Is DSLR about to die off?

Terrywoodenpic said:
Battery life is a total red herring, and non issue. Most of us rarely if ever need to change a battery when out.
I always carried spare batteries with a SLR, and with a DSLR, so the situation has not changed for using a Mirrorless.
In the days of Film I also had to carry at least a pack of five films, which needed changing regularly.
These things are a routine part of photography, and while an Everlasting battery would be nice, it is also a pipe dream.

When ever I finish using a camera for the day, I remove the battery and put in a spare, then immediately put the removed one on charge. That way I always have fully charged and rotated batteries.
Click to expand...

OTOH I've happily managed for the last 3 years with a single battery for the D610, only taking a charger when away for more than a week and never having to worry about it running out of power. It's not everlasting, but it's a level of endurance I've come to enjoy and expect, and would like to continue enjoying - one of the improvements over the old days of film photography.
 
Not in the near future but it probably will eventually and the first replacements will end up being the lower tiered cameras like the 1300D, 750D, D7100 etc. However, the top tiers like the D5 and 1D etc won't be until they can get the same quality, speed an functionality in a mirrorless camera because why have less when you can have more?
 
ancient_mariner said:
OTOH I've happily managed for the last 3 years with a single battery for the D610, only taking a charger when away for more than a week and never having to worry about it running out of power. It's not everlasting, but it's a level of endurance I've come to enjoy and expect, and would like to continue enjoying - one of the improvements over the old days of film photography.
Click to expand...

And you could also do the same with an A99ii or any newer mirrorless, they are long past the 3-400 shot per charge, I just checked real world and people are saying they get 1200 shots with 15% remaining, and as said I get 1500 with life left from the A7iii. Cipa rating is nonsense, they rate the Canikon mirrorless low and people are seeing a lot more than the rated life.
 
YoshiK1 said:
Not in the near future but it probably will eventually and the first replacements will end up being the lower tiered cameras like the 1300D, 750D, D7100 etc. However, the top tiers like the D5 and 1D etc won't be until they can get the same quality, speed an functionality in a mirrorless camera because why have less when you can have more?
Click to expand...

A9, in some respects its much better and the A7iii / riii are also top performers.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
And you could also do the same with an A99ii or any newer mirrorless, they are long past the 3-400 shot per charge, I just checked real world and people are saying they get 1200 shots with 15% remaining, and as said I get 1500 with life left from the A7iii. Cipa rating is nonsense, they rate the Canikon mirrorless low and people are seeing a lot more than the rated life.
Click to expand...

That's useful, thanks.
 
soeren said:
Furthermore as long as what the photographer has got works and does what he/she needs why switch? maybe the A9 is actually better than the DSLR's now but how much? and does it matter? Any professional will only change tools if that change translates into value on the bottom line. If its just the same or the change provides more hassle than benefits there are no reason to do it.
Click to expand...

Good point, your DSLR doesn't suddenly become bad! It like when a new DSLR comes out - Unless you need to change, don't. Many people are shooting with D700 or D610 perfectly fine. Even my backup D300 will do a decent job in most situations. Actually, the only difference between that and my D750 is the obvious DX/FX, the better ISO of the D750 and the MP. From a users point of view they work the same day to day in terms of fps etc...

If I was to break my D750 then I would maybe consider switching but would take a hit on my glass - roughly my 24-70, 50mm, 20mm, 85mm and 70-200 would get around £1,800/£1,900, maybe £2k on a great day. From memory and buying Fuji refurb, 16-55, 50-140 and 35mm for the same. Maybe I wouldn't need the 50-140 and could get another prime and the 55-200 instead but would still miss the long end for aircraft (like a 150-600 or a 200-500). Big issue for me is that at times going wider than 16mm (on DX) is useful but no cheap option, and too much crossover on the 10-24 and 16-55. The lens lineup just isn't as flexible (or as affordable as DSLR).
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Battery life is a total red herring, and non issue. Most of us rarely if ever need to change a battery when out.
I always carried spare batteries with a SLR, and with a DSLR, so the situation has not changed for using a Mirrorless.
In the days of Film I also had to carry at least a pack of five films, which needed changing regularly.
These things are a routine part of photography, and while an Everlasting battery would be nice, it is also a pipe dream.

