i suspect he's correct, but it's strange to see an article on the subject, written by an apparent expert, that doesn't mention depth of field.
I agree that it's very likely to happen, although I'm not sure we're there yet. The VF-4 EVF does finally have what I would call a 'barely-acceptable' resolution, but I think 4K resolution EVFs will be required to really equal the detail someone with good eyesight can see through a good optical viewfinder.
The other issue I've had with all EVFs I've tried (which doesn't include the VF-4) is the input lag is, although small, quite noticeable. Until that's fixed, EVFs are very unlikely to replace optical viewfinders for sports and wildlife photographers.
Similarly, it's hard to beat the speed of the phase-detect autofocus in professional bodies at the moment. Again, that's fixable, probably with a combination of better on-sensor phase detection and more advanced algorithms to mix phase-detect and contrast-detect data together, but I think we're still at least two generations away from a system that can accurately track a fast-moving and erratic object.
Once those issues are resolved though, I can very quickly see the DSLR losing significant market share. There's simply too many advantages to mirrorless cameras -- no heavy, soft, expensive retrofocus wide-angle lenses, no calibration issues between the focus module and the image sensor, no heavy mirror to flip out of the way for every shot, full exposure simulation through the viewfinder (and a host of useful overlays), etc. etc.
Some photographers, of course, don't need focus tracking, and can probably put up with a less-than-stellar viewfinder resolution, which is why a lot of landscape photographers (who also often don't need a narrow depth of field) are already moving towards mirrorless, at least as a second camera.
Personally, apart from the investment I have in SLR glass, I am looking forward to the advantages that mirrorless cameras will bring in a few years time.
... which brings, not least, a drastically increased lifetime. :)
i wrote about here, but i am not sure it's very clear http://www.acooke.org/cute/DepthofFie1.html
[edit: and so, for medium format, depth of field is more pronounced...]
Greater dof is actually a big plus for many shooting styles and subjects.
Many wedding and portrait photographers have at least experimented with the Brenizer Method[1], the sole purpose of which is to create an image with a shallower depth of field than is otherwise possible, and replicate the appearance of large-format photography.
> The elephant in the room is legacy lenses: it’s tough for a DSLR owner to give up his glass collection, because a similar depth of offerings simply does not exist in other smaller formats.
> Even the most mature of the mirrorless formats – Leica M and M4/3 – both lack any sort of perspective correction lenses, other than using a DSLR lens with a tilt or shift adaptor; there are no native solutions despite them being ideally suited to this kind of work because of live view.
Tilt-shift lenses, long working distance macro lenses, wide angle primes, and fast super-telephotos are all hard to find in mirrorless mounts.
Wide angle prime: Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 7.5mm f/3.5 rectangular fisheye, 8mm f/3.5 Panasonic, 12mm f/2.0 Olympus
Long working distance macro: Olympus 60mm f/2.8, working distance 7.5" for 1:1 image
Fast super-telephoto: 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Panasonic (yeah, that doesn't sound very fast to me)
Not questioning that there are better DSLR lenses, just interested in comparing them to help me understand the differences between the systems.
Thanks!
The focal lengths are there but the apertures are narrower than the most common full-frame wide-angle primes, e.g. 14mm f/2.8 or 24mm f/1.4. This means less light, and also, as discussed elsewhere, a much wider minimum depth of field on the m4/3 lenses, due to the smaller sensor. (I meant to say 'fast wide-angle primes' in my original post, my mistake).
> Long working distance macro: Olympus 60mm f/2.8, working distance 7.5" for 1:1 image
My understanding was that 7.5" was the MFD (the distance from the film/sensor to the subject), not the MWD (the distance from the front element to the subject), on this lens, but I haven't used it. This review seems to suggest a working distance of 90mm (~3.5 inches) at 1:1, but it may also be wrong:
http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/olympus60mm.html
If it does have a working distance of 7.5" at 1:1 that's very respectable -- up there with a 150mm, and not far below a 180mm full-frame macro.
> Fast super-telephoto: 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Panasonic
Again, the focal lengths here are good, and it's a zoom (try finding a 200-600mm zoom lens of any aperture for a full-frame camera), but the aperture is again a bit disappointing when compared to something like a 400mm f/2.8, both in terms of the amount of light it lets in and how shallow the depth of field is.
Don't misunderstand me -- there are a great range of lenses for both m4/3 and Sony NEX cameras, which cover the popular focal lengths and produce stunning results. They're also usually a lot cheaper (that Panasonic telephoto is around $600, vs. around $10,000 for a 400mm f/2.8 full-frame lens) and a lot lighter. But if you've already spent $10,000 on a 400mm f/2.8 for your full-frame camera (and are making money from it), you're probably going to want a lens that will give similar results before you go mirrorless, which I think was the author's point.
Yeah, I had the working distances confused on the 60mm macro: I just tested mine and it focuses to about 3.5" from the lens, 7.5" from the focal plane.
I agree completely with your conclusion: it's all about tradeoffs and which works best for your needs. I've sure been delighted with the m4/3 lenses I have, and the size and weight and low cost figure into that. But of course if I needed more light gathering and shallow depth of field and were using it to make money it would be a different story.