Bloomberg hints at DSLR coffin being nailed

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
writes:


The use of ILC is highly confusing because any SLR or rangefinder
camera with interchangeable lenses is also an ILC. Surely the whole
idea is to come up with a term that differentiates mirrorless cameras
from these?

I dunno, I think perhaps the point is to emphasize that they have a lot
more in common with DSLRs and Leica rangefinders than they do with P&Ss.

My whole time in photography we've used "SLR" to mean "serious
camera", basically,

SLR seems to be the winner still g. It doesn't have to make sense,
just be popular in articles.


and just quietly accepted that an M4 was a serious
camera even though it wasn't an SLR. And that sheet-film cameras were
too, but most people didn't even know they existed.

"Serious camera" is no good, it's a value judgment, and people will game
it badly. But ILC isn't too bad an alternative. The difference in
"seriousness" (subjectively, as viewed by me) between an Olympus EPL-2
and a Nikon D3100 is smaller than that between the D3100 and a D3. Of
course, that does let the Pentax Q system sneak in, and it shouldn't :-) .