[Rondec]

I think the thing to remember is that most folks want smaller when they think of cameras. I remember Gus posting a couple of photos that he and his wife took -- two of them terrible -- blurry, poor color and two sharp as tack. The blurry ones had been the ones that received all of the positive comments on facebook.

People don't really care about the quality of their photos. They just want something that they will have with them when they are out and about. That is why I think that point and shoots will eventually be nearly completely replaced by cell phone cameras. This will leave SLRs as the upper end and probably very little in between.

If the cost of EVIL comes down. Average people may be interested in them, but at current prices and sizes, they are more likely just to buy a Rebel.

[Aristophanes]

If a brand offered an APS-C camera, with a fixed mount 18-250 lens of very good quality (DA 18-250 equivalent), mirrorless, I'd buy one for travel in a pinch. Fuji might go that route. What's held their products back is sensor size.

[EricT]

I agree. How many of you have tried to use an electronic viewfinder for critical manual focusing? It's nowhere near as positive as an optical viewfinder. I think EVIL cameras may well overtake DSLRs, but I think there will always be a market for OVFs in the serious amateur/pro category.

An EVF is actually much better for manual focusing. With an EVF, you can zoom in to achieve critical focus. Additionally, what you see is the true DOF as opposed to the much wider DOF you see in an OVF.

[EricT]

It depends on if an EVF can replace an OVF. And, if they can do so economically.

Right now, they cannot.

Or, will everyone be willing to do without a VF and do all framing and focusing using the rear LCD?

Nope.

Keep in mind that what pros use is what many prosumers emulate.

First of all, you don't need to use the rear LCD, many mirrorless cameras have viewfinders that you hold up to your eye.

Secondly, I don't think EVFs have to be just as good as OVFs in order to replace them. You have to remember that EVFs offer some quite significant advantages as well, like exposure/DOF/white balance preview, face detection, zooming, touch focus and so on.
So they just have to be good enough to work satisfactory, which I don't think is far away.

[EricT]

It's the opposite. Mirrorless should potentially be more accurate.
DSLR uses separate sensors for metering. And you can only cover a portion of the image, and it has a finite number of metering "zone".
For the mirrorless, you use the main image sensor for metering. The whole image is covered and the metering pattern/zone is only limited by software implementation.

Exactly. Also, with mirrorless, all front/back focus issues completely disappear, due to the use of contrast-detect autofocus. The AF speed is IMHO the most significant issue, since a lot of pro applications require fast AF.

[TaoMaas]

An EVF is actually much better for manual focusing. With an EVF, you can zoom in to achieve critical focus. Additionally, what you see is the true DOF as opposed to the much wider DOF you see in an OVF.

Yes...I know. But it's a digital zoom so the qualtiy goes down considerably.

[snostorm]

IMO, mirrorless cameras will never totally re[place DSLRs for me. Nobody here seems to see lag as a major downside of EVFs, both VF lag and shutter lag, and totally eliminating both is technically impossible.

I shoot birds and live critter macros. The pose is everything, and it happens in a split second. Even with a real-time OVF, some anticipation is often necessary. By the time a mirrorless camera processes the image from the sensor and displays it in the EVF, it's probably already too late -- then add personal reaction time and the fact that a mirrorless camera would need to reset the sensor to take the shot which introduces more lag. We're talking milliseconds here, and there is no way to make an EVF real time -- it can probably get close with futher development, but there will always be some processing involved, so there will always be some lag.

I also like to shoot candids of people, and though the timing isn't as critical, it's still there. I've never been able to get the same quality of shots (I'm not talking about IQ here -- it's the poses I'm talking about) using either LV or an EVF as I can with a DSLR, and I'll admit that I've never even considered shooting a MILC. I'm sure that any sports shooters would agree.

