movingfinger Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 Looks like the lifespan of the DLSR could be much shorter than the lifespan of the SLR, see this article: LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 Progress leads sometimes to unexpected developments. The digital age has proved that over and over. The end result is often an improved product which has greater appeal to a wider audience. Yes, I still shoot film, but my mirrorless bodies get much more use these days than my RFs, TLRs, SLRs, and DSLRs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 (edited) Looks like the lifespan of the DLSR could be much shorter than the lifespan of the SLR Most certainly - most likely less than half the time span covered by SLR cameras. The headline in the link provided is misleading - Sony released the last DSLR back in 2010 - after that came the DSLTs (cameras with fixed pellicle mirrors and EVFs); the last one was released in 2016 (and the latest A-mount lens the year before that). The A7 appeared in 2013 and by 2015 everyone was expecting Sony to announce the demise of the A-mount - seems like it'll took another 6 years for the "official" end. The success of the mirrorless E-mount cameras/lenses obsoleted the DSLR/DSLT "hybrids". Edited May 6, 2021 by Dieter Schaefer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 It was going to happen. Although we had earlier examples like the vinyl record changeover to inform us, only a few of us expected it to be quite so quick, however. The real question for me is whether the camera as an independent machine will survive in common use or simply fade into special niches like surveillance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 I miss my beta max tapes. Technology is moving at lightning speed. This is no longer surprising. 1 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 Looks like the lifespan of the DLSR could be much shorter than the lifespan of the SLR, see this article: LINK What do you mean by lifespan? The DSLT (not DSLR) line from Sony is considered dead a long time ago. Although I think both Canon and Nikon won't introduce new DSLR any more. But still what do you mean by the lifespan? The camera will last until it break. Unlike film where you have to depend on consumables the DSLR can't be obsolete so easy. Yes they could when you can't buy batteries, memory card or typical image editing software won't support the file format but those are unlikely to happen before the camera breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
movingfinger Posted May 7, 2021 Author Share Posted May 7, 2021 What do you mean by lifespan? The DSLT (not DSLR) line from Sony is considered dead a long time ago. Although I think both Canon and Nikon won't introduce new DSLR any more. But still what do you mean by the lifespan? The camera will last until it break. Unlike film where you have to depend on consumables the DSLR can't be obsolete so easy. Yes they could when you can't buy batteries, memory card or typical image editing software won't support the file format but those are unlikely to happen before the camera breaks. Good question. My choice of 'lifespan' was not the best. Clearly many SLRs are still 'alive' today, I have a Nikon F100. Also DSLRs will still be around and in use for decades to come. Given the article that I was linking and that prompted my post, I was referring to the production of new models. My 'lifespan' meant time from the introduction and production of the concept to the end of production - the date when the last item of that concept rolls off the assembly line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemorrell Posted May 7, 2021 Share Posted May 7, 2021 For the past 20 years, I've used only digital cameras. First a compact, then a DSLR, then a FF DSLR. That mirrorless (non-mechanical) cameras would eventually replace (mechanically mirrored) DSLR'S has been clear for some years. Though some users may still prefer an optical through-the-lens-viewfinder above a digital through-the-sensor-viewfinder. I don't follow this kind of stuff regularly or in any depth. But it seems to me that the two main factors that have influenced the take-up (and transition towards) mirrorless have been: - digital viewfinder image quality (including refresh rate) - the availabiliy of lenses for mirrorless systems Viewfinder image quality seems to be no longer an issue. Lens availability probably still is. It doesn't suprise me that Sony is leading the way. Canon's product base is pretty much optical + printers. Nikon's is wider and includes things like medical equipment. Sony is a huge electronics and entertainment conglomerate. So to me, it makes sense that Sony is consolidating it's 'electronics portfolio' with Nikon and then Canon following market trends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted May 7, 2021 Share Posted May 7, 2021 Good question. My choice of 'lifespan' was not the best. Clearly many SLRs are still 'alive' today, I have a Nikon F100. Also DSLRs will still be around and in use for decades to come. Given the article that I was linking and that prompted my post, I was referring to the production of new models. My 'lifespan' meant time from the introduction and production of the concept to the end of production - the date when the last item of that concept rolls off the assembly line. Come to think of it the DSLR wasn't really needed. The reason for their introduction was really because the vast number of existing lenses available for the SLR so the DSLR didn't need any lenses for them. That's all, the technology to do mirrorless interchangeable lens camera was available since the early beginning of digital cameras and even before the DSLR. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted May 7, 2021 Share Posted May 7, 2021 Having been involved in manufacturing for the last 40 years or so, I can tell you that mechanical parts are expensive and seem to get more so every day. The same goes for optical goods. If there's any way to eliminate flapping mirrors, linkages and optical viewfinders, economics will force that to happen. We still need focus motors and the like, but reducing a camera to a box of electronics and a lens, as much as possible, is the natural direction. It's just more of that same old saying, "You either ride the digital steamroller, or you become part of the pavement." