We keep hearing the hubadubs that DSLR is dead. Maybe it is time to look beyond the news and advertisements.

Manufacturers want sales. That is what all this noise is about. Everyday we encounter advertisements and press release all pointed to that direction - sales.

It's always a miracle product that will bring heaven to earth and to hell and back being shoved up all our senses and body openings. All for sales.

It doesn't matter to them if we need it or not. They will lie and hustle the green out of our hands.

So why listen? Why do we believe the press releases and the ads? Why not have a look beyond?
Stand on your own and Have a different view.

Here is my own. Warning, its not mainstream and may touch some egos and probably hate. But this is just me talking out loud, speaking my own.

DSLR is dead!!!

Well maybe that is what they wanted. All the hype and misdirection pushes the mirrorless wonder product so far ahead of the DSLR that it is obsolete- so they say.
Be truthful. Is it? When you bought that mirrorless, did your photography improved by 10 folds? 100? 1000 times better? Or were you just conned out to get the latest gear?

Manufacturers are always looking to produce with the least cost and sell at the highest price. If mirrorless is sold with the same "cost to sales" premium, it will cost about 3/4 or at extremes 1/2 the price of an equivalent DSLR. Why? Because mechanical parts, materials like magnesium bodies and actual assembly of such, cost more. Electronics, molded plastics and smaller amount(size) cost much less.

Imagine a single button on a Toyota. What if that button cost dollar? If i produce 1 million cars, that is an extra 1 million dollars of investment. Meaning if i design something without buttons, I save millions. Suddenly touch screens makes a lot of sense!

A mirrorless is basically a dumbed down video camera. They made it look like a DSLR so it can take its place. Instead of shooting video they made it shoot slower, then advertise that their camera shoots 20 frames per second!!! Faster than your DSLR!!! Yea right...

So it shoots 10 - 20 - 25 frames a second, how many are in focus? 50%? 25%? 1 image?

The technology of the mirrorless has been around since the invention of the tv and are just getting repurposed. Innovation as some would say. It is not new, that is just hype. Don't buy into it.

Am I against mirrorless? Nope, not at all. But let us see things the way they really are. Cut the bull, forget the advertisement and hype. If it fits your style and improves your photography, then by all means buy as much as you can. Help the manufacturer so they can go back to making better cameras.

But if you are buying just for the hype, you are feeding the money train instead of supporting the production of better equipment.

Ask yourself, If they can put 4 cameras in a celphone and sell it for half the price of a mirrorless, what did you miss? Have you just been robbed?

Have you owned and used one yet?

Like anything there are pluses and minuses. You have to weigh those for your circumstance. When I bought my first DX mirrorless the first lens I bought was a 14mm prime. Point being my priority is wide lenses in the range of 20mm to 35mm for FX cameras. Because I use mirrorless cameras now I can use better lenses in my favorite lens range than are possible to make for SLR cameras. It shows both in the results and in use since those lenses are both optically superior as well as smaller and lighter.

Using a DSLR you can use a light meter to determine exposure. A mirrorless camera can do the same. A mirrorless camera can also use a live-view histogram before taking the photo and a highlight clipping warning before taking the photo. A DSLR can't use either a live histogram or a clipping warning except after the fact while reviewing the photo. That doesn't mean the DSLR is useless. It isn't a black and white dichotomy. But I sure do like being able to have all three of those exposure aids available up front rather than just one. It makes the task easier and the result more certain and I do use them -- I'd miss them if they were gone. Doesn't mean I couldn't use a DSLR effectively, but use of the mirrorless camera is enhanced.

I do a lot of close-up macro work on a tripod. Focusing a mirrorless camera in that circumstance is hands down superior to focusing a DSLR. Speaking of focusing I do remember having to fuss with adjusting/tuning a DSLR PDAF focusing system for specific lenses. Glad that nuisance is behind me.

There are also minuses about mirrorless. It seems I'm always charging batteries. But in my circumstances the scale tips overall plus toward mirrorless.

Have you owned and used one yet?

I am with you all the way on this Wallen. Don't see the need yet for a mirrorless, but maybe, eventually I will, or will have to, depending on how the markets develop. Isn't it funny how some here tout the mirrorless as the only real thing and anything else is no longer acceptable - while others (or maybe the same) insist that it is NOT the camera, but the person behind the camera that makes or breaks the picture?

BTW, I bought my first digital camera in 2004 I believe, it was a mirrorless, if that is what is was called - or at least it didn't have a mirror: the KonicaMinolta Dimage A2, was a neat little camera then, unfortunately I cannot use it anymore because one of the darn pins is bent.

Have a great week Wallen - Joe