How long does the "DSLR" Have left...

[nattynarwheel]

I was in work today, i overheard two chaps talking about how they are selling all there DSLR equipment as the mirrorless or micro four thirds will soon take over the DSLR?

Ive just purchased a Lumix G5 and was wondering if it was a good decision to adopt early, or have DSLR got some life left in them...

the G5 beats most of the £600 cameras on the market at the moment. What are your thoughts?

 

[heidfirst]

with the exception of AF speed (particularly continuous/tracking) mirrorless already can provide the image quality & performance of a DSLR. & every year AF performance improves ...
Having said that it takes years to build a full lens system & particularly for long teles where there is no real weight or size saving to be had & where you want something to counterbalance the lens I think that the DSLR will be around for a while yet.

So imo over time DSLRs will cede the mass market to mirrorless but DSLRs will continue to exist in specialised niches.

 

[Phil V]

My thoughts are that no mirrorless camera is better than the best DSLR now.

So why buy an inferior product that'll be replaced by a suitable product in a few years time?

It's utter rubbish, like buying a Kia because you've heard that in 5 years time the new Kia will be better than an Audi.

I'm not suggesting it'll never happen, just that it's stupid to base a decision today on something that might happen in the future. It's not like there won't be plenty of other opportunities to change systems once the time is right.

 

[simon ess]

I was in work today, i overheard two chaps talking about how they are selling all there DSLR equipment as the mirrorless or micro four thirds will soon take over the DSLR?

Don't you just love the consumer society we live in?

I wonder if their images will improve.

Seriously though, I don't know the answer to your question. And I really don't care TBH.

As long as there's a hole at one end and a light sensor of some sort at the other, I'll give it a go.

 

[HoppyUK]

CSCs will take over the lower end of the DSLR market, no question.

But CSC's inherant inability to focus anything that moves (due to their contrast-detect AF systems) is a fundamental problem that shows no sign of being resolved. Enthusiasts and professionals will stick with DSLRs for a long time yet for that reason alone, and others. CSC is a different animal.

A more pressing problem for manufacturers is the lucrative compact market that's in terminal decline. Mobile phones do all that now, with the major bonus of built-in connectivity. Apart from Samsung, possibly Sony, all the camera manufacturers have completely missed that boat.

 

[applemint]

My thoughts are that no mirrorless camera is better than the best DSLR now.

Well no, but some mirrorless cameras are 95% as good as entry and mid level dslrs with the benefits of being significantly smaller and lighter - the trade offs being lens costs and tracking focus speed. The latter is not an issue if you don't shoot wildlife/ sports / airshows and the like. So it depends also what you are wanting to use the camera for.

My G3 does everything almost everything an entry level dslr will do and if you showed people images from mirrorless cameras and dslrs most would probably not be able to tell which was taken with which.

The cost of mirrorless lenses and bodies will need to come down perhaps but this may happen as demand increases? You can get a mirrorless camera for a similar price to an entry level dslr (or less if buying last but one models, eg G3 £200, E-PM1 £110) but when you start comparing current models say a Nex 6 or EOS-M at £500 to £600 with the dslrs you can buy for similar prices then mirrorless does become less appealing.

 

[Phil V]

Well no, but some mirrorless cameras are 95% as good as entry and mid level dslrs with the benefits of being significantly smaller and lighter - the trade offs being lens costs and tracking focus speed. The latter is not an issue if you don't shoot wildlife/ sports / airshows and the like. So it depends also what you are wanting to use the camera for.

.....

Did you read my post?

What's the point in buying something that's 95% as good?

Unless for you the benefits outweigh the disadvantages - I appreciate for some people this is already the case.

When they are better than DSLR's it'll be a simple decision, whilst they're 95% as good as a DSLR....... well that's a simple decision too

 

[applemint]

But CSC's inherant inability to focus anything that moves (due to their contrast-detect AF systems) is a fundamental problem that shows no sign of being resolved. Enthusiasts and professionals will stick with DSLRs for a long time yet for that reason alone, and others. CSC is a different animal.

Nikon did a decent job with their 1 cameras though when it comes to AF speed and both Sony and Canon tried (and by all accounts failed) with their hybrid AF systems but I am sure they will get there - it's just a case of how long it will take.

