The Mirrorless Future

[jrista]

What utter tosh!

Maybe my irony radar is switched off but come on!

The SLR form is perfectly braced for hand held shooting, mirrorless with live view is not.

That's before you get under the hood.

For the folk who need WLF's nothing other than a WLF will do, for the folks who need an SLR form, nothing else will do, for the folk who like rangefinders, nothing else will do.  Part function, part form, part technology.

Everybody want to kill off DSLRs, yet nobody really wants to buy into mirrorless.

Get your stories straight and stick to them.

Exactly. The OP has wandered deep into tin-foil hat territory. The conspiracy theories about companies taking advantage of customers get to be a little old. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head to buy a camera. Only in government-controlled economies can manufacturers withhold technology or attempt to dictate what the consumer is allowed to buy. And, as can be seen by the collapse of the Soviet Union and China's de-facto turn to capitalism, it doesn't even work very well in government-controlled economies.

Okay, someday we all may move to an alternative form factor that improves on the DSLR. But, let's face it, the current state of mirrorless cameras are little more than electrified versions of 19th century view cameras. The major improvement being that the image is right-side up. Given the current state of development, the ergonomics of mirrorless cameras cannot come close to that of SLRs.

There are reasons why SLRs have been the preferred format of serious photographers for well over 50 years. Just because some technology is declared to be "new" doesn't make it better. DSLRs may eventually be replaced, but that will only happen when something actually better comes along.

Will mirrorless bodies displace SLRs, or will they be the Instamatics of the 21st century? Right now, I would bet on the latter.

+1 Couldn't agree more!

There is still a LOT going for the "addled old DSLR". Personally, having handled quite a few mirrorless options as they come onto the market, I've found not a single one that even comes remotely close to the ergonomics and balance of a DSLR for the kind of photography I do (mostly birds, BIF, wildlife, with some nature macro and landscapes mixed in.) There is NOTHING like a real, optical viewfinder for shooting action...I wouldn't trust that to an EVF for any reason, and there will have to be some stupendously mind blowing improvements to EVF's before I would even consider it. Trying to find, track, focus, and continue tracking subjects with a gigantic live view screen is a worthless endeavor. When it comes to long lenses, the balance and options available for DSLR, particularly with Canon's lens lineup, is unparalleled. You don't end up with any of those ridiculously imbalanced and odd looking conflations like you do with "mirrorless telephotos" (a term which to me seems like a total contradiction in terms!)

The DSLR will reign supreme for serious photographers who value their strengths, such as high quality prismatic viewfinders, low-light AF sensors, and excellent ergonomics...for a very long time. When they introduce a mirrorless in a DSLR-sized body with the same ergonomics, with FPPD-AF that outperforms a dedicated AF sensor, with double the AF points and twice the sensitivity, and an EVF that looks like an optical viewfinder and doesn't fatigue the eye...then I'll start considering mirrorless.

[Bengt Nyman]

Surly, you did not think they meant Nikon, Canon, or Pentax.

Surely Sony did or they would not have mentioned Canon by name.
Sigma and Tamron making low cost lens alternatives to the Big Guys is nothing new.

[pdirestajr]

An issue I have with mirrorless EVF cameras is that I feel more removed from the photography experience. It's hard to explain, but when I look at an EVF or "live view" I feel like I am watching the camera take a photograph.

Not ready to be a spectator.

[Bengt Nyman]

EVF still has a ways to go. I also agree that shooting in live view is a distant and somewhat shaky experience.
I would like to see an optically magnified live view with a slightly protruding eyepiece alá Pro-Video, for solid viewing and camera control. Include exposure preview, composite dynamic range preview and focus highlight.
By the way, just out about Sony:
First new Sony mirrorless FF cameras for 2012 are high end camcorders. NEX-7 alike mirrorless FF cameras in 2013.
Also: Sony announces mirrorless FF image sensor technology with PDAF pixels on the image sensor. Possibly part of a two step process with fast PDAF before final CD microfocus, both on the image sensor.

[distant.star]

.
Very interesting and insightful comment. I seem to have similar sorts of feelings, although I'm not sure I can really quantify them so well.

On the other hand...if God had meant for man to fly, he would have given us wings!

An issue I have with mirrorless EVF cameras is that I feel more removed from the photography experience. It's hard to explain, but when I look at an EVF or "live view" I feel like I am watching the camera take a photograph.

