As the market continues to swing towards mirrorless cameras, most people see it as a sign that DSLRs are on their way out. However, one camera company seems to believe that the mirrorless hype will be short-lived, with users flocking back to DSLRs in the near-future.
In a recent interview with Imaging Resource, Ricoh's Hiroki Sugahara (General Manager of the Marketing Communication Department, Global Sales and Marketing Center, Smart Vision Business Unit) discussed how mirrorless has affected DSLR sales and what he thinks of the future:
Currently, mirrorless is a newcomer, so of course, many users are very interested in the new systems; they want to use [them]. But after one or two years, some users who changed their system from DSLR to mirrorless [will] come back to the DSLR again.
Expanding on that, Sugahara said:
Because as I said before, each system has its own benefits or appealing points. The mirrorless camera is very convenient to shoot, because users can [see the] image before shooting. But, I believe the DSLR has its own appealing point, because users can create their own image from the optical viewfinder. People can see the beautiful image through the optical viewfinder, and then think how they can create their pictures — for example, exposure level setting, or white balance, or ISO — and then imagine how they can get [the photo they want]... So, the DSLR market is currently decreasing a little bit, but one year or two years or three years later, it will [start] getting higher.
Personally, I'm a bit flummoxed by this. While there is certainly a portion of photographers who are DSLR holdouts and don't see the need to switch to mirrorless, I have a hard time believing that any substantial fraction of those who are shooting mirrorless will choose to return to DSLRs. Furthermore, I find Sugahara's reasoning less than convincing. EVFs are getting better and better, and saying that people would prefer to guess at their exposures rather than see if they're correct in real-time seems a bit illogical. It's a shame, as I think Ricoh makes some great cameras; I loved the K-1 when I reviewed it and would have welcomed seeing those innovations in a mirrorless camera, but it doesn't sound like we will.
What are your thoughts?
What did I make up? Can your particular MILC take a strobe shot with the electronic shutter? What model specifically? (Genuinely asking).
Answer my question, how many shots have you taken with strobes and EVF !?!
The EVF lag being an issue particular with strobes and "other issues" is what you are making up.
It's quite evident you lack experience in this field.
[EDIT]
̶I̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶u̶r̶n̶ ̶m̶y̶s̶e̶l̶f̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶c̶a̶u̶s̶t̶i̶c̶ ̶s̶o̶d̶a̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶d̶o̶.̶ ̶I̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶ ̶h̶a̶n̶d̶.̶ ̶I̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶.̶
̶
̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶,̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶I̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶t̶,̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶o̶b̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶C̶M̶O̶S̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶o̶r̶,̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶m̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶t̶r̶i̶g̶g̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶“̶c̶l̶e̶a̶n̶”̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶o̶r̶,̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶s̶o̶n̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶s̶ ̶b̶a̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶v̶i̶d̶e̶o̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶C̶M̶O̶S̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶o̶r̶.̶
I have ignored what I know, and went to what the manufacturer´s say. See edit above.
[/EDIT]
If you know otherwise, give me a make and model, and make me eat my words.
Sorry you lack both experience and knowledge to even discuss this. So you can keep your theories. I'll go with first hand experience. Bye bye now.
…And you lack the knowledge to make the claim that I lack the knowledge or experience. The fact that I owned two models of mirrorless cameras prior to obtaining my K-3, is totally irrelevant to the facts I stated.
…But since you cannot accept the facts….
Never had this with my A7RIII and never had it with my Z7 so I have no idea where you're getting this from. Could you name specific cameras where this phenomenon occurs?
First of all, what's with the 4 camera bodies? Secondly, are you shooting professionally? If you are, I would highly suggest that you at least upgrade to a newer DSLR—particularly if you're shooting in low light.
Ah, hah! I just realised what you meant by no blackout with strobe. The fact that you mentioned "real shutter sound" is the give-away. That is a valid point.
