Just listen to this clip
http://live.wsj.com/video/a-new-hope-for-the-digital-camera-market/D45DAEBA-54A5-42C1-8FAA-BD2742FCF085.html?mod=WSJ_article_outbrain&obref=obnetwork#!D45DAEBA-54A5-42C1-8FAA-BD2742FCF085


How many you are considering moving towards the Mirror less cameras?  Is the dSLR a dying breed?

I'm already using fuji X-E2 for all static shots. If something moves then I go back to my trusty 5D3. Focus speed and operation is still below DSLR, level though.

We tried the Sony A7 at our local shop and were totally underwhelmed. It's a long time since I've seen a lens as bad as the 28-70 kit lens. Very soft compared with our usual 5D2/24-105, and doesn't sharpen up much in ACR. The handling's nothing special, either, not even as good as the Canon.

We've been using the Panasonic GH2 with 14-42 kit lens for a couple of years as our off-duty camera, and had no trouble producing usable stock photos with it.

I will buy one more dSLR (When Canon releases the 44.7 mp) than decide if I want to go into the new technology- probably in 5 to 7 years from today...

Have an EOS-M it's fun and interesting. Not moving anywhere, just got it because it was on sale.

NO DSLRs are not a dying breed and whoever that guy was in the clip, (I'll curb my tongue) saying DSLRs are obsolete, is jumping the gun on this technology.

Read what everyone above me has said, there's your real talk on the street answer. And all good points. There's some important development to be accomplished before M cameras are a serious professional replacement. #1 would be the slow and vague auto focusing.

Hey wasn't that 44MP Canon supposed to be announced a couple of years ago?     Or did you mean that camera would be a reality 5-7 years from now. LOL

How many you are considering moving towards the Mirror less cameras?  Is the dSLR a dying breed?

Any Olympus dSLR user here besides me?

The dSLR shouldn't be a dying breed in my opinion but it seems that Olympus is not going to produce the so called E-7, although I would be glad to be proven wrong.

Owning an E-5 - a great dSLR, but it's getting old - and a lot of lenses, I would gladly buy a new body.

Frankly, I use the live view most of the time so it could even be mirrorless, but should use the 4/3 system - instead of m4/3 - natively. Why should a mirrorless camera be compact and require new (inferior) lenses? Why don't put the new improved sensor into a proper body?

One of the reasons I chose Olympus E-M1 was new line of pro lens they released with it. I was considering A7 for a moment but Sony does not have good lens ready for this system. I did not want to spent lots of money on Zeiss lens. Also full frame lens cannot be small so it would not be any size benefits of having mirrorless.

What I wonder about and never checked, is sensor dust and cleaning, since there's no shutter or mirror protecting it? Is there some new "dust bunny" issue on the horizon?

Quote from: melastmohican on February 14, 2014, 10:26

One of the reasons I chose Olympus E-M1 was new line of pro lens they released with it. I was considering A7 for a moment but Sony does not have good lens ready for this system. I did not want to spent lots of money on Zeiss lens. Also full frame lens cannot be small so it would not be any size benefits of having mirrorless.

I switched to mirrorless two years ago, and am now using the E-M1.  Interestingly I had more issues with dust on my Canon dSLR (which had sensor cleaning) than I do with the Olympus.  I think Olympus has a particularly effective dust cleaning system, though.

I think whether mirrorless or mirrored appeals to you depends on what and where you shoot.  I switched as I wanted a single system and the size of micro four thirds allows me to use one body for both stock and personal stuff.  If you aren't going to a smaller sensor (i.e. smaller) system then there is no inherent quality difference between dSLRs and mirrorless - given that they have the same sensors basically.  That said, for static subjects, I think mirrorless has an advantage in that contrast AF is more accurate, typically, supports AF anywhere in the frame and magnification.  A tilt screen is nice for composing macro shots and the viewfinders are larger than what you find in a similar APS-C body.  Of course dSLRs shouldn't really be at a disadvantage, since they too can employ live view - but for some reason mirrorless cameras are ahead for AF and focus options.