When ever I finish using a camera for the day, I remove the battery and put in a spare, then immediately put the removed one on charge. That way I always have fully charged and rotated batteries.
Click to expand...


This. I have twice as many batteries as I do bodies and rotate them round. I might go up to three batteries per mirrorless body - they’re not dreadfully expensive.

I use live view a lot on the DSLR to critically focus and I like the histogram live preview. Chews power but it’s my way.
 
cambsno said:
Good point, your DSLR doesn't suddenly become bad! It like when a new DSLR comes out - Unless you need to change, don't. Many people are shooting with D700 or D610 perfectly fine. Even my backup D300 will do a decent job in most situations. Actually, the only difference between that and my D750 is the obvious DX/FX, the better ISO of the D750 and the MP. From a users point of view they work the same day to day in terms of fps etc...

If I was to break my D750 then I would maybe consider switching but would take a hit on my glass - roughly my 24-70, 50mm, 20mm, 85mm and 70-200 would get around £1,800/£1,900, maybe £2k on a great day. From memory and buying Fuji refurb, 16-55, 50-140 and 35mm for the same. Maybe I wouldn't need the 50-140 and could get another prime and the 55-200 instead but would still miss the long end for aircraft (like a 150-600 or a 200-500). Big issue for me is that at times going wider than 16mm (on DX) is useful but no cheap option, and too much crossover on the 10-24 and 16-55. The lens lineup just isn't as flexible (or as affordable as DSLR).
Click to expand...

When to sell up and move over is good but different question. when people moved from film to Digital many people got it wrong, because they thought it would take far longer for the bottom to fall out of the film market. they thought that their top film cameras would go on indefinitely.

With the change to mirrorless it will be rather different, as Mirrorless is already superior in many ways, but DSLR's are not about to be obsolete not suddenly become bad cameras. nevertheless there will come a point where no one will be very interested in buying secondhand ones.
New updated models of DSLR's are already becoming rare events. this will inevitably have an effect on marketing and sales of new DSLR cameras, nearly all of which have started to fall.

What we will see on line and in the stores will be new mirrorless models. Nikon seems to have already gained ground with its first models, while Canon have fared rather worse. Though overall both still hold the lions share of the total digital camera market. And both have acknowledged that mirrorless is the way to go. and it is where they are spending their research and development dollars.

Market share might well be defined by which can offer the widest range of the new lens formulations first.
At the bottom end of the keen amateur market, there will be a plethora of second hand legacy lenses to use at comparatively low prices.
But those with deeper pockets and professionals, will buy the new high grade mirrorless lenses that they happen to need. if only because they are needed to obtain the maximum quality out of the new high pixel count sensors. Legacy lenses and many Dslr lenses are already at the point that they are unable to benefit fully from these maximum pixel counts.
 
cambsno said:
Good point, your DSLR doesn't suddenly become bad! It like when a new DSLR comes out - Unless you need to change, don't. Many people are shooting with D700 or D610 perfectly fine. Even my backup D300 will do a decent job in most situations. Actually, the only difference between that and my D750 is the obvious DX/FX, the better ISO of the D750 and the MP. From a users point of view they work the same day to day in terms of fps etc...

If I was to break my D750 then I would maybe consider switching but would take a hit on my glass - roughly my 24-70, 50mm, 20mm, 85mm and 70-200 would get around £1,800/£1,900, maybe £2k on a great day. From memory and buying Fuji refurb, 16-55, 50-140 and 35mm for the same. Maybe I wouldn't need the 50-140 and could get another prime and the 55-200 instead but would still miss the long end for aircraft (like a 150-600 or a 200-500). Big issue for me is that at times going wider than 16mm (on DX) is useful but no cheap option, and too much crossover on the 10-24 and 16-55. The lens lineup just isn't as flexible (or as affordable as DSLR).
Click to expand...


