Why hasn't mirroless taken over?

[Faldrax]

...

Really, it's like cars and getting from A-B and comparing a model T Ford to a modern car. ...

I think a more accurate comparison would be between a Ford Modeo (petrol) and a Tesla

Both will do the job perfectly well for most people - but some still need / want the option to drive hundreds of miles, refuel in minutes, and drive hundreds more, while others marvel at the acceleration, low emissions, etc. of the Tesla and are happy to sit for an hour having a coffee while on a fast charger before continuing their (occasional) long journey.

 

[woof woof]

I think a more accurate comparison would be between a Ford Modeo (petrol) and a Tesla

Both will do the job perfectly well for most people - but some still need / want the option to drive hundreds of miles, refuel in minutes, and drive hundreds more, while others marvel at the acceleration, low emissions, etc. of the Tesla and are happy to sit for an hour having a coffee while on a fast charger before continuing their (occasional) long journey.

I can see your point but from me it's a not quite as although small mirrorless batteries give you less ckicking time these things have improved a bit with newer cameras and ones with larger batteries.

Looking at your analogy, back when I had film compacts, RF's and SLR's I hardly knew what batteries were they lasted so long so who'd choose a DSLR or mirrorless over that? My point being if clicks or distance travelled is your only criteria who'd choose a DSLR? You wouldn't or at least most wouldn't. You'd choose something with no batteries or with ones you hardly need to change and you'd then spend more than the length of time you'd spend swapping batteries out changing film

I'm sure we can find situations and uses in which RF's are "better" than SLR's and ditto SLR v DSLR and DSLR v mirrorless but these times will very likely be niche and few and far between and mostly it's the newer tech that brings more and easier and consistent options to users and as some of us are ocd suffering mega geeks who can't stop pixel peeping at 100% and expecting to see an acceptably sharp thing for those of us that fit that description at least to some degree the tech that gives us the results we want on more occasions and more easily and consistently is going to be attractive.

All imo of course

 

[TimHughes]

I can see your point but from me it's a not quite as although small mirrorless batteries give you less ckicking time these things have improved a bit with newer cameras and ones with larger batteries.

Looking at your analogy, back when I had film compacts, RF's and SLR's I hardly knew what batteries were they lasted so long so who'd choose a DSLR or mirrorless over that? My point being if clicks or distance travelled is your only criteria who'd choose a DSLR? You wouldn't or at least most wouldn't. You'd choose something with no batteries or with ones you hardly need to change and you'd then spend more than the length of time you'd spend swapping batteries out changing film

I'm sure we can find situations and uses in which RF's are "better" than SLR's and ditto SLR v DSLR and DSLR v mirrorless but these times will very likely be niche and few and far between and mostly it's the newer tech that brings more and easier and consistent options to users and as some of us are ocd suffering mega geeks who can't stop pixel peeping at 100% and expecting to see an acceptably sharp thing for those of us that fit that description at least to some degree the tech that gives us the results we want on more occasions and more easily and consistently is going to be attractive.

All imo of course

It's more like mondeo / tesla as there are many situations when the driving experience is the same. e.g. for landscape, I don't need the AF tracking improvements that mirrorless brings so canon 5DM4 vs R5 is pretty much the same.

 

[woof woof]

It's more like mondeo / tesla as there are many situations when the driving experience is the same. e.g. for landscape, I don't need the AF tracking improvements that mirrorless brings so canon 5DM4 vs R5 is pretty much the same.

Yup and I'm glad that works for you.

Like you I don't use many of the features that mirrorless brings but I do appreciate the MA free pretty much reliable and hassle free experience and knowing that if I buy a new camera my lenses will work just the same. Big plus points for me are WYSIWYG and face/eye detect. Oh, and as I like using old film era lenses and new manual lenses I love the fact that you can mount just about anything ever made and use the magnified view to focus very very accurately, if you have time.

We can all use what we want but I think it's worthwhile at least acknowledging the moves forward and I do think that mirrorless is a move forward from DSLR's. Those that want to use all the features and abilities can do so and those of us who want to cherry pick can and those of us who want to use DSLR's will be able to do so for many years to come.

 

[Faldrax]

I can see your point but from me it's a not quite as although small mirrorless batteries give you less ckicking time these things have improved a bit with newer cameras and ones with larger batteries.

