Why hasn't mirroless taken over?

[rob-nikon]

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.

I get where you’re coming from but this is confusing the general outlook of Interchangeable Lens Cameras as a whole to a technological change from DSLRs to mirrorless. With this thinking both mirrorless and DSLRs are both dead duck technologies if there are no future releases if there are no buyers. No future products sales means no future DSLR releases and no spares for repair. Eventually all cameras out there will naturally decline through failure for even simple repairs when there are no future sales. Even getting new batteries will probably be an issue as they’re bespoke rather than a standard battery type.

there’s a bigger inventory of second hand DSLRs out compared to mirrorless so DSLRs will last a decade or so but being electronic unlike mechanical film cameras won’t have anywhere near the life expectancy of mechanical film cameras which are still working decades later as long as film is produced.

Regarding APSC mirrorless releases there’s a potential market hence the release.

Edited: I think the reason most manufacturers released their second generation mirrorless system as full frame first rather than APC-S to replace DSLRs is due to landscape photographers preferring FF. As landscape photographers dont need great AF it worked well for the manufacturers as initially AF wasn’t great on mirrorless. Now AF has improved the sports/action cameras have started to appear. If canon would have released an APSC R7 with poor AF that would have been worse than not releasing one at all hence the delay.

 

[adrianday]

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?

I still shoot 35mm film.

But okay, I'll play.... Digital offered a paradigm shift. The differences between DSLR and mirrorless are far more subtle. Something I personally find difficult to justify the expense of 'upgrading' to.

 

[Ed Sutton]

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?

Digital offers lots more advantages over film than mirrorless does over mirrored. Even earlyish bridge cameras with a measly 3mp and no raw were an improvement over 35mm slide film for my uses sending photos to fishing magazines - quality was acceptable (better in many cases) and the speed of turnaround from taking photos to getting them to the publisher was now hours rather than days.

The cameras cost about £200 and there were no film or developing costs. No postage involved and I didn't run the risk of the original slides getting lost or damaged as I still had the originals.

Mirrorless doesn't give that kind of advantage over mirrored.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I still shoot 35mm film.

But okay, I'll play.... Digital offered a paradigm shift. The differences between DSLR and mirrorless are far more subtle. Something I personally find difficult to justify the expense of 'upgrading' to.

Fairy snuff. To me, they're all just digital cameras, and one lot with the older and often not especially good lenses (some exceptions noted) are being obsolesced while the newer systems with better lenses will remain current for another 15 to 20 years.

My use is likely different from yours and I do use big apertures, FF sensor characteristics and need the more precise focussing they offer. I'd recognise that many toggers don't use these things, just like many don't need control dials for aperture or shutter speed, or even interchangeable lenses. But they are all useful options to have if you don't just want to take snaps and record shots.

What did I do before this was available? Take fewer photos in the style I have developed.

 

[Phil V]

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.

Whilst I’m a big leftie…

I thought it was obvious that the original question was framed with the acknowledgment that we live in a capitalist consumer society.
We don’t ‘need’ any of this. In any hierarchy of needs, any camera is a pretty low priority.

So in your example, the ‘market’ here is a small proportion of the richest 5% of people on the planet, and whether the latest technological push in this market has reached dominance in that market.

The answer is that it reached dominance some years ago*, when mirrorless sales first outstripped DSLR sales, but it’s yet to reach saturation point.

I earlier alluded to this being a simple repetition of DSLR’s usurping film SLR’s for those of us who remember that, and I can see no reason the pattern will be very different at all. The only reason it’s dragged on this long is that the previous market leaders were slow off the mark in realising the world had moved without them.

*the interesting fact from my POV is that even though that’s a fact, there are many in this thread demanding different ways of counting in order that they can find some facts to bolster their opinion.

 

[adrianday]

With this thinking both mirrorless and DSLRs are both dead duck technologies if there are no future releases if there are no buyers.

All new technology is destined for obscurity. It's the nature of a commercially driven society.

No future products sales means no future DSLR releases and no spares for repair. Eventually all cameras out there will naturally decline through failure for even simple repairs when there are no future sales. Even getting new batteries will probably be an issue as they’re bespoke rather than a standard battery type.

Ask yourself why camera manufacturers haven't agreed on common battery designs. While you're there, look at battery grips; new camera, new grip. It's a clever mechanism of leveraging as much money out of the consumer as possible.

there’s a bigger inventory of second hand DSLRs out compared to mirrorless so DSLRs will last a decade or so but being electronic unlike mechanical film cameras won’t have anywhere near the life expectancy of mechanical film cameras which are still working decades later as long as film is produced.

