Very interesting article. Enjoyed the video too. I too think these new cameras are the future, but a bit too expensive at the moment.

Trey – thank you so much for giving some pro credit to the new system cameras. I got into photography just as the Lumix G2 m4/3 camera came out, and while my other gearhead friends like to make fun of my “DSLR dwarf” camera they all have that jealous look on their face when they see how small and light my gear-pack is, and the quality of the shots I can take. On the “electronic veiwfinder” discussion, I agree completely. I also might add that looking through a mirror system does NOT give you a better idea of what the camera’s sensor is actually seeing – in fact you’re mostly guessing, based on what all the histograms and exposure meters are telling you. In fact EVF solutions give a BETTER indication of what the shot will be like, especially if they can give shutter speed preview, exposure preview etc.

Best article ever on your blog. Made me cancel any thoughts about upgrading my D300.

It doesn’t get out of balance with your 70-300? I have a hard time seeing my Nikon 14-24mm, which weights 1kg  (2.2 pounds)  on a much lighter body.

oh, hell yes, a very heavy lens makes it quite nose-heavy When using that combo, I tend to carry the lens instead of the camera, which is fine and allows for less shaky hand-held shots. Also, the adapter makes it into a 140-600mm lens and I need a tripod for max-zoom shots, but that’s pretty much the same when using such a massive zoom on any camera. 

You definitely have a point Trey and these cameras are certainly going to eventually take over the DSLR world. I also think you have the foresight to realize that it’s not the time to be drooling over the soon to be announced D4 or any other flagship DSLR as those cameras will certainly be surpassed long before they’ve paid for themselves.

However, I do think we are still 3-5 years away from getting these cameras to where they need to be and more importantly a good collection of lenses for various situations. The main hurdle right now is that all these camera manufactures aren’t ready to canibalize their DSLR inventories quite yet so these 3rd gen camera will be geared more towards avid amateur photographers and not so much the pro photographer. 

Five years from now we will see a huge inventory of lenses with camera bodies in all shapes and sizes with features from entry level to pro level. Weather sealing and maybe even completely waterproof! As with any technology there does come a time when the old stuff becomes cool conversation pieces and the new futuristic stuff is where it’s at.

Nice post!

What is the tripod head that you are using in the video? Please share, thanks. 

Interesting observations Trey .. I am beginning to think the same way. I purchased a really nice Panasonic 4/3′s camera for my wife for Christmas and I am amazed at the quality of the images that it can produce. Now as I get ready to pack for the first global trip of the year I’m looking at it’s size and weight and wishing I could shrink my Canon.

You make some great points John.  Canon and Nikon won’t go all in on 3rd Gen cameras sales until competitors like Sony and Samsung who have nothing to lose by releasing amazing 3rd Gen cams start outselling their DSLRs.  Like Trey says, it’s good business for them.

Some great points, and I agree that as technology marches on, we all reap the benefits.  Absolutely true that gorgeous photos can be made on any type of camera, from iPhones to pinholes to large format.  Some of these things are matters of opinion, however, like your point of “smaller is better.”  One of the reasons I prefer my D300 to my D90 is because it is larger, which means it fits my large-ish hands better, and I have easy access to all the controls I need without my hands having to do weird contortions hunting for small, closely spaced buttons.  I’m not really interested in tiny bodies without most of the dedicated controls to which I have become accustomed.  I don’t want to be spending time digging through menus for stuff that is immediately accessible with a button or dial.

Some things that are not opinion, however, include the physics of the cameras.  While electronics improve, giving faster and more accurate EVFs with no lag, and the ability for 60 fps with electronic shutter, the laws of optics do not change.  Yes, a 10-30mm lens has a “35mm equivalent” field of view of a 27-81mm lens, but it still has the depth of field of a 10-30mm lens.  Depth of Field does not change with “crop factor.”  So the larger sensors will always be needed for better control of depth of field until we start seeing obscene apertures (constant f/1.2 zooms, anyone?) in these new-style lenses.  With apertures that large, the lenses will not retain their current small form factor we’re seeing with this first wave of “3rd gen” equipment.  Maybe that’s not a big deal for landscapers and casual shooters, but for portraiture and weddings (among other things) that will continue to be important.  And as you get to smaller bodies with larger sensors, like the APS-C in NEX or even full frame sensors in Leicas, you will still need larger, heavier lenses to project an image circle large enough to cover that sensor.  So the body size shrinks, but the lens doesn’t necessarily shrink, or at least not nearly as much as the body.  Then you have large lenses on tiny bodies, and the balance and ergonomics of the system goes all wonky.

So sure, change is inevitable, the future looks exciting, but I’m not ready to write off the “old skool” stuff quite yet. 

I see multiple sizes of 3rd Gen cameras coming from manufacturers.  This means two iterations from now, the successor to the 1D may not have a mirror assembly, but is probably going to have a shape that is in a form factor that is similar to that today.  Why???  Compatibility to all those wonderful EF lenses as well as allowing for better connection points for accessories.  In addition to a hot shoe, we could have an external microphone mounting point for collecting sound for video.

OK Trey now I am as confused as ever.  I am a complete newbie who wants to learn more about photography and move into the world of interchangeable lenses and away from my “super zoom” point and shoot Panasonic DMC-FZ28.  Up until now I have been researching and debating the whole Nikon vs. Canon DSLR thing (and leaning towards Canon honestly because quality HD video is also important to me as well), and now you’ve thrown a monkey wrench in my works.

For a non professional like myself just working his way up to the starting line, what would you recommend I look at?  I would also mention I have an initial budget in the sub-$2000 for body and starter lens(es).

As a (fun) aside, I love the shot of you from the video talking about 3rd gen. cameras, holding your 3DX and tripod like Gandalf might hold his staff. 

In full RPG fashion, it only makes sense that there would come a time for us to upgrade our gear to items with even more 1337 properties.

Thanks for the article.  I have some hard decisions to make this year as I move off my Nikon DX system.  I thought I wanted to go FF with a D800 but with my hiking and wanting a small/lightweight system; I just don’t know.

You and Kirk Tuck should get to together for Austin Photography Summit.  I have seen both of you at different times address the Austin CAPMAC group — both of you have interesting perspectives on Photography with a capital “P”.  It would be like the old Bill Gates – Steve Jobs summit events.  Kirk says much of what you say above  in his 2012 predictions on his blog – you should check it out.

I never thought about it like this…very interesting!

Most of what you are saying is for pros or super intense hobbyists. For kids starting out and most users, this does not apply. Indeed, there might be some incredible buys on lenses and DSLR bodies coming up in 5-10 years. Perfect for college students who want pro results at low cost.
In that sense, some of the “old” Nikon, Sony, Canon, et al DSLR bodies will become like old two and a quarter and large format cameras. Not antiques when used by students and pros.
Sure, some incredible stuff will be jammed into super light weight bodies for pros in the future. But one can do amazing stuff post process with just shutter speed and aperture adjustment and knowledge while shooting.
The speed advantage will be good when needed for those that shoot sports, etc. but, the idea of contemplative photography will still be valuable to many. Then the advantages are less so, making future “older” bodies and lenses still, good stuff.

Nice article, I like it all  but the beginning … it looks bad to me. My opinion is biased although I want to tell myself it’s not, because I like mirrorless cameras, but from what I understand let me do this comparison: you don’t see electric cars as an evolution because they can’t perform, on all fields, as good as petrol ones. Same goes for mirrorless vs DSLR’s.   

“Third generation camera” isn’t accurate either. Photography has been around since 1839 – we’re WAY past the third generation of cameras!

I don’t believe the current makeup of the third gen cameras could replace a DSLR for a professional for one reason, and that’s lighting.  From what I’ve seen 3rd gen cameras do not support off camera lighting which is the most important thing for most professional photographers (especially studio photographers).

Actually the cameras we had before SLRs were third generation cameras, no mirrors. I remember when Nikon came out with the F, their first SLR and it was so great to actually see the entire  scene no matter what lens without frame lines which were only approximate. I also remember the first Canon in the 60s that had a mirror like the new Sony that didn’t need to flip up. The Sony is popular now because everybody forgot how much light was lost with the fixed mirror and how delicate  the mirror was.
Do you really believe there will be a LCD viewfinder that will be as god as a SLR viewfinder or we be taught by the manufactures to accept what we are given because it is the “new generation”?

What?? I use off-camera studio lighting with my Lumix GH2 all the time. Shove a PocketWizard in the hot shoe and it’s just like shooting with anything else (except lighter and smaller.)

If you mean “strobist-type” lighting with small DC-powered flash units… Sony and Olympus offer wireless TTL, same as their DSLR systems. With Lumix you can get off-camera TTL if you use a long cable. I’d like to see more development in this area — such as the ability to use the PocketWizard “Control TL” system — but the basics are already there.

Thanks for a nice article on new generation cameras. I like your point on “mirrorless” )

meh meh meh. I kind of like my viewfinder how it is at the moment…

Trey, I checked the places that you have been for shooting, there is almost each country of the world that’s really great lucky you.
I don’t know if you ever heard about Kosova or Albania (countries in southeastern Europe)  here are really great places (nature beauties and also very old towns)  etc, if you interested I can show you some photos but also you can find on any page on fb, but if you want more information’s It will be great to help you. All the best to you 
PS: I’m infected with “SLR disease”  since I’ve seen your photos

Very interesting and informative post Trey.
I sold all of my DX (D300) equipment and lenses several months ago. My plan was to upgrade to FX, possibly with the D800, but now I have a new option. I look forward to seeing what develops with “3rd” gen cameras, as well as your future input.
I like the M9, but since it’s one of the “first” and $7000, I will wait for more options. 

