The Last Days of the DSLR

[bazmlb]

The DSLR is everywhere. You see it around the necks of tourists, against the faces of pro photographers. Since Canon introduced the Digital Rebel in 2003, the DSLR has come to dominate photography outright. That ubiquity is about to come to an end so abrupt, you might not even have time to notice it.

No, this isn't another smartphone screed. Yes, they're popular, but they're still not anywhere near winning over the enthusiast demand for more expensive, higher quality devices like DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. This is about a turning point in photography, and the relegation of one of its most popular formats into a purely niche product for pros. It's already begun.

Back in the DSLR

Digital SLR has become such a common acronym that most people confuse it for any camera that has interchangeable lenses. It's actually a very specific type of camera, with one very specific mechanism: the single lens reflex. That SLR mechanism dates back almost a century, and it has dictated many iconic camera attributes such as size, shape, and some aspects of performance.

The SLR accounts for what you see when you look through your camera's viewfinder. When light enters through the camera's lens, it strikes a little reflex mirror that bounces it up into a prism, then onto ground glass, which is what you look at when you bring the camera up to your eye. When you finally press the shutter button, the mirror swings out of the way so that the light can strike the digital sensor (or film) that sits behind it.

That's where the single lens part comes in; it merely distinguishes SLRs from older twin-lens reflex cameras, which feature an entirely separate lens solely for delivering light to a viewfinder. The SLR became popular simply because it was the best way to frame your shotsletting you see exactly what the lens saw. This was only possible by physically bouncing the light from the lens into your eye, by way of the reflex mirror.

Room With a Viewfinder

In the last couple of years a new type of camera has appeared, one that has interchangeable lenses but ditches the SLR part. These have come to be known as mirrorless cameras (for want of a snappier name). They include the Sony NEX, Olympus PEN, and FujiFilm X cameras, among others. In place of the SLR, these devices make use of a large LCD you hold away from your face, and/or a tiny LCD you hold up to your eyethe electronic viewfinder.

Many enthusiasts love the compact sizes and throwback feel of mirrorless cameras, but they haven't yet found broad appeal. They're too unfamiliar and they can seem expensive to a marketplace that equates "quality" with "big and bulky." Simply put, DSLRs look more professional. They let the world know that you are doing Serious Photography.

But despite the sluggish dissemination of mirrorless cameras, changes in technology are taking place that will threaten the dominance of the DSLR with brute force, whether the public even knows it or not.

Electronic viewfinders are starting to rival or exceed the quality of experience in optical viewfinders. Where EVFs were once pixelated and laggy, they are now big, bright, and accurate. Using a great EVF means having access to features just not possible on a DSLR. Being able to preview exactly how your photo will be exposed before pressing the shutter is invaluable. Manual focus aids like image magnification and peaking, where edges of in-focus objects are highlighted, make it easier to use vintage lenses successfully.

Focus systems are also evolving rapidly. The reigning champ of focus systems, phase-detection, was once dependent on a reflex mirror to bounce light into a separate sensor in charge of calculating focus. Now, on-sensor phase detection is replacing the need for mirrors, and contrast-detection auto focus is improving as well.

The result is a new breed of high-performance interchangeable lens cameras that are smaller, lighter, and more durable.

The New Regime

The final step for mirrorless hegemony is tackling the high end. Sony will soon ship its milestone A7 series, two compact mirrorless bodies with full-frame sensors, the lynchpin of top-tier camera bodies and the harbingers of the DSLR's doom. They are, simply put, the best of both worlds.

Gizmodo 2013-12-6

[phuketrichard]

disagree; How many professionals do u see with mirrorless cameras?

and this is one crazy staement, " They let the world know that you are doing Serious Photography."

Ansel Adams worked with a 8x10!!!

same as those that said the nook, kindle e-readers will replace books

[bazmlb]

Time will show I guess, but they probably thought similar with VHS replacing film, as well as DVD's replacing VHS.

[bobo42]

disagree; How many professionals do u see with mirrorless cameras?

and this is one crazy staement, " They let the world know that you are doing Serious Photography."

