Originally posted by Ash Laurentiu, you're entitled to your opinion, but no matter how emphatic you make your statements, it doesn't make it right. dSLRs have their place. The development of the MILC technology doesn't render dSLRs obsolete.
Of course it does and you are not providing any argument to support your assertion.
The logic around something becoming obsolete is simple and history is full of examples.
If tech B can do all that tech A does, just as well, while also providing some new advantages, then it will replace tech A.
In our case, tech B = MILC and tech A = SLR.
Anything that an SLR can do can also be done by a MILC. There are a few things that an SLR can do a bit better today, but as MILC processing algorithms will improve, such advantages will disappear in a few years. And there are things that a MILC can do that an SLR just won't be able to do - simply because a MILC is about real time image processing, while an SLR is just about looking through the lens and there is not much benefit coming from that. Real time image processing opens lots of possibilities - with more processing power, for example, it will become possible to do real-time HDR - the possibilities will be limited only by the imagination and the competence of manufacturers.
Believing that SLRs won't become obsolete is like saying that an abacus will not be replaced by a pocket calculator. Or that a wired phone cannot be replaced by a cellular one, or that the cell cannot in its turn be replaced by a smart phone. Already DSLRs are running software to do demosaicing and raw image processing in real time - the problem is that they can only do this when the mirror is lifted and the sensor gets to see something. Moving to full time image processing is just the natural evolution of technology and now with 5 companies fully committed to such approach, it cannot be mistaken for a fad - it becomes a sign of an imminent change. Some people saw signs years ago - I remember reading a PopPhoto article from around 2009 in which they were discussing trends in digital photography and the main trend was the trickling of technology from P&S cameras into high end DSLRs - LiveView, movie mode, art filters, etc. The natural end to this trend is for high end cameras to become P&S with large sensors and interchangeable lenses, i.e. MILCs. Why would you have an SLR mechanism if it has to be disabled to access this new functionality of a camera?
Thus, betting that the SLR will be relevant long term (and by long term I mean < 10 years, not decades or more) lacks any argument on which to base such bet. I like bringing this MILC argument up to see what counterarguments are put forward by others in support of SLRs, because maybe I am missing something. However, none of the arguments I have seen so far is an argument that holds up long term. The arguments I saw were either:
a) based on temporary advantages of SLRs that will disappear in a few years
b) based on loving one's SLR
c) based on someone else's belief that SLRs will continue to be relevant (Pentax staff, other users, etc.)
d) based on disbelief that technologies can fall out of grace so quickly
e) irrelevant
None of these are arguments that will hold long term, regardless of how often people bring them out here. Canon and Nikon can slow down this transition by continuing to put out SLRs, but that is all they can do. I think Canon is in good shape, but I am not very sure about Nikon - they were always second to Canon at new tech - they came out with a FF camera after Canon and now they do have an advantage, but they also probably profit less than Canon because of their dependency on Sony.
Originally posted by Ash I think you can see from the fair number of press interviews with influential Pentax staff that MILC has been dabbled with and was great while it lasted, but they are focusing on a product for the higher end user, where dSLRs have been mentioned numerous times.
Pentax staff may not know or may not be able to speak publicly about Ricoh's plans. And I remember an interview with a Pentax engineer where he mentioned they were contemplating a mirrorless 645D, so I really doubt that their engineers do not see the possibilities. It's hard to tell what Pentax and Ricoh staff actually has in their minds.
And my hope for Pentax comes from Ricoh. Ricoh has made an interesting experiment with the GXR. They also seem to have supported that system with solid firmware updates in which they kept adding new useful features (focus peaking would probably not have made it into the Q under Hoya). To me, this shows that they were willing to take risks by putting out non conventional technology and it also shows that they understand how to maintain a product with software updates. These are good advantages to have if you want to put out a high end MILC system. And they can use Pentax's experience in optical design to produce nice optics for such a system (assuming they still have the Pentax optical experts).
Of course, Ricoh may have totally different plans. Maybe their goal is to sell Pentax SLRs that can wirelessly print on Ricoh printers. Or maybe they just bought Pentax to let it do its own thing and nothing will change. But I am not sure why one would buy Pentax, which has been the least successful SLR maker at acquiring new customers (*), and then would let it continue doing the same thing it did before, when they cannot even help them do better - what can Ricoh teach Pentax about SLR making?
(*) I expect only Sigma gets less customers for their SLRs, but at least they can afford it.
I am looking forward to people disagreeing with me, because if they are right, I get the opportunity of learning something new. But that requires disagreements to be accompanied by good arguments. So I am looking forward to some, if you have them.