Is DSLR about to die off?

It is fun watching DSLR users and Mirrorless fans fighting about which format will reign supreme. Don't you guys realize the real winner is... the smartphone.
They sell like hot cakes while the sale of all types of dedicated cameras dwindle year after year after year because people are giving up their DSLR's and mirrorless cameras for the ease and convenience of the smartphone.
 
Last edited:
It is fun watching DSLR users and Mirrorless fans fighting about which format will reign supreme. Don't you guys realize the real winner is... the smartphone.
They sell like hot cakes while the sale of all types of dedicated cameras dwindle year after year after year because people are giving up their DSLR's and mirrorless cameras for the ease and convenience of the smartphone.

I don't know of anyone who has sold up their DSLR is favour of a smartphone.
Yes the camera tech in phones is improving but they will never be as good as a dedicated camera.
The trend in wildife photography seems to be growing and I just can't imagine someone with the latest smartphone using a 100-400 lens on it. :D
 
I think that a DSLR with a EVF built into the prism/mirror mechanism would be a winner. Want to use it like mirrorless then put the mirror up. The latest nikons can shoot in mirrorless off liveview. Want to review your dslr pictures while keeping your eye in the viewfinder then either don't drop the mirror or put it up. Stick one of those flippy touchscreens on the back to while they are at it to. A camera that will do everything!
 
I've just been looking through lenses for Sony FE mirrorless, and they follow the modern trend of making the lens larger than they used to be 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm etc. Many of those lenses in Nikon D-AF form were quite small and light. Yes, image definition & resolution have increased, sometimes alongwith aperture (which brings it's own penalty) but generally the lenses are big compared a couple of generations back.

I'd agree that lenses for M43 are a lot smaller for the consumer grade, although even then the 'pro' lenses don't seem all that small.

Olympus PRO m4/3 lenses are usually slightly smaller and lighter than the equivalent FOV consumer grade DSLR lens that is at least 1 stop slower. For instance my Olympus 40-150 f.2.8 PRO is slightly smaller than the Canon EF 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM II, but the Oly build quality is a lot better, it has internal focus, and it is weatherproofed. When you load up a camera bag with a full system, the difference in overall weight and bulk is very noticeable.
 
Some dslr have turned it around and bridged the gap even tighter, Canon's later dslr are not missing much from their ML counterparts. The 6DII and 80D both have flip-out touch screens and comparable AF systems to the R or M series. I think the problem the 6DII had was how tight the AF points were clustered and also I believe it suffered from not so great DR when pushed, otherwise it's not lacking anything the new RP has to offer really. If dslr are to continue to compete, they need these features - Vary angle touch screens, excellent face/eye detect and tracking, DR to match anything the ML systems can muster and IMO, some form of IBIS implementation. Sony were able to manage this a decade ago, I don't understand what prevents manufacturers adding it in now?
 
I find it hard to understand why an amateur needs a full frame sensor, as at the sizes most of us might print at results can be look good from an APS sensor.
For viewing on a computer screen, even that is overkill.

I find there can be a depth and quality to FF images that's lacking in APS-C and moreso M43 and compact pictures. Snerkler put 2 near identical images up in a thread, one taken on M43 and one on FX, and to me the different was quite notable. Not everyone sees the same, and to him the pictures were little different.

Need? I could probably turn out tolerable images for some kinds of shots with the camera in my phone, but that's not the point, is it? But I do occasionally print to 30"x20" so the extra resolution may not be completely wasted. :)
 
It is fun watching DSLR users and Mirrorless fans fighting about which format will reign supreme. Don't you guys realize the real winner is... the smartphone.
They sell like hot cakes while the sale of all types of dedicated cameras dwindle year after year after year because people are giving up their DSLR's and mirrorless cameras for the ease and convenience of the smartphone.