Ansel Adams worked with a 8x10!!!

same as those that said the nook, kindle e-readers will replace books

15 years ago you would hear the same thing about film vs digital. Its just a question of function. What advantage does a mechanical mirror offer over an LCD? Viewing via the image sensor has many advantages over viewing via the mirror. Once the SLR loses all/most advantages over sensor viewing, it's day is done (some would argue that the time is already here).

I predict that in less than 10 years there will be no SLR mirrors in the typical professional camera bodies. I have a feeling that the overall camera format will not change that much, just because so many professionals are so heavily invested in their current lenses. I think we are definately at the end of the SLR era in regards to mirrors and viewfinders as we know them.

[villagefarang]

All I can say is I love my NEX6. No mirror means one less thing to go wrong in a humid tropical environment like this. If you are not making a living taking pictures then I don’t see the point in a SLR. I am pretty sure, however, there will always be those who love carrying several kilos of gear, or better yet, hiring someone else to carry it for them.

[phuketrichard]

I have tired mirrorless cameras and cant get used to using the LCD screen vs the eye cup to view my shot

PLus i find it more steady to hold the camera near my head than away.

Personal choice prehaps

[villagefarang]

NEX-6 has an excellent viewfinder conveniently located on the upper left corner.

[bazmlb]

I have tired mirrorless cameras and cant get used to using the LCD screen vs the eye cup to view my shot

PLus i find it more steady to hold the camera near my head than away.

Personal choice prehaps

In the new cameras like the Sony A7 you are still able to use the viewfinder, but instead of looking through mirrors, you are looking at the 2.4 million dot OLED display that is monitoring the sensor, you also have the tilting 3 inch LCD on the back of the unit.

http://gizmodo.com/sony-a7-a7r-review-so-long-dslrs-hello-future-of-ph-1469132320

[FracturedRabbit]

Personally I wouldn't have a camera with a mirror in it if you offered it to me for free and served it up on a plate of caviar with flashing lights announcing "this is a free camera". But that's just me.

The reality is that DSLR sales still dominate the world market and are likely to remain so for some time. This is not because they are "better", but Canikon dominates the market in terms of sales, distribution and marketing and this makes it difficult for others to break through. There are some interesting graphs on respective sales here: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/8969/camera-sales-including-october-reports#Item_2

But the mirror is becoming irrelevant. It adds weight, size and complexity and its advantages are gradually becoming eroded.

1. A mirror allows you to have an optical view. True, but electronic viewfinders (EVF) are catching up with the quality of the optical, and in addition:

-Allow for an overlay of information that you can't get with an optical view. For example, my camera can highlight where highlights or shadows are going to be potentially blown, before I take the shot.

- Displays a close approximation of how the final shot will look before you take it; very useful for dialing in over or under exposure. And as you dial in the over or under exposure compensation, you can see the change displayed in the EVF

- Can be boosted in the dark so you can see your subject in a way that would be impossible to the naked eye.

- You can take the shot and review the result without lifting your eye from the viewfinder.

2. A DSLR has a separate PDAF system for acquiring focus, this works better than the contrast detect focus system (CDAF) on mirrorless cameras when tracking moving subjects. True, but:

- For static subjects, the mirrorless CDAF focus system is more accurate because it is taking focus directly from the sensor. With a PDAF system you can get calibration errors.

- For static subjects, the latest mirrorless cameras are quicker to focus than DSLRs. My camera focuses effectively instantaneously, and it never fails to obtain perfect focus. This is not something I could have said about the DSLR I used to own.

- For fast moving subjects, the DSLR still rules and would be one reason to have a camera with a a mirror. But the situation is changing and the latest mirrorless cameras include PDAF arrays built into the sensor. My camera has such an array and it will track moving targets to a degree; but it can't keep up with a good DSLR. But it's just a matter of time.

But most of all, mirrorless cameras will win in the end because they are more fun to shoot with. Throw away the mirror and you suddenly have a much smaller and enjoyable camera with lightning fast, accurate focus and a host of features that you just can't implement on a DSLR.

Note to the mods: Shouldn't this topic be in the "Photography Equipment and tools" section?

[Curt1591]

No mirror means one less thing to go wrong in a humid tropical environment like this.

In the new cameras like the Sony A7 you are still able to use the viewfinder, but instead of looking through mirrors, you are looking at the 2.4 million dot OLED display that is monitoring the sensor, you also have the tilting 3 inch LCD on the back of the unit.

