Is mirrorless camera replacement to DSLRs or just hybrid of aim/shoot and DSLR?R

[gandhi]

I am looking lot of noise on this mirrorless cameras, could they really be a replacement to existing DSLRs. I am reading regarding some sony NEX models and it looks like the technology is still in budding stages and will take a long time before it can really replace DSLRs and it is just a hybrid between AIm and shoot and DSLRS, thats what my opinion . Can some one throw more light on this

 

[lol]

The categories are not nice boxes with clear lines between them. Mirrorless cameras overlap significantly with low end DSLRs and even higher ones in some applications, and there they could take away DSLR sales. Long term, I'm thinking 10 years+, the weaknesses of mirrorless might be addressed enough to make DSLRs seem obsolete. Right now they are clearly in addition to, not instead of, DSLRs.

 

[NormanBates]

there's two things to look at here:

* features: size doesn't always matter, but without a mirror there's no phase-detect autofocus, and what you can have in a mirrorless camera (contrast-detect autofocus) is still lagging (particularly, much slower)

* image quality: some mirrorless cameras have mediocre image quality when compared with DSLRs (e.g. every micro-four-thirds camera I've looked into in detail), but others are just on par (for example, the nex-5n uses exactly the same sensor as the D7000)

those little cameras are catching up real fast...

 

[KeithR]

I simply don't see the point of these cameras - as soon as you put a biggish lens on a mirrorless body, their size/portability "advantage" disappears.

 

[aldvan]

The real point is always the same: If we are thinking about images to be posted on Internet with the usual related poor resolution (let me say a maximum width of 1600-2080 pixels), small mirrorless evoluted cameras are and will be ok. If we are speaking about absolute IQ, to any progress in this area will correspond a further advancement of DSLRs... One of the few cases validating Zeno's paradox...

 

[whatta]

* features: size doesn't always matter, but without a mirror there's no phase-detect autofocus, and what you can have in a mirrorless camera (contrast-detect autofocus) is still lagging (particularly, much slower)

is it only a question of processing power? what is the bootleneck?

 

[Jettatore]

With the way they do mirror-less now, they allow the maker to use a smaller system overall (requires new lenses/new system to leverage) and their is light loss if they try to do anything other than a pure electronic viewfinder (which is the way to go). The way Sony does it by splitting the incoming light while retaining a real viewfinder creates subtle but visible light loss. If I were interested in this, I would really pay attention to Panasonic Lumix Micro 4/3rds. They use full electronic viewfinders and really take advantage of being able to be small, removing the entire mirror contraption, and utilize a new system of lenses. Nice compact body with a tiny pancake prime lens. With the way Canon does larger glass for Full Frame sensors, it would provide no practical advantage for Canon and it's users to get into this without an entirely new system of cameras, lenses and accessories, at which point it doesn't matter if the name on the camera is Canon or something else altogether.

 

[KeithR]

If we are thinking about images to be posted on Internet with the usual related poor resolution (let me say a maximum width of 1600-2080 pixels), small mirrorless evoluted cameras are and will be ok.

So as I said - given that we're already very well served in that "market" - there's no point.

 

[elflord]

I simply don't see the point of these cameras - as soon as you put a biggish lens on a mirrorless body, their size/portability "advantage" disappears.

I beg to differ. The normal length m43 lenses (14mm f/2.5, 20mm f/1.7, 45mm f/1.8) are around 100gm (less than half the weight of the smaller Canon primes). The pana GF2 is ~200gm. The 14, 20, and Pana's new X zooms are pancakes.

The pana 100-300mm (200-600 equiv) is about 500gm. How much does the Canon 600mm or the Sigma 50-500mm weigh ?

Whether or not you're using a tele zoom, the mirrorless setup with the same focal length range will be much smaller and lighter than a canon/nikon setup. This is partly because of the smaller sensor, but also partly because they were designed for compactness.

 

[Rampado]

I simply don't see the point of these cameras - as soon as you put a biggish lens on a mirrorless body, their size/portability "advantage" disappears.

same feelings here.

And if you put a small tele on it, the IQ drops down!