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 Looks like the lifespan of the DLSR could be much shorter than the lifespan of the SLR, see this article: LINK Not many people were buying Sony DSLR's in the first place. I remember the days when Sony was throwing everything at the wall hoping something would stick, but nothing came out of it. The mirror less cameras was really their only hope to keep up with Canon and Nikon. I didn't think they would make it, but then they came out with a great set of lenses to match their mirror less system. Only a big company like Sony could put so much money into research and development and come out still standing. They did it pretty quickly too. Maybe in the near future there is going to be a Niche for DSLR's, just like Turntables and most recently Cassette decks ! I still have my Cassette Deck from the 1980's although it needs a serious CLA. I recently purchased a new Turntable, because the one I had from the 1980's kicked the bucket a few years ago. They sure don't make them like they use to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 I like the SLR since I was a kid shooting a rangefinder back in the 60's. I still like the SLR digital or film. The Sony SLT (A99 and A77) are not SLR and I don't like them. They are the same as mirrorless in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrochemist Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 The Sony SLT (A99 and A77) are not SLR and I don't like them. They are the same as mirrorless in my opinion. I don't like them, but they are in no way like mirrorless they have none of the advantages of mirrorless bodies and share many of the disadvantages of DSLRs and then add a few of their own... In case I come over as a mirrorless only fanatic I'll point out it was one of my DSLRs I was shooting with today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 It was a big scary jump to go mirrorless, but you couldn't drag me back because you couldn't stand the kicking and screaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidspahr Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 In the long run, though. If you have an SLR or a DSLR that works, you have good lenses for them AND you can still get film and either have it processed or process it your self, why move to a mirrorless camera and have the added expense of having to buy all new lenses to fit the thing? Questions from a tightwad and one who moves with the speed of a glacier. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad_hoffman Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 It took me 13 years to upgrade. Is that "long run" enough for you? ;) Then I bought something that could use my existing lenses; most mirrorless can handle older lenses to one extent or another. From one very slow tightwad to another. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidspahr Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 Thanks. But that doesn't tell me why I should want to move to mirrorless cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 Thanks. But that doesn't tell me why I should want to move to mirrorless cameras. Noone has to. You can do what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 I don't like them, but they are in no way like mirrorless they have none of the advantages of mirrorless bodies and share many of the disadvantages of DSLRs and then add a few of their own... In case I come over as a mirrorless only fanatic I'll point out it was one of my DSLRs I was shooting with today. They are like mirrorless because they have EVF. The EVF is the main feature of the mirrorless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 I though the main feature of mirrorless cameras was that you can take pictures with them? And that the main difference to reflex cameras is that they are "mirrorless"? Confusing business... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 But still what do you mean by the lifespan? It is clear that the marketing lifespan is the subject in this thread, not the useable life of the camera. Even "useable life" is subject to some interpretation. Film is increasingly hard to get, and the cost is close to $20 per roll for film and development. I doubt I could find a new battery for the Nikon D1x I bought in 2001, but I'm not tempted to look. In one sense an old camera is useful as long as it can keep papers from blowing off your desk. In practice, it's useful only as long as it gives you the results you want (or can afford). To a professional, it's only useful as long as you can keep up with your competition, and that depends greatly on your focus of business. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 It is clear that the marketing lifespan is the subject in this thread, not the useable life of the camera. Even "useable life" is subject to some interpretation. Film is increasingly hard to get, and the cost is close to $20 per roll for film and development. I doubt I could find a new battery for the Nikon D1x I bought in 2001, but I'm not tempted to look. In one sense an old camera is useful as long as it can keep papers from blowing off your desk. In practice, it's useful only as long as it gives you the results you want (or can afford). To a professional, it's only useful as long as you can keep up with your competition, and that depends greatly on your focus of business. I bought the battery for my D1x recently but it's not a Nikon one. I can't find a Nikon one. However, the camera has problem so I think it's at the end of its useful life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrochemist Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 (edited) They are like mirrorless because they have EVF. The EVF is the main feature of the mirrorless. A degree of similarity certainly, but as a mirrorless user I can assure you an EVF is just one of the special features of mirrorless cameras. The very short registration is very significant I've never been able to use rangefinder lenses with my DSLRs, or connect them to my Newtonian scope... One of the big advantages of mirrorless designs is lost with SLT designs, it seems more like a worst of both worlds compromise. Edited May 10, 2021 by petrochemist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 A degree of similarity certainly, but as a mirrorless user I can assure you an EVF is just one of the special features of mirrorless cameras. The very short registration is very significant I've never been able to use rangefinder lenses with my DSLRs, or connect them to my Newtonian scope... One of the big advantages of mirrorless designs is lost with SLT designs, it seems more like a worst of both worlds compromise. It's always a bad idea whenever they use the semitransparent mirror. They had done many before the SLT all are not good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbudding Posted May 12, 2021 Share Posted May 12, 2021 Come to think of it the DSLR wasn't really needed. The reason for their introduction was really because the vast number of existing lenses available for the SLR so the DSLR didn't need any lenses for them. That's all, the technology to do mirrorless interchangeable lens camera was available since the early beginning of digital cameras and even before the DSLR. It depends on your expectations of quality. Early EVFs were dreadful, and the current EVFs I've seen still are inferior to optical finders for shooting sports. They are getting better, but they aren't there yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now