One less thing to go wrong, replace by another thing to go wrong ...

[Familyonthemove]

I've been a mirrorless convert since the Lumix G2 was launched and the New OMD-1 and Sony A7 are beginning to make a mechanical mirror look like an unnecessary and ancient complication.

But I reckon there's still two barriers ....

Mass DSLR use is mainly about the entry level DSLR's and there's still a perception that if you want the best IQ you need a big, bulky camera from Nikon or Canon or perhaps Pentax. Canon and Nikon are everywhere and Panasonic, Olympus and Sony are more limited in the market. The big three DSLR manufacturers don't want their mirrorless offerings to cannibalize their DSLR sales so they make weird interchangeable lens cameras with some key features missing (no viewfinder, small sensor, limited lenses etc) to ensure that their DSLR's are still King. So the big. well known brands make crippled mirrorless systems.

In general the best mirrorless cameras are made by manufacturers who failed in the DSLR market.

And at the 'Pro' end the best EVF still can't quite match an optical one.

The gap is narrowing (as it is with IQ, focus speed etc) so I think the OP is right that eventually the DLSR will become a niche market like film and pin hole cameras.

But not for a while yet.

[FracturedRabbit]

Where did the bloat come from?

One of the noticeable differences between current DSLRs and mirrorless cameras is the fact that mirrorless cameras are so much smaller. This is to an extent obvious, the mirror box takes a lot of space. But if you look back to some of the earlier SLRs; they didn't occupy the same volume as modern cameras.

For example, attached is a size comparison between my Olympus E-M1 next to a Nikon D800. The E-M1 is actually one of the larger mirrorless cameras, but it is still dwarfed by the D800. Add some lenses and the E-M1 system becomes even smaller in comparison.

The other photo is of my E-M1 sat next to a Kine Exacta, the world's first production 35mm SLR. The sizes are very similar. Now imagine the Kine Exacta next to the Nikon D800, both 35mm SLR cameras, where did the bloat come from? The need to accommodate all the electronics? The need to have something large to hang the monster lenses on? The need to make something big to impress the buying public?

[FracturedRabbit]

No mirror means one less thing to go wrong in a humid tropical environment like this.

In the new cameras like the Sony A7 you are still able to use the viewfinder, but instead of looking through mirrors, you are looking at the 2.4 million dot OLED display that is monitoring the sensor, you also have the tilting 3 inch LCD on the back of the unit.

One less thing to go wrong, replace by another thing to go wrong ...

Several less things joined together and moving, replaced by a single electronic component. I've had a mirror box replaced, never had to have an EVF replaced.

[Shurup]

Where did the bloat come from?

One of the noticeable differences between current DSLRs and mirrorless cameras is the fact that mirrorless cameras are so much smaller. This is to an extent obvious, the mirror box takes a lot of space. But if you look back to some of the earlier SLRs; they didn't occupy the same volume as modern cameras.

For example, attached is a size comparison between my Olympus E-M1 next to a Nikon D800. The E-M1 is actually one of the larger mirrorless cameras, but it is still dwarfed by the D800. Add some lenses and the E-M1 system becomes even smaller in comparison.

The other photo is of my E-M1 sat next to a Kine Exacta, the world's first production 35mm SLR. The sizes are very similar. Now imagine the Kine Exacta next to the Nikon D800, both 35mm SLR cameras, where did the bloat come from? The need to accommodate all the electronics? The need to have something large to hang the monster lenses on? The need to make something big to impress the buying public?

Hi end DSLR have dual image processors, dual batteries, dual memory cards, they can snap insane amounts of full res pics that mirrorless can't even dream about... it's not for the show, it's for redundancy speed and how long they can run on a single charge.

Add: not all DSLR are like that and not all are as huge as D800 or Canon Mark series, but you asked about the D800 size so here.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Shurup

[Shurup]

I don't believe they (DSLR) will be replaced any time soon, mirrorless found a good niche in a market (maybe) but they can't replace the DSLR.

How long can a camera vs DSLR run on one battery charge?

Which of the mirrorless cameras has as many choices of lenses as Canon or Nikon DSLR?

Which of the mirrorless cameras has as many manual control buttons and switches on their bodies, that just fall under your fingers making it a breeze making adjustments on the fly without taking your eyes off the viewfinder?