Good point, one everyone should remind themselves of now and then. There will forever be newer and better tech, but cameras from 6-7 years back don't suddenly self combust because of this. Most people viewing your images will never be concerned as to what type of camera or lens was used, how many bursts you took to get this one, whether you had to pull back exposure by 100 stops to make it usable or how much in debt you are because you can't stop buying what's 'hot'! End image presented is all that matters. There's plenty on this forum who continue to use their almost decade old dslr, you don't hear near as much from them, they come out of the shadows only rarely, because they don't want to get wrapped up in gear smack talk. Have to say, I really don't blame them.
 
Cagey75 said:
Good point, one everyone should remind themselves of now and then. There will forever be newer and better tech, but cameras from 6-7 years back don't suddenly self combust because of this. Most people viewing your images will never be concerned as to what type of camera or lens was used, how many bursts you took to get this one, whether you had to pull back exposure by 100 stops to make it usable or how much in debt you are because you can't stop buying what's 'hot'! End image presented is all that matters. There's plenty on this forum who continue to use their almost decade old dslr, you don't hear near as much from them, they come out of the shadows only rarely, because they don't want to get wrapped up in gear smack talk. Have to say, I really don't blame them.
Click to expand...

That said, I am now lusting over a new camera!!!!
 
cambsno said:
That said, I am now lusting over a new camera!!!!
Click to expand...

tbh, me too :D but I would never call myself a gear head, I like gear, but I like new old gear as much as new new gear :D it's not often I treat myself but I feel like I deserve something new [at least to me] this year
 
Mirrorless sales increased 2% whilst the DSLR decreased 12% in 2018. The trend is obviously moving towards mirrorless, but when the DSLR is still outselling mirrorless cameras, DSLRs are not going to disappear too quickly if they are selling. ;) The split is still about 60-40 towards for the DSLR according to the site Photo Rumors in an article a few days ago. Btw, the whole camera market has dropped 84% between 2010 - 2018. :oops: :$ :eek:

With Canon and Nikon both entering the FF mirrorless market in 2018, that will have had a big effect on the speed of the shift to mirrorless, at least last year, and the four major camera releases of the year so far, Canon EOS RP, Fuji X-T30 and Panasonic S1/S1R have been mirrorless. Not many rumours of new DSLR's that I have seen though, so the next 18 months may see the fall off of DSLRs for all but the mid to high end, especially after the next Olympics, unless the manufacturers show otherwise, but there will probably always be a demand for them, as there is now. But will the manufacturers make them, only they know their plans. :thinking:

Don't forget, that any camera of the last few years can do what most people want for the foreseeable future, which is part of the reason for huge drop in camera sales, as well as the major reason of the smartphone camera of course. Most people are not chasing the next newest thing as a lot do on here. ;)
 
Everybody knows I'm not a mirrorless fan but I think we will struggle to see any major manufacturer producing a DSLR within 5 years.

The tech in mirrorless is so good now and within a couple of years will have surpassed DSLR (debatable whether it has already) and that won't even be an argument.

I don't think the discussion is anything like film vs digital; film renders differently and this will always be an attraction for some.

Mirrorless and DSLR do not have that difference.

Mirrorless is 'simpler' to produce with much less moving mechanical parts; I can only assume it is cheaper for the manufacturers as well?

Why wouldn't they want to maximise profit?

Having a mirror flapping about is never good - hence why Rollei stuck with the TLR.

For me? I'm a nostalgic old fool and never buy (read can afford) the latest tech and there is just nothing as sexy as a pro bodied SLR/DSLR; young ones & Pro togs won't suffer from this.

Far more sexy than any valentines date watching this mechanical wonder:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6aUCoTmRDg


My advice; sell all your Pro bodied DSLR's so I can grab a bargain!
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Have you tried the gen 3 Sony's and A9?
Click to expand...

Yes (A7 + A7R Mk3) but I haven't tried the A9 however it is pointless until they make longer lenses and, perhaps, higher voltage + larger capacity batteries. Also I hated the ergonomics and interface, hated the controls on the EOS R too! For my needs/uses they still lag in these areas and still use EVF viewfinders.

As I said they are great for some but not me - yet............
 
simonbarker said:
Not what I shoot so haven't really tried but in those conditions shouldn't you just disable the live view effect?

