As more mirrorless camera lines are announced from the biggest manufacturers in the world, does the DSLR run risk of being put on the sidelines indefinitely?
Certain camera manufacturers (Sony, Olympus, etc.) have been offering mirrorless cameras for a while now and to great success. Their smaller form factor and portability meant that many photographers could carry the same kit but in a lighter camera bag. The big brands, such as Canon and Nikon, have caught onto this in recent years and finally decided to take the plunge into the mirrorless market, releasing both mirrorless cameras and new DSLRs side by side, but the tide seems to be turning. There are recent reports of DSLR equipment and cameras themselves either being discontinued or not being put on the market at all, but why? Let's look at a few reasons below.
Size and Weight
Due to the absence of a pentaprism, a mirror, and an optical viewfinder, a mirrorless is a less bulky affair. It requires more vertical space to house this and as such, a DSLR is big and heavy. There are exceptions to the rule, with entry-level camera bodies being much smaller and lighter than their beefier professional brothers and sisters, but when you want big quality, the device gets big, too.
For example, let's compare the Nikon D850 to the Nikon Z 7II. Both shoot just over 45 MP, both are full-frame 35mm, and both shoot 4K UHD video. However, the Nikon D850 weighs 915 g compared to the Nikon Z 7II's 615 g — about a third less. The dimensions follow suit, though not as dramatically, with the D850 at 146 x 124 x 78.5 mm and Z 7II at 134 x 100.5 x 69.5 mm.
Seeing in the Dark
When shooting astrophotography or capturing any subject at night or in the dark, DSLRs are good but have a few quirks. Due to that optical viewfinder, there is a direct link into the camera body, which means that any light shining onto the viewfinder can work its way inside and mess up the metering system or worse yet, leak onto the image sensor itself. That means viewfinder caps (or in-built sliding covers) have to be used to block that light off for accurate results. Not so with the mirrorless.
Mirrorless cameras use electronic viewfinders (EVFs), which essentially place a tiny screen inside that familiar viewfinder spot to produce an image similar to that of the rear LCD screen. The benefit of this is that most mirrorless cameras have a boosted exposure live view that can also display through the EVF, meaning you can see better in the dark to compose your shots than with a DSLR. And you don't need to cover the viewfinder, either.
Heat Build-Up
Making a camera body smaller might mean it takes up less space in your kit bag, but it also means there's less free-flowing air. That's trouble for heat dissipation. Since electrical components generate heat and there's quite a bit of electronic equipment inside a camera, that results in hot cameras. By limiting space, the issue of thermal build-up gets worse, and as mirrorless cameras keep pushing the limits of what we thought possible (such as 8K video), we're noticing the limits of what they can do. Read any news article on mirrorless bodies overheating while shooting high-resolution video footage and you'll see what I mean (the Canon EOS R5, for example).
Lenses Being Discontinued
As camera manufacturers pour money into developing new mirrorless technology, many things in the production line have to change, and as such, it leaves fewer resources to continue running DSLR alongside it. For a technology that offers the same (or better) performance for a fraction of the size and weight and increasing features that outperform the old DSLR lines, it's only a matter of time before DSLR bodies, lenses, and other accessories are discontinued. It's already started to happen for some companies.
So, future-proofing is what we're talking about here. Why would a consumer who's looking to get into photography invest in a dead camera format when the newer models are offering so much more? There are a few reasons. Buying second-hand makes things cheaper, an older, more established format, such as a DSLR, has a wider range of lenses and accessories available, and some people prefer bigger cameras in the hand. But for professionals and those who want to keep up to date, going mirrorless is increasingly the better option.
Stabilization
For most DSLR shooters the option of image stabilization has been in the form of literally stabilizing the camera using some kind of rig (shoulder rig, Steadicam, gimbal, etc) or using lens-functioning image stabilization that shifts the elements inside the lens to create a more stable image. This gives the advantage of shooting longer shutter speeds handheld or keeping smoother-looking video when tracking fast-moving subjects.
Mirrorless cameras can also be used with camera rigs and feature stabilization in their lens line-ups (depending on the lens), but many camera bodies also include in-body image stabilization (IBIS). Take a look at the latest offerings from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc., and you'll get five stops of IBIS to smooth out images. That's before you use a rig or a lens. And lenses with IS can (in some models) be combined with the IBIS to produce silly numbers, like eight stops of IS. So, if you wanted to shoot that skateboarding video handheld without a rig, well, now you can.