fighting|? lol, you must be a very sensitive individual. It's simple discussion/debate. We all have smartphones, but more serious shooters don't like using them for extended periods. They're uncomfortable ergonomically to use, and even the higher end models cannot compete with the lowest end dslr for IQ, they are nowhere near that point yet. Sure, in great lighting they can produce acceptable quality, but try pushing those images in PP, see how well that goes. Try shooting in dim lighting, when you have to shove the sensor above ISO 400 and watch it all turn to mud. Even at ISO 400 most of them are terrible

Olympus PRO m4/3 lenses are usually slightly smaller and lighter than the equivalent FOV consumer grade DSLR lens that is at least 1 stop slower. For instance my Olympus 40-150 f.2.8 PRO is slightly smaller than the Canon EF 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM II, but the Oly build quality is a lot better, it has internal focus, and it is weatherproofed. When you load up a camera bag with a full system, the difference in overall weight and bulk is very noticeable.

Likewise with the Olympus 12-40 2.8 pro, the lens I use 99% of the time atm. It is such a joy to use in comparison to the likes of a Nikon 24-70 2.8 - it's every bit as sharp, has great contrast, clarity and also close focusing capabilities and has a better MF design than most other brands. It's amazing what they managed to squeeze into such a small lens, it is 1/3rd the size and weight of any FF equivalent.
 
Last edited:
I think that a DSLR with a EVF built into the prism/mirror mechanism would be a winner. Want to use it like mirrorless then put the mirror up. The latest nikons can shoot in mirrorless off liveview. Want to review your dslr pictures while keeping your eye in the viewfinder then either don't drop the mirror or put it up. Stick one of those flippy touchscreens on the back to while they are at it to. A camera that will do everything!

Sony SLT cameras, now effectively killed off. :( They had a semi-silvered mirror that you shot through, allowing continuous focussing because the only moving part was the shutter and the focussing sensors worked off the stationary mirror. If I could find a Sony A99 ii in excellent nick for about £1200 then I'd seriously consider ditching Nikon.
 
Personally it will be a long time before I move from dSLR to mirrorless - the lens are not available yet, I want a selection of long primes (300, 400, 500mm etc) and a selection of macro lens (minimum of 100 and 200mm). At present I am ridiculously happy with my D500, D810 combination and there is nothing on the market that would tempt me (except maybe a D5 after a windfall). I would rather the camera companies were a little more radical - my wish list would be something like this:

  • A hybrid camera with an optical finder but with a complete digital overlay for histogram, focus aids etc. This type of camera could also have on sensor auto focus to remove the micro-adjust issue.
  • User removable IR filter, want full-spectrum no problem.
  • Global shutter for video - having used a proper HS camera this is the future.
  • Proper full integration of wifi - not the crap bolt on Nikon supplies.
  • RAW histagram
  • In camera fast USB recharging
  • USB-C
I can't see it and really what we have is great but it is sad that there is so little real variation in the market and 3,4,5 companies are just marking each other - the whole market feels right for disruption.
 
Olympus PRO m4/3 lenses are usually slightly smaller and lighter than the equivalent FOV consumer grade DSLR lens that is at least 1 stop slower. For instance my Olympus 40-150 f.2.8 PRO is slightly smaller than the Canon EF 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM II, but the Oly build quality is a lot better, it has internal focus, and it is weatherproofed. When you load up a camera bag with a full system, the difference in overall weight and bulk is very noticeable.

Example: Oly 12-40 f2.8 pro vs Tamron 24-70 f2.8: http://j.mp/2X4BuAt The Oly is a little smaller, but only a little bit. I know the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is a complete behemoth, but that's outrageously large for what it does. I suspect if we choose our comparison lenses carefully we can both 'prove' our points.
 
I don't know of anyone who has sold up their DSLR is favour of a smartphone.
Yes the camera tech in phones is improving but they will never be as good as a dedicated camera.

True for the most part but there's probably fewer people using a DSLR because of smartphones.
 
True for the most part but there's probably fewer people using a DSLR because of smartphones.