” As Moore’s law clicks along…”

Moore’s Law doesn’t help when it runs into the physics of optics, or signal/noise ratios. Pixel sizes on camera sensors are already well below the theoretical diffusion limit of lenses, so cramming more pixels into a smaller space is counterproductive. The sensors for the highest-quality imaging are unlikely to get much smaller, which means the lenses won’t be getting much smaller. I suppose the camera bodies will be able to continue to shrink somewhat, but there’s still going to have to be room for a modicum of controls and a battery in there someplace.

I have not had the budget for a DSLR yet, though it’s been on my wish list for a while. But now I’m contemplating the new Sony NEX-7. Only pitfall is, as of right now there is a pretty slim selection of glass for the Sonys. If what you say is true, by the time I can actually buy a camera, perhaps there will be a whole slew of lenses to choose from.

Existing lenses can be used with an adapter. So if you, for example, currently have a quiver full of Nikon lenses, you can use them with a mirrorless body with an adapter. Your current lenses would be larger than the ones made specifically for the body you’re shooting with. That’s the point Trey made in the article: Why would you want to use large, bulky lenses on your tiny mirrorless body?

Don’t forget that with technologies such as ‘organic’ sensors, light will be able to strike the sensor at sharper angles. This makes the NEX mount, in my opinion, more future proof in that they will be able to make smaller wide lenses without having to keep the rear element as far away from the sensor as they currently do.

BTW, I just received the 24mm f/1.8 Zeiss lens for the NEX. Do you know it’s as light as the canon 35mm f/2 lens?  It only weighs about 200 grams. It baffles me how everyone call this lens huge! In fact, the size is just perfect for me as my thumb fall naturally over the focus control ring. It’s super light.

Interesting article and while there’s probably truth to it, you could say not to buy many current tech products because what will be available in 5 years will be so much better.  Why buy a new car now when in 5 years many tech experts are predicting that self-driving cars will be commercially available?  Why buy a 1080P HDTV now when 4K TVs will be available in 5 years?  Why buy a regular hard drive today when solid state drives are clearly the future?  It could definitely be that DSLRs and their lenses may be obsolete in the future and investing a ton in lenses now may not be the best investment but with technology you also can’t always be waiting for the next best thing to arrive because there’s always something new on the horizon.

Trey – since you are no longer using it,  please send me your D3x.  :-P

Totally makes sense.  I’ve been holding off on replacing my 20D (nearly bought a 7d last summer), looks like I’ll wait a little longer.  Maybe I’ll get a 4/3rds setup from BorrowLenses next time I go on a trip…

Different jobs, different tools. Sure, landscape photographers won’t need a snappy LCD or clean high ISO performance, but others will. While I agree with the general concepts, anyone commenting needs to realize that Trey is also saying that 3rd Gen technology is not ready yet. Sure, in 5-6 years the technology will finally be there and he is making the point that his D3X/ and D3S with top level glass will last him the next 5 years. The original Nikon D3 came out in what, 2007? That was 5 years ago, and it’s still going strong with many professionals. I don’t see DSLRs going away in the near future, long term maybe, but not in the next 5 years. For people that shoot weddings, like myself, the advantages of a full frame sensor for low light are hard to compare to the current 3rd generation mirrorless cameras. I would say buy this year’s new cameras: the D4 /D800 and whatever Canon brings out with the 1DX to replace the 5D Mark II, then maybe you can rest long enough for technology to catch up.

Partly agree, partly disagree with your thoughts.
To start with, a lot of “advantages” claimed for “mirrorless” cameras orbit around “smaller, lighter”. One forgets that the 35mm SLR size and format emerged from long fight with larger (and later smaller) formats. Why? – because it is optimal. This applies both to ergonomy and to artistic abilities, enough of each meets at about 35mm frame and camera of the size and heft of traditional SLR, as well as lens spectrum appropriate for it. Part of Ansel Adams attraction is in his genius, part in using lenses that compress depth while catching wide angle of view, because it was large format. We can’t  lug around large format cameras to be effective. We too can’t get certain feel and expressions from cropped formats (yes, there are applications, like sports where cropped format ergonomy and camera size do real benefit). 35mm wins, well optimizes these issues. To get away from abstract musings, recently I rented Nikon D7000 for a trip. Excellent camera. For the purpose I didn’t care about angle of view/depth compression or other benefits of larger format in capture. However, I was very uncomfortable with it. Too damn small (and it is LARGER than “3rd Gen” cameras). In small cameras you must cram controls. Even holding D7000 brought my hands way too close… 
Lenses appropriate for 35mm format will persist, bit larger, bit heftier,… but not too much to upset ergonomy vs. added artistic abilities. Having their size as a part of a camera makes one question – why further compress long optimized physical 35mm SLR camera size? Would you be comfortable with 70-200mm on a iPhone sized camera?-NO. This does not exclude  removing the mirror! So, I’d bet some potatoes that future “mirrorless” cameras with full frame sensors will adapt lens-to-sensor scales of 35mm SLRs and that you’ll be able to use old and new lenses with them just fine. Also, if of any sanity manufacturers will make better use of the space released by mirror removal. As Astronomer I think first about what our cameras have and DSL(R)’s do not – some form of active cooling. Practical example: Nikon D4 improvements in material and sensor design increased abilities vs. old D3 generation for about 30%… Remove mirror, add active cooling and you can make the same improvement – it is worth the whole generation of the product betterment. Active cooling is not the only new feature that can be shoe-horned in the space of the mirror… Imagination should run wild with new features.
I’ll now goto the further future and tell you my prediction where the real revolution will happen: Lenses. 4th generation cameras will be built around a single lens. Imagine lens similar in proportion to modern 100mm. Just it has no moving parts, only one piece of glass and can do anything from optically zooming over 10-1000mm, tilt-shifting, doing special effects,… you name it – it can do it. That is coming. That will be the revolution. In your lifetime. (Nonlinear crystals and control of their optical properties via electric field). Mirror-or-not – small evolutionary potatoes.

Trey, whats all of a sudden this shift and attacks on Nikon? Have they stopped sponsoring you for the year 2012? Just curious. In all, I agree with what you are talking about. But with new technologies, we don’t have to jump on it right away always. Lets keep our DSLRs, and spend money on charities, donations, and stop spending it always on crap we don’t really need.

It depends entirely on the end use of the Image,your observations are seriously flawed.
If I could afford a Hasselblad digital camera I would get one,the images are far superior, along with the accompanying software than my D3.
Having said that I produced some very good work with a Minolta Dimage7 some years ago!

Your Subject heading is way too premature.  Give me some evidence where they have become a dying breed.  You know, statistics? 

Also,  showing processed examples of images from camera’s you shot several years ago have little or nothing to do with your argument. 

I can tell the first pix wasnt a DSLR

“Gear-heads will really give me a hard time about this. Let them. Most fully-formed artists know that the goal is to create an _interesting image_, and that has little to do with sensor size and resolution.”

…or whether there’s a mirror that flips up, or if the body weighs less than the previous offerings, or if it takes 200 pictures as opposed to 20, or if the photographer looks like a “pro”… etc. etc. None of these things has a lick to do with taking an interesting image.

It’s fascinating to me that most ‘fully-formed artists’ will freely admit that equipment has little to do with taking a good or interesting image, and yet will continue on to discuss the merits and disadvantages of newer, spiffier technology. I guess I don’t get it…

The issue for me is that chasing the latest technology is an unnecessary, never-ending cycle of consumerism and timed obsolescence. If one’s creative vision and talent does not depend on the gear, then what does hot-s||t  technology really matter? I have neither the time nor the money to stay on that hamster wheel for long, nor would I want to support one of the major gear manufacturers while perfectly good, older gear rots in the closet. 

In the end, my advice to others is as it has always been: Get what you feel you can afford, then learn your gear to the max. (That’s certainly not new advice.) Spend more time looking over books on perspective, composition, and light, than spec sheets for yet-to-be-released equipment. Spend more time on Creating, rather than Consuming. 

As for what I might be shooting with in five years, I don’t know, as it’s not yet 2017. Perhaps I’ll be using the same equipment as today; perhaps not… who can say what will happen in five?

One thing I have not seen talked about much is ergonomics of this. Sensor size, resolution, etc play a large part in the image quality and the dynamic range which for me, plays a large part in my choice of what I can print – yeah I actually like to do more with my shots then post them online

Anyway, I think this tech is great if they could marry it to the current design of SLR bodies. I personally would stay clear of a 4/3 system and go at min with an APS-C sized chip, but then you get into the actual physics of the lenses; they are still going to be a decent size. Don’t get me wrong, you can get amazing shots with anything really. My 4/3 Olympus E500 was able to help me produce some amazing  looking images.

For me, and for my personal needs/taste I think I am not going to worry to much about my future purchases for a few years to come. IF Canon and Nikon decide to go this route, it will be a few years to come and prob be on a body that looks nothing like the current mirrorless point and shoots.

I tend to think of the modern mirrorless as Pellicle II

As a dSLR photographer who does shoot full frame and would never even think about buying a non-full-frame dSLR I disagree with you on some points. For instance, I would not use a 3rd gen camera to be a wedding photographer. However, I do agree that 3rd gen cameras will be significant and important in the lives of photographers and the tech should not be discounted. The average person with a camera would do very well to be carrying around an iPhone 4S or micro four thirds camera right now. A D3 is not a needed expense for the majority of people desiring to take good photographs. It’s more about natural ability than about equipment anyway (in my book).

Trey-Thanks for your thoughts on this.  If I were going to try out one of these “3rd gen” cameras. which would you suggest?

Call me old school but i actually like the sound of a real shutter.

I have an A77 and am glad to see it getting some well deserved recognition from someone so respected in the field.  Its a great unit and I am loving every bit of it so far. No, it’s not exactly a 3rd gen camera, taking on the form of a traditional DSLR/SLR but it does have the transfixed mirror, which reduces the mirror slap effect. The Alpha NEX series is getting some rave reviews too, from what I see, though I have not had the opportunity to use one, yet.