Autofocusing Ability
You may be forgiven for thinking that the DSLR has mirrorless cameras beat for autofocusing (AF) ability and speed, but you'd be wrong. Sure, that was true when mirrorless cameras first started appearing, using only contract-detection AF similar to how some cameras autofocus using the rear LCD screen, but many mirrorless models now use phase-detection AF that are just as fast as the DSLR phase-detection we're used to.
It goes further, though. DSLRs typically have a separate sensor for detecting autofocus before snapping a shot, which limits the AF points to around the center of the frame, but mirrorless cameras operate autofocus on the image sensor itself, meaning AF points can be placed right up to the edges of the frame. They also use new features, such as face, eye, and animal detection. It's only a matter of time before artificial intelligence pops onto a chip on a mirrorless body to help assist this further.
Good move. The Canon M mount is a clear dead end.
Amazing we are having this discussion while the most important spec was never discussed. At the end of the day, a client isn't buying what setup you have, they are buying your skills and eye as a photographer and the images that are produced. Does it even matter. Yes, mirrorless or even something better will take over eventually. But for right now, DLSRs are far from dead. I mean, stoppers can keep posting articles that claim it is. They been doing it for at least the past 3 years. it has been 6 for me and I am still rocking my D750 and 850. Next is a D4.
Well... Nikon was supposed to be dead and they released the Z9...
I am pretty sure that Nikon intends to update the D850 into a D880 or D900 that is going to feature the D6 AF sensor and some high end mirrorless sensor. Not sure what camera they will borrow it from. My best guest would be the 80+ megapixel sensor of the upcoming Z8 some time in 2022.
I am personally fully mirrorless except for my P1 XF body, but I do fully understand that some photographers may prefer to stay on the DSLR bandwagon and Nikon is most probably the one brand that will answer on this expectation.
DSLR’s are dead. DSLR’s are dead. DSLR’s are dead. Has anyone else had enough of these articles repeating the same old lines. The same old information. I still use my Nikon D500 all the time. It still works. It still takes fantastic photos. I guess my Nikon doesn’t read. Tell me again. DSLR’s are dead. Please be original already. I am bored!!
Digital is dead! Film forever!
Long Live Tintype!
Aye, Men of culture.
Now that there is "live view" on mirrorless cameras, yeah, DSLRs can die. How many cans of worms does that open?
I don't understand what you are saying. Never thought that the presence of live view, or lack thereof, as being very important to anyone. If you could explain what you mean in a bit more depth, I would appreciate it.
I'm guessing, by your various posts, that you're a wildlife photographer. So, I'd assume, that you'd like for your camera to not have lag through the viewfinder and rather see your subject in real time live view. Until recently, DSLRs have had the advantage of TTL viewfinder where you see things in real time. Mirrorless processors weren't able to "track" subjects without lag. For still subjects, this didn't create a problem. However, this created huge problems for photographers trying to shoot fast moving subjects. That problem has now been solved. At first, live view appeared on pricey cameras with pricey sensors, but now, even the lower level mirrorless cameras are starting to get lag-free, live view through the viewfinder which makes it easier to track birds and running animals. Mirrorless were already quieter and faster. And now that photographers don't have to worry about lag, DSLRs can die.
Oh, okay ..... I think I understand now. Maybe.
But DSLRs have had live view available on the rear LCD screen for many many years now, so I don't think of it as anything new or different or revolutionary.
I think mirrorless cameras have also had live view on their rear screens for quite some time. I mean, 5 or 6 years ago a photographer at my photography club showed me a Sony A6000 (I think that was the model), and it clearly had a live view on the rear screen. I specifically remember that because he showed me the "focus peaking" feature and how it worked when in live view.
So live view on mirrorless isn't really anything new, is it?
Let circus begin. I feel that writers do this to stir the pot every once in a while.
They certainly do. Generates traffic.
Also interesting to read the comments.
In fact, the camera manufacturers are in thick soup. Because camera sales is down to the level of film SLR era. Smartphones have occupied the hands of all casual shooters. Only genuine professional and hobbyist photographers now buy imaging equipment. They constitute roughly 10% of the picnic market of 2010. Problem is; they cannot be fooled. On the other hand manufacturers need to buy bread and butter. How to resolve this dilemma!