True but then you are just using an EVF viewfinder - same problem but it does allow me to hold the camera + lens setup. Trying to control an 800mm lens whilst using live view is highly amusing but not very practical;)

I'm expecting Canon to buck this trend, a mirrorless system doesn't dictate a specific size body but manufacturer's have chosen smaller bodies as it's what they believe their customers wanted.
Click to expand...

Well the EOS R certainly won't for me. Don't get me wrong I thought it was a very nice camera for others but I found the controls to be hopeless/confusing and the batteries are WAY too small. I already have a 7D2 that uses these LP-E6n packs and they are totally inadequate on a DSLR let alone a Mirrorless! Note once I set up I turn my camera on, I turn it off when I go home. The delay for a sleeping camera to wake up is far more than enough time to loose shots on wildlife.
 
It will be interesting to see whether mirrorless takes over the apsc market. Mirrorless is almost made for cheap cameras. It cuts out all the precision fitting of mechanical/optical elements and replaces them with consumer electronics. These can be mass produced cheaply. Cut the sensor size down to apsc and the cost of the sensor and glass drop a lot.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Everybody knows I'm not a mirrorless fan but I think we will struggle to see any major manufacturer producing a DSLR within 5 years.
Click to expand...

I think the big boys will still turn out the odd DSLR, especially entry level, however my feeling is that we've kind of reached the pinnacle of what these things can offer and new bodies are only an incremental upgrade of the previous version and as such probably not enough to tempt a lot of users to upgrade. Obviously mirrorless gives them new opportunities to offer something different which is why I think they will push this more. Of course there are inherent advantages of mirrorless too, but I can't help but think it's more to do with offering something new with more room to 'upgrade' in the future as the tech advances.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I think the bog boys will still turn out the odd DSLR, especially entry level, however my feeling is that we've kind of reached the pinnacle of what these things can offer and new bodies are only an incremental upgrade of the previous version and as such probably not enough to tempt a lot of users to upgrade. Obviously mirrorless gives them new opportunities to offer something different which is why I think they will push this more. Of course there are inherent advantages of mirrorless too, but I can't help but think it's more to do with offering something new with more room to 'upgrade' in the future as the tech advances.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure why a camera manufacturer would produce a 'low end' DSLR though?

For a beginner the WYSIWYG with mirrorless is a big advantage for a beginner and IF the cost of mirrorless is cheaper to produce (EVF's will come down in price as volume increases) then where is the sense to produce a DSLR? The camera manufacturers will also want to 'standardise' a sensor range for their cameras and I believe mirorless and DSLR use different sensors because mirrorless has the focusing on the sensor (Only minor differences but still differences which drive up production costs.)

DSLR's will be around for some time - I have no intention of upgrading mine; but I don't think they will be available as new products from the camera manufacturers for much longer?
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
I'm not sure why a camera manufacturer would produce a 'low end' DSLR though?

For a beginner the WYSIWYG with mirrorless is a big advantage for a beginer and IF the cost of mirrorless is cheaper to produce (EVF's will come down in price as volume increases) then where is the sense to produce a DSLR?

DSLR's will be around for some time - I have no intention of upgrading mine; but I don't think they will be available as new products from the camera manufacturers for much longer?
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people don't know what they're buying in the budget market and just automatically assume DSLR is best and that's what they want. Until camera education improves I still think budget DSLRs will sell well (y)
 
SFTPhotography said:
I think in Nikon land there will be at least one or maybe two DSLRs after the D850.
Click to expand...
I agree, although it's hard to see how they'd top the D850 tbh. Maybe 9fps without battery grip and better noise handling, other than that I struggle to see where it can be improved :eek:
 
jonneymendoza said:
Umm mirrorless has taken over dslr in every way.
Click to expand...
Whilst they undoubtedly have some advantages they also have some weaknesses. I’m surprised at the existence of this thread ‘now’. The Sony A7iii was released ages ago and we didn’t get such threads then. Neither Nikon and especially not Canons offerings improved on the Sony so why such statements now and not a year ago?
 
