DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras

[tayassu]

A funny story happened to me yesterday. I was shooting a bike race, when a viewer came to me and started talking about cameras. He told me he recently had sold his Nikon D800 with lots of lenses and got a NEX-7. He said: It works, but there is nothing that can beat SLR's. I agreed and had a wonderful shooting with my bulky 7D and 70-300L.

 

[troppobash]

You can learn photography with any camera...obviously on some you learn a lot about the science but on all you can learn the composition.

I recently bought a mirror less g1x mkii and have set it up so it is as close as possible to feel like a dslr well probably more like a slr due to the two rings on the lens.

It is great camera to use and I take it everywhere whereas I do not take my 5dmkii everywhere.

In manual mode it is no different to a dslr with regard to learning about he science of photography.

We need to be less hung up on equipment and be more focused on actually taking photos learning to get the best out of what equipment we have and while hopefully enjoying ourselves immensely

 

[Zv]

The way I see mirrorless is that they make an excellent replacement to a point and shoot compact camera not a DSLR. Well not yet anyway.

Like Jrista says - Enjoy taking pics and slow down a bit. Most good togs will lug a tripod and a full bag of gear because they don't want to compromise. Yes you can get the shot without it but what's point of half arsing something? Do it right or go home! I'm surprised you didn't slap that guy and take his toy camera off him for being a tool and scaring away your subjects! "You'll get this back when you learn how to act like a photographer!" ;D

 

[dgatwood]

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.

Mirrorless cameras change very little. The Canon mirrorless mount uses a shorter flange distance, which allows ultra-wide-angle lenses to be smaller, but at a significant cost as soon as you need a lens that isn't one of the small handful of EF-M lenses currently on the market, both because of the clumsiness of an adapter and because of the inherent loss in IQ caused by doubling the maximum amount of mount sag.

And if they built a mirrorless camera with a traditional EF mount (which I'd expect them to do if they ever built a full-frame mirrorless), then nothing changes at all lens-wise.

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.

Mirrorless is certainly one possible future. For the time being, it brings significant tradeoffs, though. For one, electronic viewfinders aren't fun to work with at night, because they instantly bleach the rhodopsin in your eye and wreck your eye's dark adaptation for about half an hour.

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?

Two reasons. First, Canon and Nikon have an established camera business. Fuji... mostly made film and videotapes. It takes time for deeply entrenched businesses to change direction. Second, the technology is good enough for the average user, but lots of pros don't care for it. Fuji is starting out building a camera business from the consumer end, and eventually, they'll probably start eating significantly into the pro camera market. That's the point at which Canon and Nikon should start to care about mirrorless. Wait longer, and they'll be in trouble. Jump too soon, and they'll expend a lot of efforts on market failures like Canon's current mirrorless offerings.

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?

High ISO. The Fuji system uses crop sensors exclusively, AFAIK, whereas most of Canon's lenses are designed to accommodate full-frame sensors in their higher end cameras. For indoor shooting, that extra bit of surface area makes a huge difference.

 

[Hillsilly]

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?

High ISO. The Fuji system uses crop sensors exclusively, AFAIK, whereas most of Canon's lenses are designed to accommodate full-frame sensors in their higher end cameras. For indoor shooting, that extra bit of surface area makes a huge difference.

As far as most image quality attributes go, images produced with Fuji cameras are essentially indistinguishable from Canon 16mp FF sensors. The only significant difference is the extra degree of background blur that is possible with the FF sensor. But this is where is gets really interesting. The Fuji lenses are very nice. They are also fairly sharp wide open. I'll throw it out there - does anyone really use the Canon 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 wide open when they are seeking sharp images? I suspect not many. But you can use the Fuji lenses wide and get very nice results. The Fuji lenses also produce nicer bokeh. Given that you might be more likely to use the Fuji lenses at wider apertures than comparable Canon lenses, even the background blur argument probably results in a tie.

The key benefit of the Canon system is that there is such a wide variety of cameras, lenses and accessories available. There are also a lot of specialised equipment such as tilt/shift lenses, fish eye zooms, big white lenses etc that many manufacturers don't have. Compared to Fuji, the Canon flash systems is noticeably more advanced. Most camera/lens combinations will focus faster. And if you are into sports and wildlife, shooting with Fuji is an exercise in frustration. For many reasons, Canon is the sensible choice.

Still, I bought into the Fuji system, and while acknowledging its many weaknesses, for everyday photography, I think it is awesome.

