Author Topic: Will the mirrorless camera replace the DSLR? (Read 7886 times)

lisandra · « **Reply #25 on:** February 21, 2012, 05:25:41 PM »

the GH2 does that

mynameisjonas · « **Reply #26 on:** February 22, 2012, 02:36:34 AM »

When you think about it, if a camera can take stills while shooting video (like many of the latest m4/3 cameras can), providing live view during continuous bursts shouldn't be a problem.

Centauri27 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 24, 2012, 02:46:26 PM »

I think this trend is similar in the computer industry, where the rise of tablet PCs are beginning to challenge notebook computers. The tablets have all but wiped out netbooks and are now poised to grab a chunk of the notebooks sales. Same thing in photography: mirrorless will eat away at DSLRs, but not completely eliminate it, no more than tablets can replace desktop computers.

Interesting charts: 42% penetration in Japan vs. only 13% in the Americas? Wow. The day they can get the shift going in North America is when the tide will really start to turn. And I believe it's beginning to happen.

Centauri27 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 24, 2012, 02:47:23 PM »

Quote from: adash on February 16, 2012, 02:06:37 AM

From: http://leolaksi.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/

And I love this shot! Looks like the kid is going to topple over any second...

overflow · « **Reply #29 on:** February 24, 2012, 03:07:43 PM »

I think its pretty inevitable... Once sensors gain about 5 more stops of noise performance (Maybe ~10 years from now?). At that point the EVF could render 60fps with low noise in very dark situations, better than our own eyes could view it through the lens! At that point I see no advantage to having an optical viewfinder.

Though I'm sure there will always be plenty of hold-outs who like using their old glass on their old DSLRs

Pete · « **Reply #30 on:** February 24, 2012, 03:57:24 PM »

Yup, there will plenty of Future Photographers who want to use a "Classic" or "Legacy" DSLR with similar aged glass. For the "LOOK" it produces

RT_Panther · « **Reply #31 on:** February 24, 2012, 05:34:12 PM »

Quote from: M5-User on February 24, 2012, 03:57:24 PM

Yup, there will plenty of Future Photographers who want to use a "Classic" or "Legacy" DSLR with similar aged glass. For the "LOOK" it produces

Actually....
I know quite a few folks who prefer the older CCD sensored bodies than the newer CMOS sensored bodies....

lisandra · « **Reply #32 on:** February 24, 2012, 06:01:16 PM »

Quote from: RT_Panther on February 24, 2012, 05:34:12 PM

Quote from: M5-User on February 24, 2012, 03:57:24 PM
Yup, there will plenty of Future Photographers who want to use a "Classic" or "Legacy" DSLR with similar aged glass. For the "LOOK" it produces

Actually....
I know quite a few folks who prefer the older CCD sensored bodies than the newer CMOS sensored bodies....

and I fight with them to the death. I agree that early cmos had more limitations and more noise, but it was a far more flexible (and still is) than the ccd, which had reached its peak. Circuitry layout alone changeable the performance of a cmos by a lot, while it affects ccds very little. Current cmos sensors, specially the ones we have rolling in now, are by far better than ccds. Heck, the sensor in the 5d2 resolves the same as 35mm film. And this years aps c might get there too (a minimum of 2800 lines)

RT_Panther · « **Reply #33 on:** February 24, 2012, 07:31:54 PM »

What if the photographer shoots in only in ISO 100-800 and does not shoot any video at all - would you tell the shooter that the CMOS sensor is preferred over the CCD ?

lisandra · « **Reply #34 on:** February 24, 2012, 09:08:38 PM »

right now? yes
right now the detail were seeing from cmos is deeper than the best ccd.

ralph · « **Reply #35 on:** February 25, 2012, 02:08:37 AM »

Sorry, have to disagree with you on that one - all medium format backs use CCD as far as I know (and Leica in their M9) and for a reason; CCD still gives better detail and dynamic range, CMOS gives better ISO performance.

RT_Panther · « **Reply #36 on:** February 25, 2012, 07:28:22 AM »

Ralph,
I think you've illustrated in your response why some photographers (avid strobists & shooters not concerned with high ISO performance) still continue to use & prefer CCD sensored cameras over CMOS sensored ones.

lisandra · « **Reply #37 on:** February 25, 2012, 08:18:37 AM »

Quote from: ralph on February 25, 2012, 02:08:37 AM

Sorry, have to disagree with you on that one - all medium format backs use CCD as far as I know (and Leica in their M9) and for a reason; CCD still gives better detail and dynamic range, CMOS gives better ISO performance.

