p.2 #1 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
robbymack wrote:
The wave of the future is mirror less and pocketable. To deny that is silly. Any new shooter looking to upgrade from a p&s or smartphone will be hard pressed not to see the advantages of a nex, micro 4/3, over an entry level dslr. Form factor alone is a huge selling point. We've seen with the Sony rx1 that a ff mirror less for the (relative) masses is possible, I fully expect Sony ET al to release several ff mirror less models within the next 5 years some with interchangeable mounts. Heck maybe we'll finally get a standard mount across all lines. That will likely be the death rattle of the ancient single lens reflex design. ...Show more →
I would not assume necessarily that Sony continues the alpha-mount products indefinitely or even stays in the business. Nikon and Canon are more likely to persist long term in the DSLR market. They both successfully navigated the film to digital transition (the latter more successfully intially) and any further changes are minor compared to that. Whether it has an optical or electronic viewfinder or a hybrid will not change the essential nature of the FF/FX DSLR form factor.
p.2 #2 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
I think mirrorless will cannibalize the low-end DSLR market if it hasn't already. I don't believe the DSLR advantages (viewfinder, motion AF with stills) resonate with buyers upgrading from point-and-shoots. They want small, easy controls, lots of zoom, and easy video. No DSLRs really manage that, though Canon has made some strides forward with their touchscreen.
I shoot primarily landscapes and portraiture. On the landscape side, my 5D II and 16-35 have zero advantage over a number of mirrorless bodies for the overwhelming majority of shots. The only reason I haven't swapped to mirrorless is that I love full-frame subject isolation and low noise for portraiture. If I were on crop where those advantages were negated, I'd probably switch to mirrorless.
p.2 #3 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
I think of mirrorless cameras as an upgrade for my iPhone/P&S and they have little impact on my DSLR use. I own the E-P3 and GX1 and a mitt full of primes and, yes, they're great toys to carry around in my coat pocket or messenger bag. However when I travel or actually want to take photographs I reach for my 5D2 or 7D. IQ aside, the controls and VF of a DSLR are a lot better, easier and faster to work with compared to the silly small controls and smeary EVF of the ILC. I find it hard to believe these types of cameras will be a serious threat to prosumer and pro DSLRs simply due to their tiny size. I need a toothpick to poke buttons and no way I can balance a large optic on these things.
As for the great unwashed, they converted from P&S to iPhones/Droid long ago and most are never going back to dedicated cameras, DSLR or ILC.
p.2 #4 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
I am planning on picking up the first FF mirrorless that comes out and a leica 35 or 50 ASPH to use when traveling or on assignments that don't require fast focusing and vacations. For street and event photography where often times I find myself wanting to dissapear into a crowd with both a great FF sensor and excellent glass, this type of camera setup would be perfect. I think the other limiting factor that exists is the ability of these electronic viewfinders to work in incredibly low light situations (ISO6400/12800 f1.2 1/50 kind of business where all you have is a streetlight a block away for illumination). I can't imagine using a camera without a viewfinder - the whole arms length photography just doesn't appeal to me.
That said, I don't believe that mirrorless poses a major threat to SLRs in the near future - I have always thought of an EVIL as a complimentary system to my SLR in the same way that I would use my 1D3 for different situations than my 5D2. I am sure they will eventually compete, but we aren't anywhere near that point in my opinion.
p.2 #5 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
I suspect that mirrorless will erode the crop/Rebel DSLR market quite dramatically, leaving the full frame DSLR to become the modern equivalent of medium format film, that is to say serving the pro and very serious amateur markets - which of course are comparatively small. So I would expect less effort being spent on keeping all DSLRs cutting edge.
p.2 #6 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
David Baldwin wrote:
I suspect that mirrorless will erode the crop/Rebel DSLR market quite dramatically, leaving the full frame DSLR to become the modern equivalent of medium format film, that is to say serving the pro and very serious amateur markets - which of course are comparatively small. So I would expect less effort being spent on keeping all DSLRs cutting edge.
I would say that depends on their physical size.
The Panny G5 I tried wasn't much smaller than my Rebel with a kit lens and just as un-pocketable a shape.
If I'm going to have to use a bag or a strap, I might as well take a better camera.
p.2 #7 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
I'd love a quality mirrorless to upgrade to from my S-100. However, not to replace my DSLR.