Thanks but no thanks, I'd always take my DSLR for any serious shooting. I have to confess I don't use it as often as I'd love to, due to it's size and weight, and I've got a high end point and shoot with lots of manual controls (Lumix LX7) just for the times when I can't / don't want to carry my Canon with me, but will I replace it with some skinny mirrorless? No.

In any case I end up taking most of my shots with my phone, just because it's always with me.

P.S. Give me a professional photographer with a skinny camera trying to push on those tiny buttons with his pinky, I'd laugh into his face and ask for my money back If I hired him.

[tw25rw]

disagree; How many professionals do u see with mirrorless cameras?

And how many will still be using them in the future?

It's just a matter of time really. Give pros a DSLM (M for mirroless) that has the performance they need and is fully compatible with their lenses, and they will buy it. Canon and Nikon must be starting to feel the heat.

[tw25rw]

Where did the bloat come from?

One of the noticeable differences between current DSLRs and mirrorless cameras is the fact that mirrorless cameras are so much smaller. This is to an extent obvious, the mirror box takes a lot of space. But if you look back to some of the earlier SLRs; they didn't occupy the same volume as modern cameras.

For example, attached is a size comparison between my Olympus E-M1 next to a Nikon D800. The E-M1 is actually one of the larger mirrorless cameras, but it is still dwarfed by the D800. Add some lenses and the E-M1 system becomes even smaller in comparison.

The other photo is of my E-M1 sat next to a Kine Exacta, the world's first production 35mm SLR. The sizes are very similar. Now imagine the Kine Exacta next to the Nikon D800, both 35mm SLR cameras, where did the bloat come from? The need to accommodate all the electronics? The need to have something large to hang the monster lenses on? The need to make something big to impress the buying public?

Hi end DSLR have dual image processors, dual batteries, dual memory cards, they can snap insane amounts of full res pics that mirrorless can't even dream about... it's not for the show, it's for redundancy speed and how long they can run on a single charge.

Add: not all DSLR are like that and not all are as huge as D800 or Canon Mark series, but you asked about the D800 size so here.

There's no reason at all why DSLMs can't do all this and more, but without the moving parts. Canon/Nikon just need the incentive. And with the high quality DSLMs alreay nibbling away at their market, I am sure they are already working on it privately.

[tw25rw]

I have tired mirrorless cameras and cant get used to using the LCD screen vs the eye cup to view my shot

PLus i find it more steady to hold the camera near my head than away.

Personal choice prehaps

Get one with a viewfinder you look into. It takes getting used to, but the image you see is from the sensor, so gives a more accurate impression of the final result.

[FracturedRabbit]

I don't believe they (DSLR) will be replaced any time soon, mirrorless found a good niche in a market (maybe) but they can't replace the DSLR.

How long can a camera vs DSLR run on one battery charge?

Which of the mirrorless cameras has as many choices of lenses as Canon or Nikon DSLR?

Which of the mirrorless cameras has as many manual control buttons and switches on their bodies, that just fall under your fingers making it a breeze making adjustments on the fly without taking your eyes off the viewfinder?

Thanks but no thanks, I'd always take my DSLR for any serious shooting. I have to confess I don't use it as often as I'd love to, due to it's size and weight, and I've got a high end point and shoot with lots of manual controls (Lumix LX7) just for the times when I can't / don't want to carry my Canon with me, but will I replace it with some skinny mirrorless? No.

In any case I end up taking most of my shots with my phone, just because it's always with me.

P.S. Give me a professional photographer with a skinny camera trying to push on those tiny buttons with his pinky, I'd laugh into his face and ask for my money back If I hired him.

How long can a camera vs DSLR run on one battery charge? - My Canon 1D battery gave me 5,000 shots and weighed as much as one of my mirrorless cameras. I never shot 5,000 images in a day. My Olympus battery is tiny, light and gives me about 400 shots. I carry two spares in my bag; have never needed more than one. I prefer the lighter solution.

Which of the mirrorless cameras has as many choices of lenses as Canon or Nikon DSLR? - How many choices do you need? I have a choice of 30+ lens designed for the system; plus I can stick on any legacy lens of my choice with an adapter. My system could do with a fast long prime; it's coming. The Sony A7 is flying off the shelves, with only a couple of lenses available at launch.

