Is Mirrorless a Giant Con?

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,720
2,130
Hamburg, Germany
Yep. Just imagine had Canon dumped their R&D dollars into developing that tech. I really suspect it could have rivaled what we are seeing with mirrorless. Maybe even surpassed it as each sensor could be optimized to a specific purpose.
Of course it would work well. But it also comes with downsides, such as the AF in an OVF always working with just a fraction of the light coming through the lens (the rest goes into the user's eye) and just the massive cost associated with an additional sensor of such complexity.

We are pretty sure there won't be a 5D V, but a 1DX IV might still come around one day for those willing to pay the premium for using such an extravagant AF setup for the purpose of coming close to mirrorless performance with an OVF.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,242
1,315
Everyone has the right of preference of DSLR vs MILC, and it's their choice and they don't have to justify their choice, just use what you prefer. When I will dispute is when devotees attempt to justify their subjective choice using unsubstantiated statements. By the way, I take extenders on and off lenses and camera several times during most shoots in the field and have never had to clean a sensor. apart from very occasionally blowing off dust from a mirror. Canon did a good job introducing a protective shutter on the R-series - which Sony has now copied for the A1 - my R5 sensor is still perfectly clean after over 11 months of daily use and changing lenses and extenders.
I surely agree.
Nevertheless, as to dust, I'm less happy than you with my EOS R, but I certainly wouldn't speak of an issue.
The Leica M is far more critical, since it lacks the sensor's vibrating function.
PS: Thanks again for recommending Topaz!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,806
1,726
[..]You probably know it, but just to clarify this comment: Canon's Dual Pixel Autofokus system is also phase-detect. As are the sensors other manufacturers use on the image plane. Contrast detection may be used to fine tune some aspects and certainly the image pixels are used to subject detection and tracking. But modern mirrorless primarily use phase-detect AF, just as DSLR.
I wish Canon would use contrast detect to fine-tune focus after completing DPAF, it would remove the need for firmware updates to get correct focus like with the RF70-200.
And also bias it to the nearest section, I struggled a lot with spot-focus this weekend, with profile or 3/4 shots of grashoppers it would pick the cheek (about 25% of the focus box area) to focus on, not the eye (75% of the focs box area, including the center) to focus on.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,583
11,321
I surely agree.
Nevertheless, as to dust, I'm less happy than you with my EOS R, but I certainly wouldn't speak of an issue.
The Leica M is far more critical, since it lacks the sensor's vibrating function.
PS: Thanks again for recommending Topaz!
I once had to do some bacteriology and got quite good at keeping bugs off Petri dishes: always have the open side pointing down as far as possible and cover open tops as quickly as possible. I do the same with lenses and cameras during changing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,845
2,453
Alberta, Canada
One situation that dogged me was the way the 1DX2 was so clunky at moving the AF point and coupled with the limited range it more or less, in brief encounter situations, forced me to cut off animal or bird bodies.

Now, the camera grabs the eye and the operator composes the subject. For me that's huge, especially in situations where the viewfinder is close to being filled with the subject.

I used to use spot AF almost exclusively, whereas now I have spot for occasions when the R5 is playing games and sometimes use the spot AF on the shutter to start and then instantly it's AF-ON eye AF. I gladly sold my 1DX2 even though I took a big hit $$$.

And here it instantly switched from eye to body. Of course, you might prefer I
Chickadee bath_s_3264.JPG
throw this away. ;)

Jack
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,583
11,321
One situation that dogged me was the way the 1DX2 was so clunky at moving the AF point and coupled with the limited range it more or less, in brief encounter situations, forced me to cut off animal or bird bodies.

Now, the camera grabs the eye and the operator composes the subject. For me that's huge, especially in situations where the viewfinder is close to being filled with the subject.

I used to use spot AF almost exclusively, whereas now I have spot for occasions when the R5 is playing games and sometimes use the spot AF on the shutter to start and then instantly it's AF-ON eye AF. I gladly sold my 1DX2 even though I took a big hit $$$.

And here it instantly switched from eye to body. Of course, you might prefer I View attachment 199929 throw this away. ;)

Jack
I am so pleased you like your R5, Jack. I took out the old DSLR and 500 prime today to remind myself and, just my luck, was too close to a large bird. It was so clunky trying to compose and focus on the eye, and the R5 would have done the eyeAF instantaneously as I composed.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,673
1,628
1) Canon will do what is best for Canon. 2) Leadership is knowing where you need to go in the long term and figuring out how to get there.

I suspect a 2 sensor DSLR, one for the image and one for AF, could do exactly what mirrorless does now....had Canon made the investment in that technology. But why mirrorless over an evolved DSLR? Simple, cost. I realized that mirrorless was the future after reading an article by Thom Hogan talking about how the manufacturing costs of mirrorless cameras were significantly lower than DSLRs. Think about a two sensor camera? More expensive to make. Think about the mirror, added cost. Canon knew that its competitors were about to make equivalent cameras for a lower manufacturing cost. In the long term, that is a losing proposition.