I think perhaps it's a generation thing.
I don't know any younger people with a decent setup at home for music.
The trends seems to be low bitrate mp3's bought from the likes of Apple then played via a smartphone.
Everyone I know who has got back into vinyl are the ones who remember what a turn table was as a kid.
There will be generations who have never owned a film camera and yet back in the day even auntie Dora had a point and shoot camera.
It does make we wonder at times if companies are aiming there products at younger generations.
 
I don't know any younger people with a decent setup at home for music.

Our son is 31 and uses a decent Yamaha amp & some quality speakers, but you may have been thinking younger than that. Otherwise yes, your analogy holds. I'm sure a lot of consumer stuff is aimed at the younger generation because if they're single they will often have more disposable income (or will borrow money for stuff) and don't already have an earlier version of the item/don't have the experience to tell a pig in a poke.
 
I think perhaps it's a generation thing.
I don't know any younger people with a decent setup at home for music.
The trends seems to be low bitrate mp3's bought from the likes of Apple then played via a smartphone.
Everyone I know who has got back into vinyl are the ones who remember what a turn table was as a kid.
There will be generations who have never owned a film camera and yet back in the day even auntie Dora had a point and shoot camera.
It does make we wonder at times if companies are aiming there products at younger generations.

So very true, we bought our eldest [15] a decent 'hi-fi' - it had modern features like usb port and blue-tooth, where is it now> In her wardrobe! She much prefers just to use her ipad for music, young 'uns today don't seem to really care about audio quality. I also bought both of them compact cameras, but again, they'd rather use their phone/pad - at the same time, they do comment on the quality of my images and I'm still the one lured in to take photos with my gear when it's a special occasion or more memorable shot.

On the film front, hipster kids are starting to use film again, but where we see it as nostalgic they see it as 'they used to use this centuries ago, legit ancient sh*t!' :ROFLMAO:

Our son is 31 and uses a decent Yamaha amp & some quality speakers, but you may have been thinking younger than that. Otherwise yes, your analogy holds. I'm sure a lot of consumer stuff is aimed at the younger generation because if they're single they will often have more disposable income (or will borrow money for stuff) and don't already have an earlier version of the item/don't have the experience to tell a pig in a poke.

He's in the cut off area, he's old enough to remember good quality yet young enough to know the what's what of modern tech, he's between generations kind of
 
Last edited:
Example: Oly 12-40 f2.8 pro vs Tamron 24-70 f2.8: http://j.mp/2X4BuAt The Oly is a little smaller, but only a little bit. I know the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is a complete behemoth, but that's outrageously large for what it does. I suspect if we choose our comparison lenses carefully we can both 'prove' our points.

The Tamron is not very big for an f/2.8 full frame lens but it's 900 grams as compared to 382 grams for the Olympus. I guess the point I was trying to make was that a full Olympus PRO setup is comparable to an entry-level DSLR setup in terms of size and weight, so you get the best that Olympus has to offer for the size and weight of a Canon entry-level DSLR with a number of consumer lenses. There is a trade-off in terms of very high ISO performance, but for me that's definitely worth it.

When I got into m4/3 I thought I would use it for travel only but I've ended up using it 95% of the time.
 
Darn, that's a heavy lens for what it is. TBH I've been a bit horrified at the size and weight of current lenses - was looking at the Nikon 24-120, but the darn thing weighs as much as the camera body it's mounted to. None of my lenses have VR, and they're almost all quite light.

Nuts - I'd like ART lenses, but they weigh silly amounts too.
 
The Tamron is not very big for an f/2.8 full frame lens but it's 900 grams as compared to 382 grams for the Olympus. I guess the point I was trying to make was that a full Olympus PRO setup is comparable to an entry-level DSLR setup in terms of size and weight, so you get the best that Olympus has to offer for the size and weight of a Canon entry-level DSLR with a number of consumer lenses. There is a trade-off in terms of very high ISO performance, but for me that's definitely worth it.

When I got into m4/3 I thought I would use it for travel only but I've ended up using it 95% of the time.