I read an article a long time ago that chronicled the move from film to digital SLRs for SI photographers. The minute shutter lag differences between the first DSLRs and the film SLRs was enough that it took some of the best sports photographers in the world over 6 months of constant use to start producing the same level of shots from the then-new digitals. It was a matter of anticipation and timing. The lag difference was much smaller than exists between DSLRs and MILCs -- and this doesn't even consider the speed differences between current contrast and phase detect AF.

I understand that many photographers don't consider speed a priority, but in some genres, it's a necessity. I can work around AF speed, but I can't conceive of a way to work around VF lag or additional shutter lag, and as I'm constantly getting older, I'm pretty confident that my reaction time will not be improving enough to overcome this in my lifetime.

Scott

[wtlwdwgn]

Not on any camera that I'll ever buy. Smaller is not better for my long skinny fingers which is why I won't upgrade to the K7 or any successor to it. The K10 and K20 fit my hands perfectly which is why I have them. However, Pentax does have a history of going smaller and lighter which is probably a good overall marketing strategy. But for me a K30D would be a better fit and worth upgrading to. Just my ¢¢.

[EricT]

Yes...I know. But it's a digital zoom so the qualtiy goes down considerably.

Not really. Remember that the EVF is something like 1.5 megapixels, so with a 12 megapixel sensor you can zoom quite a bit before the quality decreases.

[alohadave]

Anyone thinking the mirror might go away?

My mirror goes away every time I press the shutter. It comes back though after the picture is done.

[RawheaD]

Not on any camera that I'll ever buy. Smaller is not better for my long skinny fingers which is why I won't upgrade to the K7 or any successor to it. The K10 and K20 fit my hands perfectly which is why I have them. However, Pentax does have a history of going smaller and lighter which is probably a good overall marketing strategy. But for me a K30D would be a better fit and worth upgrading to. Just my ¢¢.

Is body size seriously the only reason why you won't get a K-7?? Why not buy the grip to go with it? It will give you much better handling than a K10D/K20D without a grip.

Same goes with a mirrorless. Unless you are absolutely against the idea of reducing bulk in any way shaper or form. You could always buy grips and other accessories that will give you an ergonomically fitting camera while at the same time minimizing bulk/weight.


Let's face it, no matter how you cut it, the space taken up by the mirror-box is space that is wasted.

[Spyder]

Same goes with a mirrorless. Unless you are absolutely against the idea of reducing bulk in any way shaper or form. You could always buy grips and other accessories that will give you an ergonomically fitting camera while at the same time minimizing bulk/weight.


Let's face it, no matter how you cut it, the space taken up by the mirror-box is space that is wasted.

I have to agree with wtlwdwgn on this, I have big hands and I sometimes wish my K10D was just a bit bigger than it is so I could get a more solid grip on it. I have no interest in cameras that are significantly smaller as they're simply too small for me to use comfortably. Also I'm firmly of the opinion that I shouldn't be required to buy accessories simply to be able to use a camera in the first place.

While I can understand the attraction of a small body for people who want to put something like the DA40 on one, when you use the DA*16-50 (or something bigger) all you get is something that's really unbalanced and the size of the lens undoes any benefit you got from the smaller body.

[Adam]

I don't think it'll go away simply because the true viewfinder is better/more flexible than than an electronic one, and because the sensor would likely overheat if LV were used full-time.

Try putting a split-screen in a mirrorless camera

Thread moved to GP.

[Blue]

Well, by definition, replacement can only happen when FF mirrorless cameras become viable options for the top pros. Currently we have the M9 and that's it, and that works to an extent because the M series always was a rangefinder (i.e., you can use all the same lenses you used up to M8.2 on the M9).

. . .

The M9 is a classic rangefinder design with an optical viewfinder so its not using an EVF.

[Rupert]

I don't see it happening anytime soon. Too many handicaps and not enough gain from what I see. Sure, you get a smaller camera, but when I mount my Bigma, that advantage is all over.
Sort of like the combustion engine.....it has been around a long time, and like SLR's, it likely will be around a long time to come.
Regards!