They fact theyre using ccds doesnt mean theyre better, they use ccds cause manufacturing a medium format cmos is a a more difficult and expensive affair (its wasnt supposed to be), if they would do one now with current cmos tech it would far surpass the ccds medium formats available. If smaller current cmos are surpassing equivalent ccds in dynamic range and detail it should apply to medium format as well. The bigger more expensive gear is usually the last to catch up.
Heck, we got cameras in the 35mm and APS C treading in the low pixel medium format territory, cameras like the non aa filtered D800E and the sigma SD1, imagine if they made medium format versions of those...

tamoio · « **Reply #38 on:** February 25, 2012, 11:59:57 AM »

RT_Panther · « **Reply #39 on:** February 25, 2012, 04:02:56 PM »

One thing not mentioned is the R&D factor.
CMOS currently have much more time $$ from R&D than Foveon and CCD sensors. With Kodak's current situation & Sigma/Foveon not being known as "tops" in R&D, one can't dismiss this factor.

Once the demand for video occurred, CCD R&D basically died.

adash · « **Reply #40 on:** February 26, 2012, 02:00:27 AM »

Quote from: RT_Panther on February 25, 2012, 04:02:56 PM

One thing not mentioned is the R&D factor.
CMOS currently have much more time $$ from R&D than Foveon and CCD sensors. With Kodak's current situation & Sigma/Foveon not being known as "tops" in R&D, one can't dismiss this factor.

Once the demand for video occurred, CCD R&D basically died.

Which is odd, since ccd has a decades long history of use in videocameras.

voyager · « **Reply #41 on:** February 26, 2012, 03:07:44 PM »

I've always found CCD to produce better colors and a more realistic towards real life view reproduction in photos.

lisandra · « **Reply #42 on:** February 26, 2012, 10:23:05 PM »

Quote from: adash on February 26, 2012, 02:00:27 AM

Quote from: RT_Panther on February 25, 2012, 04:02:56 PM
One thing not mentioned is the R&D factor.
CMOS currently have much more time $$ from R&D than Foveon and CCD sensors. With Kodak's current situation & Sigma/Foveon not being known as "tops" in R&D, one can't dismiss this factor.

Once the demand for video occurred, CCD R&D basically died.
Which is odd, since ccd has a decades long history of use in videocameras.

The problem with CCDs was that nothing else could be squeezed out of them, they were at their peak when CMOS was born, which was relatively the other day. the potential of CMOSs is much much higher, and CCDs are more sensitive to temperature. Even medium format CCDs are noisy as hell

adash · « **Reply #43 on:** February 27, 2012, 12:59:25 AM »

Quote from: lisandra on February 26, 2012, 10:23:05 PM

Quote from: adash on February 26, 2012, 02:00:27 AM
Quote from: RT_Panther on February 25, 2012, 04:02:56 PM
One thing not mentioned is the R&D factor.
CMOS currently have much more time $$ from R&D than Foveon and CCD sensors. With Kodak's current situation & Sigma/Foveon not being known as "tops" in R&D, one can't dismiss this factor.

Once the demand for video occurred, CCD R&D basically died.

Which is odd, since ccd has a decades long history of use in videocameras.
The problem with CCDs was that nothing else could be squeezed out of them, they were at their peak when CMOS was born, which was relatively the other day. the potential of CMOSs is much much higher, and CCDs are more sensitive to temperature. Even medium format CCDs are noisy as hell

In a sensor (basically an area of photo diodes) noise comes from the reverse current of the substrate. It grows exponentially with temperature. Also, I don't know if that has been discussed before, but the Charge Transfer, essential for the CCD, may expose the charge to many more reverse-biased semiconductor joints than with CMOS:

In this animation the charge is shown being transferred between three cells, but in a 4000x3000 array, the charges will have to travel through 3000 cells and get additional noise (reverse currents) from each of them.

This is in contrast to CMOS, in which the voltage accumulated is buffered and directly passed to the external world:

The quality and size of the additional elements (the three transistors) were the weak point, but with lithography constantly improving, both the size and electrical characteristics were improved and may even be improved further.

rkarolak · « **Reply #44 on:** April 01, 2012, 06:00:33 PM »

In time they'll certainly rival DSLRs, but other than the Image Quality provided by larger sensors, most professionals and enthusiasts prefer having a TTL optical viewfinder rather than an LCD or EVF for various reasons. That's not to say that there aren't advantages to EVFs and LCDs, but you lose the OVF with mirrorless cameras.