Which of the mirrorless cameras has as many manual control buttons and switches on their bodies, that just fall under your fingers making it a breeze making adjustments on the fly without taking your eyes off the viewfinder? - My E-M1, and probably some others.

I'd always take my DSLR for any serious shooting. I have to confess I don't use it as often as I'd love to, due to it's size and weight - Exactly why I personally switched to mirrorless, and why many others are doing the same. Not much point having all this amazing gear if it just sits in the cupboard.

P.S. Give me a professional photographer with a skinny camera trying to push on those tiny buttons with his pinky, I'd laugh into his face and ask for my money back If I hired him. - I have a friend who is a professional wedding photographer in the UK. He also travels extensively to capture stock images. Last year he had two Nikon full frame cameras and a box of lenses. This year he has sold the lot and moved to a mirrorless system. He clients don't care what gear he uses, they care about his portfolio and the images he produces for them. With mirrorless, he can be more discrete and finds the informal shots are now better and more spontaneous because his subjects are less aware that they are being photographed. And he loves travelling the world with lightweight kit. Choosing a photographer based on what gear they use is like choosing a chef based on their cooker.

[sunshine51]

I don't believe they (DSLR) will be replaced any time soon, mirrorless found a good niche in a market (maybe) but they can't replace the DSLR.

How long can a camera vs DSLR run on one battery charge?

Which of the mirrorless cameras has as many choices of lenses as Canon or Nikon DSLR?

Which of the mirrorless cameras has as many manual control buttons and switches on their bodies, that just fall under your fingers making it a breeze making adjustments on the fly without taking your eyes off the viewfinder?

Thanks but no thanks, I'd always take my DSLR for any serious shooting. I have to confess I don't use it as often as I'd love to, due to it's size and weight, and I've got a high end point and shoot with lots of manual controls (Lumix LX7) just for the times when I can't / don't want to carry my Canon with me, but will I replace it with some skinny mirrorless? No.

In any case I end up taking most of my shots with my phone, just because it's always with me.

P.S. Give me a professional photographer with a skinny camera trying to push on those tiny buttons with his pinky, I'd laugh into his face and ask for my money back If I hired him.

"P.S. Give me a professional photographer with a skinny camera trying to push on those tiny buttons with his pinky, I'd laugh into his face and ask for my money back If I hired him."

With respect Shurup....

Get ready to have a laugh. I've been a "pro" for around 30 years. My current quiver consists of mainly Nik D800's (2), D700's (2),

D7K (1), Leica M6 & M9 plus an "ancient" Lumix FZ20...the last of the super-zooms Pana made with a REAL Leica lens built into it.

I have recently sold my Hassie H4D50 & 4 lenses due to under utilisation & purchased some old but virgin Nik film cameras on a

recent trip to HKG (F2AS & F4S). I was looking at the Oly OM-D EM1 but passed because I really don'nt need or require another

camera now...or in the immediate future....unless that camera will really impress me vice being another megapixel gadget that

everybody seems to be vomiting out these days...CaNikOlySon included.

I have big hands...US size 12...which means that many cameras just don't feel "right" in my mits. However...

On many shoots I use my M9 and associated lenses and have learned to manouver my chubby digits around

the M9's controls with ease.

I also put flat black gaffing tape over the make & model logo of ALL of my cameras...so really...my clients never

know what "kind" of camera I'm using. And they could care less...as long as they get what they want...on time &

on budget.

So there...be careful of who you may end up laughing at...buttonology & knobology only take a short amount of

time to get familiar with.

Now...if the camera makers will only stop telling us more pixels is what we need and get down to some serious

innovation such as...electronic shutters, synthetic apertures, a decent "fits all" tough form factor, and hi-rez

EVF's I may just buy another camera. I can easily get lens adaptors or have them made at any good machine

shop with a CNC machine...right here in LOS.

NB...edited to tidy up some words.

Edited December 6, 2013 by sunshine51

[Shurup]

Well, I just looked at some mentioned models and I see what you mean guys, those Olympus and Sony would almost have the DSLR feel.

I've always had an image of Sony NEX cameras in my head whenever I heard "mirrorless", and while this line is a great innovation, it's not a DSLR substitute, guess I was a little behind the technology.

