[c.a.m]

These statistics seem to support the premise of the article at Imaging Resource...

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of their premise. I found that the article presents several different perspectives, including one writer's view that "I'm confident that many photographers are still getting their start with DSLRs and will continue to do so for years to come." Another author says "I have to agree with my colleagues here that the "age of the DSLR'' appears to be coming to a close."

Personally, I think it's premature to be speculating on the 'end of the DSLR era'. Regardless, I think the article would have benefited from a snapshot of production data to illustrate trends.

What's your summary of the premise?

but I think most of us already intuited the approximate percentages, no?

I'm not sure. I haven't seen any intuitive estimates from members here.

- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 09-29-2021 at 05:44 PM.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I think a lot of folks are straight out of camera jpeg shooters. For them, an EVF does have what you see is what you get. On the other hand, Forumites tend to be RAW shooters who push things in different directions and may shoot a scene underexposed and push the shadows in post to avoid clipping. For them, an EVF is certainly not going to tell them what the end result image is.

It really depends on how you setup the cameras converter.

If you know what the uniwb setting of the camera and how much baseline exposure that is being applied you can use the settings within the camera to give you a realistic representation as to how the camera is recording data within the raw file.
This is where I see the as one of the benefits of using a EVF, add to the mix a real time histogram in the EVF this would only be eclipsed by having the manufacture actually showing you what is happening with the raw file.

[ZombieArmy]

3. Video focus "hunting" is eliminated, by using these advanced autofocus systems also for video. In DSLRs, when using live-view for video, the mirror is locked up, meaning the independant autofocus systems cannot be used and the camera is limited to contrast-detect which require hunting.

Canon has been doing phase detect with contrast detection in live view and video for about a decade now. There's a reason their video auto focus was miles ahead for the longest time.

---------- Post added 09-29-21 at 11:03 PM ----------

I could be wrong, but I think it's just fewer moving parts so it's less expensive to manufacture.

Not just that. Screens are incredibly cheap, a small high resolution screen will always be cheaper than a piece of honkin' glass and a mirror.

[luftfluss]

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of their premise. I found that the article presents several different perspectives, including one writer's view that "I'm confident that many photographers are still getting their start with DSLRs and will continue to do so for years to come." Another author says "I have to agree with my colleagues here that the "age of the DSLR'' appears to be coming to a close."

Personally, I think it's premature to be speculating on the 'end of the DSLR era'. Regardless, I think the article would have benefited from a snapshot of production data to illustrate trends.

What's your summary of the premise?

I think the premise is accurate enough - it's been apparent (IMO) over the last couple of years that the DSLR "era" was coming to an end, not because mirrorless is inherently better, but because manufacturers were choosing to de-emphasize DSLR. That doesn't mean there will be no DSLR's, just that DSLR tech will be the minority of ILC.

It's marginally interesting that one of the participants in the article used the words "outdated" and "nostalgic" when describing DSLR's. Personally, it's never occurred to me to apply those terms to my DSLR's, even after using a recent MILC. They just feel "different" to me, not older/newer.

I'm not sure. I haven't seen any intuitive estimates from members here.

- Craig

OK, perhaps I made that assumption simply because there are several camera-related forums I frequent, and thus I am not ensconced in an echo chamber of one specific brand. I assumed that folks who follow the industry even a little bit would estimate a 60/40 split in favor of mirrorless' popularity.

[luftfluss]

The Death of DSLRs is Near | PetaPixel 2018…

We can probably find older articles with similar titles.

Opinion pieces by PetaPixel are the worst...

[BigMackCam]

Opinion pieces by PetaPixel are the worst...

Fixed that for you

[Rondec]

It really depends on how you setup the cameras converter.

If you know what the uniwb setting of the camera and how much baseline exposure that is being applied you can use the settings within the camera to give you a realistic representation as to how the camera is recording data within the raw file.
This is where I see the as one of the benefits of using a EVF, add to the mix a real time histogram in the EVF this would only be eclipsed by having the manufacture actually showing you what is happening with the raw file.

I don't think a tiny screen used for EVF will ever be able to show you what is really happening with the RAW file. The best you can do is have a histogram pasted on the screen. That's probably an overlay that could be added to OVFs as well. I much prefer an uncluttered viewfinder with less blinky/overlay kinds of stuff, but obviously opinions differ on this as well. I really don't think the arguments over viewfinders are solvable. I get eye strain pretty past with most EVFs (I can't say all) and I don't with an OVF. That's enough for me to continue using an SLR. I don't think I am the only one in that camp, but maybe so.

