirrorless cameras.

Optical finders will never go out of fashion....

[mecrox]

While I think that the days of OVFs and DSLRs are counted more or less (please, no discussion of OVFs vs. EVFs and their respective (dis-)advantages again, I think the main advantage of ML cameras is their much simpler construction: Sony a7R teardown! Roger Cicala gets his hands dirty: Digital Photography Review that will turn into much cheaper or - at the same price point - much better cameras sooner rather than later) I actually doubt that Nikon or Pentax will ever have the ability to compete in ML cams. The reason is simply that they lack experience and innovative capability concerning all the numerous parts of a - except for the lenses - fully electronic cameras. Canon, Samsung and Sony all can supply the whole chain from sensor to memory card. Sony and Samsung still lack camera systems though and probably a full understanding of what photographers need and want. So I guess the systems of Pentax and Nikon may prevail for some time - like you can still buy typewriters and vinyl recordings today - but the future will be fully electronic. This even more when multi-sensor cams will enter the market and the size of todays lenses may be challenged.
And, please, do not flame me for this post. This is not about what I like or prefer, this is just how I perceive the development will be in the next ± decade.

Good points. I just feel that the debate over FF vs APS-C (or another crop format) is always presented in terms of A vs B using the stuff that prevails today. That isn't necessarily how things will pan out at all. Throw in a few wild cards - new sensor designs, new and powerful camera designs, an established outfit hitting really serious financial trouble, a new outfit suddenly clicking with what photographers want, etc, etc - and things could turn out very differently. There are always more choices than A vs B. What hasn't changed at all, perhaps, is that FF is simply too expensive and therefore off the menu for nine out of ten camera buyers.

[Nicolas06]

I don't think the parallel with film/digital does apply.
Just because there is no significant breakthrough in term of technology btw ml and dslr.
No difference in IQ (or the difference is in favor of dslr - better absorbtion of oblique rays).
Only something missing or twisted with ml, that you pay a lot for a certain concept of compacity.

The compacity is key... Before digital FF was one of the smallest format out there and it was so popular because it was much more conveniant (and also cheaper) than Medium frame or Large format cameras.

The new format that replaced FF is not APSC, it is smartphones and compact camera with sizes like 2/3".

The problem for me of m4/3 is that they still ask almost the price of FF/APSC DSLR lenses while being inherently more limited and the problem of APSC mirorless is that the compacity concept work only for WA, normal focal length... Any significant tele starting 60-70mm start to be quite big on mirorless cameras.

[RobA_Oz]

Upgrade pricing, capability and longevity are the keys to the future of camera systems. I think that we've reached something of a plateau in capability improvement at the moment, and there's only been incremental progress recently even in convenience factors such as geospatial and communication systems. Improvement in high ISO/low light performance is even slowing down, as far as I can tell, and pixel density is pretty much at the optimum. The issue from this point on for all system camera bodies now will probably be longevity. Mechanical longevity is well-established, but electronic longevity isn't proven to be at the same level, particularly for sensors. In response, we'll possibly see a split emerging soon, between low-cost, rapid-upgrade cycle bodies, and higher-priced, more durable (and possibly component-upgradable) bodies. For the moment, the arguments for or against either viewfinder technology are pretty moot, as are those in relation to sensor size.

[Kunzite]

While I think that the days of OVFs and DSLRs are counted more or less

Indeed, there are people still waiting for those nasty OVFs to die. In the mean time, the market is buying DSLRs on a much larger scale than EVF-equipped ILCs.

I think the main advantage of ML cameras is their much simpler construction: Sony a7R teardown! Roger Cicala gets his hands dirty: Digital Photography Review that will turn into much cheaper or - at the same price point - much better cameras sooner rather than later)

That's an impressive engineering feat, however it also comes with a set of compromises. I can't remember any DSLR needing a 3rd-party replacement mount.
OTOH, a cleaner layout can be implemented in DSLRs, too (hopefully without the squishy mount). I agree with DSLR makers needing more experience, but that doesn't prevent them from making excellent products.

So I guess the systems of Pentax and Nikon may prevail for some time - like you can still buy typewriters and vinyl recordings today - but the future will be fully electronic. This even more when multi-sensor cams will enter the market and the size of todays lenses may be challenged.
And, please, do not flame me for this post. This is not about what I like or prefer, this is just how I perceive the development will be in the next ± decade.