Looking at your analogy, back when I had film compacts, RF's and SLR's I hardly knew what batteries were they lasted so long so who'd choose a DSLR or mirrorless over that? My point being if clicks or distance travelled is your only criteria who'd choose a DSLR? You wouldn't or at least most wouldn't. You'd choose something with no batteries or with ones you hardly need to change and you'd then spend more than the length of time you'd spend swapping batteries out changing film

I'm sure we can find situations and uses in which RF's are "better" than SLR's and ditto SLR v DSLR and DSLR v mirrorless but these times will very likely be niche and few and far between and mostly it's the newer tech that brings more and easier and consistent options to users and as some of us are ocd suffering mega geeks who can't stop pixel peeping at 100% and expecting to see an acceptably sharp thing for those of us that fit that description at least to some degree the tech that gives us the results we want on more occasions and more easily and consistently is going to be attractive.

All imo of course

The comparison of Petrol to Electric was not intended to be a reference to battery life of cameras - just an analogy where two variant technologies both had advantages and disadvantages, where both were fully capable of fulfilling the primary function, but one was set to supersede the other.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

what you are suggesting is that the mirrorless cameras broaden the scope and possibilities and quality available to photographers.
Which I am sure is true.

The act of taking a technical excellent photograph has never been easier.
And for the public at large, probably only exceeded by a phone for its simplicity.

For stills that is quite marginal improvement (on the aggregate). I hope we can all agree with that. In some cases (EVF, body size) they are still clearly well backwards.

To give another extreme example which you may understand. Take a 1950's Leica rangefinder and compare it to a Sony A1.

Cool. Why don't we instead compare 1Dx to R3 or 7D to a6400? These are very suggestive examples of yours, that read almost like from certain advertorials where one needs to create a black vs white story, when in fact we are looking at close shades of grey.

I'm just a happy snapper and nothing more. Well maybe a little more as actually I'm a happily married happy snapper and I can wave a mirrorless camera at Mrs WW (camera not even to my eye but I can see the back screen and use that for composition,) whilst she's cooking or watering the plants and get a nice in focus picture with a wide aperture lens in which her face is wherever I want it in the frame and the point of focus and that one shot would be possible with what other sort of camera? None that I can think of.

You see I have absolutely no idea why you would ever want to do that, or how you would publish and monetise such content.
My work simply does not involve making life as hard as possible to my camera and relying on luck to get a nice over-all composition and the rest.

no posing necessary

nowhere was this an intended feature of mirrorless to eliminate the need for posing. I'd rather stick to posed shots where possible and appropriate regardless of gear.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

The comparison of Petrol to Electric was not intended to be a reference to battery life of cameras - just an analogy where two variant technologies both had advantages and disadvantages, where both were fully capable of fulfilling the primary function, but one was set to supersede the other.

The most obvious paralell here would be cost. You could buy a few years old diesel or petrol budget estate or salloon and run it for decade before you get to anywhere near the cost of Tesla, which do not appear to depreciate much. Well maybe then buy one new if you can afford to do it outright.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Big plus points for me are WYSIWYG

But is it really? Life is not HD pixelated view (almost none are full HD yet!), and DR of these displays, as well as the level of image processing for VF is several orders of magnitude below what your eyes and brain do. So You see white blob through the window, or you see very dark interior. I.e. I can't bloody do my job any more. You probably could force everything to S or C-log3 which would make it closer, but result in lower DR scenes just looking oh so wrong.

Oh, and as I like using old film era lenses and new manual lenses I love the fact that you can mount just about anything ever made and use the magnified view to focus very very accurately, if you have time.

And right there we throw away that magic fast and accurate eye AF for a bit of nostalgic-like experience, and modern-coated sharp glass for an old manual soft and hazy adapted obsolete lens.

 

[boer13]

I do agree when looking at the big whites the RF equivalent lenses are just silly prices compared to EF.

I just had a look at the prices. Better get my lenses serviced over the next few years..

I agree about the EF lenses, this is my strategy too. However I have made the jump to canon mirrorless as the features, especially vastly superior AF tracking, bring major benefits to what I do. So far, no need for RF lenses. I'm very glad Canon supported its base with the transition to mirrorless in this way. I guess I'm in the green category of "early majority".