The ISO performance is the only thing, for me at least, that separates it from APSC. I still prefer it over that in every other way. And it stands up pretty well even on that score when pitted against most APSC dslr, I almost switched to an 80D mid last year, but after checking comparisons there was nothing in it IQ-wise, even in low light, so I ditched that idea.
 
He's in the cut off area, he's old enough to remember good quality yet young enough to know the what's what of modern tech, he's between generations kind of


:plus1:
 
I'm curious to know if anyone is using the likes of a Canon 100-400 or Tamron / Sigma 150-600 on a lighter body mirroless body?
Not one of those but I've used a manual 600mm on MFT (both a G5 & a GF2) definitely needed the monopod to hold it steady unless I had the focal reducer fitted.
 
It is fun watching DSLR users and Mirrorless fans fighting about which format will reign supreme. Don't you guys realize the real winner is... the smartphone.
They sell like hot cakes while the sale of all types of dedicated cameras dwindle year after year after year because people are giving up their DSLR's and mirrorless cameras for the ease and convenience of the smartphone.
good luck using your smartphone for pro sports wildlife , weddings , events, portait hehe
 
good luck using your smartphone for pro sports wildlife , weddings , events, portait hehe

Isn't that rather missing the point?

You don't need to convince the people here, you need to convince the people happily using their smartphones that they need something else.
 
Olympus PRO m4/3 lenses are usually slightly smaller and lighter than the equivalent FOV consumer grade DSLR lens that is at least 1 stop slower. For instance my Olympus 40-150 f.2.8 PRO is slightly smaller than the Canon EF 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM II, but the Oly build quality is a lot better, it has internal focus, and it is weatherproofed. When you load up a camera bag with a full system, the difference in overall weight and bulk is very noticeable.
I've only been using my EM1-II and Panny 100-400mm for a few days now but it's a total godsend compared to the D850 with Tamron 150-600mm attached. I actually want to go out and take pics rather than finding it a chore :)
I find there can be a depth and quality to FF images that's lacking in APS-C and moreso M43 and compact pictures. Snerkler put 2 near identical images up in a thread, one taken on M43 and one on FX, and to me the different was quite notable. Not everyone sees the same, and to him the pictures were little different.
And that pretty much sums it up, as enthusiasts it's what we find acceptable. I was actually surprised that you saw such a difference, but it just goes to show how we all see things differently. It's like the whole Leica look, some see it some don't. For those that don't they don't get why someone would spend £20k on a camera and lens for that Leica look.

Going back to those sample images for a second, I ran a blind vote on another forum and 70% thought the m4/3 photo was the FF one. On here it was more 60/40 IIRC. I do find that FF sometimes has more of a 3D look, but the more I've looked into it I think it's more down to a combination of lens and micro contrast. If you think about it, if you took a shot with FF and cropped it down does it lose the 3D look?

I don't think I'll ever get rid of my FF though, there's no doubt that it's better some of the time, but for me usability is more important for me now. If I have to scrutinise to see the difference in format then that says it all. For me it is not the IQ of my photos that holds me back, it's that my photos for the most part are very generic and boring. I'm trying to break that, but am struggling.

Example: Oly 12-40 f2.8 pro vs Tamron 24-70 f2.8: http://j.mp/2X4BuAt The Oly is a little smaller, but only a little bit. I know the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is a complete behemoth, but that's outrageously large for what it does. I suspect if we choose our comparison lenses carefully we can both 'prove' our points.
It only looks slightly different from the 'aerial' view, but but the two side by side and there's more of a difference. Also look at the weight, 382g vs 900g.
 
If you think about it, if you took a shot with FF and cropped it down does it lose the 3D look?

Yes. Not something I've done a lot, but I've noticed very heavily cropped images (<1/2 the frame area) have a distinctly flatter appearance. I don't know if it's down to sensor size or the number of pixels (both most likely) but I'm aware that many who bought 36/42MPx sensor cameras talked about the amazing image quality those sensors brought. I know that there's a flatness I can see when processing images from a 20MPx APS-C sensor using decent lenses (it makes me over-cook everything in post to compensate) and 16MPx images from M43.
 
