Recently Trey Ratcliff made some waves by declaring that within five years dSLR cameras will be no more and will be replaced by what he calls 3rd generation cameras, which includes the micro 4/3s format and other mirrorless camera systems. He went on to say he believes this so strongly that he isn’t going to buy any more lenses for his dSLR cameras. Ever. The dream is over — it’s the end of dSLRs!
Strong words, and he got a lot of flak for saying them. He did have his defenders who agreed with him completely (like fellow pro Scott Bourne), but it seems like the majority didn’t like what he had to say very much.
Think this came from a dSLR?
I think part of the reason he got so much criticism for his message was he hit a nerve. It seems like a heck of a lot of photographers (both amateur and professional, although it is much more common in the former) have a lot of their ego in the equipment they use. They judge themselves and others by the cameras they use. When people have so much invested in a technology, they are loathe to see it vanish. Not only that, but they have already mentally placed these mirrorless cameras as being beneath their level, so facing the idea that these may become the main camera technology is hard to deal with.
Of course that’s not everyone, so please don’t take offense. I do, however, think it is a factor in some of the harsh criticism Trey has faced for his comments.
It’s actually possible to get decent photos without a dSLR.
For the record, I agree with Trey 100%. There is really little reason for the flipdown mirror these days. Technology has gotten us to the point where we can do without it. So why keep it? Technology is ever forward marching, and we should follow where it leads rather than clinging to the past. The time of the SLR ended in the 80s, really. Just ask Ken Rockwell, who has been preaching for a number of years that the pinnacle of SLR technology was reached at that time and that it’s been downhill ever since1. Everything since, according to Rockwell, has just been adding fluff (digital or otherwise) in an attempt to get us to upgrade every few years. When you look at it that way, it’s about time we get a new technology — we’ve only been waiting for it for 30 years!
The 3rd generation of cameras still has a ways to go, hence the five year timeline Trey gave, but it is already remarkably good. Just look at some of the amazing shots my friend Takahiro Yamamoto gets with his micro 4/3s camera. Look at the cult of Leica and the beautiful photos the M9 produces. Look at the Fuji x100, which might be thought of as a poor man’s Leica, but which stands on it’s own and compares favorably against the best dSLRs. Look at all the amazing iPhoneography some people are producing! And this is now — imagine how much these will improve in a handful of years!
If the iPhone can produce images this good now (actually 2 years ago for this one) then imagine what it’ll give us in five years!
This is an exciting time for photography! I can’t wait to see how these 3rd generation cameras go from here.
What do you all think?
-
I don’t think there is a single article where he lays his thoughts out, but he never misses a chance to reference his ideas on this matter, usually in reviews. Like this one. ↩
Thank you for reading. If you enjoyed the post, please share it with your buddies on the web. A few options below. Thank you so much :)
Dave, thank you for posting your comment it answered alot of questions that I had. It took me 4 years to change from film to digital and now I still wonder why it took me so long. Any way I to look for 3rd generation cameras to come out. By the way I look at your Iphone photos, I think they are great. Until next time. Take care, Jonothan
Thanks Jonothan
There are a lot of advantages to film still. DSLRs are just now finally getting to the point where they rival film for quality. This next change to smaller cameras will give film the leg up in quality again, but may make up for it in size and convenience.
Hmm, well, I agree in part with this, and honestly I think it’s the way to go. However, if you look at some of the way things work here, the physics behind it etc, it is a bit hard to grasp. Sure, they could build any format sensor they want into a mirrorless system, but how will it play with the body and lenses?
Honestly I think the reason the dSLR body design has stayed the way it is for so long is just because it works! They will really need to make some huge advancements in glass tech if they are going to have a small body like the current models work with the glass of smaller lenses to give you certain focal lengths. I suspect some of the push back has to do with this.
Look at some of the glass made by the likes of Tamron. Small lenses with decently large focal lengths. However, they are limited by the form factor of the sensor. If they want to make this for full frame, the glass — and by extension the lens — would be much larger. Canon has been working this way also if you look at their 70-300IS USM L lens. Fairly compact for a lens that will work fine on a FF sensor. Throw that on any of the current mirrorless bodies and well… I think you understand.
For me it comes down to design and ergonomics. If they could make a mirrorless body with a full frame and not be so overly top heavy, I’m in. Honestly, I do think in that 5 year time we will see an EOS body without a mirror.
You make some excellent points, Aaron. We are already seeing some amazing lenses for these smaller cameras, but yeah the smaller sensor does make things tricker. I wouldn’t be surprised if the sensor size grows. Leica manages to stick a FF sensor in that tiny body, so we know it’s possible. Anyways, I’m sure we will see a mirror less EOS, but I wonder if it will be in time or too little too late. The mirror less options from Nikon so far have been.. Well, to be honest, trash. Nice looking trash, though