 

[HoppyUK]

Nikon did a decent job with their 1 cameras though when it comes to AF speed and both Sony and Canon tried (and by all accounts failed) with their hybrid AF systems but I am sure they will get there - it's just a case of how long it will take.

I would like to think so too, but I doubt it. Nikon 1's hybrid on-sensor phase-detect AF is not the same thing as DSLRs use at all, and is only used in CSCs as an aproximate 'zone finder' and doesn't do much more than tell the AF system which way to move in, as contrast-detect as no clue about that, then the contrast-detect system fine tunes it.

It's only a hunch, but I think this is a major stumbling block for CSCs, and is not just a question of development. It needs a new method. But on the other hand, I'm not sure the majority of potential CSC buyers will worry too much about it.

 

[applemint]

Did you read my post?

What's the point in buying something that's 95% as good?

Unless for you the benefits outweigh the disadvantages - I appreciate for some people this is already the case.

When they are better than DSLR's it'll be a simple decision, whilst they're 95% as good as a DSLR....... well that's a simple decision too

Yes I read it twice and I agreed with you that there is currently no mirrorless camera that compares with the 'best' (ie: top end) dslrs.

I was saying the disadvantage of not having fast tracking AF does not apply if you don't need it. People take pictures of different things and not everyone wants to lug around a massive dslr all the time. You don't need fast tracking AF for macro or for landscapes or for a lot of other things. So for some people it's not a case of "the benefits outweighing the disadvantages" - it's a case of their being no disadvantages - only advantages. I know of plenty of people who switched to mirrorless but kept their dslr 'just in case' only to find their dslr gathering dust in the cupboard.

Personally I use both as I like to enjoy the best of both worlds, but there are people who have switched systems entirely (to mirrorless) and say they are happy with their decision. We are all different and we all photograph different things.

 

[Adam_M]

My thoughts? It doesn't beat them, not even close. But the quality is at a point where most people are happy with it. Not me.

Why on earth do people but them? They're just as expensive, the lenses aren't as good and need extreme hardwired software correction to keep up. They're not really that small either. They're awkward to use, too. And yes I've owned a few and used most of them.

Ultimately the 'look' of the images that come out of four thirds just isn't something I would ever desire.

 

[woof woof]

Did you read my post?
What's the point in buying something that's 95% as good?

Unless for you the benefits outweigh the disadvantages - I appreciate for some people this is already the case.

When they are better than DSLR's it'll be a simple decision, whilst they're 95% as good as a DSLR....... well that's a simple decision too

OK, read this...

I have a 5D and a G1 and at low to middling ISO's the G1 + a decent lens produces whole images that when processed to get the best results and printed at A3 and under or viewed on screen are so good that the vast majority of people would never be able to pick them out when mixed with 5D shots. I know this because I've tried it.

The latest Sony sensor equipped CSC seem to be getting very good reviews and image quality between them and APS-C DSLR's seems to be negligible or even in the CSC's favour.

I don't know when or even if the majority of DSLR type cameras will be mirrorless but I do suspect that for the vast majority of people image quality will not be an issue soon - if not already - and the issues that remain will be non image quality issues such as focus speed, although I think that'll come to CSC and CSC already has some advantage here with the lack of front/back focus issues that seems to bedevil some DSLR's and users, and the OVF v EVF argument which I think will also largely disappear for the vast majority of people and even now EVF's do have advantages for some people.

 

[Phil V]

Yes I read it twice and I agreed with you that there is currently no mirrorless camera that compares with the 'best' (ie: top end) dslrs.

I was saying the disadvantage of not having fast tracking AF does not apply if you don't need it. People take pictures of different things and not everyone wants to lug around a massive dslr all the time. You don't need fast tracking AF for macro or for landscapes or for a lot of other things. So for some people it's not a case of "the benefits outweighing the disadvantages" - it's a case of their being no disadvantages - only advantages. I know of plenty of people who switched to mirrorless but kept their dslr 'just in case' only to find their dslr gathering dust in the cupboard.

Personally I use both as I like to enjoy the best of both worlds, but there are people who have switched systems entirely (to mirrorless) and say they are happy with their decision. We are all different and we all photograph different things.