Agreed - could have been much worse.

I have mixed feelings about statements like this as I want to say it's true but in reality it just often isn't

I am no golfer. It doesnt matter how expensive the driver is that you push into my hands, I'll miss that little ball 9 times in 10, because the equipment doesnt make you a golfer.

A few years ago I walked through the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition in the Natural History Museum. I spend plenty time looking at every picture, and, out of interest, the technical details incl. camera & lens & exposure info. After some time I pointed out to the Mrs just how many truly stunning shots have been delivered using rather basic equipment - lenses I'd never consider for my own collection. Exceptional & provocative images requires the coming together of much much more than a camera and lens. Patience, skill, hard work, luck. Light from the right angle. You don't get any of these in the new camera's box.

I don't deny the benefits of tech advances, but it's most definitely not the most important element in creating exceptional images. Which, I trust, is the main objective of our fraternity.. else what are we doing here?

 

[Faldrax]

...almost none are full HD yet!...

Canon R5 and Sony A1 both exceed HD resolution, Sony A7iv is approximately HD but in a 4:3 aspect ration (1600x1200),

If there's sufficient light to see clearly, a top end OVF is still a superior view of the scene - BUT then an EVF offers other advantages which the OVF cannot - it will show you BEFORE you take the shot if you have accidentally over or under exposed, it can show areas in focus, it can show a magnified view of a portion of the image for accurate manual focusing.

 

[Tysonator]

I just had a look at the prices. Better get my lenses serviced over the next few years..


Agreed - could have been much worse.


I am no golfer. It doesnt matter how expensive the driver is that you push into my hands, I'll miss that little ball 9 times in 10, because the equipment doesnt make you a golfer.

A few years ago I walked through the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition in the Natural History Museum. I spend plenty time looking at every picture, and, out of interest, the technical details incl. camera & lens & exposure info. After some time I pointed out to the Mrs just how many truly stunning shots have been delivered using rather basic equipment - lenses I'd never consider for my own collection. Exceptional & provocative images requires the coming together of much much more than a camera and lens. Patience, skill, hard work, luck. Light from the right angle. You don't get any of these in the new camera's box.

I don't deny the benefits of tech advances, but it's most definitely not the most important element in creating exceptional images. Which, I trust, is the main objective of our fraternity.. else what are we doing here?

Very true, I own a eos 7Dii for sports & wildlife and a recent purchase a Sony A6600 for holiday / travel initially, and more impotently for that magical eye detect AF !
I love my 7Dii to bits and I have, IMO produced some good images and I am now using the A6600 more for wildlife because of the eye AF

have a look here

Check out tysonator's profile

View this amazing photo collection, get inspired and unleash your creativity!

www.viewbug.com

I use basic kit and one can still get very good images from such kit, however you do need to try harder and the keeper rate of shots is 40-60% apx
The A6600 keeper rate is 90-95% apx and it rarely misses focus and the reason I came 90-95% is because changing settings is cumbersome, and I miss shots were my 7Dii is a breeze.

We should all learn to use our kit harder and mirrorless ( ML ) does offer some mazing advantages over dslr's, however do we really need it ! ! ! ?
What I would ask is does ML camera make you a better photographer, image creator, artist,.....or do you make a better photographer, image creator, artist ! ?

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

One big advantage — not to photographers but to the general public — is that it will eventually get rid of the noisy clackity-clack that interrupts news conferences.

But an advantage when Boris is speaking lol

 

[Phil V]

We should all learn to use our kit harder and mirrorless ( ML ) does offer some mazing advantages over dslr's, however do we really need it ! ! ! ?
What I would ask is does ML camera make you a better photographer, image creator, artist,.....or do you make a better photographer, image creator, artist ! ?

This is the crux and yet the answer is so simple.

Cameras don’t take pictures, photographers do.

The camera is the tool we use to do so, and sometimes a tool has features that make the process easier, and sometimes they are a hindrance.

As a young wedding photographer in the 80’s shooting med format, my ‘keeper rate’ was close to 100%, but in order to make that work, I pretty much had to work round the limitations of the gear, shooting static photos. The truth is; The shot was the shot, hopefully there was no unfortunate micro expression.