“Cleaning: Since the mirror doesn’t flip up and down any more, you’re not flinging a bunch of dust and junk around the inside of that barn. After each trip I take, the sensor on my D3X and D3S needs a good old-fashioned cleaning. I look forward to the day when I don’t have to do that any more. Call me lazy.”
I think that the dust war owes more to lens-swapping than it has to the “mirror” being there. As long as you’ll be swapping lenses out there, you are bound to have dust on your sensor. Mirror or not. The only way to avoid that is, well, have your lenses put in place all the time. I won’t comment on the rest, as it’s your personal opinion, which I don’t share, but, hey, it’s me

In fact – mirrorless cameras make this problem worse.  Normally, when the lens is off, the mirror is down, protecting the sensor.  Not so in a mirrorless device.

Also not covered:  People usually don’t claim about viewfinder lag, even very old cameras have no issues with viewfinder update rates unless they’re horrible.  The usual complaint is focus lag.  The problem is that phase detection autofocus always blows contrast detection autofocus out of the water in terms of focusing speed.  CD AF can perform some neat tricks, but it simply can’t under any circumstances lock as fast as a phase-detect system can.  CD AF always has to do a hill-climb search for optimal sharpness, passing beyond optimal focus at least slightly in order to determine the optimal focus. PD systems know in which direction focus needs to travel, and also by how much, and can confirm correct focus without needing to “wiggle” the focus to search.

A DSLR can always have CD AF added for those times when it’s beneficial.  A mirrorless device can never have a PD system added on.

The technology is probably he wave of the future, but to say the DSLR is dead is a bit premature.  I used one for sports and they are not ready for prime time just yet.

Ahhhh a real shutter, like my great grandfather used – a lenscap!

“A DSLR can always have CD AF added for those times when it’s beneficial. A mirrorless device can never have a PD system added on.”

LA-EA2 α NEX Camera Mount Adapter (http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666375279&tab=featuresTab) for $399.99 gives you the ability to

“Attach α A-mount lenses to your E-mount camera body and enjoy continuous Phase Detection AF while capturing stills and video with world’s first mount adaptor to be equipped with Translucent Mirror Technology™.”

You can take it off when you do not need PD AF.

I want a Late Gen 3 as well.  In the days of being able to take a video of a photon (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/trillion-fps-camera-1213.html) not needing to focus on any particular object (https://www.lytro.com/science_inside) and nearly infinitely adjustable lens’ (http://www.varioptic.com/technology/liquid-lens-autofocus-af/) its only a matter of time before all we will need is a cell phone sized camera to work for literally everything.

Maybe.  I think and hope that the forthcoming Fuji (named LX10? X1? Pro-something?) will come the closest to what you’re talking about.  However I really don’t see DSLRs going away any time soon.  The auto-focus of a 3rd Gen isn’t there yet for sports.  Nevermind the Nikon 1 – the DOF is too deep to know if the AF really works or not.  Besides, what is the point of a small camera body when you are shooting a 70-200/2.8?  Or a 300/2.8?  Or an 85/1.2?  Even the slow kit zooms for NEX cameras are too big to matter.  I agree a 3rd Gen camera will be great for any time you want to be discrete and don’t need a lot of focal length, and I want one for that.  But there are a whole host of uses for DSLRs that are not even close to being addressed by 3rd Gen.

By the way, I think 3rd Gen is about as meaningless a name as Mirrorless.  These cameras need a distinct, descriptive name.  I like CSC – compact system camera.

While DSLRs may eventually be replaced by mirrorless or whatever the next technology is going to be after that, I don’t think DSLR style bodies will go away.  Yes, there is a time and place for smaller camera bodies, because sometimes hauling around a DSLR isn’t always convenient.  My biggest issue isn’t carrying it really, I have no problem carrying my 1D and 70-200  2.8 all day. But sometimes it’s a pain when I’m out and about and done using it and then I still need to still carry it around (I’d never leave it in my vehicle), whereas carrying around a smaller camera at that point would be nicer.

In terms of smaller style cameras I can’t stand their  tiny controls and having to use the LCD to access different menus features.  All features that are readily available as buttons/dials larger DSLRs.  My wife has a Canon T3i and the few times I’ve used it, I can’t stand it, it’s too small, it doesn’t fit/balance nicely in my hands, and the controls are too small.
This is all over and above one of my main uses for my DSLR is to shoot sports (often in low light) and from what I’ve seen 3rd generation cameras right now can’t come within a mile. 

The fact is technology evolves and changes so fast, buy what you need now today to meet your needs.  Don’t worry about what might be coming out in a year, two years, or 5 years.  Because, as soon as that time passes, there will be something else then that newer and better and that everyone is raving over.  The cycle never stops.  I learned that long ago with computers, there will always be something better coming down the road.

i have always wanted the viewfinder to work in two modes. the usual mode and one in which it mimics the sensor so if the shutter speed is slow, it would the same streaking that the sensor would capture. what a slr camera does is show us the angle and focus that the sensor would capture but in a digital camera esp one with a digital viewfinder it is possible to see what the sensor would end up capturing

The Leica M9 is mirrorless and full frame and has extremely small and exceptionally sharp lenses.

Interesting read.
I have been thinking about the exact same thing over the last few weeks. I need/want a new camera, love my A700, but can’t think of any reason a NEX could do the exact same thing in a smaller package (which is the biggest drawback to a DSLR for me). Well, aside from the lens issue, which is a big one but still…I am trying to find a place that has a NEX-5n or Nex-7 on the shelf so I can get my hands on one to seal the deal.

The only thing I am not sure of right now is if when or if I will sell my A700 due to lack of use.

Heh… I still own a D70, as well as a Nikon D200 and a Panasonic GF1 m4/3 camera. The GF1 more than equals the output from the D70, it’s even better than the D70 at ISO 1600 (where the D70′s images disintegrate into a chroma noise mess). The D200′s older APS-C sensor has a slight edge over the GF1 at 1600… maybe by a stop. 

I use a simple Panasonic TS3 for one handed shots while riding my motorcycle and I am looking at the Panasonic GF3 for my off the bike easy to travel with next camera.  I am not in any means a pro but want great shots with ease.  That is why I like the 4/3rds cameras.  Smaller than the DSLR, still take great pics/videos and all I would need to bring would be a decent zoom lens and wide angle.  So, I agree for most the micro 4/3 will satisfy the majority of holiday picture takers.

For the pros…not sure what will happen but I am sure glad the cameras and ability to change the lens are coming in smaller packages.  Remember I ride a bike and space is minimal while traveling.

advgrrls.com is our BLOG from our Alaska summer trip.  We borrowed 2 Triumph motorcycles from Triumph Canada but had to give them back…2 grrls and a whole lot of fun for 44 days.  June 29th – August 11th 2011.

Nice summary of the direction things are heading.  Of course this year I went out and bought one of those old DSLRs and I carry it around pretty much all the time.  Trying to look like a stud:-)

Another site that has a lot of information on this transition is http://www.bythom.com/ He writes about all things Nikon (also not paid by Nikon).  Recently he has been writing a lot about the new smaller mirror less cameras he has been using.  He has been use quite a few. So much so that he has started a new site for his writings on that topic http://www.sansmirror.com/.  

Ooops there’s that mirrorless name that will be going away again:-)

So… here is just described what Sony made 1n 1yr. ago. No comments.

You FINALLY caught on. Bravo! I have long disagreed with your comments on this blog telling your followers that they have to go “buy a real camera” if they wanted to make great images. Glad you finally discovered the whole deception the industry marketers have been slingin’ for years to try and convince folks that all they need is to buy all their stuff instead of keeping the focus on the photographer’s vision. 

I’ve still got my Nikon dSLR gear, but to be honest… for what I do, I get by just fine with a little Oly XZ-1. 3rd Gen hasn’t quite caught all the way up with dSLRs but they are very close. I’d guess your 5yr estimate is likely on the money, if not sooner.

Almost jumped for the GH2 as well, but stopped just short of pulling the trigger mostly based on your cited issues. It’s awfully close though. One or two more revs and I’ll be unloading my dSLR gear as well. Might even go ahead and get it over with while it’s still got value.

One other thing worth pointing out:  I tried some ‘regular’ Nikon lenses on the GH2 using a Novoflex adapter. But I didn’t like the results at all: there was a lot of purple fringing on highlights and, quite frankly, there is no point having a small camera with big lenses. But I needed to find out by myself, I guess. In the end, I find that, at least for the GH2, there is a group of lenses covering a very decent focal range. I bought the Olympus 12mm, Panasonic 20mm, Olympus 45 mm, Panasoic 45-200mm zoom, GH2′s 14-42 kit lens and it covers all my needs (I’m just an advanced, passionate hobbyst who started with a Pentax K1000 some 30 years ago).

I would say the mirrorless cameras are 80-85% of the way there. A few wrinkles to take care of, but it is clearly the future. I suspect that Canon and Nikon have no real desire to push the new format because it would effectively kill their cash cow: the ultra-expensive lenses.

Good luck with your decision (whatever it is)!

Yeah, I have a D70S, here. Grain gets nasty anything over 400 ISO. Certainly the GF1 is going to be a champ in those terms. (That camera produces some really good looking images.) I think the point, though, is it’s more than just sensors. The glass of the lens, the processing of the data coming off the sensor… on and on and on.

I played with a D700 some years ago. Talk about crazy good looking images at high ISO… I can’t imagine what the current crop of high-end DSLRs are doing these days. 

Great article–thanks!  I was *very* skeptical when I read the title, but think you’ve convinced me.  Well-written for all audiences.  I think I’ll wait for 3rd Gen, gen 3+ to make the switch though.