But there's slight of hand in your answer re 'the best DSLR's', they're not as good as bad one's either:nuts:. The AF system has serious drawbacks, and whilst for many users that makes no difference - listen to people with compact cameras trying to understand why they can't shoot their children moving about, and if you're of a tender disposition don't go near a compact user trying to shoot motorsport.
If it works for most - fine, but until it's a serious contender in every way to a DSLR, this question is just silly.:shrug:

 

[heidfirst]

It's only a hunch, but I think this is a major stumbling block for CSCs, and is not just a question of development. It needs a new method. But on the other hand, I'm not sure the majority of potential CSC buyers will worry too much about it.

the manufacturers will continue to improve AF - but we also have coming software that removes motion blur, hardware/software where you choose focus after the fact etc. etc.

For the mass market it's definitely a case of when rather than if.
& I would say that when is very, very close.

 

[woof woof]

Ultimately the 'look' of the images that come out of four thirds just isn't something I would ever desire.

How odd. I've not had a vast number of digital cameras... 300D, 10D, 20D, 5D, GF1, G1, Fuji Finepix something or other..., Ixus thingy, LX2, LX5, Medion compact... and to me the "look" just isn't an issue.

I shoot RAW if the camera is capable of doing it and process each shot to get the best results. The amount of contrast, saturation, sharpening or other thing I do in post capture processing may well be different from one camera to another but I honestly can't see any camera produced image "look" that's instantly identifiable and preferable from one camera to another in the vast majority of my images. As per my earlier post, the biggest difference for me at the moment is noise at the higher ISO's.

 

[Adam_M]

The latest Sony sensor equipped CSC seem to be getting very good reviews and image quality between them and APS-C DSLR's seems to be negligible or even in the CSC's favour.

I don't know when or even if the majority of DSLR type cameras will be mirrorless but I do suspect that for the vast majority of people image quality will not be an issue soon - if not already - and the issues that remain will be non image quality issues such as focus speed, although I think that'll come to CSC and CSC already has some advantage here with the lack of front/back focus issues that seems to bedevil some DSLR's and users, and the OVF v EVF argument which I think will also largely disappear for the vast majority of people and even now EVF's do have advantages for some people.

Holy batman! You're telling me Sonys ASP-C mirrorless is as good as an ASP-C DSLR?! Heh. Whodathunkit.

When will the stupid CSC term go and die? It's a terrible term, the Sonys are anything but 'Compact' when lens size is taken into consideration.

On a serious note, how do EVFs fare in the studio? Especially with off-cam flash without modelling lights where there's not a lot of ambient light? I'm guessing not very well.

 

[Phil V]

OK, read this...

I have a 5D and a G1 and at low to middling ISO's the G1 + a decent lens produces whole images that when processed to get the best results and printed at A3 and under or viewed on screen are so good that the vast majority of people would never be able to pick them out when mixed with 5D shots. I know this because I've tried it.

The latest Sony sensor equipped CSC seem to be getting very good reviews and image quality between them and APS-C DSLR's seems to be negligible or even in the CSC's favour.

I don't know when or even if the majority of DSLR type cameras will be mirrorless but I do suspect that for the vast majority of people image quality will not be an issue soon - if not already - and the issues that remain will be non image quality issues such as focus speed, although I think that'll come to CSC and CSC already has some advantage here with the lack of front/back focus issues that seems to bedevil some DSLR's and users, and the OVF v EVF argument which I think will also largely disappear for the vast majority of people and even now EVF's do have advantages for some people.

So my point; my entire point, is that they're not there YET, and the question is about WHEN, but your answer to my post is that they may be soon!

Seriously, mirrorless users are worse than FF users when it comes to loyalty to a system. They're not as good yet - you know it and I know it. They may be one day - which means one day might be a good time to swap - but swapping and pinning your hopes on a promise?

Not being able to shoot moving subjects today - just so I can say I'm on the cutting edge? Some people need to take a step back and see what they're saying.




I'm on one now.....
And another thing:

When I put a 70-200 2.8 zoom on my camera, whether it's a DSLR or mirrorless, it's not really 'pocketable'. There's all the 'advantages' gone in a stroke. I wasn't even trying to, it's just one of the things I do with a camera.