So this isn't personal, its business. It is not about the sale already made, it is about the sale they need to make in the future. It is not about mirrorless being a better technology (it has pros/cons), it is about mirrorless being a less expensive technology in the long term. Are those cost savings being passed on to the consumers, not yet, and you see that in Canon's profit margin.

I do not blame Canon, they did not leave me high and dry with all my EF glass. It works wonderfully with my R5. So good, I am waiting to transition to the RF mount. But, I will eventually transition, so Canon was smart. Specifically about RF/EF, it does seem like some wider angle lenses benefit from the shorter flange distance. IBIS seems to benefit from the additional communication pins. But I haven't had an issue wanting better IQ or performance from my EF glass so I'll wait until compelled.
No need for 2 sensors. When you put a 5D MK IV in live mode, it is virtually the same as a EOS R which uses the 5D MK IV sensor. With the mirror locked up, a 5D MK IV is basically a mirrorless camera, just lacking the more recent technology and firmware. The R5 sensor could be used in a 5D MK VV and it could potentially be a hybrid DSLR / Mirrorless. The only limiting factor would be the lens communication which is limited for EF lenses so some of the features in a R5 would not work. Even IBIS from the R5 could be in a 5D mk V. I'd bet a lot that it will never appear.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,235
3,662
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I am glad that so many are completely satisfied with the move to mirrorless and to the R5. I like the R5, but no camera is perfect and there are certainly things that I have issues with with the R5, whether or not others do as well, I don't know. The range of comments on this thread and on others would indicate that at least some people do.

The point of this thread, other than simply passing time until the R3 is released, was to raise the difficult question of what we are giving up with the apparent death of DSLRs. It's nice that some people feel they are sacrificing nothing. I'm just not in that camp. At a minimum, we are giving up the choice between the two formats. And that, I think is a loss for consumers, even if it is a win for Canon.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,720
2,130
Hamburg, Germany
No need for 2 sensors. When you put a 5D MK IV in live mode, it is virtually the same as a EOS R which uses the 5D MK IV sensor. With the mirror locked up, a 5D MK IV is basically a mirrorless camera, just lacking the more recent technology and firmware. The R5 sensor could be used in a 5D MK VV and it could potentially be a hybrid DSLR / Mirrorless. The only limiting factor would be the lens communication which is limited for EF lenses so some of the features in a R5 would not work. Even IBIS from the R5 could be in a 5D mk V. I'd bet a lot that it will never appear.
As demonstrated by the 1DX III Canon doesn't seem to be able to deliver R5 AF features WITH a second sensor. I didn't see how they could even hope to come close without it.

And if you mean just use LiveView or the EVF all the time - what's the point of having a hybrid that enables OVF too?

IBIS in a Canon DSLR is unlikely because the images are not accurately displayed in the viewfinder and the EF lenses image circle isn't designed for it.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,806
1,726
As demonstrated by the 1DX III Canon doesn't seem to be able to deliver R5 AF features WITH a second sensor.[..]
I don't think we can be certain it's 'ability' being the problem there, Canon could have decided that the current feature set of the 1dx3 was "good enough" and stopped development at that point.
 

docsmith

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,060
506
The point of this thread, other than simply passing time until the R3 is released, was to raise the difficult question of what we are giving up with the apparent death of DSLRs.
I still prefer OVFs. I was shooting my R5 and 5DIV side by side and a number of features of the R5 aided the actual process of taking photos...but each time I put the 5DIV up to my eye, there is just something about seeing the scene with the actual light.

My current plan is to keep the 5DIV just for that reason, although, I am not using it much, so I am beginning to question that decision.

Other things:
  • I had my EF lens kit the way I wanted it.
  • I still wonder if having the sensor on all the time causes heat that adds noise. No real evidence of this, just a concern.
No need for 2 sensors. When you put a 5D MK IV in live mode, it is virtually the same as a EOS R which uses the 5D MK IV sensor. With the mirror locked up, a 5D MK IV is basically a mirrorless camera, just lacking the more recent technology and firmware. The R5 sensor could be used in a 5D MK VV and it could potentially be a hybrid DSLR / Mirrorless. The only limiting factor would be the lens communication which is limited for EF lenses so some of the features in a R5 would not work. Even IBIS from the R5 could be in a 5D mk V. I'd bet a lot that it will never appear.
So, I agree with everything said here except "no need for 2 sensors" in a DSLR. To use a DSLR's OVF, there is going to be a second AF sensor, correct? But, yes, absolutely, most DSLRs were hybrid cameras with liveview operating like a mirrorless camera, but then you push a button and you can use the OVF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sporgon

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,720
2,130
Hamburg, Germany
I don't think we can be certain it's 'ability' being the problem there, Canon could have decided that the current feature set of the 1dx3 was "good enough" and stopped development at that point.
But suspecting Canon is crippling their cameras is also (looking at the D word) frowned upon in this forum, isn't? :p

We can't of course be sure what Canon can or cannot do. But I think them not doing something in their most expensive, premium flagship body is indication that they can't do that thing (at a reasonable price).

