Yeah, I'd agree and would add that the iPhones have taken the place of the point-and-shoots, from Kodak Brownies through the Polaroid cameras on down. And of course the vast, vast majority of point-and-shoot film users were vacationers, family snapshot artists, occasions (weddings, birthdays, etc) and in some countries, that practice, along with all the one-hour film places and the albums etc., still prevail over digital.

(case in point, 1.4 billion people in China know that anything they take on a smart phone can go straight to the Government - so they still use film for private and precious moments, and present each other with booklets of 4x6 snaps to put in their (huge) family albums).

So the amount of people using other than point-and-shoot have always been less than 10% of all camera/phone users. It's just that the 90% of point-and-shoot, in the States anyway, have switched over to smart phones. In other countries it's startling to see people with Olympus Pens, etc., still snapping away with abandon.

And of course we still get the people who used to go "I spent $50 on this Polaroid Super XYZ! I want it to take better pictures than your Sinar 4x5 thingymajiggy! And RIGHT NOW!" - they just do that with their iPhones and Androids these days.

Plus one for the Tokina macro. Bought it on recommendation even though I already own a few other macros and macro zooms, from name brands including Nikon, Leica, Fuji. The Tokina rates up there with the rest, not a problem. Use with abandon!

Ah. If you want sharper pictures you have to invest in:

1) super sturdy and lightweight tripod (not cheap);
2) remote release for your camera (wired or wireless);
3) a 4x4 vehicle (to get you and your camera to the right place to shoot);
4) an ephemeris (to get you ready at the right time to shoot);
5) a Benq or other pro-level photo-suitable computer monitor that's calibrated for Adobe or whatever you use;
6) you didn't mention - are you going to make bigger prints or exhibition-level prints?

Doesn't the EOS-R go up to like 40,000 ISO?
What's it perform like at, say, 16,000 ISO? Enough to make up for your low light lens?
I too have a newer Nikon Street-sweeper (24-120/4) and never went up above 8,000 ISO in super dim rooms - at night.
Unless you're looking for super bokeh portraits on the fly, your kit lens should be fine for travel.
Then if you are, I'd take the 1.8 in a pocket just for that.

Where are you located?
That might be a good place to start.
In Glendale CA is a good indie shop for Canon.

Quote from Ken Rockwell:
"The original Nikon 24-120mm AF-D has been a popular lens for folks who want to travel light.

Newsmen of the 1990s dubbed it the "Streetsweeper" because, much as the large-magazine, fully automatic shotguns of the same name can single-handedly eliminate a street full of uncooperative personnel, this lens can deal with just about any photo opportunity it might encounter.

The Nikon 24-120mm goes from wide to close up in the twist of the wrist. It gets wide enough to get in close to a fight, and long enough to grab a shot of someone just about to throw a grenade some distance away.

Some newsmen used this as their lenscap lens when they were just wandering around, not knowing what to expect. It's well enough built to handle their abuse, and can do just about anything if it has to."

Though I wasn't a news photographer in the 1990's myself, my mentor and guru and boss was. He used two of the older street sweepers on his Nikons, one in B/W 400 neg and one in Kodachrome 25 or 64. Had them on there as lens caps, as Ken says, UV filters, no hoods, that's it.

I had an original before I swapped it out for the f/4, which is a better lens. Carried on his tradition of always testing and trading up for better copies when possible, which is why my set of primes are pretty much as sharp as Nikon ever made.

Still own and use an 18-200 in DX.

In FX, it's the newer 24-120 street sweeper for my daily carry, plus a 700-200 f/4 for travel.

I don't shoot much fast lens stuff these days, even though I do still have a 70-200 f/2.8 in my closet, because the high ISO performance of these modern cameras is just so good, one stop is really just for the added bokeh.

Since switching from D600s, I've settled on D850s as my work DSLRs and really only these three zooms have kept up though the generations, in terms of IQ, for me.

Yes, they're heavy, but every day I see the shots from *my copies of* the street sweeper and the slower 70-200, I give thanks to the Gods of Photography and the results prove to me once again that carrying them is definitely worth the effort.

Of course, there's always my iPhone for those other days!

+1 on that. Bought two D850s for work (yes, we need them there) and was keeping one as backup.
Ended up never needing it, so far, and feeling totally comfortable going out on a field job with just the one body.

Of course, I do have an MF digital camera system in the car which I could fall back on should the D850 fail, but it's been over a hundred shoots and maybe 150k exposures with it now, and not a sign of failure. The second D850 is still basically unused in the equipment room.

LOL!!
Agreed. People shouldn't be looking at the mirror so much in any event!

As you said, it's all in our imagination.

We could buy the latest and greatest, and maybe we'd still be there, imagining improving our photography.

Then we'd be "clinging to our old non-DSLRs that take only 2-D and 3-D imagery...."

But it's the imagination and the mindset that counts here, way more than the machinery, at this point.



In the field of 2-D imagery, the next best thing is? That yields a 2-D image that's the next generation away?
Analog to digital to ???
When that step comes, then all of these will be obsolete.

Right now we've had one step only - analog to digital.
And that progress has been mainly in the delivery, not as much in the capture side of things.

Prove it? Easy.
Imagine a digital mirrorless image, flawless 600MB, any generation camera you want to.
And no Internet, just prints only.
Done.

So it's the delivery that's been the real game-changer here.

And the biggest population on the planet doesn't seem to want to go there. For political reasons, not technical ones. For them, for personal reasons, analog photography is still king.

Now the camera industry will say different things, mainly to sell cameras.

But as everybody here says, quite rightly, that the buyers have shrunk to insignificant amounts, to go further than that would be to say that in our future everybody will have a smart phone with a camera and be able to take gallery quality photos with those cameras.

Probably true.

But will that be the only camera they own and maintain and use?

That's like saying all music will be electronic and digital.

And further to that,

"Will the current crop of high end Mirrorless cameras make the SLR obsolete. It seems that the mirrorless does everything the SLR does and more."

Just because one camera does more, that doesn't make another camera that does less obsolete TO THE USER.

Unless and until that new camera can set off from home on its own, pick the user's desired subject matter straight out of his or her mind's eye, take that precise photo for them, and then beam the result back to the user's social media - without the user's active participation.

That would make the photographer the camera and not the user.

And then the user too would be obsolete.

Until that time, it's the photographer taking the picture, not the camera.

And there are plenty of cameras, new and old, obsolete and modern, that are capable of being used by that photographer to take the required shot.

SLRs and DSLRs may well, like the Leica IIIf, become "obsolete" with respect to the camera manufacturing, sales, and marketing industries.

However, go into a modern Leica store today, and see the I, II and IIIs still on the shelf, and maybe a different opinion might well rise to the surface.

Maybe it's the buyers, not the sellers, who should be motivating opinions?

Heck, anyone can put out an ad now, for zero dollars.

Agreed. But the OP's question was:

"Will the current crop of high end Mirrorless cameras make the SLR obsolete."

Undeniably this response:

For the MANUFACTURERS, probably true.

For the USERS, probably not true.

Fair enough?

Probably true, for some of us.

Is Canon the sole manufacturer of the SLR?
Really?
Maybe someone should send the others a memo.

You need to take photos. Good art.
By whatever means necessary. And the more means available, now or 1000 years from now, the better.
IMO.