It’s been apparent for a while that Nikon and Canon have all but killed off the DSLR. Recent reports of Nikon shutting down their F-Mount assembly lines may have been greatly exaggerated, but with each passing year, the odds that we see a new Nikon or Canon DSLR (or even a DSLR lens) are dwindling to zero. Apparently Pentax is still hanging around, and good for them, but the Big Two manufacturers of the DSLR already packed up their suitcases years ago.
The reasons for this are myriad, and luckily for you, this article isn’t another DSLR obituary. But the rapid decline, and eventual death, of the most popular form factor of professional camera in decades – maybe of all time – is the context in which this article arises.
My belief is that there are now two separate, competing theories for what a “mirrorless camera” should be, and the theory that wins will dictate what the next generation of cameras will look like.
Mirrorless digital cameras have been around for longer than you may think, even ignoring point-and-shoot cameras that are technically mirrorless. Leica’s M8 was released in 2006, and Panasonic and Olympus joined them with interchangeable-lens cameras in 2008 and 2009 – years before the first a7 was even a twinkle in Sony’s eye.
But in those early days, mirrorless cameras didn’t hold much of a candle to professional DSLRs, with the possible exception of Leica’s pricey offerings. That changed a bit when Sony announced the a7 and a7R, but even those cameras still felt like unfinished products. The bare-bones lens lineup, painful autofocus capabilities, disappointing handling, and frustrating image quality quirks (like the shutter shock and raw compression artifacts) added up to a platform which exuded unrealized potential.
One huge thing about the Sony a7 and a7R, however, is that they were light. Not just the cameras – the lenses were small, too – and it didn’t come at the expense of sensor size or quality. Tests at the time (including our own) showed that resolution and high-ISO performance were at the same level as a DSLR. In a package that might weigh half as much as its DSLR contemporaries like the Nikon D800E or Canon 5D Mark III, this was an exciting achievement by Sony despite the sacrifices needed to get there.
Portability remained the biggest selling point of mirrorless cameras for years. Even when Nikon and Canon launched their first full-frame mirrorless lineups, this perception held true. Mirrorless cameras like the Nikon Z6, Nikon Z7, and Canon EOS R seemed to be made for photographers who desired light weight. Meanwhile, photographers would stick with DSLRs if they wanted a lot of native lenses, longer battery life, endless buffer capacity, and bleeding-edge autofocus.
But at least the new mirrorless cameras were promising, with a what-you-see-is-what-you get viewfinder and various other improvements, like more advanced video features. Most of all, they were light.
That’s the first theory of mirrorless. A mirrorless camera doesn’t need to beat a DSLR at everything – it could be better at some things, worse at other things – so long as it’s light. If given the choice, customers will pay for a camera that’s lighter than the alternatives, so long as it’s approximately equal in capabilities.
Since then, we’ve seen both Nikon and Canon – and the other mirrorless companies, of course – produce equipment that backs up this theory. Some mirrorless lenses even make significant optical compromises in order to minimize weight. The philosophy goes: weight is permanent, optical issues can be fixed in post. In other words, it’s better to make a lens “good enough” for most photographers, while weighing so little that it becomes almost invisible (and thus they actually carry it along).
However, at the beginning of Nikon and Canon’s journey into full-frame mirrorless, a different theory of mirrorless also started to emerge. Alongside their first Z6 and Z7 cameras, Nikon also announced the massive, all-metal 58mm f/0.95 Noct – one of the heaviest normal primes ever released. Not to be outdone, on day one of the EOS R system, Canon launched the RF 28-70mm f/2L with a constant f/2 maximum aperture and the promise to “bring unparalleled performance” to their new mirrorless cameras.
Why these lenses? Simply put, they were showpieces to indicate what the new lens mounts could accomplish. Removing a mirror doesn’t just get you a smaller camera – it also lets you bring a lens closer to the camera sensor without mechanical interference. On top of that, since both Canon and Nikon could design their mirrorless systems from scratch, they chose to utilize much wider lens mounts than were found on their DSLRs. Optical designs that never would be possible on a DSLR could suddenly be mass-produced for mirrorless – lighter lenses, sure, but also lenses with extraordinary optical performance or unusual specifications. Similarly, on the camera side of things, the lack of a mechanical mirror allowed for technological leaps never seen in a DSLR – features like 20+ FPS bursts and full-width autofocus systems in the viewfinder.
That kickstarted the second theory of mirrorless. They don’t need to be lighter than a DSLR – actually, they could even be heavier – as long as they have more to offer. Weight is one thing, but at the end of the day, customers will pay for the most capable equipment they can afford.