Even if they could offer eye AF in a DSLR while using the OVF by use of a sufficiently good sensor, that doesn't impact my point at all - which is that without a dedicated AF image sensor, they simply can't do it.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,589
3,930
We can't of course be sure what Canon can or cannot do. But I think them not doing something in their most expensive, premium flagship body is indication that they can't do that thing (at a reasonable price).
At the risk of being pedantic, it depends on the something. In this case, I agree – if they could have added animal eye AF to the 1D X III, they would have.

On the other end of the spectrum, my 1D X cannot do in-camera HDR. My M series cameras and even my PowerShot S120 have that feature, so clearly they could have added it to the 1D X.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,720
2,130
Hamburg, Germany
So, I agree with everything said here except "no need for 2 sensors" in a DSLR. To use a DSLR's OVF, there is going to be a second AF sensor, correct?
You need an AF sensor array for any sort of autofocus while using the OVF. But the 1DX III (and Nikon D6) are the only DSLR that I'm aware of, that use essentially a second image sensor as their OVF AF sensor. Which is substantially more capable when it comes to subject detection and tracking that the few scattered AF points found in most OVF AF arrays.

I don't see how a DSLR could rival a modern mirrorless camera without using such an advanced second imaging sensor for AF purposes. Although no, as I'm writing this I guess you could just let the fraction of light currently going to the dedicated AF sensor just pass right through to the main sensor. In that case, I guess you could do a hybrid with just one image sensor and therefore produce a DSLR with near mirrorless AF performance while maintaining reasonable costs...
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,720
2,130
Hamburg, Germany
At the risk of being pedantic, it depends on the something. In this case, I agree – if they could have added animal eye AF to the 1D X III, they would have.

On the other end of the spectrum, my 1D X cannot do in-camera HDR. My M series cameras and even my PowerShot S120 have that feature, so clearly they could have added it to the 1D X.
Good point, logically my reasoning doesn't work out. Your example names something that the target market would probably not appreciate and therefore it isn't present.

But even for desirable features Canon not including them isn't prove that they can't do it. The RP does automatic focus stacking, the R does not. The M6 II allows using crop mode to boost FPS (ironically, 30 FPS, 18 MP isn't even that far off the R3 rumored specs), and even saves images from before the Sutter was pressed - and yet these useful additions are absent from every other Canon ILC.

Edit: On that note, why are we still allowed to say crippled, when the D-word is still banned? I thought that was bothering people much more :LOL:
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,806
1,726
But suspecting Canon is crippling their cameras is also (looking at the D word) frowned upon in this forum, isn't? [..]
Not adding something is not the same as removing it. But like before, we don't know which of those 2 options it is :)
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,845
2,453
Alberta, Canada
I am glad that so many are completely satisfied with the move to mirrorless and to the R5. I like the R5, but no camera is perfect and there are certainly things that I have issues with with the R5, whether or not others do as well, I don't know. The range of comments on this thread and on others would indicate that at least some people do.

The point of this thread, other than simply passing time until the R3 is released, was to raise the difficult question of what we are giving up with the apparent death of DSLRs. It's nice that some people feel they are sacrificing nothing. I'm just not in that camp. At a minimum, we are giving up the choice between the two formats. And that, I think is a loss for consumers, even if it is a win for Canon.
I gave up excellent spot AF from the 1DX2 and I liked having my exposure linked to the AF point - better than the R5 for sure.

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,589
3,930
But even for desirable features Canon not including them isn't prove that they can't do it. The RP does automatic focus stacking, the R does not.
In many cases, time. The RP came out after the R. The R5 and R6 have automatic focus bracketing. Canon apparently feels it's not worth going back and adding those desirable features to prior models via a firmware update, at least in most cases. The intervalometer is another example. Models going way, way back have timers and exposure bracketing, so triggering an interval is trivial. But Canon didn't offer that feature. Until they did, and every ILC since has had it.

The M6 II allows using crop mode to boost FPS (ironically, 30 FPS, 18 MP isn't even that far off the R3 rumored specs), and even saves images from before the Sutter was pressed - and yet these useful additions are absent from every other Canon ILC.
Clearly not time here, since the R5 and R6 came after the M6II.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
406
295
No... not a con.

Now that mirrorless is out, you now have those that have switched and wouldn't switch back due to the advantages the mirrorless now brings them (which many have been stated before me). Had this discussion occur when the only Canon FF's were the R & RP, it would be much different... as there was some pretty big trade-offs going mirrorless FF before the R5/R6 (actually, I remember some of the discussions back then). Now we are at the point where the bonuses of the mirrorless are making people switch.

Regardless of what someone prefers, you can't call something a con if people are using and loving it (even if you are not one of those people).