 

[woof woof]

Holy batman! You're telling me Sonys ASP-C mirrorless is as good as an ASP-C DSLR?! Heh. Whodathunkit.

When will the stupid CSC term go and die? It's a terrible term, the Sonys are anything but 'Compact' when lens size is taken into consideration.

On a serious note, how do EVFs fare in the studio? Especially with off-cam flash without modelling lights where there's not a lot of ambient light? I'm guessing not very well.

Dunno and don't care but in a studio size and weight probably matter a lot less.

 

[JulesP]

Ask the film guys when the DSLR will finally kill film
Can't see it happening for a loooong time yet

 

[Tobers]

In my view the camera is a tool to do a job. I wouldn't dream of shooting a football match with anything less than a paid of 1D bodies (or D3s or equivalent). Similarly I wouldn't take my 400 2.8 to do landscapes (though it can be quite interesting to do so).

I've also got a very nice Olympus OM-D with 5 lenses which is a super setup for lightweight landscaping and as a travel camera. I also use it as a remote at football matches and events where it performs superbly.

I recently chucked some readies at a Sony RX1 which is a whole new kettle of fish. I did have a Leica M9 for a while which was beautiful but flawed. The RX1 is my replacement for the M9 and it is superb - my new favourite camera. But I wouldn't use it for a football match.

I think we're seeing a fantastic level of evolution in the world of digital cameras. It's a great time to be into photography. As long as you remember there's no "right" camera then you'll be OK. Whatever you get will be a compromise. The only solution is to have enough cash to buy several of them so you've always got the right option available to you.

 

[woof woof]

So my point....

OK, I'll say it a little differently ...

If I print out a batch of G1 and 5D images taken at low to mid ISO's and show them to people they can't reliably pick out the G1 images even after looking for clues like DoF. I know this because I've tried it.

Seriously, I'm no fan boy. It's my money and I'll buy what I think is the best kit for me at the price I'm willing to pay. I could afford a Canon/Nikon FF system and all of the top lenses for every single day of the week but I choose to use either a 5D or a G1 because the image quality is good enough for me. The only image quality issues that I have at the moment with my aging CSC is the noise at higher ISO's, other than that I have some issues with the EVF in very low light and there's some lack of DR but this last issue is reduced to some extent by the WYSIWYG and in view histograme.

Really, those who complain about the image quality of CSC may be fooling themselves to a degree or not trying hard enough although obviously that's not you For me CSC are going to be used for most of my picture taking

 

[applemint]

But there's slight of hand in your answer re 'the best DSLR's', they're not as good as bad one's either:nuts:. The AF system has serious drawbacks, and whilst for many users that makes no difference - listen to people with compact cameras trying to understand why they can't shoot their children moving about, and if you're of a tender disposition don't go near a compact user trying to shoot motorsport.
If it works for most - fine, but until it's a serious contender in every way to a DSLR, this question is just silly.:shrug:

Well the thread title is "How long does the "DSLR" Have left...?" not "are mirrorless cameras currently as good as dslrs?". The thread title implies that they will at some stage be as good as but the question is when - which I think makes for an interesting discussion, rather than being "just silly".

 

[heidfirst]

On a serious note, how do EVFs fare in the studio? Especially with off-cam flash without modelling lights where there's not a lot of ambient light? I'm guessing not very well.

actually they seem to do well enough - indeed combined with focus peaking they work better than an optical vf on an af body for critical mf at wide apertures.
On Sonys it's just a menu setting for them to gain up.

 

[artyman]

I can't see what is basically a compact on steroids replacing my 7D anytime soon.

 

[woof woof]

It's not a compact on steroids. The sensors are mostly either MFT or APS-C and some spank your 7D's arse for image quality.... according to some reviewers.

 

[applemint]

Holy batman! You're telling me Sonys ASP-C mirrorless is as good as an ASP-C DSLR?! Heh. Whodathunkit.

Yes of course, but I assume he meant the Sony sensors being used in the current generation of micro four thirds cameras (Olympus OMD, E-PM2, E-PL5) and rumoured (although not sure if confirmed) to be used in the Panasonic GH3 as well.