 

[bycostello]

I simply don't see the point of these cameras - as soon as you put a biggish lens on a mirrorless body, their size/portability "advantage" disappears.

don't forget the 2x factor... so u don't have to put that big a lens on it in the first place

 

[NormanBates]

* features: size doesn't always matter, but without a mirror there's no phase-detect autofocus, and what you can have in a mirrorless camera (contrast-detect autofocus) is still lagging (particularly, much slower)

is it only a question of processing power? what is the bootleneck?

it's an unsolvable technological thing: you need a mirror if you're going to use phase-detect autofocus, which is the better way to do AF
with time (and processing power), contrast-detect AF may get good enough that most people don't care for phase-detect AF, but even then it will probably not be as good (it will have advantages, though: it doesn't require microadjustment, by design you can't get systematic front-focusing or back-focusing)

more here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/510.html
and a much more technical discussion in the 3 lensrentals links at the bottom of that page

 

[elflord]

I am looking lot of noise on this mirrorless cameras, could they really be a replacement to existing DSLRs. I am reading regarding some sony NEX models and it looks like the technology is still in budding stages and will take a long time before it can really replace DSLRs and it is just a hybrid between AIm and shoot and DSLRS, thats what my opinion . Can some one throw more light on this

Mirrorless are targeted at enthusiasts and high end P&S users. The marketing is directed at yuppies and enthusiasts (not pros). So they replace high end P&S, and are an alternative (with different trade offs) to DSLR for enthusiasts. However, they aren't "pro" cameras -- they don't have a support structure like CPS. If Canon made a mirrorless interchangeable lens or big sensor camera, they would also probably target this at a similar user and not market it as a pro camera.

Re maturity, the micro 4/3 cameras (Panasonic / Olympus) have been around longer hence have a better lineup of native lenses.

Sony enthusiasts often adapt old lenses(e.g. canon fd mount which are very inexpensive) then you are manual focus only but the cameras are built with manual focus in mind (e.g. focus peaking)

 

[Dylan777]

I simply don't see the point of these cameras - as soon as you put a biggish lens on a mirrorless body, their size/portability "advantage" disappears.

same feelings here.

And if you put a small tele on it, the IQ drops down!

My 2cents...I'm with "meat & potatoes" group. I want my DSLR to be solid and has good grip in my hand, not tiny mirrorless body.

If I need a compact camera, I always have my s100 .

 

[lol]

* features: size doesn't always matter, but without a mirror there's no phase-detect autofocus, and what you can have in a mirrorless camera (contrast-detect autofocus) is still lagging (particularly, much slower)

For single shot AF, the recent micro-FourThirds have pretty much nailed the speed that with their optimised lenses, it can even be faster than a DSLR with kit lens. They have optimised both body and lens to provide that AF speed, which I don't think any normal person can complain about.

The major weakness for me is the absence of distance tracking AF. For phase AF in mirrorless, check out the recently launched Nikon 1. They have implemented that on the main sensor so you get the best of both worlds although it does seem less effective than DSLR phase AF in low light based on current reviews. Still, the potential is there and the gap keeps narrowing.

 

[KeithR]

And when the lenses that are available for use on your camera include all of those made for Leica Rangefinder cameras, why would you ever be putting a biggish lens on it?

Because I shoot birds and wildlife.

 

[elflord]

And when the lenses that are available for use on your camera include all of those made for Leica Rangefinder cameras, why would you ever be putting a biggish lens on it?

Because I shoot birds and wildlife.

You get some size savings due to the crop factor. For example, the panasonic 100-300mm lens is substantially smaller than any 600mm canon lens. But like the rangefinders, these cameras are really best suited to wide to normal focal length lenses. Here they have a substantial size advantage over DSLRs -- both by removing the mirror and designing a mount that facilitates small lenses.

 

[Bengt Nyman]

Mirrorless cameras, could they really be a replacement to existing DSLRs.

The DSLR concept was invented for object viewing using a film camera.
Using a digital sensor with a high resolution Optical View Finder and sensor auto focus eliminates the need for a big, slow, noisy, moving mirror.
It's only a matter of time when essentially all handheld cameras will be mirrorless.
A lot of people are arguing: "what's the point of smaller cameras when the lenses are so big anyway?"
The point is not just the size. There is a world of difference in camera speed, accuracy and features as well.
Take a look at the Sony NEX 7 as just one example.
The lenses will be getting a lot shorter too. Compare modern telescopes to old all-glass telescopes.
The same thing is likely to happen to camera lenses.