The inherent long life expectancy of a 35mm film SLR was less of an issue to the manufacturers back then. The market was enormous.

Regarding APSC mirrorless releases there’s a potential market hence the release. I think the reason most manufacturers first released full frame mirrorless is due to landscape photographers preferring FF. they dont need great AF so it worked well for the manufacturers as initially AF wasn’t great on mirrorless. Now AF has improved the sports/action cameras have started to appear. If canon would have released an APSC R7 with poor AF that would have been worse than not releasing one at all hence the delay.

I'm a little more cynical (if you hadn't guessed). The consumer is drawn into the digital marketplace with a range of affordable APSC DSLRs and lenses. Technologies improve and FF DSLRs offer a 'must have' upgrade path along with the slew of new lenses the format requires. Then as the market begins to dry up, the transition to mirrorless is pushed to market. Consumers who have made the transition to FF DSLR will be reluctant to 'downgrade' to APSC so FF is launched first. It's the premium product at the premium price. However, subsequent releases of 'cheaper' APSC mirrorless cameras provide an entry point for new consumers.

New cameras aren't cheap and affordable these days. The last DSLR I bought cost me £350; brand new with a kit zoom. The price of a new APSC mirrorless DSLR is ? Why? Because people are spending huge sums of money on smart phones and the only money to be made on cameras is at the higher end of the market.

 

[adrianday]

Whilst I’m a big leftie…

I've been called much worse.

I earlier alluded to this being a simple repetition of DSLR’s usurping film SLR’s for those of us who remember that, and I can see no reason the pattern will be very different at all.

I'm certain it won't. But with prices as they are, it looks like photography is going to become an even more niche pastime than it is today. Affordable to even fewer.

 

[Phil V]

I still shoot 35mm film.

But okay, I'll play.... Digital offered a paradigm shift. The differences between DSLR and mirrorless are far more subtle. Something I personally find difficult to justify the expense of 'upgrading' to.

You don’t need to upgrade to it though.

There’s a natural life expectancy of all your kit, and whether that’s 3, 5 or 7 years, when you replace your current camera it’ll be with a mirrorless one.

To nod to consumerism, human nature means people will get a new camera slightly earlier cos… marketing.

 

[Phil V]

I've been called much worse.

I'm certain it won't. But with prices as they are, it looks like photography is going to become an even more niche pastime than it is today. Affordable to even fewer.

Eating is gonna become a niche pastime the way I see it

 

[adrianday]

You don’t need to upgrade to it though.

But.... It's new... and.... shiny.

 

[adrianday]

Eating is gonna become a niche pastime the way I see it

I'm looking forward to warming my hands over my batteries as they charge.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

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?

Frankly, I don't see why people are using aeroplanes to get around when steam railways and sailing ships have worked so well over the centuries...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I get where you’re coming from but this is confusing the general outlook of Interchangeable Lens Cameras as a whole to a technological change from DSLRs to mirrorless. With this thinking both mirrorless and DSLRs are both dead duck technologies if there are no future releases if there are no buyers. No future products sales means no future DSLR releases and no spares for repair. Eventually all cameras out there will naturally decline through failure for even simple repairs when there are no future sales. Even getting new batteries will probably be an issue as they’re bespoke rather than a standard battery type.

there’s a bigger inventory of second hand DSLRs out compared to mirrorless so DSLRs will last a decade or so but being electronic unlike mechanical film cameras won’t have anywhere near the life expectancy of mechanical film cameras which are still working decades later as long as film is produced.

Regarding APSC mirrorless releases there’s a potential market hence the release. I think the reason most manufacturers first released full frame mirrorless is due to landscape photographers preferring FF. they dont need great AF so it worked well for the manufacturers as initially AF wasn’t great on mirrorless. Now AF has improved the sports/action cameras have started to appear. If canon would have released an APSC R7 with poor AF that would have been worse than not releasing one at all hence the delay.

The Af on Mirrorless compared to DSLR's has always been more accurate.
The newer hybrid AF on Mirrorless, combined with the new processors and AI subject identification and eye focus is now faster than available DSLR AF systems. and most have focus points covering the entire sensor, rather than just the central region.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I've been called much worse.

I'm certain it won't. But with prices as they are, it looks like photography is going to become an even more niche pastime than it is today. Affordable to even fewer.