The S100 (S95, S110) is a very pocketable camera with a fairly good sensor. The fact that it stores completely flat is a big plus for me. In essence, it is a mirrorless camera of sorts. After all, there is no mirror.
p.2 #8 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
From somebody coming in the other direction (i.e. a MILC user expanding into a FF dSLR system), and assuming that shooters will always find utility in viewfinders...
(Assuming MILCs develop on-chip PDAF to the point where the dedicated PDAF of dSLRs no longer exhibit a significant performance advantage for the average user... which I think is a reasonable assumption more likely to happen sooner than later...)
I think the answer is "possibly," when we're talking about the MILC (of any reasonable sensor size) versus the APS-C dSLR. It comes down to two things: the size advantage of dedicated lenses (APS-C or m43), esp. primes (I was a little surprised sometime ago when I found that there were few dedicated APS-C primes for dSLRs); and the non-crop viewfinder view that the EVF can offer.
OTOH, this is a "probably not," when we're talking about the MILC versus the FF dSLR for the flipside of the same reasons noted above. The EVF isn't perfect (yet), and its advantages (exposure preview, magnification-on-demand, effetcs) don't outweigh the current drawbacks (display-limited gamut/DR, refresh rate, power consumption) when we're talking the excellent optical view that can be had from a FF light circle.
However, I am expecting some version of a hybrid viewfinder to start showing up in FF dSLRs sometime soon.
p.2 #10 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
Gochugogi wrote:
As for the great unwashed, they converted from P&S to iPhones/Droid long ago and most are never going back to dedicated cameras, DSLR or ILC.
Exactly. People do not want to carry around multiple dedicated devices. They always carry a cell phone so that's the best place to put a camera. Mirrorless P+S's may gain some marketshare from the lower/mid end DSLR's but that's about it.
p.2 #11 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
ggreene wrote:
Exactly. People do not want to carry around multiple dedicated devices. They always carry a cell phone so that's the best place to put a camera. Mirrorless P+S's may gain some marketshare from the lower/mid end DSLR's but that's about it.
Mirrorless has already gained a significant share at the lower end. I can see the mirrorless cameras wiping out the rebel series leaving DSLR's only with the top end market. Problem for Canon and Nikon is their lower end cameras bring in the majority of their revenue.
p.2 #12 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
I agree they have a problem. I don't think mirrorless P+S's are it though. Maybe in the short term but in the longer term cell phone camera technology will drive it. As it gets better and better it will kill off P+S's along with the lower end DSLR's.
p.2 #14 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
Put this thread into a time capsule, bury it and revisit it again in just three-five years....let's see how the predictions pan out and how many here have jumped over by then.
p.2 #15 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
amacal1 wrote:
My $0.02:
The photographic SYSTEM is going to lead, much like it has in the last 30 years.
As others have pointed out, mirrorless is already taking over for the consumers/advanced-consumers. Professionals or advanced-amateurs won't be won over until an entire system is developed and COMMITTED to. The system includes cameras, lenses, flashes, and accessories. I'm not sure that any mirrorless lens offerings are targeted at professionals. Even if they did start to offer some, they would have to prove that they'll stay committed to their lineup.
Some have pointed to how Kodak misread the clues for digital taking over from film. Don't forget that part of the reason that digital was adopted by professionals so quickly was because Canon and Nikon offered camera bodies that fit right into the existing film SLR systems already in place. The controls were the same, the lenses were the same, and the system was essentially still the same. They just updated one little part. For the photographer, upgrading was not as painful as it could have been if they had started from scratch. I would bet that adoption would have been A LOT slower if they hadn't....Show more →
Agreed BUTTTTT, let's not forget to add the tiny fact that soon as the resolution became viable, the cost to shoot DROPPED (film vs digital) which IMO was the flood gates opening to the rapid demise of the film industry.
p.2 #16 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
PhotoMaximum wrote:
Are shooters that willing to give up on mirror based cameras in significant numbers that it will impact development of the current DSLR systems? R&D dollars always follows the market after all...
In the west it is not very much. In the rest of world it is significant.