Brazo said:
Whilst they undoubtedly have some advantages they also have some weaknesses. I’m surprised at the existence of this thread ‘now’. The Sony A7iii was released ages ago and we didn’t get such threads then. Neither Nikon and especially not Canons offerings improved on the Sony so why such statements now and not a year ago?
Click to expand...
I agree, people get blind sighted by numbers and technology and forget about real world use sometimes. There's no doubt that some of the tech in mirrorless is better, I've still not found one that has as good button placement and layout as my Nikon D850, and that includes the new Nikon Z's. For example, having an AF button that I can press and then alter mode, number of points etc with the turn of a dial is invaluable to me at times, so much faster and easier than the menu derived way that mirrorless tend to offer. Having a truly real time image in the VF can be of an advantage at times. Having a deeper grip an heavier body can be advantageous when using heavy teles.

I'm a fan of both systems, but to say that mirrorless beats DSLR in every way is wrong imo.
 
snerkler said:
I agree, people get blind sighted by numbers and technology and forget about real world use sometimes. There's no doubt that some of the tech in mirrorless is better, I've still not found one that has as good button placement and layout as my Nikon D850, and that includes the new Nikon Z's. For example, having an AF button that I can press and then alter mode, number of points etc with the turn of a dial is invaluable to me at times, so much faster and easier than the menu derived way that mirrorless tend to offer. Having a truly real time image in the VF can be of an advantage at times. Having a deeper grip an heavier body can be advantageous when using heavy teles.

I'm a fan of both systems, but to say that mirrorless beats DSLR in every way is wrong imo.
Click to expand...
It's not blind numbers. It's people here that have had real world experience on both and I don't mean just using a mirrorless camera for the weekend but owning it and using it for pro work and hardly anyone here has reverted back to a dslr.

Have u yourself owned a mirrorless and used it for pro work?
 
Brazo said:
Whilst they undoubtedly have some advantages they also have some weaknesses. I’m surprised at the existence of this thread ‘now’. The Sony A7iii was released ages ago and we didn’t get such threads then. Neither Nikon and especially not Canons offerings improved on the Sony so why such statements now and not a year ago?
Click to expand...

Ah, it's because Sony and Panasonic and Olympus don't count. They're electronic companies and they should concentrate on making TV's, DVD players and microscopes. It's only now that the camera companies have got involved that mirrorless has become a credible choice for Men.



PS.
:D
 
Brazo said:
Whilst they undoubtedly have some advantages they also have some weaknesses. I’m surprised at the existence of this thread ‘now’. The Sony A7iii was released ages ago and we didn’t get such threads then. Neither Nikon and especially not Canons offerings improved on the Sony so why such statements now and not a year ago?
Click to expand...

Put the food down and watch the sheep come flocking to it! ;) If you've improved the quality and features of DSLRs about as far as you can reasonably go (including handleable image file size for the average home computer) to the extent that sales start to dwindle as people don't need to upgrade their kit as often, then why not develop a new device and let the people convince themselves that they need to change? After all, once we didn't need to upgrade our desktop and laptop computers every 12 or 18 months to keep pace with improvements, we got fed the PDA, pad, tablet, phablet, etc. Is this due entirely to technological advances, or is there an element of replacement market creation?
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I agree, people get blind sighted by numbers and technology and forget about real world use sometimes. There's no doubt that some of the tech in mirrorless is better, I've still not found one that has as good button placement and layout as my Nikon D850, and that includes the new Nikon Z's. For example, having an AF button that I can press and then alter mode, number of points etc with the turn of a dial is invaluable to me at times, so much faster and easier than the menu derived way that mirrorless tend to offer. Having a truly real time image in the VF can be of an advantage at times. Having a deeper grip an heavier body can be advantageous when using heavy teles.

I'm a fan of both systems, but to say that mirrorless beats DSLR in every way is wrong imo.
Click to expand...