Phone cameras have the fastest turnaround with consumers. it seems top grade phones costing in the £1000 bracket are replaced every two to three years.

 

[Sangoma]

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?

Can't find the memory cards for them.
Got a 4K camera that would be nice to use.

 

[SFTPhotography]

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.

It certainly is the case for me. I reckon you'd really love the D850. You can get them grey too for a more modest outlay than you might expect.

 

[yzfmike]

Pretty soon there will be no new DSLRs released. If you are a digital camera producer the mirror box is an expensive pain in the backside to develop, manufacture, install, and adjust. It also demands additional hardware like a focus sensor array. Get rid of it, charge the same price as a DSLR, and your margins are increased significantly. Heck, Nikon's even got rid of the mechanical shutter for their flagship mirrorless - another way to reduce complexity and increase their margin. Others will follow as sure as night follows day. They were all just waiting for the technology advancements that allowed fast and accurate on-sensor phase detect, and faster data throughput to feed the EVF and buffer. The DSLR will die, retained only by the nutters who go home after a shoot and listen to vinyl whist post processing - oh, wait a minute, that's me with my 10 year old D800 and 20 year old Linn Sondek!

Since a camera is just a box with a hole in the front, and a sensor at the back, there's no inherent difference in image quality between DSLR and mirrorless. Some claim UI advantages with mirrorless, and Nikon claim that the new, large diameter mount with short throat depth allows them freedom to engineer lenses with superior optical quality (probably all true), but the bottom line is profit. No manufacturer who has plans to survive, long term, will eschew the advantages, to them, of going mirrorless - so, pretty soon, that's all you'll be able to buy..

 

[woof woof]

Pretty soon there will be no new DSLRs released. If you are a digital camera producer the mirror box is an expensive pain in the backside to develop, manufacture, install, and adjust. It also demands additional hardware like a focus sensor array. Get rid of it, charge the same price as a DSLR, and your margins are increased significantly. Heck, Nikon's even got rid of the mechanical shutter for their flagship mirrorless - another way to reduce complexity and increase their margin. Others will follow as sure as night follows day. They were all just waiting for the technology advancements that allowed fast and accurate on-sensor phase detect, and faster data throughput to feed the EVF and buffer. The DSLR will die, retained only by the nutters who go home after a shoot and listen to vinyl whist post processing - oh, wait a minute, that's me with my 10 year old D800 and 20 year old Linn Sondek!

Since a camera is just a box with a hole in the front, and a sensor at the back, there's no inherent difference in image quality between DSLR and mirrorless. Some claim UI advantages with mirrorless, and Nikon claim that the new, large diameter mount with short throat depth allows them freedom to engineer lenses with superior optical quality (probably all true), but the bottom line is profit. No manufacturer who has plans to survive, long term, will eschew the advantages, to them, of going mirrorless.

I have one of those and I think I've had it 40 years.

It's had the suspension rebuilt and it's had a few cartridges but it's still going. I added a Logik power supply with speed selectors early on to mine so I don't have to fit the adapter when I want to play 45's.

I also have a Garrard I've had even longer.

 

[davholla]

All new technology is destined for obscurity. It's the nature of a commercially driven society.

Wasn't that true before we had money? After all the stone age was replaced by the bronze age etc.

 

[myotis]

It certainly is the case for me. I reckon you'd really love the D850. You can get them grey too for a more modest outlay than you might expect.

I'm sure I would, but having just been forced into buying a new computer, whatever I do, will be months (years?) away.

And really, my D750 (+D600 for backup) and D500 are perfectly adequate for my needs, even if they aren't exactly what I would like.

But who knows what I might do. For example I think I would rather have a high quality printer than a D850, or maybe a s/h Fuji GFX that I could crop to square for landscape and use my Nikon/Zeiss manual focus lenses on. Stick with only my D500 for wildlife until Nikon brings out a Z camera with bird eye AF that I can afford.

I'm in no great rush, and if the planets align and I suddenly have more spare money than anticipated at the same time as a good condition D850 becomes available, I will probably struggle to resist it.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

I'm sure I would, but having just been forced into buying a new computer, whatever I do, will be months (years?) away.

And really, my D750 (+D600 for backup) and D500 are perfectly adequate for my needs, even if they aren't exactly what I would like.

But who knows what I might do. For example I think I would rather have a high quality printer than a D850, or maybe a s/h Fuji GFX that I could crop to square for landscape and use my Nikon/Zeiss manual focus lenses on. Stick with only my D500 for wildlife until Nikon brings out a Z camera with bird eye AF that I can afford.