I read the comments above about mirrorless wildlife shooters with a smile on my face. I'm sure those people exist. But I suspect most people buying mirrorless cameras are more experienced photographers who are realistic about their expectations. As long as you don't believe any of the hype about "world's fastest AF", but understand that AF speed is fine for things that aren't moving fast, you can't go wrong.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Canon created a film camera with a half silvered mirror, the Pellix long ago, it was a flop. Then, the tried again 20 or so years later with the RT, again a flop. They tried a third time with the EOS M, again a flop.
Being a flop (meaning they did not sell well, hardly at all) is not a reflection on the quality, just that a business needs products that sell.

Nikon also took a big hit with their J series mirrorless.

That does not mean that all is lost, but for large sensors, getting fast autofocus is much more difficult than it is for small sensors. I believe that the right technology is coming, maybe in the next generation, but its not easy to do.

 

[vscd]

Mirrorless is a trend, it has no (kicking) advantages in itself. On theory the bodies could be build smaller... practically the bodies of existing systems won't get small as the focal flange is the same. So, you need at least a new bayonett and lense-system which is causing you a lot of problems for existing accessoires.

So, as a photocompany you could invest in a new lens-system, let's say a mirrorless EF like the EF-M, but with fullframe lenses possible. The advantage is to get your lenses more closer to the sensor... yepp, nice idea, but what about refraction of light? You have to get the ray mostly straight to the sensor. Sony somewhat shows us that they failed on the A7/A7R. Maybe shaped sensors will be a solution.

So, what are the drawbacks of mirrorless? You aren't able to use the camera if turned off in most cases... so you rely on live view which drains your battery and heats up the sensor. The formfactor of a smaller body is something which I like on holydays but hate while working serious. You may laugh, but a Fuji is to small for me... you don't have back/frontfocus. On this point I'm in, but you have liveview on actual DSLRs, too.

Don't believe the hype. It's a nice idea for smaller Crop-Sensors with new bayonetts... but nothing for a serious fullframe-cam, except a fixed lense (like the Sony RX-1). Even the framerate is nothing to be concerned 'bout, anymore. For me, the work with an optical viewfinder is still the best choice, even good EVF have something like a "DriveByWire". You won't see this on the photo, but for me the future is a mirror/EVF Combination. I would like to see the data projected to the mirror if i need them.

The Fuji-Cams are nice indeed. Fuji prooved for ages that they're capable of doing the finest hardware around, but on the other hand... the fanboys are getting booring. Yepp, the 56mm 1.2 is a hell of a lense, but creating a standard-prime around that focal length with a APS-C lightcircle... is not really that hard. Even not with that pricetag given. Creating a 85mm 1.2 is somewhat harder. And stopped down to the equiv-DOF (@f1.8), the Canonlense should be competing.

 

[Ruined]

IMO mirrorless is a transitional technology that will be replaced by smartphones in time. The Nokia 1020 is already getting close to some of the mirror less cameras out there.

DSLR is the pro solution here to stay, though we may see.some.benefits from.mirrorless in future dslr bodies.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Mirrorless cameras have some definite advantages, but speed of autofocus is currently a limiting factor. Speedy autofocus is much easier on small sensors, but on full frame, its much harder.
1. Autofocus can be much more accurate and work even with small aperture lenses.

2. They can be made smaller lighter, and shock resistant.

3. They use fewer moving parts, and will be more reliable

3. The complex moving mirror, sub mirror, pentaprism, viewfinder, AF sensor, and light sensor cost quite a bit, so mirrorless is potentially a lot less expensive.

The main technical drawback is speed of autofocus, and to some extent, the loss of quality in a lens with a reduced flange to sensor distance, they are difficult to make in ultra wide angles. The Canon dual pixel sensors have the potential to evolve into a fast autofocus system. The next generation following the 70D might have some additional features. As many have pointed out, there are other potential uses for those dual pixels that could make DR improvements possible.

A practical drawback is that they do not sell. Buyers seem to prefer the large DSLR format.

 

[Max ☢]

Hi,

Mirrorless is a trend, it has no (kicking) advantages in itself. On theory the bodies could be build smaller... practically the bodies of existing systems won't get small as the focal flange is the same. So, you need at least a new bayonett and lense-system which is causing you a lot of problems for existing accessoires.

It is certain that if the sensor size, the bayonet mount and the focal flange are all kept constant, the removal of the mirror box won't bring any advantage in terms of weight and size of the overall camera+lens system. But saying that the mirrorless technology has no kicking advantage in itself is stretching things too much in my opinion. Removing the flappy mirror and the mecanical shutter potentially enables faster frame rates, reduces in-camera vibrations considerably, increases the AF accuracy (I think Canon's DPAF will be a killer technology for that), allows in-chip AF at any point over the whole surface area of the sensor (for a properly designed sensor that is) and makes AFMA a thing of the past. Moreover, a properly designed EVF can provide the user with much more information directly through the viewfinder than with an OVF (live histogram, picture rendition simulation, highlight alert, etc). Sure, you have that in the live view function of DSLRs already on the market, but DSLRs are not best used held at a distance and nothing really beats using the viewfinder for maximum user-camera stability during shooting (without tripod that is).

