Could FF mirrorless tempt 'never-mirrorless' FF SLR folks with features?

[ahsanford]

For those who have no interest in mirrorless, what would happen if any of the following items/features landed in the first FF mirrorless body?

• IBIS
• Tilty-flippy touch screen (in a higher than 6D2 feature set)
• A new variant of the 5DS sensor with on-chip ADC (i.e. something resembling the 5DS2 sensor)
• +3 fps over your current FF SLR (presume fully working AF throughout)
• Thin mount design affords enough space to rear-filter EF lenses that are not front-filterable (possibly through the EF adaptor)
• Eye AF
• Ultra-light body design (more than just from mirror removal and body size changes: say, with carbon fiber instead of metal)
• AF points that almost completely fill the viewfinder -- no more central core of AF points that SLR designs typically have

For those with no interest in mirrorless, Is there a killer app that will change your mind? Is anything above so attractive to you that if mirrorless was the only way to get it, you'd do it?

In other words, if a critical thing you are interested in drops in the new FF mirrorless rig, do you bite the bullet and get the FF mirrorless rig, or just wait/hope that particular tech/feature makes it into your preferred SLR slot?

(Again, I'm specifically asking the 'never-mirrorless' camp of FF shooters. If you are interested in getting an FF mirrorless rig, you are not who I am looking for with this, thx.)

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: Could FF mirrorless tempt 'never-mirrorkess' FF SLR folks with features?

I'm happy to buy whatever tool will best do the job I want to do. In another thread asking about favorite two lenses I posted for work I use the TS-E 17 and 11-24 most, nobody else makes them. Obviously that implies the EF mount on any new camera that would be of interest to me.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Re: Could FF mirrorless tempt 'never-mirrorkess' FF SLR folks with features?

I have been interested in mirrorless for a long time, just because of the potential reduction in AF issues, the fewer numper of parts for more reliability. However, to replace my 5D MK IV, some significant IQ improvement is needed, and I doubt that will happen.

 

[3kramd5]

Re: Could FF mirrorless tempt 'never-mirrorkess' FF SLR folks with features?

Does it work as well as the spec sheet looks?

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Could FF mirrorless tempt 'never-mirrorkess' FF SLR folks with features?

Does it work as well as the spec sheet looks?

With Canon and Nikon? Generally, yes.

With Sony? Read the manual and see what things it will simultaneously let you do. :

- A

 

[stevelee]

Re: Could FF mirrorless tempt 'never-mirrorkess' FF SLR folks with features?

I can't think of anything that would make me want a mirrorless camera, if by that you mean something with an EVF. If there is a significant upgrade to the G7X II, I'd probably buy something in that series eventually, maybe even the III. Odds are that will be my next camera purchase. And it doesn't have a mirror, of course.

I'm not a pro, and I'm not nearly so serious about photography per se than I was when I was young. But I still enjoy it, and appreciate the technical advances embodied in our modern equipment. "Enthusiast" might be the most accurate description of my level.

With my recent purchase of a wide-angle zoom, I can now handle just about anything I would care to take with my FF camera. I will probably rent a TS lens some time, and won't rule out eventually buying one if I find it that useful. As something to play with from time to time, I could do better renting, for that kind of money. Speaking of which, a rational person would consider the amount I have spent for a camera and lenses over the last ten months to be a reasonable equipment budget for eight or ten years, for someone of my means and interests. If I find myself using the 100-400mm lens a lot, I probably should buy a heavier tripod. For now the head some of you recommended works well enough on the lighter tripod, but I realize the combination is not optimal. So there is always some gear out there to buy, just nothing that I am likely to spend more than $1,000 for.

I certainly don't begrudge anyone else's need for what a mirrorless camera might provide. I just don't see any relevance for my own use.

 

[Ozarker]

Re: Could FF mirrorless tempt 'never-mirrorkess' FF SLR folks with features?

Only IBIS and very accurate focus peaking would tempt me and only because I have 36 legacy lenses with no AF or IS.

Like Steve, I much prefer an optical viewfinder. Hate EVF.

 

[jd7]

Re: Could FF mirrorless tempt 'never-mirrorkess' FF SLR folks with features?

I can't think of anything that would make me want a mirrorless camera, if by that you mean something with an EVF.