Generally I see dSLRs as still being king in cost effectiveness (you aren't waiting on the latest pricey lenses from Sony, Olympus, etc.), AF Tracking (unless you are using live view to get odd angles or using eye detection type features), general responsiveness (no lag when switching to the viewfinder) and DOF control (more lens choices, larger sensors on all but the Sony A7/A7r).

What I really like about mirrorless cameras (like the EM1) is the big 'experience' in a small size (large viewfinder, lots of controls, weather sealed) and the seamless transition from using the viewfinder to the rear screen.

That veiwfinder part is a bit of a problem without a mirror, isn't it? But you just reminded me of the old Canon Pellix and some of the special RS EOS film cameras.

Not to leave everyone out of what this means.

Fixed Mirror instead of no mirror. Canon and some others already have the experience and technology.

I like the EOS-M and the photos do look different for some reason. I can't understand why since it's the same sensor as other cameras. Single point AF which seems to hunt and they stick well in perfect focus, at the point I selected. It's interesting and fun. Not fast, but when it works, it's great!

Personally I don't like any camera without a viewfinder, even if it's just a sight for aiming, and I don't like looking at a little screen on the back of the camera.

Some other people have never used a viewfinder and find them uncomfortable. I guess it's what one has the most experience and comfort using.

This will be interesting to watch and mirrorless is the future, it's just not an overnight sensation that has made DSLRs obsolete like the dip in the video keeps claiming. Not anymore than people last year who said the camera phone had made the DSLR obsolete. Remember those folks?

When you come down to it, the only excuse for SLRs was that they solved the parallax and focal length problems. Those were such amazing advances over the fixed focal length viewfinder cameras that they became the standard for pros who found large format cameras impossibly inconvenient.
The moving mirror is not a benefit, it is (or was) a necessary evil. If  you can get rid of it and provide an eyepiece (focus adjustable) view of what the camera will record, then you have got a real winner. The LCD camera back displays fall short because of stability issues and their reliance on people having excellent vision. Also, the viewfinder excludes distractions.

I think mirror-less is a great innovation in the technology aspect, I've always been worried about dust getting into my camera and onto the mirror thus ruining my images. I think it is quite costly however, So before I switch over to the newer technology I would like to see a significant price drop first.

Dust on the mirror has absolutely no effect on the image as the mirror only affects the optical viewfinder. Dust on the sensor is the problem, and is exactly the same for mirrorless cameras. Fixed mirrors have some advantage here, as the dust image will be very diffuse.

Also, one of the advantages of mirrorless cameras is that they can be cheaper than good conventional mirror systems.

You mean the sensor is activated the whole time for viewing? Sure that works. I still like optical TTL, but a little lcd would work fine. Maybe a little more battery drain, but as pointed out in a number of different ways, No Mirror and no parts, means no flap vibration, no blackout, and less complications.

You know what mirrorless also means? Soon someone will figure a way to mount a sensor on the old film cameras and make then useful again. Maybe not so great for a 35mm slr but what about a medium format camera?

I want one for the 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 back. Imagine the size of those shots? 100MP straight from the camera.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 14, 2014, 23:07

That veiwfinder part is a bit of a problem without a mirror, isn't it? But you just reminded me of the old Canon Pellix and some of the special RS EOS film cameras.

Surely in the electronic era it's possible to rig a viewfinder to an internal lcd display, so no mirror is needed? I assumed they had already done that.

If you're into wedding photography or something similar photography job, one still has to use a DLSR. Clients won trust you if you use a mirrorless camera.

If it was 4/3 maybe some people could get their old cameras and nice expensive doorstops, out of the closet. I could see one of the nice long film 600mm as a bargain and useful with this. Some of those old SLR lenses cost thousands and they are pretty much useless collectibles.

Why not just mount that old 600mm lens on a 4/3 camera using a lens adapter ? Or better still on a NEX or any of the other APS-C cameras which have much better dynamic range. Then you also get the advantage of focus peaking etc. There are lens adapters for just about every common fitting which ever existed.

However few of the old telephotos and zooms were particularly good by modern standards. It's the shorter lenses which people mostly find have characteristics which they still enjoy today. In which case a full frame digital Canon, Nikon or Leica is likely to be the best thing to mount it on.