With autofocus and digital, the game changed, the keeper rate became unimportant because I would shoot for contingency, every shot became ‘pick one from these 3, or 5. And slight focus errors meant the reality was I almost always got the shot. - the truth is that the chosen image wasn’t necessarily the best expression but the best expression I had in focus. Caveat - I never had a world leading AF dslr.

If I was shooting weddings today, there’d be virtually no mis-focussed shots, the R5 or 6 just simply nail the focus.

 

[A_S]

of sales... not usage.... I'll leave it here

I’d agree. Actually I don’t think either are the best way to understand these things but for sure usage data is better than sales because usage trends - and what the wider market is doing - go a long way to determining your future strategy. It’s the useage data that provides insights and as long as the sample is representative of the wider population - and I’d suggest Flickr is going to be the most accurate in that regard then this is a great starting point to gain insights that sales won’t give you.

To speak professionally - The best way - and the data will be out there - just not available to me or you - is commercial market trend information used by all big corporations to define their strategy. What it does is take data from all leading market players - throughout the supply chain, annonamises it and aggregates it and then sells it/provides it back to the companies. A good proxy would be the Flickr user data - A very smart proxy in my opinion mr hughes!

To suggest sales data is the be all and end all is rather naive and one dimensional.

For example in working in commercial finance supporting a sales team for a top 3 Brewer in the uk - not small fry - I know our core standard larger makes up 60% of our volume and has done consistently for the past X number of years. However since lockdown it’s in decline (reasons are irrelevant to this point - around buying a more expensive product in the super market vs on trade)

This is because there has been a trend towards premium brands for a few years now. As we didn’t have any of these in our product portfolio and sales of our core product were consistent by looking at sales data we wouldn’t know this.

if we had ‘just’ looked at sales data in 2019 and prior then we would have made the presumption that we were not exposed to any major risks and we would have missed all the opportunities in the growing market segments where our product portfolio is light….. this is the point sales data tells you nothing until it’s too late, gone, missed the boat market trends and usage data are much better indicators. As it happens we already had empirical evidence of this by using that pool of data from our customers and competitors and had plans in place to plug the hole before it happened. Sales ain’t gonna tell you any of that.

Another example is - how many people do you know that bought an entry level slr from 2009-2012ish (again before anyone holds me at gun point to an internet audit it’s a gut feel time period) and then those cameras just stayed in the box while they very quickly reverted to their phone cameras? those sales were completely unrepresentative of where the market was going or what consumers would be doing the real insightful data was the growth of smartphones.[/B]

 

[Nod]

as long as the sample is representative of the wider population - and I’d suggest Flickr is going to be the most accurate in that regard

Is it? While Flickr might be (or may have been) the platform of choice for enthusiast photographers, we're a minority of camera users. To get a better sample of "the wider population", I'd suggest a look at all the display platforms, from FB/Instagram etc. up to Flickr/500px etc. to get a proper cross section of all photographs' origins.

 

[sphexx]

In all my past working life as a professional I never shot anything like 1000 shots in a day.. I doubt I ever took more than a third of that. Most of my time on a shoot was taken up looking moving and preparing. Who would even want to sort through a thousand images. And post process them.

I guess times are changing. I remembered your post when I read this:

A Campaign Done for A Leading Maker of Diagnostic Instruments.

A good, old fashioned, daylong photo shoot. I hired the assistant and the make up artist while the client team worked with several talent ...

visualsciencelab.blogspot.com

When we finished with the shoot I made a web gallery with about 1200 images in it and the client narrowed down their take to about 50 images. I color corrected and retouched each of them and then made selections with masks on new layers for final delivery. We worked with big files because it's easier to do the post accurately; especially when your intention is to drop out the backgrounds and put the people on a constructed graphic background. The images were used on the web but also in very large prints as trade show graphics.

(my bold)

He doesn’t say how many shots he took but probably well over 1200. He’s been going a long time and certainly used to use 6x6 roll film in the past when 1200 would have been absolutely impossible.

I guess it’s an extension of Parkinson’s Law that “work expands to fill the time allotted” as in “number of exposures made expands to match the capability of the the camera”.

 

[Pound Coin]

It is what Phil V says, “shoot for contingency”. In film days I’d know which were the great shots*, and twirl the film in the developer, hoping I was right. Now, I get shots before I know I have a great shot, and after. Just to make sure.