Not ready to be a spectator.

[apw100]

The DSLR isn't going anywhere, it's simply better than anything else for certain applications. That being said, compact mirrorless camera's have their place too, especially with smaller prime lenses. If I was Leica, I would be very concerned right now.
A photojournalist or street photographer will appreciate how discreet a mirrorless camera is, allowing them to blend in more with their surroundings than a large body DSLR with an L lense. The compact size also makes it less intimidating to the subject. Try plodding around Port au Prince all day with a 5D MkII and a 24-70L around your neck. Not only do you basically have a sign saying "journalist" around your neck, but it's not very comfortable either. I would have killed to have a Fuji X Pro-1 or similar...
I am really hoping that Canon will release a more "pro" M body soon, or else I may have to consider Sony or Fuji.

[Tcapp]

I really, really don't get all they hoopla about mirror-less. What exactly is wrong with having a mirror? As a wedding photographer, I don't find the mirror ever gets in the way of me doing my job. Sure, the mirror makes a bit of noise when it moves, but the 5d3 can be pretty quiet when it needs to.

What benefit would a mirrorless system bring to me? Even if the mirrorless technology was perfect. Even if the af is just as fast as current af systems, why do I need to change things up? Why do I need an EVF? So my battery can drain faster? SO I can use live view all the time, and not be able to stabilize the camera against my face?

If the sensor is always on, doesn't it heat up? And doesn't it heating up cause more image noise?

Did I mention the reduced battery life?

I just don't understand all the hate for the good ol' mirror. As I understand it, mirrorless cameras still have a shutter. Wouldn't a shutter-less camera be more exciting? That is the one component that we always talk about as having a finite life expectancy. And that is the component that limits us to a shutter speed of 1/200 on most cameras when using flash. After the mirror is locked up, its the one making all that noise, and causing a blackout in an EVF. And it is what prevents us from taking stills DURING video recording (without interrupting the video) like you can do on some cell phones now. If there was no physical shutter, wouldn't it maybe be theoretically possible to take multiple exposures from a single exposure just by recording the sensor data multiple times at different points during an exposure? Infinite dynamic range anyone (or at least never a blown highlight)??

What does the mirror prevent us from doing? Don't say it limits the FPS cause I'm pretty sure the 1dx has that all figured out.

Sorry for the rant, but I just feel the desire for EVERYTHING to be mirrorless is ridiculous. Mirrors are awesome cause they can be down when you need them, and LOCK UP for when you don't.

Feel free to let me know if I've missed the point entirely or if I'm not making any sense. /rant

[apw100]

@Tcapp- As a wedding photographer, a mirrorless probably isn't of much use to you. These camera's are designed for street photographers and people who want DSLR image quality without the bulk. It's just another tool, no more, no less.

[Tcapp]

@Tcapp- As a wedding photographer, a mirrorless probably isn't of much use to you. These camera's are designed for street photographers and people who want DSLR image quality without the bulk. It's just another tool, no more, no less.

Sure, I understand that. That is a very very small niche. But what the OP is talking about is totally doing away with the current DSLR design and having everything be mirrorless. No more mirrors in anything. I don't see the point in that. He said that the 1dx is the last mirrored camera he will ever buy. Unless he is specifically an undercover street photographer, it doesn't make sense to me.

[paul13walnut5]

@apw100

If I was Leica, I would be very concerned right now.

Leica have their niche users, and though I am not one, they have seen off many challenges in the past (I covet a contax G2, logically, operationally, technologically and dare I say optically a better camera, where are contax now?) voigtlander, Minolta CLE (miles ahead of Leica at the time), EPSON RD-1, compact form high quality compact cameras like the Nikon and Canon rangefinders, British Reids, and still folk flock to the red dot.

I kind of hanker after a Panasonic L-1, which can be bought for peanuts.  The same camera with a red dot has held its value.

Leica M are lovely objects to behold, and handle, but give me a SLR form anyday.  For the folk who 'get' rangefinders nothing else will do, and it seems for many, the appeal of the Leica brand cannot be bettered.

Surprised not to have seen a Panasonic GF-1 or GX-1 rebranded, and sold for 2x the money with a leica M adaptor.

Still not a fan personally, but the brand endures.