Chips aside, entry level DSLRs still provide a better quality, in general, for the same or lower price. A D3100 has better IQ than an E-P3, and is more than $300 cheaper.

With that said, Mirrorless cameras are getting better. EVFs are getting better. Sensors are getting better (NEX cameras), EVFs are getting higher-resolution, batteries are getting better as well.

Mirrorless cameras make sacrifice to be smaller. In time as technology gets better, production increases, and prices drop, I can see them as yet another form of cameras available along side SLRs. It's hard to speculate whether they can fulfill every niche that the SLR can fill, although I feel the DSLR will survive, at least in the upper-tier of cameras. I find it hard to see photojs shooting sports or events with a mirrorless camera.

Overall I guess I agree with Centauri27. I see the mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras like tablets. In time it will work great for most things and most people, but like the desktops, servers, and gaming machines, there will always be a market for people who need the flexibility and utility that a DSLR provides. Perhaps another good metaphor is a car vs a truck.

Also, ideally, even if Mirrorless cameras supplant DSLRs, people who use "similar aged glass" as their DSLRs should be able to use their old glass on new Mirrorless cameras. That's the whole idea - invest in your glass and replace the body. I have a D700 that I use some lenses over 20 years old and they work great. No professional will buy all new lenses if they don't have to. If they did switch completely over to a Mirrorless camera, they'd probably go for one of the same brand that at least has an adapter. I use a Minolta MD/MC adapter on my E-P1 to use my old Minolta lenses, and they work great (although manual focusing is a bit of a pain at longer focal lengths).

This is of course, my opinion, from my experiences. Who knows, time will tell.

lisandra · « **Reply #45 on:** April 01, 2012, 06:03:29 PM »

Quote

A D3100 has better IQ than an E-P3, and is more than $300 cheaper.

based on what?

lisandra · « **Reply #46 on:** April 01, 2012, 06:08:08 PM »

Quote

In time they'll certainly rival DSLRs, but other than the Image Quality provided by larger sensors, most professionals and enthusiasts prefer having a TTL optical viewfinder rather than an LCD or EVF for various reasons. That's not to say that there aren't advantages to EVFs and LCDs, but you lose the OVF with mirrorless cameras.

I cant go back to OVFs, unless you have a 1d, ovfs are mostly dark, small tunnels that reflect reality, which ultimately doesnt make any sense at all. Especially entry level ovfs, I cant think of anything worse than a rebel's OVF. Its small, dark and doesnt cover the frame.

I think it comes down to acceptance. Just as digital replaced film, mirrorless will replace mirrors

Pete · « **Reply #47 on:** April 01, 2012, 07:10:47 PM »

I still don't see Mirror-less [replacing] DSLRs... yet... maybe in 10 years or so. The EVF has just turned the 1st Corner in replacing the OVF with the X100 advances. But, it a few more generations to go to mature in what will be available as far as Focusing Aids, Overlaid Info etc.
The X100 type OVF/EVF will be the [next] step with DSLRs IMO. Like a Hy-bread Cars that have an Electric/Gas Motor. And a few have 100% Electric Motors, but not for [long over the road] driving... yet.

Look how long it took Nikon and Canon to discontinue the TOP PRO film SLRs after digital was the main stream income for them.

The Canon EOS 1v/(HS) and Nikon F6 are still great SLRs. But no longer made. The demand is just too small, and the used market can now fill that demand easily.

5700 Post

Toyuko · « **Reply #48 on:** April 01, 2012, 08:12:59 PM »

I doubt it.

lisandra · « **Reply #49 on:** April 01, 2012, 08:20:31 PM »

if things keep moving at the same pace, i give it less than 6 years. Putting your eye to an A77 EVF is a revealing thing, pretty soon purist will find themselves asking "why am I still using an OVF?". The thing is most people that say no to the EVF havent put their eye to a decent one yet.

Author Topic: Will the mirrorless camera replace the DSLR? (Read 7886 times)

RT_Panther

RT_Panther

RT_Panther

RT_Panther

adash

adash

Related Topics

Find Something?

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery