DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras

[DesignJinni]

Okay to all the gurus here, I am a bit eager to know to where is this technology going? First, I am not a pro but an enthusiastic photographer like many others out there. Since DSLR’s & glass are expensive, I heard that glass should be where the investment should go. But I find it changing now with the mirroless. Small form factor compared to DSLR body and lenses. Why should I buy more or invest in more lens while mirrorless lens would be the future due to their small form factor. For sure giants telephoto lenses is a different league of its own, so I would exclude those users.

Mostly I hear is that mirrorless is no doubt the future. And with the likes of Fuji XT-1 and Sony full frame mirrorless it so much seems to be true. Fuji system has a great road map for their native lenses and is very popular among many amateur and some pro photographers alike.

Apart of my concern in which technology of lenses to invest in, i am also confused that if Mirrorless is really the future then why are the likes of Canon and Nikon not serious about it like the way Fuji is? And plus how come Sigma, Canon & Nikon are still releasing fine good lenses and upgrading them?

If I can travel with Fauji XT-1 and some XF lenses such as 35mm1.4, 56mm 1.2, UWA 10-24 F4 OIS, 14mm 2.8 etc then why on earth should I invest in DSLR or these new lenses being released by canon, sigma etc while I get a huge advantage on other things while only sacrificing a very little in quality or any other feature?

Roadmap of Fuji Lens: (pretty neat I would say)
http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Fujifilm-XF-lens-roadmap.jpg

What do you all think, please share your thoughts and shed some light.

 

[eninja]

as far as i know. dslr still better in terms of capturing actions, good image quality, built durability and professional ergonomic.
Thats why i can not justify selling my 6D and getting Fuji Xt1, they almost in the same price right now.

 

[sanj]

I just LOVE evf of my Fuji Xe2. It works wonderfully for my needs.

 

[tat3406]

I agree Mirrorless is very competitive in terms of performance and quality but not in price.
Look at the Fuji lens line up some price is higher than Canon pricing!

 

[DesignJinni]

I agree Mirrorless is very competitive in terms of performance and quality but not in price.
Look at the Fuji lens line up some price is higher than Canon pricing!

If you take out the R&D, the production cost of mirrorless+lenses are way less compared to DSLR and its line up. So in-time mirrorless would get a lot cheaper. Plus as you said performane and quality are very competitve, add the advantages you get in mirroless.

I know Fuji is so far crop APSC but again amazing quality in terms of APSC, online review compare its quality to fullframe sensors. Profesionals with nikon or canon fullframe past, who are using XT-1 are expressing their feelings as if they are reborn again.

Then again why are sigma, canon releasing new lenses which can be easily overcome by mirrorless technology and it's lineup? Where are things moving towards?

 

[Max ☢]

Hi - DSLR and Mirrorless cameras have all their strengths and weaknesses and the choice of a particular system over the other depends primarily on one's shooting requirements and needs - there's no general rule about which is the best simply because this is a user-specific condition.
If the Fuji X-T1 is certainly extremely convenient and inconspicuous due to its compact size while packing a very impressive performance punch (fantastic EVF, great color rendering, great high ISO noise management, etc) and using superb pro-grade XF optics, a 6D is certainly more satisfactory for people needing higher ISO performances and shallower depth of field for e.g. portrait works. It’s all about weighing the pros and cons of each system in the light of personal requirements.

As Canikon and mirroless systems, I think the reason for their apparent lack of innovation in this field stems primarily from what both companies consider as a good-enough technology point threshold beyond which the new camera systems will become successful (and profitable) on the mass consumer and pro markets. While Fuji and Sony have no problem releasing mirrorless cameras with AF performances lagging well below those of DSLR cameras (and not to mention the very shorter battery life), I think Canon and Nikon will phase out the mirror box only when they will achieve an economically-viable mirrorless proposition featuring performances and specs equal or superior to the DSLR they replace. This is the condition needed to ensure market growth and profitability by enticing photographers en masses to make the switch from their mirrorflappers to modern mirrorless systems.
As opposed to Fuji, Sony and the m43 crowd, Canikon are the two largest camera manufacturers and hold the largest fraction of the photo market. Any forced transition to mirrorless will inevitably result in the cannibalization of their DSLR sales across the consumer and pro markets and may hurt their bottom line, so they have to be extra careful in this process if they don’t want to lose a lot during the transition. Therefore, they cannot afford to cut many corners with the new technology and you can be sure that when they finally introduce mirrorless offerings in the xD range, their products will be quite awesome – but this might take a while still...
There’s an interesting blog post from Roger Cicala on the overall matter of technology disruption which is worth reading: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/02/disruption-and-innovation#more-17135

As for me, yesterday I received my X-T1 and XF 10-24/4 OIS and I was really blown away by the overall build and image qualities of this system. While the battery life in certainly not impressive, I can go around more easily with two extra batteries on me than with my 6D + EF/L lenses. As for high ISO peformances, the 6D is of course surperior but not by a large margin. The X-T1 manages noise impressively well, even more details are retained in the photos at ISO 6400+ that in my 6D! Moroever, I find the X system more handhold-able that the 6D and for some reason I can get a higher keeper rate at very low shutter speeds (1 sec) on my X-T1 than on the 6D+EF35/2 IS at the same ISO and f/ setting, and that more that compensates for the difference in high ISO rendering between the two systems.
In terms of performances and capability, the X-T1 has definitely reached my "good-enough" requirement point for my style of shooting (landscape, street, product...), and I'll definitely start selling my much heavier L lenses to fund the purchase of other XF lenses. I find it a pity that canon has no pro-grade offerings for EF-M and EF-S systems, all the top EF glasses (i.e. with the highest build and optical qualities) are the heavier and larger (and more expensive) FF L lenses - that's also why I'll switch to Fuji as they don't force their APS-C users to settle with cheap plasticy compromises of lens when they need compactness and low weight.

 

[wickidwombat]

I agree Mirrorless is very competitive in terms of performance and quality but not in price.
Look at the Fuji lens line up some price is higher than Canon pricing!

I dunno EOS-M and EF-M lenses are pretty good value...

 

[Jamesy]

I agree Mirrorless is very competitive in terms of performance and quality but not in price.
Look at the Fuji lens line up some price is higher than Canon pricing!

I dunno EOS-M and EF-M lenses are pretty good value...

+1 and they feel way better than the typical 'kit' lenses you find in the Canon APS-C line-up.

 

[rs]

For your needs now, it depends upon what you want.

Are the current generation EVF's good enough for you, or will only OVF's do?

And then as for the size of the body and the lenses, yes, mirrorless are typically smaller. But once you get over the more extreme retrofocus lens design required on wide angle lenses to accommodate the mirror assembly, there really isn't much in it with like for like lenses.

If you want to have the best low light performance and/or a really shallow depth of field, there's only one way to get it - a lens with a huge entrance pupil. That means the glass will be equally big on either system - and something the size of an 85L on a tiny m43 body doesn't make much sense. There again, if you only have lenses the size the 40/2.8, a smaller body with an equivalent lens (if a 20/1.4 pancake existed) might make a lot more sense.

And as for which system will be around in the future and worth sinking your money into, look at sales of DSLR's vs mirrorless. DSLR's seem to be a lot more buoyant right now. And then also look at how some manufacturers are willing to drop mounts, leaving people with a load of expensive lenses and no new bodies. For example, Panasonic/Olympus with four thirds, Samsung with the K mount (although Pentax still use that), and Sony look set to drop the A mount. Yes, Canon did it back in '87, but they look set to stick with the EF mount long term.

Obviously it's your choice, but after a lot of careful deliberation I did what almost everyone else on this forum has done - invested my money into the Canon system.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

And plus how come Sigma, Canon & Nikon are still releasing fine good lenses and upgrading them?

Because there are still a lot of people, with money, who still own SLR cameras. As long as there are potential customers with money, the companies will continue to sell lenses for the "old" SLR systems.

why on earth should I invest in DSLR or these new lenses being released by canon, sigma etc while I get a huge advantage on other things while only sacrificing a very little in quality or any other feature?

An excellent question. If you are starting over, and mirrorless systems provide what you need/want, then there is no real reason why you should not go mirrorless. If, on the other hand, you don't want to start over (you already have a lot of good glass) or mirrorless does not provide what you need/want, then you should not go mirrorless.

Like everything else in photography, there is no best for everyone. Everything in photography (and in life) is a compromise. It is up to each consumer to decide what is important and not so important for *them*.

 

[CaiLeDao]

I also expect the mirror less market to replace a large section of the dslr market. I recently bought a Sony A7R as both the IQ and size was attractive, also of course a metabones adaptor so I could use my current lenses.

Sony having embarked on the brave new mirror less world I found a few flaws, that render these quite inflexible at present, nothing that won't get fixed but I really made me realise how multi role the good DSLR's are and the maturity is brilliant at present.