Yes – good idea… I’ll wait for, well, maybe the next Sony NEX

Yeah – that camera is incredible…  I am interested in the A99  (rumored)

It is a vexing problem!

I use my Olympus EPL1 with off camera lighting all the time.  It’s fully compatible with Pocket Wizards, CyberSyncs, Phottix, etc.  The only thing it doesn’t have is a PC-sync slot but most people are using pocket wizard type wireless triggers now anyways.

I’ve triggered off camera speedlights and mono lights with it just fine.

I won’t give you stats — I am simply saying that this is a trend that I see.  If you do not see it or agree — that is fine.

What?  No – Nikon has never sponsored me or advertised.

And - further - you’re entirely missing the point.  I’m telling you about this trend, and how I will NOT be spending thousands of dollars on existing DSLR equipment for the next few years… it will be wasted money.  Maybe this will help other people save money too.  

It’s kind of a foregone conclusion that MOST people will be buying  a new camera in the future.  Maybe a bit of foresight will save everyone money.

Yeah, I do get where you were going with that. Too many want to get in the fun and games with something that doesn’t allow for any adjustment at all. And, if they want to learn how to control the various elements beyond framing, they need something that at least gives them a little control. 

It just read wrong I think, or perhaps I just read it wrong. Hell, you know as well as I that stunning images that print very well can be made with an iPhone. You really don’t even need the apps. Though, I still prefer something a little more dedicated for most outings. 

Good article! I’ve seen some images that Kirk Tuck has been getting out of the V1 and the quality looks very good to me.

So you dismiss low light sensitivity and bokeh, both related to lens speed and sensor diagonal, just like that? I’m not a pro photographer but those happen to be my strongest needs from a camera, portraits of my daughters performing in theater lighting. Looking forward to upgrade from a D7000 to a D3s or D4.

Perhaps “mirrorless” cameras will have decent full frame sensors and lenses in 3 years. Now? Nah.

I like the ideal of a mirrorless system, but I don’t quite understand why it’s no longer needed. I’ll have to go check out the link for details on the tech. I am at the stange now where I am just starting to aquire lenses and DSLR gear. I hope I can still get some life out of them before these 3rd generation cameras are so compelling that I want to ditch that investment.

You’re absolutely right… it’s more than just a sensor. People get so excited about the latest sensors these days, but I still have absolutely stellar photos printed even at 13×19 from my D70. I still shoot with it as a second camera to my D200, although it has unfortunately developed an intermittent problem in the last year where it fails to record a shot every 20 shots or so. I have put a lot of mileage on it though, but not as much as I’ve put on my D200, which is still going strong. 

I almost bought a D700 a couple of years ago, but after thinking about it long and hard got the GF1 instead. I’ve scarcely thought about the D700 since, although I sure wouldn’t mind having one. I guess more than full frame I just wanted a small and light camera with a few lenses that I wouldn’t mind carrying on a daily basis. Any of my cameras (D70, D200, GF1) yield great results for most of what I shoot. 

Yes.. this article is true.. 
My last week experience to use first generation of mirrorless camera is quite capable to shoot in almost any situation . The image quality is amazing and hard to believe that delivered by small camera body with big sensor

I bought the Panasonic GH1 last year, and love it. One perk is that all Micro Four Thirds lenses are interchangeable between manufacturers. It takes great pics, and I use them here: http://www.locophotogblog.com 

Trey, hope all is well.  You are 100% correct.  I’m unsure what the current dSLR market share is but within 5-10 years your so called “3rd generation cameras” will far surpass dSLR’s (I just told a few friends this over a month ago).  I switched from a Canon 5d MrkII and L series lenses to a Leica M9 and Leica M-mount lenses in 2010 and fell absolutely in love.  I literally carry my camera everywhere now because of how small it is and how wonderful the pictures are.  I can’t see my self ever going back to a dSLR on a regular basis again.  Keep up the good work!!!

I don’t shoot a lot of HDR but I’ve attached 3 HDR’s taken with my Leica M9 using 7 exposures.

Agreed.  Photographers go to great extremes for low light sensitivity and quality of bokeh.  Can’t dismiss those too quickly (or put another way DSLRs will increasingly have a unique advantage as more people move to “3G”).

Very smart, Rob, and well put. As much as DSLRs haven’t replaced middle or large format cams, the next generation won’t replace DSLRs. It’s a new segment and there’s use for it as well as DSLR will have its use in future. I loved to use my F4s for 10+ years but feel ashamed to carry my 2006  D70s. I’m looking forward to get a cheap D3s from one of the switchers … any offers as of yet, folks? 

What about the RED you got? that camera is epic

I’ve always wondered about this topic. I’ve tried out various 3G cameras and found them to be almost as responsive and fast as entry-mid ranged DSLRs, which made me question “why would I opt for a bigger, bulkier body, when I can have something much more compact?” I’m not really a pro, just a beginner who loves taking photographs so perhaps the technical pros and cons are lost to me. Either way it’s nice to see an authority of the subject comment on this. I was thinking of going for the NEX-7, but given its price I was thinking if maybe a DSLR would have been a smarter choice, but I think I have my answer now. Thanks Trey! =)

Hey Stacy – I don’t think Trey is saying you shouldn’t buy a DSLR today.   I think he’s saying that the next platform is 3rd Gen/Mirrorless, and he’ll be adopting that.

That said, with your budget, you could  take a hard look at the Nikon 1 system.  Check out Andy E.’s blog at nikonandeye – some good comparisons there.  I think Andy and Trey should get together and go on a shoot!

Sorry Jim.  I am waiting for the 5th generation.  I’m pretty confident that 5 comes after 4 and that the 5th is inevitably going to be different than the previous generation.  Also, on a serious note, I think Trey has a good point.  But, he is not looking at things the the way I see as correct, and so his opinion about what will happen is flawed in my humble opinion, fundamentally.  Smaller isn’t better.  It’s just different.  The camera manufacturers have different sizes for a reason and not the reasons he mentioned.  They still make the same size and larger size, cars compared to the original Model A Fords.  Bigger engines, bigger bodies, bigger cup holders.  This is because bigger is (let’s use it again) fundamentally less restrictive, because bigger means more of something.  If they can fit a full frame sensor (which of course already exists in the form of a Leica M9) in a  more compact body, then the bigger DSLRs, which might no longer be called DSLRs in the future, but are still within reason, the same form factor (sorry Trey, I know you built this into your article as an escape hatch but no one expects that DSLRs need to keep their viewfinders or mirrors in order to still be considered a DSLR class camera, just as you kindly pointed out that mirror-less cameras should really be called something else, but we call them this, because that’s what we do for now and we cannot reference the future because you never know if the false acronym will stick or not) will in fact, have larger sensors, closer to medium format size.  They also, like cars, have more features, bigger batteries (sorry Trey, battery space ranks higher in reason for the larger size of DSLRs than the mirror, and will batteries get smaller, sure, but then they will always have the +$800 to purchase price option for pros that want even more battery and therefore size),  more manual external buttons, etc.  I’m being very cautious not to say power for strong on camera flash, larger pro lens, etc., because I know we are talking about the future here, and in the future we must give reasonable doubt as to the usefulness of a large lens against some new fangled lens that is 1/8th the size, but gives better results, or the usefulness of flash with in camera capabilities.

The reason why we don’t have full frame sensors on every point and shoot from here to Oshkosh is the cost of the sensor.  The cost of the sensor is just a side effect of the previous paragraph.  When more sensors in the 36mm range are being made, the cost for that size range will eventually find a way to become cheaper.  And then?  Larger, medium format sensors will be the thing for pro-sumers, because those will be more affordable.  But bigger will always give you more.

So.  In closing, I think we can all agree than my point of view is correct, and that Trey’s is definately not a good enough point of view to continue to talk about.  It’s certainly not good enough to say that in the future, we will have the future, and so he will someday stop using his old stuff, and start to use new stuff.  But, since this is his site, I’ll go ahead and point out that it is probably futile to have enough respect for everyone to completely disagree with Trey.

Let me also point out Trey, that if you do feel that once the shift really takes place to the point where you will buy that first transition camera that you were referring to, whatever it ends up being, besides what you explicitly mentioned, then that’s great for you.  But here’s what I think.  Anyone that makes that move, is moving down to where they natually should have been to begin with, but for some reason, were not compatible (in some way) with the category.  What was it Trey, the price of DSLRs?  The size of a DSLR?  Here’s what will really happen.  People like Trey (perhaps) will shift over to that some-day 3rd gen or whatever, and some others will shift (or as I mentioned before) actually stay in the same DSLRish (see above for why I call it  DSLRish) category.  Then there will be even others who will go up a category to where they should be, because once one category changes, all do (why?  because they are all the same product, but different categories within the same product).

Let me just add that I think the place where Trey went wrong was when he innocently assumed that there is no business in the business of cameras.  Well, actually, let’s give him some credit.  He did for a brief moment, I think it was for about 5-8 seconds, talk about the business behind the tech.  You see, the camera manufacturers are purposely, but innocently, trying to figure out there own market can be set up for the future, and it is all built around the cost of sensors.  And it has nothing to do with flapping mirrors.  If they wanted to, they could do without those right now, and as Trey mentioned, in the future, they will not need mirrors for the viewfinder at all, but even right now, the reason they don’t go without mirrors in DSLRs has to do with a conscious business decision based on price and what consumer A. A soccer mom who doesn’t have the justification for a $800 camera to do snapshots of the kids.  And B.  The professional model photographer who can justify buying a more expensive camera because it leads to making money.  It has nothing to do with the fact that viewfinder lcds are a bit slow, that wouldn’t stop them btw.  That’s not the type of businessmen we are dealing with here.  They just don’t have that complex of a decision making process.  Think basic but innocent, and restricted by things that they think they cannot influence yet, like sensor prices.  Also, don’t forget the Japanese business model and how when the price of silicon goes down, chip prices go down, etc etc, and every Business from here to some Japanese town that manufactures chips is effected, yet may be supplying Nikon with chips (Japanese business model – several businesses actually make up one big business – I blame the compactness of the country and the density of corporate headquarters in such a small country).