Nikon Z series lenses are much lighter than their F mount counterparts. Prices don't seem to be high either, although they have only released a few lenses so far.
OVF is only as bright as the available light. EVF is definitely brighter at night.
Manual focusing is way easier on an MILC than a DSLR because you can zoom in 1:1 in the viewfinder to nail critical focus. The best you can do with a DSLR is swap out the focusing screen for an aftermarket one with a split prism or something and even then, it's not going to be as accurate (although it's MUCH faster).
MILC's have "real shutter sounds" because they use real shutters. The only sound you're not getting is the flip of the mirror.
A new MILC lens is fairly comparable in price to a new DSLR lens. Look at the price of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E vs. the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 S.
DSLR's are cheap on the used market because there are so many of them and they've been around forever. MILC, by comparison, is much newer so there's not as many on the market. This is mitigated somewhat by MILC's having a faster development cycle (for now) so they do depreciate faster as a result than comparable DSLR's.
«EVF is definitely brighter at night.»
…And therein lies the problem. A bright screen in one eye, while the scene is generally dark. It can be a problem for some of us.
«…because you can zoom in 1:1 in the viewfinder….»
Another problem. One view for focus, another view for composition & framing.
«…with a split prism….»
Right idea, wrong solution. Split prism screens are great for bright light focusing. A matte screen is better for low-light work. Quite accurate, as well.
This is why most modern DSLRs with AF only come with a matte screen. The philosophy is that in bright light, the AF will work flawlessly, and so a split prism will not be necessary, while in low-light, when the AF may possibly not be flawless, the matte screen is available for manual focusing.
Also, not necessarily ‘aftermarket.’ An OEM screen is probably a better choice, and often, similarly priced.
«…because they use real shutters.»
…Which closes, then open & closes, then open. A DSLR shutter only open & closes. …And the sound of my dampened mirror is barely noticeable, if at all.
«Look at the price of…»
…The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 vs the Pentax 24-70mm f/2.8. This is an article about Pentax not going mirrorless. Actually, we ought to compare the price to the Sony 24-70mm f/2.8 or the Olympus 12-35mm f/2.8, since these two companies have been wireless for years, while Canon/Nikon are new to the game. Market forces have not stabilized for them, yet.
«…the used market….»
Why are we discussing the used market? Besides, MFT, and both the Sony A-mount & E-mount, have been around for awhile. Lots of used stuff if, for whatever reason, that needs to be discussed.
Dude, WTF are you talking about? Why don't you read the post that I was responding to before blindly replying. You'd see everything that I am responding to instead of asking stupid questions like why we are talking about the used market (because the person I responded to was talking about it).
If you can't follow a simple discussion thread, get off the internet.
TIM: "Mirrorless lens mostly are larger heavy and more expensive... ...dslr and lens in second hand market are very cheap"
MICHAEL: "DSLR's are cheap on the used market...."
KARIM: "Why are *we* discussing the used market?"
If you can't follow a conversation, don't resort to calling people stupid.
WE (you and I) were not discussing anything. So yes, you are stupid. If you have a question about why the used market is being brought up, why not direct it to the person who brought it up rather than the person responding to the comment?
Public forum, so everyone is involved.
...Except you and I. No more response to your ad hominem attacks. (Especially for a strawman fallacy to one point on a multipoint post).
Bye.
There is a ton of gear on the used market. Particularly old DSLR gear, as users bought mirrorless or new DSLR models, year after year. Several companies leep older models on the market years after they have been surplanted. The upshot is severe price compression in the DSLR market. It's a salient point brcause it is part of why almost no one's buying new DSLRs anymore.
Try this at home. Think of any DSLR gear you've wanted for more than a month or two and price it on KEH, eBay, etc.
Actually, modern DSLR viewfinders are naturally dim, because the AF system has to steal 1/4 of the light. So they compensate by using a condenser rather than a diffuser for a focusing screen (a proper diffuser cuts another EV or so off your brightness). So most DSLRs cannot be accurately focused, manually, without changing the focusing screen.