*usually only one frame, no sequence.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I'd suggest a look at all the display platforms, from FB/Instagram etc. up to Flickr/500px etc. to get a proper cross section of all photographs' origins.

I agree.

I'd suggest that the only way to know what's really happening would be to look at the metadata of a wide variety of images on as many platforms as possible. However, that assumes the metadata hasn't been stripped during the upload.

 

[Brazo]

Well to answer the OP’s question it has taken over or perhaps ‘is’ taking over.

Whilst I still favour my DSLR and there is currently no reason to swap a D850 as it will give me very little. If however all of all my kit was stolen tomorrow I’d be a fool not to replace it with ML.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Well to answer the OP’s question it has taken over or perhaps ‘is’ taking over.

Whilst I still favour my DSLR and there is currently no reason to swap a D850 as it will give me very little. If however all of all my kit was stolen tomorrow I’d be a fool not to replace it with ML.

Dunno - you can still buy D850's and F mount lenses, new and used so I reckon whilst the writing is on the wall - you can still buy what you'd rather have.

 

[Sky]

If however all of all my kit was stolen tomorrow I’d be a fool not to replace it with ML.

I must be a fool then 'cos I wouldn't . . .

 

[AdamSi]

It will be many years before the majority of people see mirrorless as the only real option/preference. You only have to look on this forum to see even film still has a following and that have been gone from mainstream for many years! But still has a following

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It will be many years before the majority of people see mirrorless as the only real option/preference. You only have to look on this forum to see even film still has a following and that have been gone from mainstream for many years! But still has a following

As far as new DSLRs are concerned. I would suggest that in five years there will be few if any still made.
Good second hand options will still be available for a further ten years. But after that repairs and maintenance for them will be virtually non existent, Just as today it is getting extremely difficult to find expert repairers for film cameras.

 

[Phil V]

I’d agree. Actually I don’t think either are the best way to understand these things but for sure usage data is better than sales because usage trends - and what the wider market is doing - go a long way to determining your future strategy. It’s the useage data that provides insights and as long as the sample is representative of the wider population - and I’d suggest Flickr is going to be the most accurate in that regard then this is a great starting point to gain insights that sales won’t give you.

To speak professionally - The best way - and the data will be out there - just not available to me or you - is commercial market trend information used by all big corporations to define their strategy. What it does is take data from all leading market players - throughout the supply chain, annonamises it and aggregates it and then sells it/provides it back to the companies. A good proxy would be the Flickr user data - A very smart proxy in my opinion mr hughes!

To suggest sales data is the be all and end all is rather naive and one dimensional.

For example in working in commercial finance supporting a sales team for a top 3 Brewer in the uk - not small fry - I know our core standard larger makes up 60% of our volume and has done consistently for the past X number of years. However since lockdown it’s in decline (reasons are irrelevant to this point - around buying a more expensive product in the super market vs on trade)

This is because there has been a trend towards premium brands for a few years now. As we didn’t have any of these in our product portfolio and sales of our core product were consistent by looking at sales data we wouldn’t know this.

if we had ‘just’ looked at sales data in 2019 and prior then we would have made the presumption that we were not exposed to any major risks and we would have missed all the opportunities in the growing market segments where our product portfolio is light….. this is the point sales data tells you nothing until it’s too late, gone, missed the boat market trends and usage data are much better indicators. As it happens we already had empirical evidence of this by using that pool of data from our customers and competitors and had plans in place to plug the hole before it happened. Sales ain’t gonna tell you any of that.

Another example is - how many people do you know that bought an entry level slr from 2009-2012ish (again before anyone holds me at gun point to an internet audit it’s a gut feel time period) and then those cameras just stayed in the box while they very quickly reverted to their phone cameras? those sales were completely unrepresentative of where the market was going or what consumers would be doing the real insightful data was the growth of smartphones.[/B]

There’s a lot to unpack here.

But there’s some fundamental errors at the outset.

The first rule of any research is ‘what’s the question’. The biggest mistake made is jumping in without asking that question.

Whilst the question in the OP appears simple (the one in the title), the question asked, is a different question altogether, and puts a spin on the question. (Why are people on this site still recommending DSLRs), that’s more to do with the audience than the market.