In closing, I feel that there will be a new class of consumer brought into the world of cameras.  But as usual, this new class brought to cameras is the same class that is brought into every improving product.  Drum roll please…..teenagers.  Why?  Smarter than their predecessors (some would say without the ability to harness it however), brought up with the technology therefore inherent and not limited by ability or traitor or socially forced cast (even the blond cheer leader expects that it’s normal to be out with a top of the line 3rd etc gen camera).

And to conclude, here’s what I see:  A DSLRish camera, same round about size as now, viewfinder with all of the future upgrades, all features of the future, same form factor (as mentioned) with many buttons and nobs, some more on the lcd, but still physical, large battery as there are now, no on camera flashes on any DSLRish cameras, smaller lenses, bigger sensors, as in full frame or above in DSLRish cameras, faster fps by far, but not far above what the human eye can see or usefully process or organize around to get the right shot for sure on set (pro set or sons bday party set).

Thanks,

Josh

When I need low light sensitivity I bring out my dad’s old Yashica Electro 35 and then cross my fingers. I really want to get my hands on one of these 3G cameras. As you can see I have never been comfortable with the whole SLR system and prefer a mirrorless system. 

Gotcha Trey. Thanks for replying. It was only a question about the sponsoring with Nikon. And thanks, you got me re-starting a little bit with HDR. So merci again. Keep up the good work. I am still learning as you can see…

Um… so, lens quality? Are the current crop of lenses for cameras like the Sony NEX-5 sharp? These 3rd-generation cameras sound appealing, but we all know that lenses are incredibly important. I’m just not seeing too many reviews of mirror-less cameras. 

I generally agree that the DSLR as we currently know it will die, but does that mean purchasing a new lens  These new “3rd Gen” cameras don’t have the full frame size — as has been pointed out — and photographers will likely still want that bigger sensor (“FX” size in Nikon-speak) for the low light quality and bokeh.  As technology advances, it gets applied to both small and large sensors approximately equally, so someone that’s happy with a point and shoot (or 3rd gen) gets the advantage of light weight while someone else that can afford the weight gets the advantage of the physics in a larger sensor.   I know guys that aren’t happy with DSLRs that own $20,000 medium format Hasselblad digitals.  My guess is that this format will die out first and you’ll see the high end guys switch to full frame in mirrorless camera that are basically DSLRs without a prism or viewfinder, but still use the lenses (there already is the widest variety and selection available currently — telephoto, wide angle, perspective control, true macro, primes with large apertures (f/1.2), etc.) which are already built to handle a full frame sensor.  Cameras are tools and you use different tools for different jobs.  Blasphemy on this site, I know, but not every picture requires HDR processing.  Not everything requires perspective control, scheimpflug, macro, or insert-your-technique-here.

I recently purchased and started shooting with a 4×5 view camera that uses film.  I can take a group photo at a family reunion with 150 people in it, and after I develop and scan the film, I can blow it up big enough to clearly see every individual face in a way you can’t do with a DSLR — but I can’t shoot sports with it.  You can get the equivalent of 100 megapixels by shooting large film and scanning it (relatively cheaply, btw), but it only makes sense if you are going to print something the size of a wall.  A view camera is technology that is 150 years old, but still works great for specific applications.  Each tool according to its purpose, right?  Advantages and disadvantages always.

The viewfinder and prism  and mirror don’t play any role in the physics of getting a good image out of the sensor, so I certainly can see that going away — the term “DSLR” will likely have less meaning, but does that mean we’re all just going to shift to smaller cameras with smaller sensors and smaller lenses?  I think it’s more likely we’ll just see camera bodies that take current lenses but drop the components that are anachronistic.

Cheers,

Scott

About the attached image:  Composite of 400 images of the Amgen Helix Bridge (Seattle) shot at 1am using colored gels on the flash with very fast shutter speed (to defeat the abundant ambient light from the numerous white lights present).  Not HDR, not film — needed wireless flash system, tripod, timed-multiple autoexposure in the camera, and Photoshop.  A different technique and a different tool to achieve a different look.

Good point, but as for not seeing many reviews of mirror-less cameras? Where are you looking?! All of the major photography review sites have been doing loads of reviews of them. As for mirrorless ILC lenses, I’ve reviewed a few at Cameralabs and will have some more coming very soon!

Current DSLRs are horse carts where the horse has been replaced with a steam engine. The cart will also have to change a lot when the engine gets better in the future. I’m also waiting for the revolution that software brings to cameras.

Our current cameras are still crippled by the film age legacy that doesn’t allow us to see the true potential of digital.

Good post.  As I said in my post earlier this evening, I started shooting with a 4×5 view camera (film) recently, and the tech is pretty low.  I’m still learning how to use it, but you can make some pretty spectacular images with one as anyone who has flipped through an Ansel Adams coffee-table book could attest.  You have to learn how to use the equipment you have.

Thanks, Scott. Another friend of mine moved back toward film and a view camera, and he has produced some stunning images. It just goes to show…

Thank you, Norbert. Here’s hoping that you get that D3s!

That doesn’t answer his question.

The biggest issue for me is weight. I’m getting too old to lug around a DLSR and zoom lens on my shoulder or a backpack full of gear all day.   I have a Canon 60D and an assortment of lenses that I use in studio, but I carry a G12 on a daily basis and on vacation.

However, your gear = good photographer stereotype is spot on. On our recent vacation to Costa Rica I took the G12. Some others on the trip with DLSRs dismissed me a as a know-nothing beginner and ignored some useful advice/comments. OF course, the proof is in the Flickr streams afterwards, but while I think my pix are better, I doubt if I convinced them of anything. Not that it matters to me, of course.  Still, a pro on assignment might not get the cooperation from a client that he needs if the client doesn’t take the photographer seriously.

Pentax has the right idea with their Limited series of high quality compact lenses. A K-series dSLR + 3 Limiteds weighs only 3 lbs!  Coupled with a carbon fiber tripod like the Gitzo GT1541, I’ve got a superlight 35mm system that is as capable in the studio as it is in the backcountry.

I am waiting for the 5th generation.  I’m pretty confident that 5 comes
after 4 and that the 5th is inevitably going to be different than the
previous generation.  Also, on a serious note, I think Trey has a good
point.  But, he is not looking at things the the way I see as correct,
and so his opinion about what will happen is flawed in my humble
opinion, fundamentally.  Smaller isn’t better.  It’s just different. 
The camera manufacturers have different sizes for a reason and not the
reasons he mentioned.  They still make the same size and larger size,
cars compared to the original Model A Fords.  Bigger engines, bigger
bodies, bigger cup holders.  This is because bigger is (let’s use it
again) fundamentally less restrictive, because bigger means more of
something.  If they can fit a full frame sensor (which of course already
exists in the form of a Leica M9) in a  more compact body, then the
bigger DSLRs, which might no longer be called DSLRs in the future, but
are still within reason, the same form factor (sorry Trey, I know you
built this into your article as an escape hatch but no one expects that
DSLRs need to keep their viewfinders or mirrors in order to still be
considered a DSLR class camera, just as you kindly pointed out that
mirror-less cameras should really be called something else, but we call
them this, because that’s what we do for now and we cannot reference the
future because you never know if the false acronym will stick or not)
will in fact, have larger sensors, closer to medium format size.  They
also, like cars, have more features, bigger batteries (sorry Trey,
battery space ranks higher in reason for the larger size of DSLRs than
the mirror, and will batteries get smaller, sure, but then they will
always have the +$800 to purchase price option for pros that want even
more battery and therefore size),  more manual external buttons, etc. 
I’m being very cautious not to say power for strong on camera flash,
larger pro lens, etc., because I know we are talking about the future
here, and in the future we must give reasonable doubt as to the
usefulness of a large lens against some new fangled lens that is 1/8th
the size, but gives better results, or the usefulness of flash with in
camera capabilities.

The reason why we don’t have full frame
sensors on every point and shoot from here to Oshkosh is the cost of the
sensor.  The cost of the sensor is just a side effect of the previous
paragraph.  When more sensors in the 36mm range are being made, the cost
for that size range will eventually find a way to become cheaper.  And
then?  Larger, medium format sensors will be the thing for pro-sumers,
because those will be more affordable.  But bigger will always give you
more.

So.  In closing, I think we can all agree than my point of
view is correct, and that Trey’s is definately not a good enough point
of view to continue to talk about.  It’s certainly not good enough to
say that in the future, we will have the future, and so he will someday
stop using his old stuff, and start to use new stuff.  But, since this
is his site, I’ll go ahead and point out that it is probably futile to
have enough respect for everyone to completely disagree with Trey.

Let
me also point out Trey, that if you do feel that once the shift really
takes place to the point where you will buy that first transition camera
that you were referring to, whatever it ends up being, besides what you
explicitly mentioned, then that’s great for you.  But here’s what I
think.  Anyone that makes that move, is moving down to where they
natually should have been to begin with, but for some reason, were not
compatible (in some way) with the category.  What was it Trey, the price
of DSLRs?  The size of a DSLR?  Here’s what will really happen.  People
like Trey (perhaps) will shift over to that some-day 3rd gen or
whatever, and some others will shift (or as I mentioned before) actually
stay in the same DSLRish (see above for why I call it  DSLRish)
category.  Then there will be even others who will go up a category to
where they should be, because once one category changes, all do (why? 
because they are all the same product, but different categories within
the same product).