Mirrorless deliver all the light from lens to sensor, and can of course amplify it in the viewfinder if needed. They can also offer magnification, focus peaking, etc. I use manual lenses all the time with my mirrorless with great results.. I did not get good results back in my DSLR days.
Their argument doesn't really make any sense if the draw of DSLR is that you can "see" the image you are about the create, Mirrorless does that better. An EVF is a far better approximation of what a final photo will look like that an OVF. I can't really think of any reason to go DSLR over Mirrorless other than some of the current technical limitations which are rapidly diminishing with every new release. A few years from now, I can't see there being anything a DSLR does better than a mirrorless camera.
3 things come to mind:
1. Battery life
2. Ergonomics (personal preference)
3. Native lens selection that require no adapters (in particular for sports/wildlife)
Battery life isn't a big issue anymore. Sony for example did a great job with the NP-FZ100 batteries!
While you definitely got the battery argument right there, it's only a matter of time before native lens selection catches up. One can argue that for Sony, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic, that native lens selection is already there - no adapters necessary.
That said, if you're going to have to use an adapter (like the EF-RF adapters for EF-R) at least it's nice that Canon did something useful with it by adding the drop-in filter or control ring versions.
Sony put to rest the battery issue.
All 3 of those points are valid right now but 2-3 years from now will be a lot less valid and only will continue to be less valid as time goes forward. (which was my point).
Fast forward 2-3 years and I struggle to see any compelling reason to get a DSLR. Even the ergonomics argument is easily solved by releasing a larger body mirrorless. There is no inherent benefit that a DSLR has that a mirrorless can't match or exceed within a few years of R&D
Pretty sad to hear this from somebody responsible for Pentax. I still have fond memories of my K-5 but I guess they will die if with this attitude.
I agree. RIP Pentax, your Ricoh corporate overlords have doomed you from ever staging a comeback.
DSLR... everything goes around in a chakra.., it will be much smaller but still a slr. My D700 still can kick ass
What does it matter? If they go back, it's not like they're going to pick up a Pentax...
I went mirrorless then went back already.
I shoot with mirrorless, but I think it is good that there are also other alternatives to choose from in the future. I have tried Pentax cameras for my blog and I really liked the high quality and the pictures I got out of them.
Last winter I made an expedition trip on the sea ice here in southern Finland. A ten hour job in -20 degree cold (-4 Fahrenheit) weather. The Pentax camera was the only one that worked perfectly throughout the whole trip.
For the moment I have in daily use the Fujifilm X100F, and I love it.
I still shoot DSLR and not mirrorless and won't upgrade, not because I don't think the new mirrorless aren't excellent but because both technologies are dying. How long before everyone takes a picture on their phones or glasses and the ai gives a perfect 'professional' looking shot. Look no further than some of the shots on this board. They look like thirty seconds of composure and 30 hours of Photoshop. Next year it will be five hours of Photoshop and the following year, the push of a button. Does the camera really matter at that point? Not saying there still won't be enthusiasts, but the question will be 'Which AI', not which lens or camera.
I think it's wishful thinking on his part !!
There are definitely times I prefer the nature of the optical viewfinder over the mirrorless/EVF, but I do see myself going away from my D800/850 system and towards the Z system if there's a short generation/product cycle as I find I'm using the live view/flipout screen when I'm on a tripod (most of my work) on the 850, and now even in portrait/event/wedding work I'm using the live preview to dial in my shot or get my ambient mix/temperature just right for off camera flash work.
I feel like in 1-2 years the EVF quality will only be getting better and things like focus peaking will improve even more and there will be even less reason to want to use an optical viewfinder
DSLR are is not going anywhere... period
I suppose one can argue that TLR's, rangefinders, and film SLR's never went anywhere either, but I do think the DSLR's time as a mainstream product is slowly coming to a close.