You’re suggesting that a huge database of historic images might be a good source of data to show the direction of a market? Well it would be if you were genuinely interrogating that data. ie what proportion of images uploaded 2015 were mirrorless; then for each year since, that analysis, broken down by brand would show the trend. But a simple proportion of ‘all’ images is good for nothing.

And contrary to your sales story*, camera sales data is actually a great indicator of market trends.

I remember being quite annoyed (and somewhat wrong) a few years ago when Sony overtook Canon sales. At that time (and beyond) anyone watching the 2 market leaders sales figures would have been convinced mirrorless cameras weren’t a serious market threat. But here we are now and Canon have publicly announced the death of the DSLR in their future plans.

Yes; many photographers will still be looking to buy a cheap DSLR; but mirrorless sales are already double DSLR sales, how long before they’re 4x, then 10x then DSLRs will disappear as a new product in the same way film SLRs did. Not with a bang but a whimper.

*btw I’m a beer drinker, not an expert, and I could have given more insight than your sales figures many years ago. Real ale, then craft beers have been the big story in brewing for over ten years. I’m not at all surprised that a bad industrial brewer couldn’t see that coming, all the good ones did.

 

[Phil V]

…You only have to look on this forum to see even film still has a following and that have been gone from mainstream for many years! But still has a following

You only need to attend a classic car show to see that people don’t really need ‘new’ cars.

You can’t judge a multi billion $ industry by focussing on the outliers.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I think the most important point is that dSLRs and mirrorless interchangeable cameras together represent a tiny part of the world market for general purpose cameras.

Camera phones and to a lesser extent compact cameras are a much bigger sector and I'll go out on a limb and speculate that many more interesting and useful pictures are taken on those.

 

[Brazo]

I must be a fool then 'cos I wouldn't . . .

I didn’t say Sky would be a fool though did I? You may have different requirements but for me I definitely would be!

 

[Brazo]

Dunno - you can still buy D850's and F mount lenses, new and used so I reckon whilst the writing is on the wall - you can still buy what you'd rather have.

I do have a habit of buying into dead end systems. I started with Sony Mirrorless which was awful at the time 2010. I went to Sony A Mount which was much better but went the way of the dodo so I swapped to Nikon DSLR and it can’t be denied as you say the writing is on the wall…

 

[woof woof]

I do have a habit of buying into dead end systems. I started with Sony Mirrorless which was awful at the time 2010. I went to Sony A Mount which was much better but went the way of the dodo so I swapped to Nikon DSLR and it can’t be denied as you say the writing is on the wall…

But there'll still be enough out there to keep even the most hard core in gear for years. So there's that

 

[SFTPhotography]

I do have a habit of buying into dead end systems. I started with Sony Mirrorless which was awful at the time 2010. I went to Sony A Mount which was much better but went the way of the dodo so I swapped to Nikon DSLR and it can’t be denied as you say the writing is on the wall…

I bought a 645z - that really is dead end but also amazing.

F mount lenses - the newer G ones anyway can be adapted fine to Z cameras. They're not dead end. You can adapt them to Sony E, Nikon Z and Fuji GF.

If you prefer using a DSLR - just buy one now - you can always buy a mirrorless later - but you can get more time in now with a modern DSLR before moving over. Plus the more of us that buy DSLR's - the more the makers will see we like them and want them.

 

[delb0y]

Just looking at a few prices - D850 still £1700 or more, sometimes a lot more. That suggests to me that there's still a great demand for that camera, and I must admit I'd be tempted if it came down by another grand. This might happen in say, five year's time, so there will still be a very good market for very good DSLRs then, I suspect. That said, is anybody actually paying these prices for an 830 now?

 

[Brazo]

I bought a 645z - that really is dead end but also amazing.

F mount lenses - the newer G ones anyway can be adapted fine to Z cameras. They're not dead end. You can adapt them to Sony E, Nikon Z and Fuji GF.

If you prefer using a DSLR - just buy one now - you can always buy a mirrorless later - but you can get more time in now with a modern DSLR before moving over. Plus the more of us that buy DSLR's - the more the makers will see we like them and want them.

I did the whole adapted lens thing a long time ago and it’s ‘quirky’, I wouldn’t play around again. My D850 will in theory last me for many years to come and I genuinely have no interest to change but if my hand was forced then for me at least it’s a no brainer to go mirrorless and ironically back to Sony!