That about sums up how I feel too. I would also need to be convinced about AF tracking and battery life.

Of the features listed in the OP, IBIS, faster FPS, improved sensor IQ and broader AF point spread would be nice but none of those things (alone or together) would get me over the line. I expect to stick to DSLR until (if ever) there is an EVF I'm so impressed with that I'm willing to give up an OVF for it, and I'm convinced the AF tracking is at least as good as a comparably priced DSLR and the battery life is pretty close too. (If things like faster FPS and improved sensor IQ were that important to me, I would already have bought a DSLR higher up the list of options than a 6DII.)

As for smaller size and lighter weight, I like the idea in theory but unless the FF lenses get smaller and lighter too, I expect I'd rather something more along the lines of a 6D. (If buying a smaller sensor camera, mirrorless would become a more attractive proposition to me although even then I'd have to think about whether I could live with an EVF.)

 

[Aussie shooter]

Re: Could FF mirrorless tempt 'never-mirrorkess' FF SLR folks with features?

As a predominantly wildlife shooter that also does some landscape and pet photograhy and who currently uses a 7d2 the one thing I will demand before I switch is an EVF that has zero perceptible lag and that does not give me seizures when I stare through it for hours on end. The rest is already much of a muchness. Oh. And it must retain the ergonomic comfort of my current camera.

 

[Isaacheus]

Re: Could FF mirrorless tempt 'never-mirrorkess' FF SLR folks with features?

Does it work as well as the spec sheet looks?

With Canon and Nikon? Generally, yes.

With Sony? Read the manual and see what things it will simultaneously let you do. :

- A

I'm not really the target for this thread as I've already moved from dslr; I went to mirrorless for a number of the reasons listed above, mainly as no dslr offered those (at least not in one body). If canon dropped those features into a 6d or 5d body (with tilt screen), I'd consider going back to dslr, depending on what else was available

 

[Kit.]

For those who have no interest in mirrorless, what would happen if any of the following items/features landed in the first FF mirrorless body?

I don't think there are any "never-mirrorless" people. Personally, I always carry 2 mirrorless cameras with me. One (or actually two) is in the phone and one is a PowerShot.

What I want to see in a FF mirrorless camera to replace my mirror-slapper?

- Phase-detect autofocus with f/8 lenses;
- EVF at least as good as OVF;
- Startup time less than half a second from "sleeping in the bag" mode;
- Comparable number of shots per battery.

Maybe I forgot something.

 

[fentiger]

On a technical point, how would a optical viewfinder work on a mirrorless camera?
Don't you need a mirror to direct the light (image) to the viewfinder.
could go rangefinder like, but the way i see it is mirrorless will have to be EVF.
Unless they can solve that riddle i will stick with my 1DX2

 

[Mikehit]

I have an interest in mirrorless for these two functionalities that I can get in my MFTs:

- WYSIWYG for correct exposure - really helpful for birds in flight and changing angle of the light as you follow them
- ability to see the menu in the VF without moving the camera from the eye

But it would have to have AF almost as good as 1Dx2/5DIV

 

[3kramd5]

On a technical point, how would a optical viewfinder work on a mirrorless camera?
Don't you need a mirror to direct the light (image) to the viewfinder.

Strictly speaking, no, there are other ways to see through the lens optically. However, in any major market product a mirror is the most likely mechanism, and an optical view finder would not work without a mirror (however an EVF could trivially be added to an SLR). The point of the thread was “what would a mirrorless camera have to offer to get you to give up your OVF?”

 

[jayphotoworks]

The point of the thread was “what would a mirrorless camera have to offer to get you to give up your OVF?”

I think that is the main issue with convincing folks why mirrorless-only is superior. You could technically throw in all of these "mirrorless" features into a DSLR. You could put a DSLR into LV mode and assuming you could create a hybrid EVF/OVF which Fuji has somewhat done in the past which Canon also has a similar patent on, you could technically get the best of both worlds in two separate operating modes. That might hold water, for now.

But eventually the mirrorless bits will far surpass the abilities of the analog bits and some of this today is already at parity. If you consider a scenario where the LV mode of a DSLR gives you eye af+subject detection, 30fps+, e-shutter performance faster than 1/300, no blackouts, fully silent shutter and video modes without operation change, the DSLR bits will almost seem anachronistic...