They will likely remain in production for the next two decades on some level, but sales will probably be reduced to a niche audience and development will likely cease as MILC systems become more competent and robust.
Last I checked, there was only one film SLR (Nikon F6) and one TLR (Lomography) still in production. Maybe that's changed, but not in any significant way. The few who want these can buy them, cheap, on the used market. Suppy vastly outstrips demand.
Not sure how up to date you are on the used film SLR market, but if supply "vastly" outstripped the market demand, then they wouldn't be consistently rising in price. The lack of new hardware is actually a real concern in the film community and despite the revival of film stocks and fact that chemicals are still available, these old SLR's are breaking while the parts and expertise required to repair them is disappearing as that generation dies out or retires. As it stands, you can't pick up any worthwhile film SLR for "cheap" unless you manage to find it at someone's yard sale.
I disagree. Look at a new Nikon F6... about $2500. Used, $900-$1000. A used Nikon F5? Under $400 in excellent condition. That is amazing price compression, certainly due to an uncompetitive market. Sure, some particular models are collector's targets, but that is a different marker than good geae for actual use. I have a few dozen film cameras, all working. And sure, the supply isn't forever.
That's because the F5 has electronics and cameras with electronics pretty much can't be repaired at this point outside of gutting another broken camera for parts. The exceptions to this rule would be some nonsensical prices on compacts largely driven by celebrity usage or cult following (I'm looking at you Contax T2 and Yashica T4).
Look at the prices of mechanical cameras that CAN still be serviced to some reasonable degree like the FM2n. Where 3 years ago, I purchased mine in excellent condition for $250, Bargain condition ones on KEH are currently listed above $300. The same applies to TLR's like the Yashica 124G or the Minotla Autocord. Prices on mechanical film cameras have been rising quite a bit in the past few years. Maybe it's a temporary jump, maybe it's a sign of a more permanent trend... Only time will tell. If you really want to shoot film, there's certainly enough working electronic cameras out there that have a lot of life in them. I wouldn't recommend a used F5 for this given that it was likely owned by a PJ who probably put the camera through hell. An F100 despite its lesser build quality might actually be a safer bet. Realize, though, that all of those cameras have a shelf life even though a lot of them are excellent cameras. The venerable F5, like the EOS 1v, are durable as hell, but like all electronic devices, they'll eventually fail and you're left with a paperweight when they do.
Whatever the case, if you're looking to buy a film camera, you might as well get one now because they're only climbing in price at this point (that is, if you want something decent).
Eddy Waddel, less production and models being discontinued. Rumor has it that Canon is already cutting the 7D series.
What he means that it sucks not to have a good mirrorless camera in their line-up.
Oh come on..... the guy only says in one or two years SOME people will return to DSLR. Can't you read? Shame on you for making an elephant from a mouse.....
Still got two 5d mark3 as my main cameras for weddings and events .. I use 600exrt and make use of HSS always and when needed .. from my personal perspective couldn’t find a reason to jump to a ML or even to a MK4 . I tried the MK4 for a wedding last year there are some real improvements which I can clearly identify, sadly but none of my customers will ever understand this difference unless I tell them that this is the latest and most advanced canon equipment I’m using ..
This is a Kodak moment. And many will go back to film?
Some sports shooters notice less lag with OVF but if you can spray and pray at 30fps, I'm not sure it matters...
Many ppl have already gone back to DSLR from mirrorless. I've been using some ML since 2014. It has some advantage when using ND filters but you get a lot noise in the ovf in low light.
Fuji made a couple hybrid evf/ovf (x-pro).
Diciplined photographers can previsualise their results and dont need it. Maybe Ricoh predicts a noticeable shift in pro / amateur gap and will be there to support the pros. I'm ok with that.
I suspect this is what Canon and Nikon may have thought a few years ago. Even Sony had believed this way - promising that they wouldn't abandon DSLR line just a few years ago, but rings a little hollow today.