Professional mirrorless with start replacing the DSLR when the big players like Canon and Nikon start producing some decent cameras (mirrorless), which will have the lens mounts to accept all those lenses already made.

To answer the question how many lens choices do I need, I don't need anymore than I have now, but if I ever require another one, there are plenty to choose from. Adapters? They're a temporary situation fix if you can't hook up the lens' electronics with the camera body.

[sunshine51]

^ Shurup....

"Adapters? They're a temporary situation fix if you can't hook up the lens' electronics with the camera body."

Why not shoot in manual and use one's own head & brain to do the thinking instead of letting Mr. or Ms.

CaNikOlyPanSon...et al do the thinking?! Plus you can get some wonderful & extremely fast primes to

use in manual at very reasonable prices...Big Hint!

[FracturedRabbit]

Well, I just looked at some mentioned models and I see what you mean guys, those Olympus and Sony would almost have the DSLR feel.

I've always had an image of Sony NEX cameras in my head whenever I heard "mirrorless", and while this line is a great innovation, it's not a DSLR substitute, guess I was a little behind the technology.

Professional mirrorless with start replacing the DSLR when the big players like Canon and Nikon start producing some decent cameras (mirrorless), which will have the lens mounts to accept all those lenses already made.

To answer the question how many lens choices do I need, I don't need anymore than I have now, but if I ever require another one, there are plenty to choose from. Adapters? They're a temporary situation fix if you can't hook up the lens' electronics with the camera body.

And in a stroke dismisses every Leica lens ever made...

Or lenses like this:

Ready for the darkness by pattayadays.com, on Flickr

No electronics, just a symphony in metal and glass by Voigtlander and F0.95.

As for adapters; if you are lucky to have a camera that can accept lenses with adapters, there is a world of possibility out there. Some juicy primes as Sunshine51 mentioned; but also all manner of weird and wonderful (and cheap) lenses to play with; many of which will give you an interesting rendering and bokeh. These are from a $25 Russian Helios lens on a Pentax 2/M43 adapter:

P1150949 by pattayadays.com, on Flickr

P1150957 by pattayadays.com, on Flickr

[Shurup]

Re: adapters - I don't always use the manual focus and sometimes I like the optical stabilization to function. But it's just me...

[sunshine51]

Steady Shot....4 beers within 30 minutes!

I have no idea how your eyes work regarding focus though...

[Arkady]

I think the turning point has been reached with the development of electronic viewfinders that are almost as clear now in the highest specs as optical viewfinders in DLSRs, along with improvements in mirrorless autofocus through hybrid phase detect and contrast systems. The best electronic viewfinders actually have an advantage over optical viewfinders in DLSRs because they show the exact image on the sensor, rather than a 97-99% crop of it. Fully phase detect autofocus on DLSRs still has an advantage over the best mirrorless AF systems for things like sports photography but the gap is rapidly narrowing and soon will not exist. The vibration caused by the mirror operation in a DLSR is a disadvantage that requires stabilisation. The mirrorless Sony A7R now offers the same resolution as the top of the line Nikon D800 full frame DLSR. In fact they have the same 36 megapixel sensors in them made by Sony.

[Arkady]

I think the turning point has been reached with the development of electronic viewfinders that are almost as clear now in the highest specs as optical viewfinders in DLSRs, along with improvements in mirrorless autofocus through hybrid phase detect and contrast systems. Only a couple of years ago electronic viewfinders went blurry if you tried to track a moving subject but that is now a thing of the past. The best electronic viewfinders actually have an advantage over optical viewfinders in DLSRs because they show the exact image on the sensor, rather than a 97-99% crop of it. Fully phase detect autofocus on DLSRs still has an advantage over the best mirrorless AF systems for things like sports photography but the gap is rapidly narrowing and soon will not exist. The vibration caused by the mirror operation in a DLSR is a disadvantage that requires stabilisation. The mirrorless Sony A7R now offers the same resolution as the top of the line Nikon D800 full frame DLSR. In fact they have the same 36 megapixel sensors in them made by Sony.