I think the true potential of the mirrorless technology is realized with new focal flange and lens mounts whose design is optimized for systems without a mirror box. Then you can get a smaller and lighter system, but of course the compatibility between established lenses and the new systems is somewhat lost - not entirely as some adapters exist out there (e.g. metabones speedbooster).

The advantage is to get your lenses more closer to the sensor... yepp, nice idea, but what about refraction of light? You have to get the ray mostly straight to the sensor. Sony somewhat shows us that they failed on the A7/A7R. Maybe shaped sensors will be a solution.

This does not seem to be an unsolvable problem. Fuji with its X-mount platform designed with a 17.7mm flange-sensor depth (the back of the lens is even closer to the sensor by 7.5mm) manages to get some terrific image sharpness with almost no chromatic aberrations all across the frame. I find that my X-T1 with the XF56/1.2 delivers better images overall wide open than my EF 85/1.2LII stopped down to 1.8 on my 6D...

 

[Don Haines]

So here's the question....

Let's say Canon comes out with the 7D2 and it is mirrorless and through some new technology, the EVF works as good or better than an OVF.... and they keep the same flange distance so all the EF and EF-S lenses work on it.... So what else happens?

For starters, no mirror means less vibrations and the elimination of mechanical parts. It also opens up the possibility of FAST burst rates like 30fps.

Doing the focus on the sensor means you never have to AFMA a lens again.

and speaking of focus, you now have the ability to track items or people. your focus can track that bird flying through the trees and not lock on a branch...

You have the ability to show lots of new information on the EVF, to manipulate images, preview, zebras, whatever, without having to take the camera down from your eye and look at the rear screen.

In other words, you have a digital camera that starts to act like a digital camera and leave the last restriction of film behind.

 

[Max ☢]

Exactly; with the advent of digital sensors, SLRs became DSLRs, which are like turntables fitted with a digital output-stage amplifier. With mirrorless systems + EVF, we now have systems like full-digital CD/DVD players ;D

 

[tayassu]

So here's the question....

Let's say Canon comes out with the 7D2 and it is mirrorless and through some new technology, the EVF works as good or better than an OVF.... and they keep the same flange distance so all the EF and EF-S lenses work on it.... So what else happens?

For starters, no mirror means less vibrations and the elimination of mechanical parts. It also opens up the possibility of FAST burst rates like 30fps.

Doing the focus on the sensor means you never have to AFMA a lens again.

and speaking of focus, you now have the ability to track items or people. your focus can track that bird flying through the trees and not lock on a branch...

You have the ability to show lots of new information on the EVF, to manipulate images, preview, zebras, whatever, without having to take the camera down from your eye and look at the rear screen.

In other words, you have a digital camera that starts to act like a digital camera and leave the last restriction of film behind.

+1
Mirrorless has only advantages, if they can manage to get the EVF as good as a normal OVF. I would be very happy if their next cameras would be mirrorless (maybe that is the biggest change in Canon's history ).

 

[wyluncustoms]

I'll just throw my 2 cents in here..

I rather buy DSLR b/c

- i like the bodies better, (I have a 7D, and i used to have the olympus OMD-EM5)
- I'm not going to say the image quality is WAY better.. b/c mirrorless is very good, but I personally feel like, you can get a more natural picture sometimes, hard to explain.
- Mirrorless cameras maybe cheaper when you compare the top mirrorless vs the top dslrs... but the lenses arent THAT cheap either. some are quite pricey and you dont have nearly as many options
-

I think its all about preference too.. like many people said. theres always going to be a market for anything.. and someone has to take the lead in it. canon and nikon dont really go that much into it b/c they are so dominant in DSLRS and they kno they will aways have a market in it.

some people dont mind bigger bodies, some ppl prefer smaller.. some people want something new and different.. some people want the classics.. just preference

 

[sdsr]

I rather buy DSLR b/c

- i like the bodies better, (I have a 7D, and i used to have the olympus OMD-EM5)
- I'm not going to say the image quality is WAY better.. b/c mirrorless is very good, but I personally feel like, you can get a more natural picture sometimes, hard to explain.
- Mirrorless cameras maybe cheaper when you compare the top mirrorless vs the top dslrs... but the lenses arent THAT cheap either. some are quite pricey and you dont have nearly as many options

You may prefer the images you get from a 7D to those you got from your OM-D, but that comparison has no wider implications and the differences between the two have nothing to do with the fact that one is a dslr while the other is mirrorless. (One reason you may find the 7D's images "more natural" is because the OM-D E-M5 adds far more sharpening (esp. in default JPEG settings) than many other cameras. Images from the E-M1 don't, however.) The images generated by the various Micro 43 cameras don't all look the same, Sony APS-C mirrorless images don't look the same as Fuji-X images, which in turn don't look the same as EOS-M images, and none of those look the same as Sony FF mirrorless.