[Rocky]

I really, really don't get all they hoopla about mirror-less. What exactly is wrong with having a mirror? As a wedding photographer, I don't find the mirror ever gets in the way of me doing my job. Sure, the mirror makes a bit of noise when it moves, but the 5d3 can be pretty quiet when it needs to.

What benefit would a mirrorless system bring to me? Even if the mirrorless technology was perfect. Even if the af is just as fast as current af systems, why do I need to change things up? Why do I need an EVF? So my battery can drain faster? SO I can use live view all the time, and not be able to stabilize the camera against my face?

If the sensor is always on, doesn't it heat up? And doesn't it heating up cause more image noise?

Did I mention the reduced battery life?

I just don't understand all the hate for the good ol' mirror. As I understand it, mirrorless cameras still have a shutter. Wouldn't a shutter-less camera be more exciting? That is the one component that we always talk about as having a finite life expectancy. And that is the component that limits us to a shutter speed of 1/200 on most cameras when using flash. After the mirror is locked up, its the one making all that noise, and causing a blackout in an EVF. And it is what prevents us from taking stills DURING video recording (without interrupting the video) like you can do on some cell phones now. If there was no physical shutter, wouldn't it maybe be theoretically possible to take multiple exposures from a single exposure just by recording the sensor data multiple times at different points during an exposure? Infinite dynamic range anyone (or at least never a blown highlight)??

What does the mirror prevent us from doing? Don't say it limits the FPS cause I'm pretty sure the 1dx has that all figured out.

Sorry for the rant, but I just feel the desire for EVERYTHING to be mirrorless is ridiculous. Mirrors are awesome cause they can be down when you need them, and LOCK UP for when you don't.

Feel free to let me know if I've missed the point entirely or if I'm not making any sense. /rant

Very good reason. Totally agreed. 
"Street shooter needs mirroless To be discreed" it seems to be a misleading statement.  When you are 6 or 10 feet from your subject, it will get noticed regardless what camera you are holding to your eye. Sticking the camera out to look at the LCD screen is even worst.  A real street shooter should be someone "shooting from the hip". So whether it is an SLR or a small P & S will not be noticed.  As with a SLR will make you look like a tourist in foreign country, this is an even more misleading statement.  In a foreign country, the way that you dress,  your skin color will make you standout without a camera. A mirrorless will not fix the about two situation.

[Rocky]

@apw100

If I was Leica, I would be very concerned right now.

Leica have their niche users, and though I am not one, they have seen off many challenges in the past (I covet a contax G2, logically, operationally, technologically and dare I say optically a better camera, where are contax now?) voigtlander, Minolta CLE (miles ahead of Leica at the time), EPSON RD-1, compact form high quality compact cameras like the Nikon and Canon rangefinders, British Reids, and still folk flock to the red dot.

I kind of hanker after a Panasonic L-1, which can be bought for peanuts.  The same camera with a red dot has held its value.

Leica M are lovely objects to behold, and handle, but give me a SLR form anyday.  For the folk who 'get' rangefinders nothing else will do, and it seems for many, the appeal of the Leica brand cannot be bettered.

Surprised not to have seen a Panasonic GF-1 or GX-1 rebranded, and sold for 2x the money with a leica M adaptor.

Still not a fan personally, but the brand endures.

With the price of  1Dx , The M9 does not sound so expensive anymore. Lens rental did a 50mm shoot out test. The M9 witht f1.4 beats everyone. This is a "professional mirrorless" with an optical view finder.

[zim]

Just curious, what happened to the original post ‘What utter tosh!’ by paul13walnut5 ?

[DianeK]

An issue I have with mirrorless EVF cameras is that I feel more removed from the photography experience. It's hard to explain, but when I look at an EVF or "live view" I feel like I am watching the camera take a photograph.

Not ready to be a spectator.

Funny you should say that, that is the exact same feeling I get too.
Diane

[distant.star]

.
For the folks who are trying to define "street photography" by type of camera, the real world gives the lie to your assumptions.

Street photography should be defined only by the product -- either a picture is street photography, or it is not.

Good street photography images come from every conceivable type, size and quality of camera. I've seen good work from point & shoot cameras. I've seen good work from medium format cameras. Hell, there's even one person on this forum who does it with a 600mm lens on a Canon DSLR. It's simply a matter of style and taste.

People who lean toward street photography use as many different types of cameras as exist. There is no useful argument to be made that a mirrorless is or is not for street photographers.