 

[Plain Nev]

And right there we throw away that magic fast and accurate eye AF for a bit of nostalgic-like experience, and modern-coated sharp glass for an old manual soft and hazy adapted obsolete lens.

It's at this point that I begin to doubt some people really get it. Anyone who knows anything about old lenses knows that they punch well above their weight on a modern, mirrorless system. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between that and a modern lens in most cases. Plus which some of those soft and hazy, obsolete lenses have taken some of the greatest pictures of all time. And why are they great, because they capture the mood and atmosphere of the moment. No amount of pixels and sharpness will improve on that.

 

[LCPete]

It's at this point that I begin to doubt some people really get it. Anyone who knows anything about old lenses knows that they punch well above their weight on a modern, mirrorless system. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between that and a modern lens in most cases. Plus which some of those soft and hazy, obsolete lenses have taken some of the greatest pictures of all time. And why are they great, because they capture the mood and atmosphere of the moment. No amount of pixels and sharpness will improve on that.

To be honest I think I’m in that category of not getting it about using old lenses, to me a camera system is a tool
For wildlife and nature the hardest thing is being in the right place at the right time, the camera gear is just the last part of it and modern gear makes it easier
But that’s just me and photography means different things for different people
I still have my old film camera and lenses and do get the nostalgia but for actually taking photos I use my new gear

 

[rob-nikon]

It’s pretty obvious compact cameras are consigned to history as well as DSLRs/mirrorless ILC‘s for majority of the general public. The general public wont ever change away from smart phones as the photos they take are of good enough quality for them and easily shared via social media/instant messaging. It also means they always have a very small sized camera that’s likely always on them. That’s a huge advantage for many who are going to share a snap of their kids or a photo of their meal at a restaurant. smart phones were a huge disruptor killing of a large part of the camera market for many of the camera manufacturers. Ask yourself when was the last time you bought or used a simple pocket calculator as everyone just uses the calculator app on their phone. Scientific calculators only seem to still have a market in a small number of professional environments and because students can’t be trusted to use the calculator app on their phone in exams.

going back to ILC’s that just leaves DSLRs and mirrorless for the ever decreasing enthusiasts/professional market which will never be the size it was a decade or two ago. Since Sony entered the mirrorless market as another disruptor its caused quite a movement within the enthusiasts/professional market. At the moment all manufacturers have been concentrating on mirrorless for at least the last 2 years, especially Nikon and canon who were playing catch up with Sony.

Regarding DSLRs if we look at the Nikon D8xx system these are the release dates:

D800 Feb 2012
D810 June 2014
D850 July 2017

Surely we should have seen a replacement for the D850 by now as it’s coming up to 5 years. The last Nikon DSLRs released (D6 & D780) were released in Jan/Feb 2020. Since then there have been 5 Nikon mirrorless cameras released. if there going to be a DSLR future this well liked model needs to be replaced in the next year or so.

Most manufacturers see mirrorless as the future whether we like it or not. The only silver lining is that for many users is you can still use Nikon F mount and canon EF mount lenses you own via an adapter on mirrorless so no full system change is required. At least those lenses aren’t consigned to the bin just yet, well at least until spares run out due to no longer being manufactured.

 

[Mr Badger]

Why hasn't mirrorless taken over? Primarily, for the enthusiast/keen hobby photographer, I believe it's cost! It's not just the cost of the camera body, it's the perceived cost of changing the whole lens system too. Yes, adaptors and all that, but to really get the best out of the latest mirrorless camera body the latest mirrorless lenses will be required, and they're not cheap!

Remember 25 years ago, how often we used to have to upgrade our personal computers to keep pace with technology and run new software? In those early days it was an almost annual upgrade or replacement. This gradually slowed, until present day when a good quality PC should last several years without becoming a hinderance to what you need it to do. The same happened with DSLRs; most modern ones give great results. So why spend thousands of pounds upgrading to a mirrorless system if what you have does the job well enough? Particularly in the present economic climate, with ever increasing fuel, heating and weekly shopping costs.

So I think cost is a major factor, and I believe that's likely to become even more relevant as the basic cost of living increases.