The analogy with typewriters and vinyl record is forced, as the only difference between a MILC and a DSLR is the mandatory presence of an optical reflex viewfinder (and ancillary equipment like a dedicated PDAF system) on the latter.
Typewriters, however, lack the editing capabilities of a word processor, and vinyl records, portability and convenience. Such analogies - and I'll add the horse and carriage one - are used precisely because the situation is completely different than for the subject being discussed, i.e. DSLRs and MILCs.

[Rondec]

It has been mentioned before, but the K-01 and K-S1 are very similar in size. As long as you keep most of the electronic functions folks expect in a ILC and the legacy mount, there is only so small you can make a camera and the inclusion of a prism and mirror only changes that slightly.

In addition, lens sizes for a given sensor size and registration distance will be the same, whether you have a mirror or not.

[macTak]

The size difference between mirrorless 4/3 and FF may not seem that big until you see them side by side (this is the picture I have posted for this week's caption contest, btw)....

[redrockcoulee]

This is what most people say when an innovation break the olds habbits. Not long ago in photography it was no way digital is going to replace film... Back in time people wanted faster horse and no way they would want a car powered by gazoline...

Even theses mirorless thing as they exist will be replaced. So for DSLR the question is not "if" but when.

For now I must admit there is not 1 serious mirrorless system that can replace current DSLR. Their registration distance is too short, the bodies are not that well suited for action/wildlife at all and they lack the huge echosystem DSLR have... They are expensive with somewhat low autonomy. But in 10 years?

On the flip side I remember soon after mountain bikes came into fashion road bikes almost disappeared and now they are everywhere almost again. There are more large format camera manufactures today than there were thirty years ago and film sales have started a slow upward trend again.

I do disagree that mirrorless are for lazy people. A freind of mine sold his Canon full frame for a mirrorless system as he does a lot of hiking and with getting old he was tired of the weight and bulk. He is very happy with his decision. Another two friends added mirrorless to their full frame Nikon systems for the same reason, not always wanting to carry the weight and bulk. I know of some one else who moved up from cropped to full frame Canon system.

There are more good choices today than 5 years ago in that you can get good quality from the mirrorless, more full frame options and medium format are much more affordable today thanks to Pentax. My prediction is that they will all survive even if none of them have the sales volumes that they reached at their peaks.

I am currently quite content with what I own and see no reason to move up to full frame or down to a mirriorless system. If I did want smaller I think I would settle for something like the Fuji X100S type so no need or ability to add lenses and make the system less compact than it is. But what do I know, I am the guy who carried a Hasselblad 500 C/M through Scotland with a large bag of film.

---------- Post added 07-14-15 at 09:44 AM ----------

The size difference between mirrorless 4/3 and FF may not seem that big until you see them side by side (this is the picture I have posted for this week's caption contest, btw)....

Those mirrorless systems must be about the size of a thumbnail.

[JanG]

The analogy with typewriters and vinyl record is forced, as the only difference between a MILC and a DSLR is the mandatory presence of an optical reflex viewfinder (and ancillary equipment like a dedicated PDAF system) on the latter.
Typewriters, however, lack the editing capabilities of a word processor, and vinyl records, portability and convenience. Such analogies - and I'll add the horse and carriage one - are used precisely because the situation is completely different than for the subject being discussed, i.e. DSLRs and MILCs.

Well. I think there is more difference between MILCs and DSLRs than you mention. E.g. on sensor PDAF like in the new Sony A7R II.
For comparison look here:
A7R II: Analysis: Sony a7R II and RX100 IV autofocus systems: Digital Photography Review
Canon 5DS:

You Tube

You Tube

Nikon 810:

You Tube

You Tube

And no hassle with focus adjustments in the Sony.
This will be very hard to beat or to compete with for DSLRs - and wait for the second and third iteration of this feature.
If that Sony cam had a Pentax body (autumn??? - rather not, as Pentax most probably will stick to the DSLR design) I would buy it in a second ...

[Kunzite]

You are now talking about implementations, not about the DSLR and EVF-equipped MILC concepts. But implementations are subject to change... and there's no technical reason preventing a future DSLR to use the same sensor as that Sony, including its on-sensor PDAF system (which, obviously, would work in Live View mode). Some of the current DSLRs have on-sensor PDAF systems. And their dedicated PDAF systems can/will be further improved.

You cannot have a Sony camera in a Pentax body. It would be a Hasselblad-ish contraption anyway, nothing near what you're hoping for.