No, the DSLR is not dead yet, so stop asking and just take the picture

Since I make my living in digital media and am active in the photo and video industry, it is only natural for me to spend a lot of time on the information superhighway and frequently talk to people all over the world about cameras and the field in general.

Both on traditional social media and on forum sites such as Reddit, Nikon RumorsAnd DP RatingI’m always happy to talk about the industry that provides me with both a creative outlet and a way to make a living.

In recent years, with the mirrorless camera having established itself as the technology that will eventually completely replace the DSLR, more and more beginners looking to get into the photography hobby, or even seasoned professionals still playing around with their Canon 1D X Mark III or Nikon D5 on a daily basis, are wondering out loud whether they should continue using or investing in a platform they perceive as “dead” or “obsolete”. While it is true that almost all major manufacturers have stopped or significantly slowed down production of new DSLR models, I would argue that the DSLR is far from dead. For now, it is actually the best way to get started in the world of photography, and for those with an extensive collection, it is still very valuable.

I can hear the protests even before I’ve finished typing this. “What kind of madman would invest in a technology that has already been replaced by a completely new one?” Don’t get me wrong, mirrorless technology has and will continue to make huge strides in image performance and will eventually become the only logical choice as we reach the limits of backwards compatibility, but that by no means means that the DSLR gear we already have has lost anything in terms of capability.

Let’s start with the camera bodies themselves, in a beginner’s context for the sake of argument. When thinking about buying a camera, most people have a number in mind of how much they want to spend, and for an enthusiastic beginner, we’d assume that amount is somewhere between $750 and $1,000. In Nikon’s current range of mirrorless cameras, buying new will get you a Z50, Zfc, or Z5. All of these are great cameras in their own right and very clearly aimed at occupying that market segment, with a good mix of features to choose from depending on your exact needs.

On the used market, however, a potential buyer is spoiled for choice. At the time of writing, one can find anything from a Nikon D810 for $650-$800 (with an introductory price of $2,900) to a D4S for nearly $1,000 (which launched as a flagship DSLR at a whopping $6,500) on various used marketplaces. And if you want to cut your expenses even further and still get the best gear possible, if you’re willing to put a little effort into finding a good deal, you can get a D750, the same camera I bought early in my career, for less than $500, just over a fifth of its introductory value.

The value proposition doesn’t end with the DSLRs themselves, either. Their lenses offer similarly excellent value for money, and are by far the most expensive overall component of a camera system. As a dedicated enthusiast, you might swap in a new camera body every few years, but almost without exception, the lenses you buy will last you the entire time you shoot with that system, or even longer if you use them adapted. In fact, due to the fact that lenses often significantly outlast the bodies they were originally designed for, F, EF, and older M43 lenses are often a more tempting purchase opportunity than the bodies of their respective systems.

Again, let’s say we’re buying a common, versatile lens in the Nikon system, such as the 24-120mm f/4. The new Z-mount version of this lens retails for $1,100, while the F-mount version can be had for under $300 any day in excellent condition. If you want more reach, for example, you can find a first-party 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 kit lens for just under $100 at the extreme budget end, or a third-party Tamron for even a few dollars less. Sure, none of these lenses are the fastest, sharpest, most clinically perfect ever made, but they’re perfectly serviceable, and that means that as a beginner, you could spend well under $1,000 and have a full-frame body with a couple of lenses covering everything from 24mm to 300mm. That’s versatile enough for the vast majority of people, and this setup is absolutely capable of incredible things. Don’t believe me? Then check this out:

In conclusion, I think that for someone just learning the basics of photography, mirrorless cameras don’t actually offer much of an advantage, at least not in a way that affects the final product. Yes, of course, a shiny new flagship mirrorless body will probably be able to take cleaner photos at higher ISO settings, have faster or more accurate autofocus, and be able to shoot incredible video that puts all but the most expensive cinema cameras to shame. And yes, with a mirrorless camera, you’ll probably get image stabilization and be able to pre-view your exposure in the viewfinder rather than simply having to use the light meter.

But how important is that really when it comes to creating a good image that serves as a tool for learning the art and science of photography? Will learning to shoot in a dark environment be completely ruined by a little more noise in your photos? Is it really necessary to be able to pre-check exposure to learn how to use depth of field or position a subject? Or does it make more sense to just take a test shot, decide if you like it, and adjust the settings accordingly because it’s still a digital camera and you can still take virtually unlimited photos for free?

This idea applies to professionals as well. If you’ve invested heavily in a particular camera system, investing thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in professional bodies and lenses that are still perfectly suited to your needs, what’s the point of abandoning that system simply because of its age? Especially when you can keep using your lenses (again, the really expensive part) by using an adapter in case your needs exceed the capabilities of your trusty DSLRs? You’ve already paid for that quality, and barring physical damage or internal contamination, a lens doesn’t just magically become less sharp or less colorful over time.

As with most things in the tech world, camera manufacturers have gotten very good at marketing the benefits of their shiny new products. Yes, the new M4 iPad and its (upcoming) accompanying MacBooks will certainly be lightning fast (ironic considering the Lightning connector was anything but fast) and will offer plenty of new features to woo potential buyers. The thing is, though, there are many use cases where these new features don’t provide any tangible benefit, or at least not enough to justify the new investment. From the experience of some musician friends, I can say that as long as the hardware can run Reaper or Logic and they can receive their instrument signal, their needs for their recording setup are met.

So I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to continue the debate about whether DSLRs are dead or not. They’re only ‘dead’ in the sense that there probably won’t be many new models left on the shelves of your local camera shop, but the same goes for the Mk4 Toyota Supra and the first generation Ford Mustang, and the market for those isn’t drying up any time soon. The fact is that a well-cared-for DSLR will take just as good photos today as it did when it first came out, and none of us looked at promotional photos for the D3 and recoiled in disgust, did we?