I'm in no great rush, and if the planets align and I suddenly have more spare money than anticipated at the same time as a good condition D850 becomes available, I will probably struggle to resist it.

GFX is a good choice for 1:1 crops as less percentage of teh sensor is lost being 4:3

 

[LongHairedDavid]

I have both a mirrorless Olympus SLR AND a Canon EOS650 film camera. I use both regularly - look at my photo web site. I used a phone for a couple of year but realised that I was taking picture rather having "photography" as a hobby. I bought a Canon 90D (as my previous SLR before the phone was an 80D) but quickly realised that I had bought into he tail and would have something that was out of step when I would hopefully upgrade in 3 years time or so. I quickly sold the 90D to MPD and bought a nice EM5 Mk.III.

I take as much care in my digital images as I do my film ones but I find it exciting to see what is on a 36 shot roll of HP5 whilst I carefully pick trough my digital images.

Enough of my situation, now to the question. I think that mirrorless is slowly taking over but now we have a full Canon range for all people, I think that it will take over more. In my case, the mirrorless option was much smaller and lighter in my poor 77 year old arthritic hands. As more is known about the great little tricks built into Olympus mirrorless cameras then more will come.

I can see more and more F1 pros swapping if only to get lighter gear.

David

 

[bish789]

So how long before we see DLSR's on antiques roadshow?

 

[woof woof]

So how long before we see DLSR's on antiques roadshow?

I don't know if we ever will.

Manual film cameras especially well made metal ones will have their charms and followers but in 50 years time who is going to want a Canon 5D? I have electronic things that are 40 years old or more but most have them have needed attention and fettling, attention and fettling that'll be difficult on a 5D so I'd guess they'll become door stops and landfill as will their mirrorless equivalents. People will always swoon over old film Leica's though.

 

[ancient_mariner]

So how long before we see DLSR's on antiques roadshow?

*We* won't.

 

[Crotal Bell]

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.

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

Well I see your point but that's true of everything, most things get improved, the latest breakthroughs are normally the most expensive, and slowly they transition into the standard and become the norm. Meanwhile something else comes along for the high end buyers and those that desire the latest in most things.

 

[bish789]

*We* won't.

Me either, but an idea of how much cryogenic time required would be good

 

[Plain Nev]

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

I don't think it's quite as cynical as that. A lot of it is to do with manufacturing too, and the economies of less moving parts, smaller bodies etc.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

A lot of it is to do with manufacturing too, and the economies of less moving parts, smaller bodies etc.

I agree.

My observation over 70 years is that most people like change and that's what drives our civilisation.

 

[woof woof]

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

I think this is only partially true as if Sony hadn't eaten Canon and Nikons lunch would Canon and Nikon have gone mirrorless so hard? I think not. I think they resisted as long as they could. So, if I'm right people voted with their wallets and purses when they sidestepped Nikon and Canon DSLR's and bought Sony mirrorless. Ok Oly and Panasonic and Fuji are in there too but I think the big change was driven by Sony and how hard they hit the sales of Canon and Nikon DSLR's, Just my HO.

 

[TimHughes]

I agree.

My observation over 70 years is that most people like change and that's what drives our civilisation.

All the research shows most people resist change. Do people like innovation? Some for sure.

Personally, i like change and innovation and apparently that puts me in the minority.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...and apparently that puts me in the minority.

I can't see that.

The swift, large scale adoption of small computers, cellular telephones, the internet, digital television, etc, suggests that the majority like change. It's probably true that as people age they are more likely to prefer the status quo. However, in their youth they probably accepted and indeed embraced change just as their children do now.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I think this is only partially true as if Sony hadn't eaten Canon and Nikons lunch would Canon and Nikon have gone mirrorless so hard? I think not. I think they resisted as long as they could. So, if I'm right people voted with their wallets and purses when they sidestepped Nikon and Canon DSLR's and bought Sony mirrorless. Ok Oly and Panasonic and Fuji are in there too but I think the big change was driven by Sony and how hard they hit the sales of Canon and Nikon DSLR's, Just my HO.

Or maybe Canon and Nikon let Sony create the demand intending to go all out to get their (Canon's mainly) market dominance back. I doubt very much they lacked the technology to match or beat Sony's offerings. Nikon have set the next 'must have' feature by doing away with the shutter.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I can't see that.