The issues I had were quite simple
Real issues getting a remote shutter cable I can plug into third party timers (had to make one, so clearly supported)
Couldn't zoom display to manually focus an EF tse 24.
Shutter cause real vibration problems and needs two tripods to use with lenses above 100mm ( one lens, one for the body so a dlsr end up being more portable and lighter.)

I will happily move back to a mirrorless body when the body gains the quality of a good dslr and the richness of third party connectors. Maybe that will be an m2 or an A7R 2, but I have for the time being said goodbye to mirrorless in the short term.

 

[tat3406]

I agree Mirrorless is very competitive in terms of performance and quality but not in price.
Look at the Fuji lens line up some price is higher than Canon pricing!

If you take out the R&D, the production cost of mirrorless+lenses are way less compared to DSLR and its line up. So in-time mirrorless would get a lot cheaper. Plus as you said performane and quality are very competitve, add the advantages you get in mirroless.

I know Fuji is so far crop APSC but again amazing quality in terms of APSC, online review compare its quality to fullframe sensors. Profesionals with nikon or canon fullframe past, who are using XT-1 are expressing their feelings as if they are reborn again.

Then again why are sigma, canon releasing new lenses which can be easily overcome by mirrorless technology and it's lineup? Where are things moving towards?

If you said the production cost of mirrorless+lenses are way less compared to DSLR , why fuji x-series is more expensive than Canon crop-frame-series?

70d ($999)vs XT-1($1299)
T5i with kit($749) vs XE-2 with kit($1199)
ef-s 60mm($469) vs XF 60mm($649)
ef-s18-135($549) vs XF 18-135($899)
ef-s 10-22($599) vs XF10-24($999)
ef-s 55-250($349) vs XF 55-200($599)
ef-s 18-55($249) vs XF 18-55($599)
(above price is take from B&H retail price)

DSLR or Mirrorless have their own pro & con, but in term of price, canon is cheaper than fujifilm.
Fujifim have interesting prime lens line up, this is only shortage canon havent built enough ef-s prime for their crop body.

 

[ishdakuteb]

honestly, i do love fuji cameras. however, either one of the following will work:

1. if one are willing to learn about photography and have fun with all its challenges , dslr with optical viewfinder would be the camera he/she should buy, or
2. if one WOULD NOT LIKE to learn about photography, then a mirror-less camera should be the one that he/she will pick up since:
a. you get what you see which is, to me, no challenge and fun, and
b. ease of use (even a kid can get a right exposure after less than an hour of learning.)

if i have to buy a mirror-less so that my wife can also use, fuji x-pro1 or fuji x100s will be the one that i am going to buy since i think it does offer, sort of, optical viewfinder. fuji xt-1 (my friend lets me use his for few times) is a wonderful camera, but too bad, it does not offer optical viewfinder like the other two... hopefully fuji offers both again in the future...

it is just my personal thought and i am not a pro either...

 

[sanj]

honestly, i do love fuji cameras. however, either one of the following will work:

1. if one are willing to learn about photography and have fun with all its challenges , dslr with optical viewfinder would be the camera he/she should buy, or
2. if one WOULD NOT LIKE to learn about photography, then a mirror-less camera should be the one that he/she will pick up since:
a. you get what you see which is, to me, no challenge and fun, and
b. ease of use (even a kid can get a right exposure after less than an hour of learning.)

if i have to buy a mirror-less so that my wife can also use, fuji x-pro1 or fuji x100s will be the one that i am going to buy since i think it does offer, sort of, optical viewfinder. fuji xt-1 (my friend lets me use his for few times) is a wonderful camera, but too bad, it does not offer optical viewfinder like the other two... hopefully fuji offers both again in the future...

it is just my personal thought and i am not a pro either...

I feel differently. Photography is about photography. It is not about the difficulty with which photos are taken. Photography to me is capturing beauty, telling stories. I am impressed by photos, not with the technique with which the photo was taken unless the technique itself is creating magic.

 

[meson1]

On the one hand I understand that the EOS-M takes advantage of mirrorless technology to produce a camera that is more compact. However, I feel the drawback is that it needs it's own special line of lenses.

I think Canon should also be producing a mirrorless camera that can use it's regular EF lenses. Essentially it would be a DPAF APS-C or FF sensor camera with a built-in EVF replacing the usual pentaprism and packaged in a body that is similar to other EOS DSLRs.