When Canon announced the EOS R3 a few years later – a massive camera with an integrated grip and a DSLR-like form factor – a lot of photographers said that it went against the “mirrorless ethos.” That wasn’t really true. What the EOS R3 actually did was embrace the second theory of mirrorless while ignoring the first. Canon used the huge size of the camera to imbue it with best-in-class features like 195 FPS burst, “photographer’s-eye-tracking” autofocus, and 12-bit raw video.
Nikon likewise embraced the second theory with their launch of the Nikon Z9 in 2021. Like the EOS R3, the Z9 also has an integrated grip and is heavier than almost any DSLR. The form factor is more similar to one of Nikon’s D4/D5/D6 DSLRs than to any previous Nikon mirrorless camera. It was a huge gamble – a bet on the second theory as the future of Nikon’s mirrorless lineup.
The Z9 was overwhelmingly successful. It injected excitement into Nikon’s relatively stagnant line of mirrorless cameras at the time and reversed a lot of negative commentary about the brand. When the same tech trickled down to the more affordable Nikon Z8 – itself about the same weight as a DSLR like the D850 – the positive comments continued.
You’ll notice how, since then, more and more of Nikon’s lens announcements have followed the same pattern. They’ve launched groundbreaking, high-performance equipment that doesn’t concern itself with every last gram of weigh. The Z 135mm f/1.8 Plena may be the most obvious example – as you’ll see in our upcoming review, it is one of the best lenses ever made from an optical standpoint, but it’s hardly small and light.
This all follows the second theory, which says that customers will pay for the most capable equipment that they can afford. Granted, “affordable” is still the big question with some of this gear, but Nikon’s recent success has proven nonetheless that many photographers favor capability over portability. Nikon’s bet on the second theory seems to have paid off.
NIKON Z 7 + NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena, six-image panorama @ ISO 64, 1/60, f/5.6
What has Sony done in response? For the most part, they are continuing to embrace the first theory. Sony has yet to release a mirrorless camera with an integrated grip, and even the flagship Sony a1 is about the same size as any other mirrorless camera. Likewise, the company’s newest lenses, like the FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II announced last year, are all about saving weight.
So far, this approach has worked well for them – Sony has held onto a massive market share despite going up against the full attention of Nikon and Canon. Not to mention that their cameras and lenses make convincing arguments that smaller gear can be just as good as bigger equipment. (Witness the Sony a1 versus the Nikon Z9, which is a pretty level comparison, although the Sony a1 is admittedly $1000 more expensive.)
As for Canon, they seem to be more torn than Nikon or Sony at the moment. Their EOS R5 famously had overheating issues due to its impressively small size, which is a classic example of the tradeoffs inherent in the first theory. Canon has also been more willing to embrace digital lens corrections than either Nikon or Sony, especially when it comes to vignetting and distortion – tradeoffs they accept in order to keep their lenses smaller, even though it hurts some of their reviews.
However, Canon’s more recent efforts indicate a gradual embrace of the second theory, too, following much the same shift that Nikon did. Their upcoming EOS R1 flagship camera will have an integrated grip and will likely be Canon’s heaviest mirrorless camera yet. Meanwhile, some of their newest lenses signal the same approach, such as the recently-announced RF 24-105mm f/2.8L – a heavy but groundbreaking lens. Whether we will see them continue down this path, or perhaps try to have it both ways, remains to be seen.
Canon EOS R5 + RF 16mm f/2.8 STM @ ISO 100, 1/4, f/16.0
That sums up the dichotomy as I see it today: Lots of mirrorless equipment continues to prioritize light weight, but increasingly often, camera companies will forego that goal as they chase maximum performance.
Of course, the future hasn’t been written yet. The second theory might be gaining ground right now, but I can’t say that it will last forever. Capability looks good when you’re buying a camera; portability looks good when you’re carrying it with you. There’s a reason why the real winners of this argument have been smartphone cameras (harkening back to Kodak’s portable cameras winning the race in the 1900s). It’s a small part of the general public who even knows what mirrorless ILCs are in the first place, and that probably won’t change.
Even so, I think it will make a big difference to the fortunes of Nikon, Canon, and Sony – and to a lesser extent, Leica, Panasonic, Fuji, and OM System – which theory they choose to embrace. Of course, there’s no rule saying that a company can’t aim for both – or go a totally different direction entirely, like retro or modular cameras – but market realities dictate that something will take priority for each camera and lens manufacturer. Whoever correctly predicts the tug-of-war between portability and performance has a lot to gain in the coming years.
I’m curious, which theory do you prefer? And which one do you think the different camera companies will embrace? I find that my personal goals as a photographer have cycled over the years, starting with chasing maximum quality, then minimum weight, and now back in the other direction. But every photographer is going to be different, which is why this problem is so difficult for camera companies to solve. Let me know what you think in the comments section below.