Reality is; there is no answer to this predicament. Perhaps that’s why makers are attempting to allure the immigrants back to camera market. That is unlikely to occur as the smartphone cameras are packing more and more impressive features that users fancy.
Therefore, the imaging equipment manufacturers must learn to live with this harsh reality and make appropriate plans for survival and doing business. It’s wise to relocate financial resources for other businesses. If they wish to see; there are many other avenues to invest in. Rest assured, the camera market is not going to expand. And DSLR users are not buying MILCs unless there's pressing need.
I have a feeling that in a hundred years from now all of our technology now will have been archived, but hey, who the hell cares? People will use what's available then along with others who will cling to what came before it. If it makes you happy using it, then use it. Don't let idiots try to sway you. Hell, I use film, dslr's and mirrorless. Don't give a damn what people think. I am happy with my choices.
Today is Feb 1st 2022. I still haven't upgraded to mirrorless but January was an exceptional month for my business. The outlook for February is also very positive. No one asked me what camera I use, neither do they care. So I can keep going for a few years and now I consider the R5 too old and the R5c is even worst for stills. If Canon upgrade the R6 to a much larger pixel count, I'll buy two on day one. I think it would cost them less than the revamping the R5 into an R5c and scoop money from us still photographers who have zero need for video and no rush to upgrade.
Hey, Benoit
You say that you now consider the R5 to be "too old". I am interested in knowing what it is, specifically, that is outdated about the R5 when it comes to what you need for your work.
Personally, I am saving for an R5, and hope to be able to afford one in 3 or 4 years when used prices drop to the $1400 range. But if this body is already too old for you, then I will be in for some real heartbreak when I finally get an R5 in 2025 or 2026.
Yes, the R5 is behind with its heating issue and is already over 18months old. I have no clue what the cycle will be for the R line, could be 2, 3 or 4 years. I'm sure they won't tell me. If I am forced to buy a camera that has "high end" video, it should work even if I never used the video and that's pretty much it. But if my clients are totally happy with what I use, despite being older equipment, it's totally appropriate and I can wait until Canon has a better offering to fit my needs and if I have an emergency I can switch brand having no money invested in R lenses. Since I won't get the current R5, it's largely improved features means nothing at present to me and my business. You need to understand that I need 2 bodies with identical or nearly identical specs. It's more important than having any video feature. I think it's many of us who haven't made the jump due to Canon's weird decision to launch a product that does not work as advertised. I'm like in stand bye and the R5c "fix" is kind of screwing those who bought the R5 for it's RAW video (I know a few of them). I'm not going to invest in lenses if I lose trust in the brand.
I don't think the R5 overheating issue has imposed any practical limitations on still photography, has it? I have no need or interest in shooting video, so if the only "outdated" concern is the overheating, then I should be fine with an R5 when I finally get one in a few years.
The age of a camera model doesn't mean anything. It is the feature set/specifications that matter. If a 10 or 15 year old model has all of the features/specs that I need, then the fact that it is 10 years old doesn't have any adverse affects at all.
Intelligent people never upgrade their camera because they "want something newer". Rather, intelligent people upgrade their camera because it has specifications or features that their current camera does not have, specs/features that they need to be able to produce the images they want to produce in given conditions.
You may not have to wait too long to get a second hand one if video people flood the market with used ones in order to "upgrade" to the R5c
Yeah same. I like mirror less cameras and I definitely see their benefit. I do think they are the future of photography. I own several like an xt1, xt2, and GFX100s But my daily driver is still a Nikon D800E with those tanky F mount lenses. To me that D800 is still more reliable on a shoot than my mirrorless cameras. When i pull that thing out i know It's going to work no matter what. People can have their opinions and say mirrorless cameras are reliable and they are to an extent but I achieve what I want for my portrait and landscape work easier and with less worry with my older gear. For my landscapes my D800E is perfectly great but I can't beat the resolution of that gfx100s lol. The one thing I noticed that really sucked with my GFX 100s is that when i took it out in sub freezing temps the live view on the EVF and rear screen had a really hard time keeping up because the liquid crystals in the screen were freezing. You don't have to worry about that with a DSLR because you have an optical viewfinder. The freezing screen made manually focusing more difficult for me.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have two 5DSR bodies and continue to see them as outstanding tools. If the rumor that Canon may come out with 70+ megapixel cameras, even at my advanced ages, I will probably purchase a couple of bodies.