 

[bryan elliott]

I've had a shot of the oly omd , to me it's a Dslr in everyway only smaller and lighter, sure it's high Iso range isn't very good that will only get better and I think 1 day canon and Nikon will start to produce ff mirror less cameras, I do believe them to be the future

 

[Musicman]

Similarly, a 5D and G2 owner here and I'd broadly agree with everything woof woof said.

While I'm far from a full time Pro, I've made regular sales of photos taken with both systems. No complaints from clients yet.

AF speed is a low priority for 95% of my photography, which is probably why the AF on my 5Dc has never bothered me

A 5D with a 70-200 f/2.8 weighs 2.5Kg and attracts attention. A G2 with an equivalent lens (I'll often use an FD 35-105 f/3.5 which is a fine MF zoom) weighs 1/3 of that and doesn't garner 'paparazzi' comments from passers-by.

Beyond size, CSCs have several advantages over current DSLR systems with their film heritage. Olympus' IBIS would be impossible with EF or F mount: the image circle cast by their lenses is too small to allow for the movement required. Having 5 axis IS available on every lens you have is very attractive. When you don't have a mirror knocking about inside, you can hand hold at much slower speeds anyhow.

An EVF viewfinder gives you 100% coverage and I can focus manually far more accurately with one than any AF system can - I *know* exactly where it's focused at 10x magnification. For much of what I do, the increased DoF at the same aperture on m4/3 vs FF is actually an advantage.

I'm keeping the 5D and 'L' lenses for now, but they sit in a cupboard most of the time. Even when the 5D has come out to play in the last 18 months it's often been with only a small prime lens. If I do get round to something like an OM-D, it may see the end of my affair with FF digital, though my EOS 3 film body might tempt me to not sell them.

 

[Raymond Lin]

People can buy all the mirrorless cameras they want but I will stick with my DSLR thanks

I pay more just for that 100% optical viewfinder.

 

[Adam_M]

How odd. I've not had a vast number of digital cameras... 300D, 10D, 20D, 5D, GF1, G1, Fuji Finepix something or other..., Ixus thingy, LX2, LX5, Medion compact... and to me the "look" just isn't an issue.

I shoot RAW if the camera is capable of doing it and process each shot to get the best results. The amount of contrast, saturation, sharpening or other thing I do in post capture processing may well be different from one camera to another but I honestly can't see any camera produced image "look" that's instantly identifiable and preferable from one camera to another in the vast majority of my images. As per my earlier post, the biggest difference for me at the moment is noise at the higher ISO's.

Oh I like this game! Canon 300D, 20D twice, 1D Mk2, 40D, 5D mk1, 5D Mk2, 1Ds Mk 2, 1Ds Mk3 Nikon D100, D70s, D80, D90, D7000, D700, D3X, Pentax something-or-other, Kodak DCS/n, Fuji S5, Olympus PEN & OMD, PhaseOne P60+ & P80+ backs. Some works own, some long term rentals for R&D at work, but mostly mine. Itchy feet. Now I'm thinking of all the money I've wasted... yikes.

If you're not attentive to the inherent look that the images have from different systems and formats, then that's fine. I am. Some say they can't see a different between Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Phase one, Leaf etc's files. I can, because I've been looking at them for so long no doubt. (before serious processing, of course)

But anyway, this whole argument is a bit daft. Four thirds will improve as time goes on and so will 35mm full frame. Four thirds will always lag behind, unless something miraculous happens where smaller sensors are suddenly better. All of them though are capable and can even be used professionally.

Either way I hope they become more popular at the lower end of the market, If full size DSLR's become more rarely seen then then people might respect pro's more when they see one.

 

[Musicman]

Ask the film guys when the DSLR will finally kill film
Can't see it happening for a loooong time yet

Well, quite; if you're being statistically precise.

Did the 35mm (film) SLR ever 'kill' the 35mm rangefinder? (Hint: you can still buy a brand new Leica or Voightlander film RF body today).

However, while SLR systems will continue to have obvious applications for things like sports, I can easily see mirrorless systems taking a large part (possibly even the majority) of the current DSLR market within 5 to 10 years.

 

[Phil V]

Well the thread title is "How long does the "DSLR" Have left...?" not "are mirrorless cameras currently as good as dslrs?". The thread title implies that they will at some stage be as good as but the question is when - which I think makes for an interesting discussion, rather than being "just silly".