Let me just add that I think the place where
Trey went wrong was when he innocently assumed that there is no business
in the business of cameras.  Well, actually, let’s give him some
credit.  He did for a brief moment, I think it was for about 5-8
seconds, talk about the business behind the tech.  You see, the camera
manufacturers are purposely, but innocently, trying to figure out there
own market can be set up for the future, and it is all built around the
cost of sensors.  And it has nothing to do with flapping mirrors.  If
they wanted to, they could do without those right now, and as Trey
mentioned, in the future, they will not need mirrors for the viewfinder
at all, but even right now, the reason they don’t go without mirrors in
DSLRs has to do with a conscious business decision based on price and
what consumer A. A soccer mom who doesn’t have the justification for a
$800 camera to do snapshots of the kids.  And B.  The professional model
photographer who can justify buying a more expensive camera because it
leads to making money.  It has nothing to do with the fact that
viewfinder lcds are a bit slow, that wouldn’t stop them btw.  That’s not
the type of businessmen we are dealing with here.  They just don’t have
that complex of a decision making process.  Think basic but innocent,
and restricted by things that they think they cannot influence yet, like
sensor prices.  Also, don’t forget the Japanese business model and how
when the price of silicon goes down, chip prices go down, etc etc, and
every Business from here to some Japanese town that manufactures chips
is effected, yet may be supplying Nikon with chips (Japanese business
model – several businesses actually make up one big business – I blame
the compactness of the country and the density of corporate headquarters
in such a small country).

In closing, I feel that there will be a
new class of consumer brought into the world of cameras.  But as usual,
this new class brought to cameras is the same class that is brought
into every improving product.  Drum roll please…..teenagers.  Why? 
Smarter than their predecessors (some would say without the ability to
harness it however), brought up with the technology therefore inherent
and not limited by ability or traitor or socially forced cast (even the
blond cheer leader expects that it’s normal to be out with a top of the
line 3rd etc gen camera).

And to conclude, here’s what I see:  A
DSLRish camera, same round about size as now, viewfinder with all of the
future upgrades, all features of the future, same form factor (as
mentioned) with many buttons and nobs, some more on the lcd, but still
physical, large battery as there are now, no on camera flashes on any
DSLRish cameras, smaller lenses, bigger sensors, as in full frame or
above in DSLRish cameras, faster fps by far, but not far above what the
human eye can see or usefully process or organize around to get the
right shot for sure on set (pro set or sons bday party set).

Thanks,

Josh

Wow. You’re quite the controversy stirrer Mr. Trey. =) Who even knew??
 I personally enjoyed your insight and look forward to the new horizons in photography equipment.
I have one question why are these beta 3rd generation camera that are now available so inexpensive? Because they are smaller? 
Thanks.
ps love your blog

Holy Sweet Mother!

Trey, shame on you for poking your stick into the trolls nest.

I feel as you do – it’s the picture that you sell that makes the money that puts the food on your table, the shirt on your back and your offspring through school, that matters, not the size of your camera/lens.

If a smaller less expensive and good quality camera does the job better, great.

All other flagellating is just a bunch of hormones driving around in a car with fat tires and an itty bitty steering wheel – what we used to call the “big-penis” car, because the driver had such a small package he had to show it next to a tiny steering wheel to make it feel big.

I guess now we’ll have to talk about big-penis cameras.

I suppose it’s easy for Trey to wait and see what happens because he already has the two best Nikon cameras ever made (D3X, D3S) along with a bag full of high-end lenses.  Waiting to see what happens with Sony et al is not going to hurt his ability to shoot anything he wants.  To be honest, I don’t think the D4 is a worthwhile upgrade for him given what he shoots.  The D4 is a sports/wildlife/photojournalist camera and Trey doesn’t really do any of that.  He likes, and maybe needs, the resolution of the D3X so that is a keeper.  Maybe he can replace the D3S with the D4 if the new body has better low light performance though to be honest that upgrade is unlikely to be a huge jump and it will cost $6000.  The value of making the switch is questionable at best.

If the D800 really is 36MP and you can get one without the anti-aliasing filter I bet Trey would be tempted to at least try it out

Some valid points but you used “in closing” twice and didn’t close then finally “to conclude”…

I don’t agree that bigger is always better.  I’m happy my iphone is much smaller than the previous generation of phones.  It does much more, does it better, and is smaller than what came before.

Hi Trey – Happy New Year (sorry I missed you this year for the Driskill Photowalk).

Provocative article!

While I like the way you are thinking, and my hands, arms, and back are really hoping you are right, there is a bit of a problem that I think you may be over looking… the Moore’s Law you reference (and possibly physics as well).

More to the point chip fabrication is starting to run into both technological limits as well as economic ones, people in the industry sometimes refer to this as the End of Moore’s Law (something Intel will deny, but is obvious to anyone who remembers their 8GHz road map back in 2000).  Moore’s law used to mean you could produce 2x the transistors at the same cost every 2 years.  This was gained through fabrication process shrinks – transistors getting smaller.  What’s now broken is we are starting to approach the hairy edge of how to make these transistors any smaller as some of the wires are already down to a molecule in width, and the insolation  is likewise that thickness which leads to electrons jumping – sometimes referred to as leakage.  Beyond the technical barriers, there are economic ones.  Fabrication of fabrication plants are rising in crazy ways – you might have noticed fewer and fewer people in the business, this is one reason.  It may well be that unless the volumes are in the 100′s of millions that jumping to smaller process fabrication isn’t worth the benefit it brings for a great number of products. 

All that is a way of saying, I’m not sure the technology road is unlimited as you think it may be… and sensor size (or rather pixel size) is likely to still matter far into the  future and advances in them may come to the same kind of sputtering halt that glass technology has.

Now I do agree the days of the Pentaprism and Flip up Mirror are certainly numbered (and 5 years is as good a guess as any), and I’ve already found myself using my iPhone 4s to replace my point and shoots simply because it is “good enough” and always ready and in my pocket.   I suspect the true 3rd generation units will simply be phones (killing point and shoots and likely camcorders), and that the 2nd generation will slowly become a 2.5 generation keeping the interchange lens and getting rid of the mirror.  And likely used for those occasions where the quality of the colors, dynamic range, low light or shutter speed performance, and creative options via lens choice matter (as well as the size you can blow it up to).  

(It also remains to be seen if the user base will support a move from the existing investment in lens – the value of an ecosystem and connector can’t be understated – as Apple as shown with their iPod connector.).

Cheers,
Mike

It looks like you are talking, in part, about the return of rangefinders – technology that predates SLRs and dates a century. The Leica M9 is the latest in a long series of such cameras, also called telemeters.

so what do we do with all our old equipment? what about the thousands of dollars we’ve invested in lenses??? at least with moving from film to digital, we could use the same lenses. this sucks!

I feel sorry to let you that the SONY A77 does not have an optical viewfinder. It is in fact EVF. The translucent mirror only reflects as little as 5% total light to make phase detect AF work, there is no way that a translucent fixed mirror can be used to give you an optical view finder.

Waiter’s gonna wait. Maybe after 10 years you are still waiting… on the 10th Gen Cameras. sigh

Interesting article Trey,
I’m just about to invest in an intermediate DSLR and while I think you are correct, for the average punter out there, unfortunately perception is reality. Turning up to a gig with less than ‘expected’ gear may be frowned upon until the results are shared. Like film vs digital, there will be room for all types, but the bulk of the market will shift ‘with time’ and when the technology is good enough.   

Hey, Trey, have you ever thought of running for President some day?  Love your forward thinking… 

Your video in Yosemite was quite interesting and I was fascinated to learn more. I am only an amateur using Canon point and shoots.

I will be sticking with my current gear until it burns out on me because I simply can’t afford to keep up with the speed in which any technology moves these days.  I think that most new technology now removes need for the user to have a good understanding of the product and the discipline that goes with it. I also think that a big part of the “art” of photography is the preparation for your photo - not just hitting the shutter button and with these 3rd Gen cameras much of that will be lost. They also offers a lot of unnecessary options like 60 FPS – I do sports photography and I do well at 4FPS – anything more and my memory cards are gunked up with images I  don’t need. I’ve also seen adverts for cameras that start taking photos before you even hit a button which totally defeats the point of photography for me. Part of looking back on the memorable images i’ve captured was thinking about the effort i put into taking them. I also have a better appreciation of my equipment to and have no problem whatsoever swapping lenses, cleaning sensors and all these sorts of things because to me that’s part of the fun. The day that I don’t need to do anything to take a great photo because the machine does it for me, is the day that I give up photography. I’m a believer that if something works then it doesn’t need fixed – i won’t buy into something (expensive)  unless I have no other choice in the matter – sadly though that’s the way technology companies push us now. I’ll still be using the same gear in 20 years time (fingers crossed) and I’m sure that the difference in quality will be marginal – it’s not a machine that knows how to capture a great image – it’s the person looking through the lens that does. Any comments about me being a dinosaur will be acceptable because I like dinosaurs

go forD 5100 or even better D7000 if you want nikon

Interesting reading material, especially now I’m considering to upgrade now.

On a more lighter tone, I’d like to mention that I am way ahead of you. I’m taking the “less gear, more vision” to the extreme. I go for a PERSONAL upgrade instead of a gear upgrade. On my shopping list are 
1) better eyes and
2) a connector plugged directly into the visual centers of my brain. 

After that operation I can use my eyes as lenses and my brain as the sensor and storage. Why this maddness? The advantages far outweighs the disadvantages as I seen it:
- I never have to worry about loosing gear, empty batteries or misplaced data cards
- I always have my gear with me without any extra bags
- I’ve got my hands free (dont underestimate this)
- My eyes are more light sensitivity than any sensor
- My viewfinder is over 100% (fovea and parafovea)
- Instant autofocus and object tracking
- Shutterlag? What is that
- Built-in option for high-res movie, stereoscopy and REAL HDR
- Lomography? A little alcohol does miracles! 
 - No more pesky menus to find one setting 
- And one for the pro’s: you cannot get any more intimate than this, because there is no more box to hide behind
- Of course, this also applies to movie, but then I’d have to get my ears done as well
- Did I mention that I am opting the wireless version.  Then I can continuously stream my images to every possible surface and bore the hell out of everyone. Forget about cat pics on FlickR!  