Canon's earnest answer to mirrorless isn't its own EOS-M, but more cameras like the SL-1.
p.2 #17 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
I've picked up my 5D3 and L primes once this year, i have however used my Fuji X system every week if not 4/5 times a week. I find it delivers about 90% of what my Canon does yet comes in a much smaller and easier to use package that is more convenient, less obtrusive and also enjoyable!
p.2 #18 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
SKumar25 wrote:
My prediction:
Point and shoot market -> mostly wiped out by smart phones
Advanced point and shoot / low end dslr / mid level dslr -> mostly wiped out by mirror less
High end DSLR / pro DSLR -> Evolve mirrorless technologies over time
I agree.
In photography enthusiast forums you see increasing chatter from uses who enjoy mirrorless systems. I am quite struck by shooters who have a DSLR system who then buy a mirrorless thinking they will use both but then end up selling thier Canon and Nikon kit entirely for lack of use. Some of these folks are amateurs and some are serious demanding users.
For the manufacturers its not about what people own its about what they are buying. As noted in some regions like Japan mirrorless has or is becoming the market leader.
What might also be happening is the blurring of the differences between DSLR, rangefinder, compact, etc. The DSLR as we know it might soon be rid of the prism box and mirror system. The electronic view screen might be on the back of the camera and in the eye viewer port with on demand magnification and menu options. With no mirror you will see really high exposure rates. Some of the current mirrorless cameras already shoot at high rates already.
As noted on a different thread the advantage now goes to the current form factor DSLR if you are shooting an event or are more stationary. If you are traveling, doing reportage, and moving constantly with a bag of gear then these smaller systems have obvious appeal. These cameras have new sensors, processors, viewing system options and some combine classic Leica rangefinder coolness.
When I look at my 5D with battery grip and heavy 16-35 I sort of wonder if I am not looking at the current equivalent to what Speed Graphic users felt once 35mm came onto the scene...
p.2 #19 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
The SLR is a dead man walking. (This from a pro that has a pair of 1D series cameras and shoots them constantly.) The moveable mirror is, bluntly, a mechanical kluge that became a standard - much like the gasoline engine did. We are a bit away, but I have no doubt that full-frame mirror-less cameras with superb EVF or combo viewfinders will eat all the market in the next few years. The technology is not there yet, but the inherently simplicity of no moving parts will eventually win out. Sure there will always been some SLRs around. Hell, even Canon still lists its last film camera as "in production."
When will this happen? Shrug, my crystal ball is currently missing, but I think we are approaching the tipping point. I also suspect that the real break through camera won't come from Canikon. They're both in reactive/protect mode.
Pentax? Oly assuming they fix their corporate structure? It's entirely possible it will be someone from out of the field that approaches it as a digital issue and then team with a lens maker.
p.2 #20 · How much do the mirrorless systems threaten Canon and Nikon DSLRs?
I've invested and investigated a bit into M4/3 in the last year or so. Two of the inexpensive Oly bodies, three M4/3 zooms and a ton of adapters for various screw or 35mm manual focus lenses.
I've come to a couple conclusions:
I don't care for the small cameras with controls that are always being inadvertently toggled.
I don't care for the EVF (option) as clunky and dim.
I don't care for doing manual focus.
I really don't care for building a second costly set of lenses and gear.
The net result is the M4/3 collection is a dust collector. When I want a fast secondary camera, I reach for the old G10 to grab a quick shot.
The IQ and flexibility of the DSLR still can't be matched. I prefer the heft and size of a full frame body and lens -- I hold it much more steadily.
My preferred secondary camera will probably be the next version of the G1X or similar FF "mirrorless" with quality built-in "L" zoom lens.
To that degree, I agree that everything will eventually go "mirrorless", meaning doing away with the mirror box and pentaprism. But I don't consider the M4/3 or NEX as much more than toys due to their size, durability and system depth.
In the past couple years, partly thanks to my foray into mirrorless, I've boosted my commitment to Canon DSLRs and lenses, and lost more interest in Alt or manual focus as my results have significantly improved.
I've seen a lot of great photos in the Alt forum from the mirrorless systems, but they just aren't for me. Give me a super-high quality P&S plus a full size DSLR system, at least for the time being! YMMV!
(Wake me up when M4/3 comes out with an affordable equivalent for the 17 TS-E.)