The swift, large scale adoption of small computers, cellular telephones, the internet, digital television, etc, suggests that the majority like change. It's probably true that as people age they are more likely to prefer the status quo. However, in their youth they probably accepted and indeed embraced change just as their children do now.

The majority of older people I've known resisted those changes, and watched - often with growing distrust and even dislike - as new tech was adopted and became increasingly essential. Where habits aren't entrenched then often people will happily take on new things, but where patterns are well established they will often prefer the familiar to the new.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

As soon as sensors could be coupled with viewing screens, mirrorless was the inevitable next step.
Manufacturers had no choice but follow the technology.
Users were looking for this change to come long before there were practical examples available.
I changed as soon as I could.
Patents indicate all the manufacturers had been working toward this for a long time.

Solid state systems, global shutters and interchangeable linked modularities are future inevitabilities

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Solid state systems, global shutters and interchangeable linked modularities are future inevitabilities

Yet all will be totally pointless if diesel and camera prices increase even more... There will be market left maybe for 5 Phase ones a year. I'm sorry I'm that pessimistic but we all are letting it happen.

 

[Brentor]

Can you please correct the spelling in the title of your original post? Or perhaps anything goes with mirrorless,

 

[Sangoma]

As soon as sensors could be coupled with viewing screens, mirrorless was the inevitable next step.
Manufacturers had no choice but follow the technology.
Users were looking for this change to come long before there were practical examples available.
I changed as soon as I could.
Patents indicate all the manufacturers had been working toward this for a long time.

Solid state systems, global shutters and interchangeable linked modularities are future inevitabilities

Not certain I am getting the right message from "As soon as sensors could be coupled with viewing screens, mirrorless was the inevitable next step." as I though that came just before dSLR?
I remember being shown the first digital camera I had seen, and that displayed the picture on the screen, admittedly at about 2 frames a second.

I agree global shutters are coming, which I think most would welcome, but it will probably be a few years before some of the issues have been addressed completely for them to be produced in sufficient quantities to bring the prices down to take off in all market levels.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not certain I am getting the right message from "As soon as sensors could be coupled with viewing screens, mirrorless was the inevitable next step." as I though that came just before dSLR?
I remember being shown the first digital camera I had seen, and that displayed the picture on the screen, admittedly at about 2 frames a second.

I agree global shutters are coming, which I think most would welcome, but it will probably be a few years before some of the issues have been addressed completely for them to be produced in sufficient quantities to bring the prices down to take off in all market levels.

Absolutely there were a vast number of compact cameras that took advantage of a direct link between sensor and viewing screen. But at that time the same could not be said with the interchangeable lens cameras, there were many problems yet to overcome, but the writing was clearly on the wall.

High end cameras have always been expensive. In real terms, they are less so today than in the past.

The average man in the street could not afford a Leica, Contax or Rolleiflex. Early leicas cost far more that than the then average working man's yearly wage. And in terms of disposable income it was unthinkable.

It is not surprising, that today, state of the art models cost more than the average man can reasonably afford.
This has always been the case. For the better resourced it is a matter of priorities, and life style choices.

Some people spend far more on life style Watches (literally £millions each) than it is possible to spend on a new camera.

For the professional, cameras are tools and are purchased and amortised to be cost /benefit effective.

For an Amateur cameras are a leisure activity, limited only by disposable income and personal budgets and desires.
This will result in not all professionals needing the most expensive models, and not all amateurs limited to the lesser models.

 

[Phil V]

I can't see that.

The swift, large scale adoption of small computers, cellular telephones, the internet, digital television, etc, suggests that the majority like change. It's probably true that as people age they are more likely to prefer the status quo. However, in their youth they probably accepted and indeed embraced change just as their children do now.

View attachment 356533

Again; you need a more granular view of the data.
The vast majority of people are change averse.

However a small proportion of people are particularly keen on change, new tech etc.

Manufacturers build tech to please the second group, with the knowledge that if they adopt it, others will follow the trend* to the point it becomes the norm.

*there has to be enough benefit to them for this to happen, most poignant here because a large segment of the market don’t see the benefits of mirrorless as being enough to justify the cost.

In the 90’s, early 00’s when most of ‘us’ were buying computers, the vast majority of the population resisted (they didn’t want to give house room to a computer). By the time access to the internet was ‘normal’ people had bought laptops (more practical for most people). Then came tablets and smartphones and most people no longer have a need for an actual computer. Using smartphones as proof people are change happy is a huge over simplification of a massively complex scenario.