The only disadvantages I:
- Current state of the art in the field of direct human-machine interface.
- The price. It won’t be cheap. I accept donations of course. But if more people are interested, we can probably get a discount.
- Old age. Your eyes and brain slowly deteriorate over time. 
- Malware. That is probably gonna upgrade ass well. I don’t want any ads on my screen, let alone in my head.
- External flashes. I’d probably need a ocket/brain wizard trigger as well.

Still  I say: bring it on!   

PS: This is me just thinking aloud. Jules Verne did the same over a century ago.  

Hmmm. And here I was waiting for Canon to put all the goodies from the 7d into the next 5d whatever!

Trey, Thanks for the forum and topic.  For some of us, this could lead to some good prices on quality used DSLR gear, including those long lenses.  Hurry up you “leading edge” folks, upgrade and sell your older stuff. 

Nice article. I love my 7d, and don’t like the micros, but would love to see some of the older tech. Rangefinder, diaphragm shutters, sturdy bodies that are somewhat smaller, etc, go into an affordable camera. That would be sweet. The old Voigtlander Vitomatic II as a digital, with interchangeable lenses would be a big hit, I think. Especially for folks who like old school photography. I’m not an expert or pro, just saying what I’d like to see.

Hi Trey – love your work, although I’m as much a fan of LDR as I am of HDR.  I really appreciate your view of the world, though.

I wanted to chime in on this one – I think you make a great case, and in light of how uninspiring I find the new D4 to be, I can’t imagine the need to upgrade my D700 until an overhaul is done to the design of the DSLR.  In the case of 3rd gen, I think that might really be the tipping point for what can be done next.

However, I have to disagree with the notion that all/most/many  photographers will eschew the heavy, bulky pro camera in favour of portability.  I know of several photographers who made the switch from one camera brand to another because durability was of paramount concern.  When the 3rd gen cameras start getting built with that in mind, then I think the pro market will start to seriously consider it.  Not to mention the fact that many of the photographers I know have big hands – I can’t imagine something so small in their mitts that makes it harder to push one button with out accidentally hitting another.  Size matters for beefy North Americans.  The Japanese know this. 

Now, I’ll be opening a can of worms with this next statement, but hear me out:  There’s something to be said for using gear that looks like pro-level gear.  I’m a wedding photographer, and I carry 2 primes and a wide-zoom on my D700 w/grip.  When people see me working, they know that I’m “THE PHOTOGRAPHER”.  If I were to show up with a 3rd gen camera that is the size of everyone else’s point and shoot, people are going to mistake me for one of the guests.  In the wedding industry, word-of-mouth is just as important as advertising in wedding magazines, and if you don’t look the part of a wedding photographer, other potential clients at the reception won’t approach you for a business card.  Yes, I whole-heartedly agree, portfolio speaks louder than gear, but sadly 99% of the non-photogaphic community don’t get that, and when you need to be visible as a pro, the size of the gear helps sell that. 

Finally, and I think most importantly, Nikon and Canon would be absolutely brain-dead if they embraced the new technology in their pro lines, but abandoned their current lens mounts because the bodies can be smaller.  Think of the number of photographers that would abandon brands they stuck to for years, even decades.  To flip the bird at your pro-market in such a way would be suicidal, and they know that.  I suspect that they’ll go the route that Sony has with their a77 – or develop similar tech – and we know that the Minolta A-Mount is supported on Sony’s translucent-mirror cameras.  So I think that, while the consumer end might lean towards smaller and lighter cameras with new lenses to match the bodies,  Nikon & Canon will re-engineer their existing pro bodies to be lighter and more agile, yet retaining their respective mounts so as not to lose the customers they already have.  ’Cause if Nikon stops making F-mount bodies, I’ll ditch my system and go Leica.  Nikon doesn’t want that, neither does Canon.

My final thoughts are this – hold on to your lenses and wait to see what CaNikon do next.  One or the other will adopt the new tech, the other will follow suit and we’ll back to where we were a decade ago, fighting over who has better-this or worser-that.  Fun.

The future will tell who is right. I bet Trey is. In any case, many thanks for sharing your thougths, I’m sure it is not easy because it may upset some of your audience

Don’t like it  – but I think you are completely right! (and that “don’t like thing” is just because I am used to the feel of a SLR, my kids probably will think of that as a maybe interesting but quite old fashioned thing, like how I look at tech stuff my father had in his youth)

I dont know, you can go fast on a Nissan GT-R and can go fast on a Buggati Veyron, comparing them is useless even though they serve the same purpose, they are made for two different kind of people and both have benefits for both, and you know what, I truly believe the world can keep using both. I think a blanket statement like “this is the future” is kinda arrogant, I like the “Da Vinci” mirror thingy, but thats me.

Don’t agree. I think it is the image leading the camera, by which I mean that by lowering the expectation of what can be pulled out of an image, a lower spec camera will do the job.

But if one wants to make phenomenally detailed images, use a top of the range dSLR.My D700 (I sold it and replaced it with a  D7000 because the D700 was too heavy and I wanted a long lens option) produced detail that was several ranks above any other camera I have owned.My Panasonic GF1 with 20mm lens makes flat images that require pumping up (I am not talking about HDR – just straight RAW images) and it never makes images with the detail of the D700. 

I think things will happen pretty much as you
say they will, though I take a slightly more commercial view - 
photographers may influence the market, but it’s the guys holding the purse
strings that call the shots, and though we talk about innovation, it’s
innovation dictated by the need to incur revenue, and how you do that is all
about outflanking the other guy to create Unique Selling Points.  So if
producing a mirrorless (3rd Gen if you like) camera costs 40% less than one
with a mirror-box, the former is going to take precedence.  Really, Mr.
Nikon or Mr. Canon don’t care how much weight you lug around, it was never a
matter of that, in fact the big guys have played for long enough on the
“Macho” character of their big cameras.   But if you can make
cost savings by fitting an EVF rather than an OVF, and save material cost by
making cameras 30% smaller and lenses 50% smaller, then that is what they will
do.
For two years I’ve been trying to get this idea across to people in UK and France, that photography is moving on.  At least UK managed to agree on a name – Compact System Camera – for the breed since, as you say, “mirrorless” is meaningless, though ‘CSC’ doesn’t cover all bases.  Whether “3rd Gen” as a title will register is doubtful, until Canon and Nikon swagger properly into this market and then we’ll all adopt the cute little acronym that someone at Canon decides!

Just realized I forgot to post my key point on the phones and why I see them as the 3rd generation.  I’ve the removal of the mirror as a 2.5 generation because the picture taking process itself isn’t changed (changed as in jumping from film to digital), but an aspect – the view finder – has been improved.   For me the phones represent the 3rd generation because of the realtime applications which change the photo you are about to take.  Application customization pre-process and real-time I think is fundamentally new and will change the way pictures are done forever.  We’re already seeing it and not realizing it.

(P.S. at   Juanito – As explained above, Moore’s law is an economic law about fabrication process shrink and the rate of innovation – if it has wires (like those that come from the Phosites) it applies.  If it is made of reactive materials that need to be placed, it still applies. So on and so forth. )

Brilliant article. I think the author hits the nail on its head. 

On Advantages – you left out “Superfast Flash Sync Speeds .. mirrorless cameras won’t be limited by the mirror and shutter for flash sync – 1/1000th max sync speed will be common – and more common will be a “shutter speed” so fast that current flashes will be too slow.

I hope “Maui Photo Festival” comment is correct — and it sounds very likely — that Nikon and Canon will be offering “same size” DSLR bodies without mirrors — placing the sensor at the present focal plane location — so present lens will be usable. My guess is that Nikon and Cannon — and others — will be offering some assurances of that policy to encourage continued present sales.

Bottom line, the sensibility and logic of  a “mirrorless” future is most exciting.

your article is interesting, but lacks a lot on detail. 

The nikon D70 had a lot of short comings (especially with long exposure).Image quality  Depends on who is behind the camera and the quality of glass in front of the sensor.  I have an APS-C camera (7D) and I haven’t found the need to go to a full frame image as it really has no advantages that I haven’t overcome with lens choice.  Sure I have only a few L-grade canon lenses as they are designed for full frame – but my workhorse lens is pretty good (17-55) and my Efs-60 macro is the sharpest lens I own. 
No mirror yes, but you will still have the issues of shutter speed, depth of field, Sensor gamut etc that you had before you took the mirror away.
Removing the mirror really only makes the camera faster for FPS and sync speed. It does nothing else. You might have better electronic focusing or exposure methods: but I largely work in full manual mode, often with AF and IS off, so no appreciable advantage with facial recognition focusing and metering really.

Also I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories, Canon and Nikon will bring out mirror-less cameras too so they can sell you more stuff, and lenses to match.

Not all DSLRs are as monstrous and heavy as the D3x or the 1D series from Canon. I personally find these rangefinder cameras nothing more than expensive toys at the moment. First of all, they are uncomfortable to hold. Being so thin and small will eventually cause strain and will start to hurt. I have the Sony NEX 5 and it is a pain after about 30 mins of holding. Second, nearly every single function has to be accessed through a menu system which means by the time you adjust your aperture, shutter speed and ISO, the subject will be halfway around the world. I am not saying these cameras won’t be successful but to say they will replace DSLRs is a pretty amateur statement. Don’t get me wrong, I love my NEX 5 but it lacks so many benefits of a DSLR.

