DSLRS ARE A DYING BREED – 3RD GEN CAMERAS ARE THE FUTURE

I really like Trey Ratcliffs work on stuckincustoms.com. I was just looking around and came across this article he has on his site: www.stuckincustoms.com/2012/01/04/dslrs-...eras-are-the-future/

This article is pretty interesting with his forecasts. What do you think?

Yes, mirrorless is taking over in some parts of the world already.

I think that he is wrong plain and simple. Fact is he has a video on his site that the D800 has changed his mind. People like him were the ones claiming the demise of other formats in the film days, and guess what, they were always wrong. Dslrs like the SLR are not a dying format or breed. The only end of Dslr that will be affected will be the entry level somewhat. Looking at an LCD screen or an EVF is not the same as looking through glass, it dilutes the experience of taking a photo, and for the hard core people this is unacceptable. Even when I had my first P&S digital I bought one with a view finder and never used the LCD for framing or composing the shot, it felt too detached from process. For the mass public in general the 3rd gen will be their choice as the next level up, but still the majority of the public will only shoot with phones or small P&S cams.

Although he's a respected photographer, I think it's just one persons views. I won't get all worked up about this.

I don't question that some day the internal technology will change for DSLR cameras, is that any time soon? I doubt it. If I had to bet, I'd say 10 to15 years.

We need to put this thread into a time capsule and open it back up in 15 years.

Regardless what happens with trends, I'll have one till I'm buried.

Yes, and a few "not dead yet" people from my generation are still shooting film. That doesn't mean that technology didn't move on...

I also think he is ignorant in the history of photography? Calling mirrorless 3rd Gen, DSLR 2nd Gen? Assuming 1st Gen is Film? Off the top of my head i recall there being at least plate photography prior to that... he cant be meaning slr cause then where do all the point and shoots come in. Not to mention the pure digital cameras that dont use mirrors...

So essentially... i think he is just straight up wrong in calling a mirrorless camera a 3rd Generation Camera. No way in hell is that accurate.

but any ways i also think hes wrong about the whole principle. I have yet to see a mirrorless camera system that exceeds the clarity and responsiveness of an SLR... maybe some day... but now is way too soon.

Some things I know for sure:

Camera body technology has always been changing, and doing so at a fast pace.

The mirror causes numerous problems, and it seems to me that new technology is finding ways to eliminate the need for it.

Even though the camera companies would love for us to believe that one size fits all that's obviously untrue. Photographers can have radically different requirements from on another. Tool choice is very personal, and two photographers who appear to shoot the same sort of stuff may have completely different opinions as to which camera is best for them.

Articles like this are mostly about the excitement of new toys. When he gets his next new gizmo I'm sure there will be a gushing article about that too.

I own both DSLRs and a mirrorless camera. I'm glad I have both, and I use both quite a bit. But if I had to give one or the other up there would be no question that for me DSLRs are more useful. But really I don't care if it has a mirror or not. If the camera companies make me a mirrorless that has similar features to my DSLRs I'd be glad to use it. One of those features is a large, easy to hold body.

Henry Peach wrote: Some things I know for sure:

Camera body technology has always been changing, and doing so at a fast pace.

The mirror causes numerous problems, and it seems to me that new technology is finding ways to eliminate the need for it.

Even though the camera companies would love for us to believe that one size fits all that's obviously untrue. Photographers can have radically different requirements from on another. Tool choice is very personal, and two photographers who appear to shoot the same sort of stuff may have completely different opinions as to which camera is best for them.

Articles like this are mostly about the excitement of new toys. When he gets his next new gizmo I'm sure there will be a gushing article about that too.

I own both DSLRs and a mirrorless camera. I'm glad I have both, and I use both quite a bit. But if I had to give one or the other up there would be no question that for me DSLRs are more useful. But really I don't care if it has a mirror or not. If the camera companies make me a mirrorless that has similar features to my DSLRs I'd be glad to use it. One of those features is a large, easy to hold body.

I have to agree with the majority here. Another "expert" spouting an opinion to get attention, just like a politician. Dennis (Joves) is correct about using the viewfinder. Even in "live view" it is difficult to hold steady and focus unless tripod mounted.
I can't see the real advantage of the mirrorless cameras yet, at least not at the expense of a changeover.

I don't care what some people may say, I know I'll have one for a very long time.

Henry Peach wrote: Some things I know for sure:

Camera body technology has always been changing, and doing so at a fast pace.

The mirror causes numerous problems, and it seems to me that new technology is finding ways to eliminate the need for it.

Even though the camera companies would love for us to believe that one size fits all that's obviously untrue. Photographers can have radically different requirements from on another. Tool choice is very personal, and two photographers who appear to shoot the same sort of stuff may have completely different opinions as to which camera is best for them.

Articles like this are mostly about the excitement of new toys. When he gets his next new gizmo I'm sure there will be a gushing article about that too.

I own both DSLRs and a mirrorless camera. I'm glad I have both, and I use both quite a bit. But if I had to give one or the other up there would be no question that for me DSLRs are more useful. But really I don't care if it has a mirror or not. If the camera companies make me a mirrorless that has similar features to my DSLRs I'd be glad to use it. One of those features is a large, easy to hold body.

The flipping mirror may eventually go away. But the body will still look like a DSLR because it will use the existing lenses. Except for sensors, the last serious change in the SLR platform was the introduction of AF lenses (Nikon being the exception?). So DSLR haters will have to rant on, until Canon or Nikon gets serious about a fundamental change in the existing lens mounts. Which could happen. At one time AF seemed like a silly pipe dream. But neither Canon nor Nikon has hinted that any such lens mount change is in the pipeline. I for one would like to see these mount designs started over with a clean sheet of paper. I have zero loyalty to antique lenses. But I'm not holding my breath either.

rebel without a cause

KCook wrote:

Henry Peach wrote: Some things I know for sure:

Camera body technology has always been changing, and doing so at a fast pace.

The mirror causes numerous problems, and it seems to me that new technology is finding ways to eliminate the need for it.

Even though the camera companies would love for us to believe that one size fits all that's obviously untrue. Photographers can have radically different requirements from on another. Tool choice is very personal, and two photographers who appear to shoot the same sort of stuff may have completely different opinions as to which camera is best for them.

Articles like this are mostly about the excitement of new toys. When he gets his next new gizmo I'm sure there will be a gushing article about that too.

I own both DSLRs and a mirrorless camera. I'm glad I have both, and I use both quite a bit. But if I had to give one or the other up there would be no question that for me DSLRs are more useful. But really I don't care if it has a mirror or not. If the camera companies make me a mirrorless that has similar features to my DSLRs I'd be glad to use it. One of those features is a large, easy to hold body.

The flipping mirror may eventually go away. But the body will still look like a DSLR because it will use the existing lenses. Except for sensors, the last serious change in the SLR platform was the introduction of AF lenses (Nikon being the exception?). So DSLR haters will have to rant on, until Canon or Nikon gets serious about a fundamental change in the existing lens mounts. Which could happen. At one time AF seemed like a silly pipe dream. But neither Canon nor Nikon has hinted that any such lens mount change is in the pipeline. I for one would like to see these mount designs started over with a clean sheet of paper. I have zero loyalty to antique lenses. But I'm not holding my breath either.

rebel without a cause

I agree, I can't image someone showing up to photograph a wedding with something the size of a point & shoot and getting taken seriously. But then again we are programmed to believe that. So the technology could very well change our perception of what is considered pro from consumer.

Everything sooner or later will die off, DSLR's IMHO have a long way to go before that day comes.