Yes. Not something I've done a lot, but I've noticed very heavily cropped images (<1/2 the frame area) have a distinctly flatter appearance. I don't know if it's down to sensor size or the number of pixels (both most likely) but I'm aware that many who bought 36/42MPx sensor cameras talked about the amazing image quality those sensors brought. I know that there's a flatness I can see when processing images from a 20MPx APS-C sensor using decent lenses (it makes me over-cook everything in post to compensate) and 16MPx images from M43.
Hmmm, interesting. There is no question the D850 files I get are a bit special, BUT I only tend to view on a laptop and as such the resolution is somewhat wasted. The main reason for the D850 purchase was to allow heavy cropping for wildlife (y)
 
TBH I have a QHD screen on this laptop and EVERY image that's properly in focus & exposed looks great. Pop them on a 24" screen and weaker images fall to bits.
 
TBH I have a QHD screen on this laptop and EVERY image that's properly in focus & exposed looks great. Pop them on a 24" screen and weaker images fall to bits.
Up until recently I had the iMac 27" 5k and m4/3 still looked good to me. However, the iMac 5k screen is 14.7mp so if you start to crop the 16mp m4/3 files they could deteriorate quickly. 4K screens are 'only' 8MP so you have a bit more leeway. My 15" MBP has the retina screen, but that's still only 1.7mp so plenty of room for cropping before lack of detail becomes an issue ;)
 
Bollards! ;)

Do you not watch the news on TV... how many press photographers do you see with a mirrorless camera? Do you not watch sport on TV.... how many sports photographers do you see with a mirrorless camera? Taken over DSLR in every way? Far from it yet.


Sorry to trot in late any pick up on an early reply, but...

Badger, you are talking through your hoop mate. I know a large number of press photographers who have transitioned to mirrorless.
The sports guys are going to Sony (whose long lenses look remarkably like Canon ones) whilst the news mob are split between Sony and Fuji.

Ridiculing someone about a subject that you clearly know nothing about is never a great idea.
 
Up until recently I had the iMac 27" 5k and m4/3 still looked good to me. However, the iMac 5k screen is 14.7mp so if you start to crop the 16mp m4/3 files they could deteriorate quickly. 4K screens are 'only' 8MP so you have a bit more leeway. My 15" MBP has the retina screen, but that's still only 1.7mp so plenty of room for cropping before lack of detail becomes an issue ;)

This one is 5.8mp (3200*1800). I think high pixel density flatters images.
 
Sorry to trot in late any pick up on an early reply, but...

Badger, you are talking through your hoop mate. I know a large number of press photographers who have transitioned to mirrorless.
The sports guys are going to Sony (whose long lenses look remarkably like Canon ones) whilst the news mob are split between Sony and Fuji.

Ridiculing someone about a subject that you clearly know nothing about is never a great idea.

I wasn't ridiculing anyone, I was expressing what I believed to be a factual statement, and one that several other people appeared to agree with.

It's interesting to read what you say though, as I seem to recall that you have previously said that you had something to do with press photography. So, would you say that most (ie the majority) of top-echelon (reportage and sport) press photographers have already switched to mirrorless cameras and use them as their main camera instead of a DSLR?
 
Last edited:
It's also worth noting that the average camera buyer doesn't frequent equipment threads on a photography forum.

The posters here are in a very small minority.
yet canikon are starting to invest in ff mirrorless.

Its not a myth or hearsay that the trend is shifting to mirrorless.

People outside these "forums" are jumping on mirrorless
 
yet canikon are starting to invest in ff mirrorless.

Its not a myth or hearsay that the trend is shifting to mirrorless.

People outside these "forums" are jumping on mirrorless
Is that fact? I’m pretty sure DSLRs are still outselling mirrorless even if the DSLR market is declining.

Also, not that this matters on iota, but due to this thread I actually scrutinised all the photographers at the live sports I’ve been watching this weekend, I didn’t spot one mirrorless camera.