I will list them:
- Ruggedness; a single drop would likely be the end of your “3rd gen” camera
- Lack of ability to add flashes (on most rangefinders) / battery grips etc. The toy flashes that come as accessories to some of these are laughable
- Few or none easy to access controls. I love the fact that DSLRs have every major function accessible on the outside of the camera (especially Nikon). Rarely do you need to scroll through the menu to access them. 
- Lack of weather sealing; let’s be honest, you wouldn’t be taking an NEX 5 or 7 to Mt. Everest anytime soon.
- Lack of viewfinder will make it difficult to compose your shots in bright sunlight. 
- Battery life – My NEX 5 goes through a charge quite quickly since the screen needs to be on all the time and since I can’t attach a second battery, I will need to carry one on me and fiddle around with changing it.

Yes it is small to carry around and very light but this isn’t worth everything you lose. Give us a full-sized mirror-less DSLR and maybe we’ll talk but at the present moment these things are nothing more than expensive point and shoots with interchangeable lenses. I agree with Trey that DSLRs will eventually lose their mirror but I don’t agree that the current small 3rd gen cameras will replace the DSLR form-factor. They are simply not functional enough and to say otherwise is just silly.

I don’t know why Canikon are so slow to act.  Sony has released an amazing range of transluscent mirror DSLR’s (practically the same as mirrorless).  The alpha series is perfect for those with old school glass (if it’s Minolta).

Yeah, I do like Sony but it’s not just about the body. The reason Canikon is where they are in terms of market share is due to the extensive ecosystem of lenses and accessories. They pretty much fit any kind of photographer out there whereas Sony is more like the newcomer that also likes a slice of the pie but doesn’t have quite the muscles of the big boys.

Size is one disadvantage to me, not because I want a larger camera to look like a pro. To me I prefer a DSLR sized camera to a compact point and shoot just for comfort in my hand and the ergonomics of the controls.  I would trade in the weight anyday but prefer to have a larger body size just for grip comfort.  Just my opinion of course.  I am waiting for the day when autofocus becomes as responsive as DSLR’s as well, my kids will not sit still long enough for me to focus on them…

…and we all know that paintings on canvas are the ones that make it into a museum. Why not just shoot video if you want to rid yourself of capturing the moment?

In hindsight the D70 has a lot of shortcomings 
When it was released it was pretty revolutionary !
An affordable DSLR that gave as good or better image quality as pro cameras that were far more expensive.

( it was capable of producing very saleable images with the speed and quality required for most customers ) 

The D70 was the turning point for me and digital it was the first time it became more economic to run a digital camera rather than a film camera.

For me at least it will always be somewhat iconic.

I didn’t know that the Nex5N used that size sensor. Does that mean the lenses are bigger? If so, then the camera plus lenses is going to be bigger as well.  Everything is moving on rapidly, so I guess whatever we say will be overtaken by events.

i have to say after almost 2 years of using the Nex 5 one thing you cant say about it is: its not rugged enough.. its almost a tank, mine has been dropped on rocks, been in rainstorms for hours on Iceland and even worse.. and it always clicked away happily. the only thing thats annoying in those conditions is that the lenses don`t come with a automatic wiper

All I can say is that an afternoon shooting with a Sony a77 will change the way a photographer thinks of his or her camera forever.  An optical viewfinder shows you what the lens sees.  That’s how it’s always been.  An electronic viewfinder shows you what the camera is DOING.  It literally puts the photographer inside the camera, giving you a level of feedback and control you’ve never had before.  I was skeptical when Sony released the a33 and a55 camera bodies.  It seemed like a gimmick.  But the a77 changed my mind in a very big way.  Until you actually shoot your style of photography with an EVF, you simply cannot understand the difference it’ll make.  There’s so much less guesswork and so much more control.  I switched from a D7000 to an a77, and I’m loving it.

Trey, I agree with your point of view, in fact not long ago I was hoping to upgrade to a Nikon DLSR from a 3rd Gen Camera. But I too came to the realization that things will only get better and in the near future I would say that cameras will continue to slim down. I’m no pro, but I am very interested in low light performance, it just so happens that I enjoy photographing when there is little light available (thus the interest in a DSLR – bigger sensor and far more options as far as accessories). You mentioned not purchasing anymore DSLR gear because you have a very nice DSLR. And while your not investing in a 3rd Gen Camera now, is there a particular 3rd Gen Camera family that you think is ahead of the curve or closer to what you envision the future to be? Especially for the sort of photography you do?

Have not read all the comments, so don’t know if anyone made this point already: do you think that future dslr camera bodies will just employ the 3rd generation technology while retaining the slr body? Seems like that would satisfy people’s need for using a larger body (the feel of it and the distinction it carries from point and shoot) as well as using their current stash of lenses. Without the mirrors and related hardware, the body could have room for other things like perhaps built in storage, wi-fi, kitchen sink, whatever.

I read some of the comments, some make sense and some are just rants.  Here’s mine. 

For me, purchasing a new camera depends on what it will be used for.  Sports shooters and others that NEED a FAST camera will need the new mirrorless camera.  David Hobby (the Strobist) is not upgrading his DSLR nor is he going mirrorless – he opted to get the Phase One P25+ (for around the same price) because he wants more quality, not more speed.   Some won’t get it because of the price (another consideration).

In addition to my DSLR, I have a small 12MP camera that I carry almost everywhere – it doesn’t do fast very well though.  But that is generally OK as I don’t do fast very much.  The only thing I don’t like about it is the electronic viewfinder (same as the mirrorless).  The DSLR comes out for serious stuff where I need the specialty lenses (so far, no little camera can give me what my specialty lenses can give me).  And I understand that getting a mirrorless would require getting new lenses ($$$)I am not quite ready to put my lens investment on the shelf to gather dust.

For those that need a FAST camera, a little mirrorless camera sounds great – so far I haven’t needed anything faster than what i have.  

I have had the opposite happen to me. I always carry a second camera to a second shoot.  I don’t carry a duplicate set of lenses due to bulk and weight.  Especially when carrying the massive 500 or 600 mm’s.   The added gearing in the lenses has made them heavier and with the tightening of airline restrictions it has become a bit of an art to bring this extra weight/bulk on board.  I am sorry to hear about your friends camera. Both my canon cameras and lenses have been very reliable.

A lot of the comments here refer to the issue of Canon / Nikon and the carry-over of their respective lenses. I would seriously expect Nikon to continue with the incredibly faithful F mount, but I doubt very much that Canon would continue with their existing mount. I shot Canon for thirty years, then when it was time to add DSLR to my repertoire I determined that I should switch camps, even if it meant – rather, especially because – I would have to switch out my extensive collection of lenses; I did not want to rely upon an electronic SLR and I will always shoot film (35mm, MF, & LF4X5). I chose to change my kit to Nikon and include DSLR and SLR (F3HP & FM) in my toolbox. Now I can shoot commercial or fine art in any and all conditions (-30 degrees, under rotor wash from flying helicopters, on extended back-country trips where batteries won’t last long enough for the duration, etc.. Try that with a fully electronic SLR!). 

As I get older and have less energy for chasing assignment work, my emphasis will undoubtedly gravitate towards fine art collections and self-directed projects. Sixty frames per second represents way too much time staring into a monitor and trying to select apples from apples, my passion is photography – not post-processing! Working with precision machinery is a part of that passion. For the price of changing my “Little Format” 35mm equivalence AGAIN, I will choose instead to invest in a better scanner, enhancing my wet darkroom, and oh yeah, acquiring really good glass  being dumped at low prices by those who must needs chase the newest technologies, regardless of how capable the tried and true can be in the hands of a competent practitioner. 

Go ahead upgrade. I’ll be watching the online auction sites.

I agree with having extras like stabilization (if present at all) in the lens makes a lot of sense. I’m also sorry to hear about your friend. Being a location shooter since ’88, I’ve had the occasional failure in the field, and since the early 90′s have always carried a backup of EVERYTHING (lenses, body, flash, whatever).

One of my assignments back in my 35mm film days called for me to be a 30 minute drive from my base camp, and a 20 min hike up a cliff. My trusty body, which had never failed decided in the middle of the shoot to slip the film advance cog so film wouldn’t advance. I patiently called down the cliff to my assistant, who brought my spare body up to me…  I finished the shoot without further problems, and ended my day. (then send the broke body off to repair).

The point being, as a pro, I can’t depend on NOT having a failure, I carry my own insurance in the form of spare equipment.

It was fun couple of months ago I show up in a party with my little Fuji X100 point and shoot. Everyone is asking where is my big 5D Mark II with the 24 – 105 lens that I always bring to party to take pictures. Although Scott Kelby  and RC Conception give it a lot of undesirable features, I do love that camera for its size, portability, and image quality. And I do believe it is the future of this Digital Cameras. Lately more and more am using  my iPhone and Fuji X100 as it doesn’t hurt my neck, shoulder etc.

I believe that only fairly recently have the mirrorless market started catering towards the prosumer/professional/enthusiast end, with the GX1, A77, NEX7 whatnot. I’m also sick of all “good” cameras looking like a smaller or larger but nonetheless Canon T90 (Face it, ALL DSLRs (Olympus E-300/330 omitted) look like this camera). mirrorless cameras are a good opportunity to move away from that, but hopefully we won’t have it so that they ALL look like a rangefinder.

Finally, low-light photography/available light photography that could only be achieved using lenses with fast apertures. I’ve never seen anything faster than 1.2 on (D)SLR, but 0.95 is possible on rangefinders and mirrorless (Leica’s Noctilux, Voightlander Nokton, SLRmagic Noktor). A bit of a niche/specialty lens, but I’m sure those well intrenched in (having spent all their money on) a Canikon system drool over this kind of stuff once in a while.