It wouldn't be more compact, but it would have a similar feel and handling as it's contemporary consumer and professional cameras for which Canon is so renowned and celebrated.

 

[rs]

On the one hand I understand that the EOS-M takes advantage of mirrorless technology to produce a camera that is more compact. However, I feel the drawback is that it needs it's own special line of lenses.

I think Canon should also be producing a mirrorless camera that can use it's regular EF lenses. Essentially it would be a DPAF APS-C or FF sensor camera with a built-in EVF replacing the usual pentaprism and packaged in a body that is similar to other EOS DSLRs.

It wouldn't be more compact, but it would have a similar feel and handling as it's contemporary consumer and professional cameras for which Canon is so renowned and celebrated.

Are you talking Pentax K01 or one of the many Sony DSLT's?

 

[ishdakuteb]

honestly, i do love fuji cameras. however, either one of the following will work:

1. if one are willing to learn about photography and have fun with all its challenges , dslr with optical viewfinder would be the camera he/she should buy, or
2. if one WOULD NOT LIKE to learn about photography, then a mirror-less camera should be the one that he/she will pick up since:
a. you get what you see which is, to me, no challenge and fun, and
b. ease of use (even a kid can get a right exposure after less than an hour of learning.)

if i have to buy a mirror-less so that my wife can also use, fuji x-pro1 or fuji x100s will be the one that i am going to buy since i think it does offer, sort of, optical viewfinder. fuji xt-1 (my friend lets me use his for few times) is a wonderful camera, but too bad, it does not offer optical viewfinder like the other two... hopefully fuji offers both again in the future...

it is just my personal thought and i am not a pro either...

I feel differently. Photography is about photography. It is not about the difficulty with which photos are taken. Photography to me is capturing beauty, telling stories. I am impressed by photos, not with the technique with which the photo was taken unless the technique itself is creating magic.

totally agree with you on "...is capturing beauty, telling stories". but "...impressed by photos" is not quite if without techniques. if i say that all i care is the result of addition/subtraction/multiplication/division problems and do not care about the ability of solving the problems without calculator, would you agree? i think that is the reason why nikon come up with its ads "PURE PHOTOGRAPHY" (note: i am not trying to advertise for nikon since i am a canon user.)

i certainly believe that a photoshop expert with good imagination can turn a crap image to a stunning image with little of effort. of course, i am talking about a image that is in focus, not out of focus

about capturing beauty, there are probably easy ways to do it but require a camera offering high quality video (i think)... try to film it with all possible angles and extract a frame that one would think it is best. in this case, one would probably never miss a moment in this case. for example, i have done like the one below multiple times, capturing a frame that i like from a clip and then learn to use photoshop from there when i am busying with my kids but want to have some image to play with (note: done in the past and you probably know where i get it from). however, to have a beauty image from movie frames still require techniques such as using angle and subject matter, isn't it?

however, it is probably not fun to someone else, but it does to me when trying to capture an image within my exposure. adding up, i cannot find an ease for myself if someone, one day, approaches me and ask for help with taking an image with a dslr which has a broken lcd. that is the reason why i always find my time to learn hard in the past two year and half.

after all, there are always funs and challenges of hits and misses of exposures like jay maisel has stated, "who has faith about exposure"... one still miss sometimes, even though he/she is an expert photographer...

below image was extracted from a youtube video:

below is a fun video of showing how to turn regular images to telling story images using photoshop. well, this guy is an EXPERT in ART which also includes photography and photoshop.

Photoshop Live - Street Retouch Prank

 

[Ian_of_glos]

On the one hand I understand that the EOS-M takes advantage of mirrorless technology to produce a camera that is more compact. However, I feel the drawback is that it needs it's own special line of lenses.

I think Canon should also be producing a mirrorless camera that can use it's regular EF lenses. Essentially it would be a DPAF APS-C or FF sensor camera with a built-in EVF replacing the usual pentaprism and packaged in a body that is similar to other EOS DSLRs.

It wouldn't be more compact, but it would have a similar feel and handling as it's contemporary consumer and professional cameras for which Canon is so renowned and celebrated.

Canon already produce one. It is called the 100D, and it is a lovely camera that accepts all Canon's EF and EF-S lenses.
To my mind size is the only advantage that mirrorless cameras have over DSLRs and if you take that away then you end up with no advantages, so why switch? Camera manufacturers such as Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji have realised that they will never be able to compete with Canon and Nikon in the DSLR market so they are trying to persuade consumers that they need something different. They are telling us that if we don't switch then we will be left behind with a "dinosaur" camera. However I am completely happy with my DSLR, I see no need to switch to mirrorless and I am not fooled by all the marketing hype.