It'd help if you'd read the whole question rather than just the headline

I was in work today, i overheard two chaps talking about how they are selling all there DSLR equipment as the mirrorless or micro four thirds will soon take over the DSLR?

Ive just purchased a Lumix G5 and was wondering if it was a good decision to adopt early, or have DSLR got some life left in them...

the G5 beats most of the £600 cameras on the market at the moment. What are your thoughts?

So - not as simple as you'd surmised
And definitely taking a stance rather than asking an open question.

The answer is still 'we have no real idea what the future will bring - we can only speculate'. But only an idiot would buy an inferior product today just so that they can say they backed the right horse when the boat comes in.

Mixing metaphors with no sense of shame....

It's the wine

 

[Musicman]

Four thirds will improve as time goes on and so will 35mm full frame. Four thirds will always lag behind, unless something miraculous happens where smaller sensors are suddenly better. All of them though are capable and can even be used professionally.

You're assuming 35mm full frame == DSLR.

This is already not true (e.g. Sony Alpha FF DSLT is not an optical SLR system, nor is Leica M).

I would not bet against them remaining alone in that even in just the next 18 months.

 

[Phil V]

OK, I'll say it a little differently ...

If I print out a batch of G1 and 5D images taken at low to mid ISO's and show them to people they can't reliably pick out the G1 images even after looking for clues like DoF. I know this because I've tried it.

Seriously, I'm no fan boy. It's my money and I'll buy what I think is the best kit for me at the price I'm willing to pay. I could afford a Canon/Nikon FF system and all of the top lenses for every single day of the week but I choose to use either a 5D or a G1 because the image quality is good enough for me. The only image quality issues that I have at the moment with my aging CSC is the noise at higher ISO's, other than that I have some issues with the EVF in very low light and there's some lack of DR but this last issue is reduced to some extent by the WYSIWYG and in view histograme.

Really, those who complain about the image quality of CSC may be fooling themselves to a degree or not trying hard enough although obviously that's not you For me CSC are going to be used for most of my picture taking

I never once mentioned image quality - you're picking an argument you feel comfortable in.
As an all round camera, the CSC cannot compare with a DSLR today. It will take an entire new method of AF before it can compete. And when it can, the victory will be that I can fit a slightly smaller body on my massive lens. I'm not sure it's worth the hassle - for me.

It really doesn't matter what the image quality is like, we can't produce smaller lenses for the same sized sensors - that's physics.
(see I'm prepared to accept the improvement will happen - just that it won't do everything it needs to do to make it worthwhile - for me)

 

[Nawty]

Why is everyone banging on about the sensor as if it's the only thing that counts?

For me, the thing that will save (if that's the right word) the DSLR is the viewfinder - they're so much better for taking pictures than looking at a screen.

 

[Phil V]

Why is everyone banging on about the sensor as if it's the only thing that counts?

For me, the thing that will save (if that's the right word) the DSLR is the viewfinder - they're so much better for taking pictures than looking at a screen.

The people banging on about the sensors are the mirrorless fanboys, because they know that the AF systems and viewfinders are their weak points. With no real resolution in sight.

 

[applemint]

I did read it - the OP said "will soon take over the DSLR?"

ie: soon (which implies not yet but at some stage in the near future" and "?" which implies perhaps /maybe

and said "was wondering if "DSLRs "got some life left in them"

Only the last sentence said "the G5 beats most of the £600 cameras on the market at the moment" - which I addressed (and disagreed with) in my first reply when I said that at price point dslrs were more appealing based on choosing a £600 dslr vs a £600 mirrorless.

I don't own a mirrorless camera to "say I backed the right horse" (I also own a dslr so that logic doesn't even work) and a mirrorless camera is not an inferior option at the times when I don't need the main advantage a dslr offers (fast tracking AF).

I own a mirrorless because I take pictures for fun as a hobby and there are plenty of times/places when I either cannot take a dslr (eg gigs, which I go to on average at least once a week) or don't want the weight and bulk of a dslr - hillwalking for example or even just wandering around town when I can stick a mirrorless camera with a prime lens in my jacket pocket (can't do that with a dslr!).