[sunshine51]

I think the turning point has been reached with the development of electronic viewfinders that are almost as clear now in the highest specs as optical viewfinders in DLSRs, along with improvements in mirrorless autofocus through hybrid phase detect and contrast systems. Only a couple of years ago electronic viewfinders went blurry if you tried to track a moving subject but that is now a thing of the past. The best electronic viewfinders actually have an advantage over optical viewfinders in DLSRs because they show the exact image on the sensor, rather than a 97-99% crop of it. Fully phase detect autofocus on DLSRs still has an advantage over the best mirrorless AF systems for things like sports photography but the gap is rapidly narrowing and soon will not exist. The vibration caused by the mirror operation in a DLSR is a disadvantage that requires stabilisation. The mirrorless Sony A7R now offers the same resolution as the top of the line Nikon D800 full frame DLSR. In fact they have the same 36 megapixel sensors in them made by Sony.

Leica's EVF is excellent on the new M 240...then again it's a fair bit pricey too.

I've had a look at the A7r when in Hong Kong last month...it's a nice camera

however I have this personal bitch with anything Sony which stems from a

Sony botched repair job on my old BVW-70iSP (PAL) Betacam SP camera;

it wasn't actually repaired...which almost cost me a lucrative job.

If it's a runoff between my Nikon 800 & Sony's new A7r...I'll stick with what I

have and use support & me wireless remote to nullify the shutter vibes as

much as possible. Or just lock up the mirror as I did way back in the film

days.

[fimgirl]

Leica's EVF on the 240 is poor. I have one. Slow with a capital S and nowhere near what it should be. Hopefully the next generation will be an improvement. The Olympus VF-2 is the same at less money. indeed, neither are OEM as they are re-badged Epson products. However, having said that, it really is a must have accessory inasmuch as it removes the need for external viewfinders for the wider lenses (- 35mm and down) and brings into play the EC adjustments with real time view. Focus peaking is wonderful but could do with a wider display. For 35mm - 90mm lenses I still prefer the conventional rangefinder use.

I was tempted with the A7/7r but passed as I had ( and still have) grave concerns at handholding 36mp in such a small and lightweight body and producing a sharp image. Heft. That's what's missing. And the ever increasing megapixels being introduced in these lightweight bodies is not doing anybody any favours. The dump weight/heft of the heavier dslr's is, in many instances, advantageous to rigidity when handholding, which of course is were most of us use our cameras. 36mp of resolution needs exemplary technique and high end lenses, the later not yet available. And a tripod is a no no for me.

The DSLR may well be coming to an end, but I don't see it happening imminently. Heavy it may be, but so versatile.

[sunshine51]

Leica's EVF on the 240 is poor. I have one. Slow with a capital S and nowhere near what it should be. Hopefully the next generation will be an improvement. The Olympus VF-2 is the same at less money. indeed, neither are OEM as they are re-badged Epson products. However, having said that, it really is a must have accessory inasmuch as it removes the need for external viewfinders for the wider lenses (- 35mm and down) and brings into play the EC adjustments with real time view. Focus peaking is wonderful but could do with a wider display. For 35mm - 90mm lenses I still prefer the conventional rangefinder use.

I was tempted with the A7/7r but passed as I had ( and still have) grave concerns at handholding 36mp in such a small and lightweight body and producing a sharp image. Heft. That's what's missing. And the ever increasing megapixels being introduced in these lightweight bodies is not doing anybody any favours. The dump weight/heft of the heavier dslr's is, in many instances, advantageous to rigidity when handholding, which of course is were most of us use our cameras. 36mp of resolution needs exemplary technique and high end lenses, the later not yet available. And a tripod is a no no for me.

The DSLR may well be coming to an end, but I don't see it happening imminently. Heavy it may be, but so versatile.

Outta likes mate ....however I find the EVF on the Leica OK...guess it's me eyes?

Heft is an asset...just like a high end target rifle which weighs a ton even in small

calibers. And for the same reasons...a miniscule movement at <1 meter means many

meters at half a kilometer. Balance plays an important part also and so does centre

of gravity. I use a battery grip not for the extra fps or exposures but mainly for lowering

the centre of gravity....regardless of the lens I'm using...whether its a 58 f1.2 or a 400

2.8. I've even added a bit of weight to my Leica's when using the 90 f2 by using the grip

with a tad bit of lead on the grips bottom...just a couple ounces does the trick for me.

Personal prefs again and to each their own.