 

[adrianday]

Why hasn't mirrorless taken over? Primarily, for the enthusiast/keen hobby photographer, I believe it's cost! It's not just the cost of the camera body, it's the perceived cost of changing the whole lens system too. Yes, adaptors and all that, but to really get the best out of the latest mirrorless camera body the latest mirrorless lenses will be required, and they're not cheap!

Remember 25 years ago, how often we used to have to upgrade our personal computers to keep pace with technology and run new software? In those early days it was an almost annual upgrade or replacement. This gradually slowed, until present day when a good quality PC should last several years without becoming a hinderance to what you need it to do. The same happened with DSLRs; most modern ones give great results. So why spend thousands of pounds upgrading to a mirrorless system if what you have does the job well enough? Particularly in the present economic climate, with ever increasing fuel, heating and weekly shopping costs.

So I think cost is a major factor, and I believe that's likely to become even more relevant as the basic cost of living increases.

This. This. This! This is exactly why.

I don't need anymore bells and whistles on my camera body. The EV range is fine. I've got f/1.4 primes that I usually stop down. I don't relish the thought of paying for f/1.2 primes with body parts (haven't seen many of these yet. I wonder why not?). We saw a progression from APSC to FF with DSLRs. I read the other day that APSC is making a comeback (in mirrorless). Didn't see that coming. Not! Lure them in and bleed them over a long period of time. It worked well last time.

I bear no grudge against people who *need* the newest, shiny things. It's your money, spend it as you wish. But please, don't pretend it's anything other than a commercial shill that you've played into.

The camera manufacturers have decided that mirrorless is the future. Not you, the consumer. They need you to continually consume to survive.

 

[myotis]

That said, is anybody actually paying these prices for an 830 now?

The cheapest prices I've seen for an excellent condition D850 is around £2000, they have gone up recently. There are very few excellent condition ones cropping up, and they seem to vanish as quickly as they appear, so yes people are paying these prices for a D850.

If you are a Nikon user, sensor wise, the nearest mirrorless equivalents are the Z7II and the Z9, but the Z7II s/h will cost you another £1000, and the Z9, several thousands of pounds more, assuming you can find one s/h or even new.

Comparisons I've read or watched suggest that the D850 image quality still has a slight edge over both the Z7II and Z9, not enough to convince me, on its own, to buy a D850 over a Z model, but enough to convince me there is unlikely to be any image quality benefits from spending the extra money on a Z model.

Ignoring the Z9 for now, the D850 is still a better multi-purpose camera than the Z7II, with its higher fps (especially with the battery grip) and buffer making it a better wildlife/sports camera, while still giving the high resolution that might be desired for landscape and the selective cropping often useful in bird photography.

The Nikon D850, has Nikon's professional body design (as does the D500 and D6) which has, in the past provided much better handling than the pro/enthusiast models (e.g.Nikon D750), and only the Z9, so far, offers this professional body design option.

For me, as a Landscape and Wildlife Photographer, who cant afford a Nikon Z9, the D850 is still the obvious buy as an update to my D750, and a companion to my D500. My existing Nikon F lenses, and any I buy, will still work on a future Z mount camera via an adaptor. Indeed in some instances lenses like the 500pf are reported to work better on the Z9 with adaptor, than they did on native F-mount bodies.

Of course there are some nice to have features with a new Z body, but in comparison with a D850 (ignoring the Z9), if I bought a Nikon Z7II, I would be spending a lot more money to end up with a less capable camera.

This would not be the case for everyone of course, but for someone with my mix of interests, my budget, and an existing Nikon user heavily invested in the system, a Nikon D850 is still the camera to go for.

 

[stickytape]

I do have a habit of buying into dead end systems. I started with Sony Mirrorless which was awful at the time 2010. I went to Sony A Mount which was much better but went the way of the dodo so I swapped to Nikon DSLR and it can’t be denied as you say the writing is on the wall…

You think you do? Take a look at my Nikon ! collection, my Samsung NX collection, my Kodak DCS Pro SLR series....

 

[ancient_mariner]

The camera manufacturers have decided that mirrorless is the future. Not you, the consumer. They need you to continually consume to survive.

We don't need digital, film working perfectly well for many decades. Why have you personally bought into the camera makers game when there are so many film cameras and lenses still available?