So here’s what I believe are the facts. The DSLR market is declining and the mirrorless market is growing, BUT the DSLR market is still larger. For how much longer is anybody’s guess (y)
 
I wasn't ridiculing anyone, I was expressing what I believed to be a factual statement, and one that several other people appeared to agree with.

It's interesting to read what you say though, as I seem to recall that you have previously said that you had something to do with press photography. So, would you say that most (ie the majority) of top-echelon (reportage and sport) press photographers have already switched to mirrorless cameras and use them as their main camera instead of a DSLR?

Most? No. Some yes.

Two of the best sports photographers in this country switched to Sony last year. The news boys have been on Fuji for quite some time.

However I'd still say that the market is heavily biased towards DSlrs.

Personally I prefer them as I'm not an EVF fan, no matter that they've massively improved in the last couple of years.

But in the long run, like the demise of the petrol engine taken over by electric, I think that the march of mirrorless systems is inevitable.
 
When it comes down to who owns what, it will be a long time before Mirrorless overtakes DSLR's.
however what manufacturers look at are Trends.
And the trend in serious cameras shows a marked move toward mirrorless.
This is where manufacturers are spending their research and development money.
It is also what "People" are talking about. (even here)
There are two important and major trends, one is toward phone cameras and the other toward interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras.
No one is now interested in developing the stuff in the middle.
 
Is that fact? I’m pretty sure DSLRs are still outselling mirrorless even if the DSLR market is declining.

Also, not that this matters on iota, but due to this thread I actually scrutinised all the photographers at the live sports I’ve been watching this weekend, I didn’t spot one mirrorless camera.

So here’s what I believe are the facts. The DSLR market is declining and the mirrorless market is growing, BUT the DSLR market is still larger. For how much longer is anybody’s guess (y)
But that's exactly what I have stated and is the heading of the topic. Ie is dslr declining/dying?

It is!
 
A9, in some respects its much better and the A7iii / riii are also top performers.

I don't disagree. I think the Sony cameras are game changers but everyone is using Canon glass on them which in comparison to using them on a Canon are much slower and have other issues from what I gather. My point was more that mirrorless aren't replacing DSLRs in their entirety at present. The question was about them being killed off which they currently aren't.
 
I don't disagree. I think the Sony cameras are game changers but everyone is using Canon glass on them which in comparison to using them on a Canon are much slower and have other issues from what I gather. My point was more that mirrorless aren't replacing DSLRs in their entirety at present. The question was about them being killed off which they currently aren't.

What gave you that idea?

Yeah that may have been quite common for those that switched from Canon to Sony initially but I don't think that is the case any more. Most seem to replace their adapted Canon glass with native e-mount quite quickly as budget allows.

I only switched to Sony a few months back and all my lenses are all native e-mount.

Sony 24mm f/1.4 G.M
Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4
Sony 55mm f/1.8
Sony 85mm f/1.4 G.M
Sony 90mm f/2.8
Sony 16-35mm f/4
Sony 70-200mm f/4

All of the above lenses are steller, the 24mm G.M is the best 24mm lens I have ever used. The Sigma 35mm Art is much better on native e-mount than the Nikon mount version I had previously and the 85mm f/1.4 G.M is an amazing lens. The 90mm macro is far and away the best macro lens I have ever used even though it's only 90mm.

The current range of e-mount lenses is pretty fantastic only lacking affordable options (for most) at the long end but if rumours are true there will be an "affordable" Tamron 150-500mm f/5.6 lens soon coming soon.

For those on a tight budget there is the likes of the Samyang 24mm f/2.8, Samyang 35mm f/2.8 and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 which all get great reviews are all relatively inexpensive and are native e-mount. The Sony 85mm f/1.8 is also excellent.
 
Last edited:
But that's exactly what I have stated and is the heading of the topic. Ie is dslr declining/dying?

It is!
Yep it's definitely declining. I doubt it will die off for quite some time yet though (y)
 
Back
Top