Canon large throat size was established with the first Canon SLR in the 1960’s. The EF is the same as the RF.
Companies have realized that making cameras small and lightweight was exciting and new back in the day where the norm was a DSLR. Nowadays they’re trying to differentiate themselves from smartphones instead, so they’re going all out on performance since you can’t beat a phone in portability.
The choice is very real and very difficult, but for me the answer is have both, just as it was in the Canon DSLRs I used before.
My kit always included a 5D series as my “big” camera, and a 6D (never upgraded to the mk2) as my “light” camera. I owned some big and heavy lenses and a few small and light ones as well. Last year on my annual overseas trip I carried my 5DSR, EF 50mm f/1.2L and EF 24-105mmf/2 L II, with a tinyCanon G7x mk2 in my pocket for when I didn’t want to carry a camera at all. I left the 6D at home, though that camera was my usual short trip option.
Mirrorless has made it possible to carry a “big” camera that is still smaller and lighter than the 5D and a “light” camera that is smaller and lighter than the 6D, with far more capability in all respects except ultimate resolution, which honestly doesn’t matter much to me (the 5DSR was purchased when B&H was blowing them out at $1500 as a replacement for an aging 5D3). The R5 is vastly better than the 5D3 and except forultimately resolution, is also better than the 5DSR. It is also far more compact and much lighter to carry.
Honestly though, there is little size or weight advantage between the 6D and my R6, and while there are improvements to dynamic range and high-ISO performance, they aren’t as drastic as the full decade between their sensor technologies might suggest. I was still perfectly content with the image quality of the 6D, but the autofocus capabilities of the R6 made the upgrade an easy decision.
Where the first approach of maximum weight savings really excites me is in the smallest and cheapest part of the market. My Canon G7x2 broke (my fault, I dropped it on concrete), and the current model was backordered everywhere. With my annual overseas vacation looming I went to a brick and mortar camera store to find something, anything that would fit easily in a coat pocket, have at least a 1” sensor and give the capability to create shallow depth of field for portraiture or photographs of objects such as crafts or food. Sony’s RX100 VII was the smallest camera that came close, buts its long reaching zoom lens was too slow for me, and like Canon’s G7X3, the RX100 Va which has a shorter, but faster zoom was backordered.
What I ended up with was a Canon R50 with the RF 28mm f/2.8 pancake lens. This camera and lens combo wasn’t much larger than the pocket cameras and would slide easily enough in and out of my coat pocket, but with an APSC sensor it’s 28mm lens at f/2.8 could isolate close subjects far better than the zoom lens on the RX100 VII. I also bought the RF 16mm f/2.8 which is small enough to disappear in my other coat pocket.
The R50 was a revelation. This cheap, beginner-focused body had some handling quirks due to its too-small size, but they were easy to work around by disabling a few buttons and remapping a few others. Its autofocus is actually more capable than that of my R6 or R5, and up to about ISO 3200 image quality is equal as well. My full-frame camera bag just traveled with me from hotel to hotel, but it was the R50 that went out with me every day and every night as I wandered around Japan and Korea.
For shooting events or for photography-specific outings I’ll still shoot with the R5 or R6 and heavy L series lenses, but for travel or street, the R50 with lightweight lenses is far better despite inferior handing and (much) lower build quality.
In 2019, I won the Nikon Z6 + 24-70f4 contest in Nikon. In 2023, I won the Nikon Z fc + 16-50mm contest. So my costs for switching to the Nikon Z system were zero. I bought a Nikon Z 14-30 and use the 70-200 f4 with FTZ adapter. In the end, I ended up with the Nikon Z6 + Nikon Z 40mm f2 and Nikon Z fc + 7Artisans 35mm f1.4 + Nikon Z 28mm f2.8. I’m no longer interested in buying new technology, it’s a waste of money. We need to take a lot of pictures, take pictures, have fun and not look at what equipment we have. are photos from times when there were no mirrorless cameras less valuable? They are not, because it is about the content, not what they were photographed with… Because the best technique is the one we have with us. Not the heavy – expensive cameras we have in the closet at home… Of course, if you make a living from photography, this lesson does not apply :-)
I’m surprised an article like this could skip over one of the first interchangeable lens mirrorless systems with phase detection/contrast-detect AF: the failed Nikon 1. Anyone going for #1 should have bought it. No surprise DX is mostly neglected and we’re left with porker lenses, loaded up with aspherical elements, in pursuit of lab-test-chart sharpness.
The “amateur” lenses are far from porkers.
I shoot Canon, and the RF 16mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8 are all very small and light full-frame lenses that, for my use, are even better on APSC.