 

[3kramd5]

But eventually the mirrorless bits will far surpass the abilities of the analog bits and some of this today is already at parity. If you consider a scenario where the LV mode of a DSLR gives you eye af+subject detection, 30fps+, e-shutter performance faster than 1/300, no blackouts, fully silent shutter and video modes without operation change, the DSLR bits will almost seem anachronistic...

Probably. In the situations where EVF is applicable, I really enjoyed it for the ~2 years I was using a mirrorless (A7R2). If Sony had put all the ease of use goodness in that generation rather than waiting for the 3, I probably would have kept it.

In some situations (extended use i.e. staring through the finder for maybe hours waiting for a subject to appear or change position, very low light, etc), EVF isn’t really applicable, it uses too much power and causes eye fatigue.

For my uses, EVF is probably applicable >80% of the time, so I’m hoping canon can come up with something which doesn’t fight me to take a picture like the Sony camera did.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

On a technical point, how would a optical viewfinder work on a mirrorless camera?
Don't you need a mirror to direct the light (image) to the viewfinder.
could go rangefinder like, but the way i see it is mirrorless will have to be EVF.
Unless they can solve that riddle i will stick with my 1DX2

Fujifilm has had a Hybrid viewfinder for some years now
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2111647539/fujifilm-x100t-announced-with-updated-hybrid-viewfinder
Canon has patents for Hybrid finders which are both optical and evf.
http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-hybrid-viewfinder/http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-application-for-a-hybrid-viewfinder/

 

[NancyP]

The one killer app that I would use a FF mirrorless body for is already out there, and it is called a Cambo Actus mini view camera.

 

[bhf3737]

A full frame EF mount camera with 5D4 features plus:
- silent shutter, not even a whisper
- accurate focus picking and
- accurate exposure setup indicator (e.g. Waveform). As a matter of fact, I don't trust the What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get on a mirrorless camera
would be welcome.

 

[PerKr]

For those who have no interest in mirrorless, what would happen if any of the following items/features landed in the first FF mirrorless body?

• IBIS
• Tilty-flippy touch screen (in a higher than 6D2 feature set)
• A new variant of the 5DS sensor with on-chip ADC (i.e. something resembling the 5DS2 sensor)
• +3 fps over your current FF SLR (presume fully working AF throughout)
• Thin mount design affords enough space to rear-filter EF lenses that are not front-filterable (possibly through the EF adaptor)
• Eye AF
• Ultra-light body design (more than just from mirror removal and body size changes: say, with carbon fiber instead of metal)
• AF points that almost completely fill the viewfinder -- no more central core of AF points that SLR designs typically have

For those with no interest in mirrorless, Is there a killer app that will change your mind? Is anything above so attractive to you that if mirrorless was the only way to get it, you'd do it?

In other words, if a critical thing you are interested in drops in the new FF mirrorless rig, do you bite the bullet and get the FF mirrorless rig, or just wait/hope that particular tech/feature makes it into your preferred SLR slot?

(Again, I'm specifically asking the 'never-mirrorless' camp of FF shooters. If you are interested in getting an FF mirrorless rig, you are not who I am looking for with this, thx.)

- A

IBIS - could be had in a DLSR, not a mirrorless thing per se
Tilty-flippy-touchscreen - see above
New sensor - really?
more FPS - nope
Thin mount design - I assume you mean a short flange distance rather than a thin mount. And no. But an adapter that takes filters is a good idea.
Eye AF - no
Ultra-light body - no. I had the opportunity to check out an olympus M10.2 last weekend. It felt solid and nice. Then the Sony A6300. It felt like a cheap toy. The weight of my current camera body isn't an issue, it's the weight of the lenses that gets to be troublesome.
AF-points filling the viewfinder - no

and do stop talking about "apps" in cameras when talking about features.

The one thing I want in a full frame mirrorless that couldn't be had in a DSLR is a full-on silent mode. An electronic shutter with fast read-out. This could partially be had in a DSLR in live-view mode though.
The one thing a mirrorless can never give me is an optical viewfinder that can be used when the camera is off. I'm growing somewhat tired of WYSIWYG viewfinders really though they are sometimes useful (often enough they're just another distraction though)