[BigMackCam]

I get eye strain pretty past with most EVFs (I can't say all) and I don't with an OVF. That's enough for me to continue using an SLR. I don't think I am the only one in that camp, but maybe so.

I don't get eye strain from EVFs, and I do find them very useful for manual focusing and low light shooting... but I still far prefer an OVF, and if I had to choose just one camera it would be a DSLR. I may now be in the minority rather than the majority with this preference, but I think there are enough like me to sustain a viable market...

[Rondec]

I don't get eye strain from EVFs, and I do find them very useful for manual focusing and low light shooting... but I still far prefer an OVF, and if I had to choose just one camera it would be a DSLR. I may now be in the minority rather than the majority with this preference, but I think there are enough like me to sustain a viable market...

I don't manual focus very much at all so that isn't a big deal for me. I'm pretty much an auto focus only person.

I think we need to remember that Pentax has made a go of it with low single digits share of the market. They don't need 50 percent of people to say that MILCs don't work for them -- 5 or 6 percent of people who shoot interchangeable lens cameras would be plenty.

[Wheatfield]

What is the key difference between mirrorless and D-SLR that makes them the "future", so to speak? Like what feature functionality does absence of a prism bring that they are being touted as the future?

For many people, myself included, removing the prism and inserting a TV screen just makes the camera painful to use.

[luftfluss]

Fixed that for you

[bob5050]

...you can use the settings within the camera to give you a realistic representation as to how the camera is recording data within the raw file.
This is where I see the as one of the benefits of using a EVF, ...

Difference in perspective: I don't look at a viewfinder to see what's going on with the camera. I look at it to see and frame the scene, and based on what I see, I'll decide what I want the camera to receive by adjusting its settings. Setting up a camera based on diagnosing (through an EVF) what it's already done just seems terribly circular and too removed from the actual subject.
traveler

[UncleVanya]

Difference in perspective: I don't look at a viewfinder to see what's going on with the camera. I look at it to see and frame the scene, and based on what I see, I'll decide what I want the camera to receive by adjusting its settings. Setting up a camera based on diagnosing (through an EVF) what it's already done just seems terribly circular and too removed from the actual subject.
traveler

I use multiple systems with EVF in several and OVF in my Pentaxes- virtually all the time the differences aren’t large enough to bother me. There are differences, but they don’t change how I work except at the margins. Sometimes the EVF is easier (manual focus with zoom and peaking in the viewfinder is easier and higher resolution than liveview on the lcd), sometimes the OVF is better, no dynamic range compression, no problems composing that can happen when exposure previewing is on with an EVF, colors true to life, etc.

In the end it’s the old adage, it’s a poor craftsman that blames his tools. I TRY to find a way to make whatever camera I have with me work within the performance envelope that it can. I understand some people can’t stand an EVF- and you have my sympathy as this cuts you off from a lot of fun and interesting gear. At the same time I don’t understand why people often assume only mirrorless will make a decent photo! The bias against DSLRs is incredible. I know a semi retired pro who has used d300 Nikon’s successfully for many years. She’s thinking of going mirrorless because it’s what everyone tells her to do. It won’t change her work (mostly studio portraits). And frankly it’s brainwashing.

I own and shoot Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus, Apple and Sony. I love anything that gets me an image I’m proud of.

[BigMackCam]

...

In the end it’s the old adage, it’s a poor craftsman that blames his tools. I TRY to find a way to make whatever camera I have with me work within the performance envelope that it can. I understand some people can’t stand an EVF- and you have my sympathy as this cuts you off from a lot of fun and interesting gear. At the same time I don’t understand why people often assume only mirrorless will make a decent photo! The bias against DSLRs is incredible.

...

I own and shoot Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus, Apple and Sony. I love anything that gets me an image I’m proud of.

Very well said, Brad. I agree wholeheartedly.

There's a tendency (perhaps an understandable one) for some folks to over-state advantages and disadvantages when defending their preferences to those who are critical of their chosen system(s). I'd like to think the majority of folks, in reality, can see there are benefits to each, while neither is perfect in every scenario or for every photographer.

[Wheatfield]

Very well said, Brad. I agree wholeheartedly.

There's a tendency (perhaps an understandable one) for some folks to over-state advantages and disadvantages when defending their preferences to those who are critical of their chosen system(s). I'd like to think the majority of folks, in reality, can see there are benefits to each, while neither is perfect in every scenario or for every photographer.

Unfortunately many people are treating EVFs like some sort of religion. Disagree with them at your peril, for ye shall burn in eternal hellfire.
Sharia photography.