 

[sdsr]

....

In other words, you have a digital camera that starts to act like a digital camera and leave the last restriction of film behind.

Exactly! I don't understand why some seem not to "get" the advantages you list (though of course I get why, for some purposes at least, they're not yet the best choice for everyone). They may never catch on, of course, but I would like it if Canon offered one that was pleasant to use.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Mostly I hear is that mirrorless is no doubt the future.

While some would cause you to believe that they are the future, the hard facts are that mirrorless sales have dropped drastically, so bad that Canon and Nikon are backing off.

I'd like to see that mirror and penta prism go away, the mirror and related parts are among the biggest failure items in a camera.

Don't get taken in by the hype about mirrorless bodies, they are still in low production, and sales are dropping. A break through that makes them attractive to buyers in the USA and Europe is needed before they move into mainstream.

I'm hoping for that, but I am a bit dubious about it happening.

 

[LDS]

So, what are the drawbacks of mirrorless? You aren't able to use the camera if turned off in most cases... so you rely on live view which drains your battery and heats up the sensor.

IMHO this is the most limiting factor of mirrorless today, especially for some kind of photos. Unless there are great improvements in batteyr technologies, pro and semi-pro won't rely on cameras with relatively short autonomy.

 

[Ralph]

Some people here refer to APS-C or Micro 4/3 cameras and state that the lenses are so much smaller than the fullframe DSLR counterparts. Please keep in mind that you also have to multiply the aperture with the cropfactor of 1.6 or 2.0 and not only the focal length... You nice f1.2 lense might then become a f2.4 lense.

There is a physical relationship between the diameter of the lense and the focal length that explains why these fullframe lenses are so big and there is no phyisal and mathematical way around it.

 

[vscd]

Hmm, I just see repeated marketingslogans... but let's check some points...

>Autofocus can be much more accurate and work even with small aperture lenses.

Wrong. The more accurate AF is just because you use contrast based Focus, you can do this with DSLRs, too. It's called liveview. On the 70D even in Dual-AF.

>They can be made smaller lighter, and shock resistant.

Lighter is true, smaller... maybe, with the given limits and a new design. Shock resistant? I guess a 1DX is more shockresistant than any Fuji. Where do you get such claims?

>They use fewer moving parts, and will be more reliable

The mirror-based technology is grown up since more than a half century. Photographs felt in vietnam, got shocked by earthquakes or took every sport-activity you could imagine. Do you really think it's the weak spot of a camera? Especially with semipro business or amateur? Why is there a shuttercount but no count for a mirrorlifetime? Right, even the shutter dies before a mirror does. And the shutter is still there, most likely a cheap one.

>The complex moving mirror, sub mirror, pentaprism, viewfinder, AF sensor, and light sensor cost quite a bit, so mirrorless is potentially a lot less expensive.

Calculate again with the required EVF.

Fuji with its X-mount platform designed with a 17.7mm flange-sensor depth (the back of the lens is even closer to the sensor by 7.5mm) manages to get some terrific image sharpness with almost no chromatic aberrations all across the frame. I find that my X-T1 with the XF56/1.2 delivers better images overall wide open than my EF 85/1.2LII stopped down to 1.8 on my 6D...

First of all, the 56mm 1.2 *has* CA, even they're quite decent. But if you read my text again, you will note that you get problem in the wideangle-area. I don't think 56mm are wideangled.

It also opens up the possibility of FAST burst rates like 30fps.

Not a problem of the mirrorbox. You can do this with any DSLR, too. A DLSR with Mirror open *is* a mirrorless. The only difference is a blacked out viewfinder, but you could compensate this the same way the mirrorless does (EVF/LV).

Mirrorless has only advantages

I think people are just repeated the Sh*t they read in the magazines. This is just another pig, chases through the village. I'm not of yesterday or want to nag on anyone in this forum, but please open up your mind and think for yourself. Compare the new trends with the translucent mirror of Sony/Canon or Rangefinders. They all prayed their advantages and they truly have. But always see what's the *real* benefit of it. I just see the advantages in weight and maybe the size if you create a new camera with full take of the advantages.

Remember, the size has sideeffects. The accus are small and you carry 2 or 3 of em with you (300 pics CIPA with a Fuji-XT1 is a darned cheek). And if you want a nice handling you make it bigger with a vertical grip. Then count your bag-weight again.

The cam is a tool, not more. If a mirrorless does it for you, you should take it. For me, I'm not convinced. Not after I thought twice.