Photography is a hobby and one on which I have a limited budget to spend - my photos are not anything special, they are not for publication or to sell, they are only seen by myself and by family and friends and perhaps a few strangers on flickr or on a forum or two. I have neither the desire to nor the money to spend on a big heavy full frame dslr and lenses and I don't shoot sports or birds in flight or airshows and the like - so for me mirrorless works and it provides me with a lot of fun and enjoyment. You are a professional photographer with different needs and wants from a camera - so fine, what works for me won't work for me -but that doesn't make my choice wrong or make me "an idiot" thanks. Why do you feel the need to be so defensive?

 

[acetone]

The huge advantage on the CSC is in the title, compact.

Lugging my 1D around a city can be a bit of a pain at time, so would a CSC take "better" images probably not but would take more images just because I could carry it everywhere.

The upgrade path new photographers are going to take IMHO
Phone - Point & shoot - CSC and then maybe and just maybe an SLR

 

[Phil V]

I did read it - the OP said "will soon take over the DSLR?"

ie: soon (which implies not yet but at some stage in the near future" and "?" which implies perhaps /maybe

and said "was wondering if "DSLRs "got some life left in them"

Only the last sentence said "the G5 beats most of the £600 cameras on the market at the moment" - which I addressed (and disagreed with) in my first reply when I said that at price point dslrs were more appealing based on choosing a £600 dslr vs a £600 mirrorless.

I don't own a mirrorless camera to "say I backed the right horse" (I also own a dslr so that logic doesn't even work) and a mirrorless camera is not an inferior option at the times when I don't need the main advantage a dslr offers (fast tracking AF).

I own a mirrorless because I take pictures for fun as a hobby and there are plenty of times/places when I either cannot take a dslr (eg gigs, which I go to on average at least once a week) or don't want the weight and bulk of a dslr - hillwalking for example or even just wandering around town when I can stick a mirrorless camera with a prime lens in my jacket pocket (can't do that with a dslr!).

Photography is a hobby and one on which I have a limited budget to spend - my photos are not anything special, they are not for publication or to sell, they are only seen by myself and by family and friends and perhaps a few strangers on flickr or on a forum or two. I have neither the desire to nor the money to spend on a big heavy full frame dslr and lenses and I don't shoot sports or birds in flight or airshows and the like - so for me mirrorless works and it provides me with a lot of fun and enjoyment. You are a professional photographer with different needs and wants from a camera - so fine, what works for me won't work for me -but that doesn't make my choice wrong or make me "an idiot" thanks. Why do you feel the need to be so defensive?

You've got me all wrong, I don't know why, I've said a few times that mirrorless is the way to go for many users. I never saw anywhere that you said that a DSLR was a better bet

I think you're looking for a defence of the OP's position whilst not actually agreeing with everything he says.

I think the OP has opened a troll thread hoping that he can get the mirrorless fanboys in to defend their system against old farts like me.

And don't make too many suppositions about our viewpoints here. If I could afford to equip an entire compact system to take out for family days, to gigs or on walking trips - I'd do it in a flash. But I'd still need my entire DSLR system for where the mirrorless can't perform - the point of my frustration - it's too much money for something as frivolous as fun photography :shake:

 

[Rick_Luke]

having used my other halfs Nikon P510 a few times I can honestly say you will never get me to buy a camera with an electronic view finder, I hate them with a passion! She loves the camera as its effective focal range is something crazy like 25-1000 with no lens to change. Personally I hate it and much prefer my much heavier and clumsier set up, even if it means lugging around 10kg of kit versus her tiny bag and less than 1kg total weight.

With regards to mirror less systems, maybe they will find a way to integrate these into future generations of the DSLR’s, the 1DX already allows you to shoot mirror up to achieve a faster frame rate, albeit at a reduced image quality. Its not that hard to imagine this would be the path the manufacturers will be looking at. DSLR’s have a huge amount of points in their favour, the only down sides are size & weight (which pretty much go hand in hand anyway so could effectively be combined to just one point rather than two)

For now, I will certainly be sticking with the system I have and in the future who knows, its like trying to decide what car you are going to buy in 10 years time, you don’t know! Just buy what your happy with and what suits you at the time you are buying. Simples