There are small and large Dslr And Mirrorless cameras. The size of the body is largely a marketing choice.
Viewfinders, Buttons, dials and other controls can be put virtually anywhere on a mirrorless body,
so there is no reason for the ergonomics to be less effective than on a Dslr.
Such things tend to be placed according to mechanical restrictions on Dslr's. this has resulted in an almost universal layout on such cameras. we find them comfortable largely because we are familiar with them.
There is, as yet, no such universal positioning on a mirrorless camera, so we all face a learning curve every time we get a new one. Undoubtedly this will settle down in years to come, as peoples preferences become ingrained into a new tradition.
From my own point of view there is a body size below which I prefer not to go, and a size and weight above which I find inconvenient to carry.
It is almost certain that a smart phone has replaced the pocket camera in most peoples lives.
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
It's not blind numbers. It's people here that have had real world experience on both and I don't mean just using a mirrorless camera for the weekend but owning it and using it for pro work and hardly anyone here has reverted back to a dslr.
Click to expand...
I think you need to go back and re-read my post properly ;)
Have u yourself owned a mirrorless and used it for pro work?
Click to expand...
Photography is not my profession so that would be a no ;) Does that mean I'm not able to comment on gear? :p
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Put the food down and watch the sheep come flocking to it! ;) If you've improved the quality and features of DSLRs about as far as you can reasonably go (including handleable image file size for the average home computer) to the extent that sales start to dwindle as people don't need to upgrade their kit as often, then why not develop a new device and let the people convince themselves that they need to change? After all, once we didn't need to upgrade our desktop and laptop computers every 12 or 18 moths to keep pace with improvements, we got fed the PDA, pad, tablet, phablet, etc. Is this due entirely to technological advances, or is there an element of replacement market creation?
Click to expand...

Yawn...

But waking up from this cynical it's all marketing stupor for a moment and smelling the coffee one could possibly accept that mirrorless moves the game forward in several areas. For example... No faff on with MA, in view histograms, in view this that and the other, being able to see the exposure. DoF and all that WYSIWYG stuff, no more chimping and reshooting, the magnified view and being able to see things that aren't visible though an optical system, the fancy face and eye detect things that are for many genuine game changers, the list goes on. And from the manufacturers point of view mirrorless can be cheaper to make with no flippy flappie mirror assembly and alignment, no fiddly pentaprism or focus screen, possibly reduced warranty claims... It's very possibly a win win scenario. People using the kit get kit rich with features that can genuinely help and the manufacturers get to drop some of the stuff that makes the kit both potentially more expensive and problematic.

What's not to like? It's the future I tell you :D
 
Insults aside, the reason for this thread IS the existance of serious mirrorless cameras from Nikon and Canon - they are perceived as being THE camera makers, and as long as they did not go down this route no-one would have considerd the likelihood of DSLRs disappearing.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Insults aside, the reason for this thread IS the existance of serious mirrorless cameras from Nikon and Canon - they are perceived as being THE camera makers, and as long as they did not go down this route no-one would have considerd the likelihood of DSLRs disappearing.
Click to expand...

They won't. The D850, D5 etc will be replaced with better DSLRS. The mirroless will account for a small fraction of sales compared to the DSLRS and will do for quite some time.
 
woof woof said:
Yawn...

But waking up from this cynical it's all marketing stupor for a moment and smelling the coffee one could possibly accept that mirrorless moves the game forward in several areas. For example... No faff on with MA, in view histograms, in view this that and the other, being able to see the exposure. DoF and all that WYSIWYG stuff, no more chimping and reshooting, the magnified view and being able to see things that aren't visible though an optical system, the fancy face and eye detect things that are for many genuine game changers, the list goes on. And from the manufacturers point of view mirrorless can be cheaper to make with no flippy flappie mirror assembly and alignment, no fiddly pentaprism or focus screen, possibly reduced warranty claims... It's very possibly a win win scenario. People using the kit get kit rich with features that can genuinely help and the manufacturers get to drop some of the stuff that makes the kit both potentially more expensive and problematic.

What's not to like? It's the future I tell you :D
Click to expand...

DSLR's are at the peak of their development. While Mirrorless are moving on from that point, with an embarrassment of new development opportunities ahead of them. Most of which we can not yet even imagine.
The mirror box has been an impediment to progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top