 

[Hillsilly]

I agree that mirrorless is the future for most photographers. There are a lot of reasons why Canon hasn't embraced mirrorless cameras, but many of the reasons centre around Canon wanting to continue their dominance in the DSLR market where they enjoy excellent market share and good profitability.

In many countries, the use of mirrorless cameras is already high. Progressively, over the next 10+ years, as mirrorless cameras continue to improve with AF and EVF/hybrid OVF technology, as more EF-M lenses are announced etc, you'll see a steady shift in other countries, too. With a few more generational improvements, I struggle to imaging where a DSLR will have an advantage. Eventually, we'll reach a point where we'll consider the concept of a flapping mirror in a camera to be a quaint idea held onto by a band of traditionalist purists.

BTW for those comparing Fuji prices, just note that XF lenses are the better quality lenses and probably aren't a direct equivalent to most EF-S lenses. The XC lenses are probably a better comparison. I also see that I can get a Fuji XA-1 with a nice XC 16-50mm lens for $385. A significantly cheaper alternative to any Canon DSLR kit.

 

[jrista]

On the first day I took my new 5D III out to photograph birds, another bird photographer came up (discourteously, I might add...I'd just spent 35 minutes getting VERY close (like, less than 15 feet to the closest one...in Colorado, where birds are jittery, that is REALLY close) to some 6 or 7 Night Herons...and he stomped right up and scared the whole lot off, along with a couple egrets and a great blue...and I think a couple ducks). Well, he persisted, stomped right up and sat down next to me. Turned out there was one younger BCNH left, and he hopped a couple trees and ended up right in front of us, about 45 feet out.

This other photographer had two cameras, both mirrorless, one a small Panasonic Lumix and one a Fuji. He chitchatted about how much he loved 'em, how great they were, etc. We both had 600mm focal lengths, me with my EF 600mm f/4, and the other guy with a small zoom lens that had an FF-effective 600mm focal length, or thereabouts.

In the end, the smaller sensors of his mirrorless cameras couldn't stand a chance against the 5D III. The slower frame rate, which were between 4-5 fps, did not do as well. The AF system did not lock remotely as fast (it's almost instantaneous with the 600/4II and 5D III), and in both cases with both cameras, he seemed to be using some kind of contrast-detection AF, or perhaps hybrid contrast/phase detection? Either way...it was quite slow, and while decently accurate, not as accurate as the 5D III seemed to be (although I guess that could boil down to technique.)

The only advantage I could really see in the mirrorless was their near-microscopic size...they were both TINY, and in comparison they almost looked like toys to the system I was using. The guy got antsy pretty quick, and was unwilling to stick around...within about 5 minutes he got up and left, but before he did, he mentioned the dozen or so other bird spots he'd tromped through in the park on the way to me. I suspect he tromped through a dozen more, and scared off another couple dozen beautiful subjects, before he finally called it quits. (The guy missed out, too...while in his exit he finally did scare off that one last BCNH, within about 10 minutes after he left, a snowy and a couple more of the night herons came back, and within another 15 minutes proceeded to fish. Mirrorless vs. DSLR...Mirrorless: 0, DSLR: 1)

The moral of the story? If your a discourteous, tromping wannabe who has to keep on the move because your too impatient to set up, sit, and wait for natures beauty to come to you in comfort...then a tiny light weight mirrorless with a tiny light weight lens is probably for you. You won't get the same action-grabbing performance, you won't have the same ergonomics (those mirrorless cams and lenses are TI-NY...like, toy tiny, like, barely fits in your hands tiny...like, WTF am I doing with a TOY with that BEAUIFUL BIG BIRD in front of me?!?!? OMG!), your IQ won't be as good (or maybe it will if you drop some dough on the FF A7r, but then you'll really be suffering on the AF and ergonomics front).

Anyway...mirrorless has it's place. They have their uses and their benefits. But, every time I encounter a die-hard mirrorless user, my experiences tend to be similar to the above. Mirrorless users are ALWAYS on the move. Moving moving moving moving. No patience, no time to wait and let things just happen around you. MOVING. I totally understand why they are fanatics about mirrorless...but wow...slow down and enjoy something, enjoy life happening around you every once in a while!