I have the R5, R6 and beginner-focused R50. I also own some larger L series lenses, but also the those small and cheap RF primes and the mid-sized RF 24mm f/1.8 IS Macro and 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro. For events I love shooting the R5 with the 50mm f/1.2L and my R6 with the RF 24-105mm f/4L, but for travel the full frame body usually stays home and the R50 with the small and light f/2.8 and f/1.8 primes are a revelation.
I’m all in for #1, small and light. That goes double for lenses, which has a huge impact on the overall package. However, I do want certain features, and it is possible to make a camera too small for my tastes. I want EVF, IBIS, fully articulated rear screen. Good easy to use menus and controls are important. Ergonomics are very important to me. As I read comments from my fellow enthusiasts, I see that we have widely divergent preferences, and I think that is to be expected. Image quality is certainly important but most cameras perform well enough for me in that regard. I do hope we continue to see improvement with less noise at high ISO.
I currently use and really enjoy Canon R6 and R7, which easily exceed my needs. I’ve used Panasonic M43 and Fujifilm XS-10 along with several earlier Canon APSC models and the Canon 6D. Fuji menus and controls were no fun for me though image quality was excellent. Panasonic cameras were a delight to use with good menus and small footprint, but the cameras I use now are not much larger and have improved image quality over the Lumix G85 I last used.
Prior to the R6 purchase I evaluated Nikon Z5, Panasonic S5, and Sony R73. Sony ergonomics don’t suit me, though I love the plethora of lenses avalable.
I love digital cameras in general, but I get frustrated quickly with them regardless of mirrorless or DSLR. I don’t use probably 95% of what they offer, really. In the last 31/2 years, I’ve owned a D5100, an Olympus E-M5 2, a 5D2, a D7100 and an X-T2. None of them were as satisfying as the Pentax MX I bought in 1979, but the X-T2 and D7100 were the closest. I bought all those cameras used, and sold them all on. What I need is a film camera body with a digital sensor, preferably a full-frame one. LOL (I’ve seen that weird sensor with its guts in a film can, and I think he might have something workable if he’s still in business in 2034.)
Seriously, though, the manufacturers are really leaning into mirrorless, and that’s probably where the market will go. I can see why, but I personally despise EVFs, and I don’t need subject tracking AF, matrix metering, 3 trillion focus points, etc. Frankly, I’d be happier with aperture rings on my lenses, too.
I hate to think I’ve become a grumpy old man, but I guess I have.
No camera company makes gear with me in mind. 100% the gear has to be smaller and light weight. I’ll admit, up front, I am an outlier. As a one-handed southpaw, who wants to shoot handheld the move to light weight mirrorless is a game changer. I shoot Canon APS-C with a Smallrig cage which allows me to pick up the camera, use the viewfinder, operate the shutter buttom, and adjust aperture or shutter speed depending on the mode I require. First time ever! All the rest is just gravy; but who doesn’t like gravy? Great acticle. Thank you.
Spencer,
Thank you for this article.
I’m not going to bore you or your readers with the story of my photographic journey, or my gear, past and present. It’s really irrelevant.
Actually, I found the comments more interesting and informative than your article. My takeaway: different gear for different photographers. Not surprising. What matters is being able to choose.
What I would like to read more about is how your readers feel their gear relates to their images. Do they feel that using a particular format or brand produces better images? Why? In my case, about two years ago I migrated from full frame / APS-C to micro four-thirds. I feel that I now take more better pictures; more keepers, if you will. Why? Because I take more pictures, lots more pictures. Why? Because I find that my gear is just more fun to use, that I want to use it more, that I in fact do use it more.
I’d like to second that idea.
Myself have switched from D610/24-300 mm VR (after a very long journey into various Nikon DSLRs) to Panasonic GX85/12-36mm only because I didn’t want to carry all that weight on a trip in Paris. The resulting photos were a (good) surprise as they had a good quality after post processing. So the GX85 stayed while the D610 had to go …
Since then, a mighty Z6II has appeared but … does anybody around here feels old sensors were better or is just me? Comparing pictures with similar subjects taken in similar conditions with all these cameras (or with the D3300 from my old days) makes me discover tonalities in the old pictures which I can’t find in the pictures taken with my current cameras.
Thank you Spencer. You are part of a great team at Photography Life. Having switched from the Nikon D810 to Fuji cameras few years ago, I have no intention of going back to heavy cameras and lenses ever. I am also happy with the quality of images with Fuji film cameras. Now having also got the latest iPhone 15, I am also blown away by the quality of the raw images and the ability to take it any anywhere without weight. I take photos now with both cameras and iphone. With AI, I will wait to see what is coming next.