I keep reading everywhere that mirrorless cameras are awesome. That coupled with P&S released at CES with the same size sensor as my kiss x4, is there anything you lose from going to a mirrorless system? To reiterate, would a mirrorless Kiss x4 just be better than a mirrored kiss x4?
Is there an advantage to still having a mirror on a dslr
- Thread starter squarebox
- Start date
- Status
apart from optical VF vs electronic VF (where the gap is narrowing down quickly), the big difference is autofocus
as others have said, a mirror allows for phase-detect autofocus, which in general is better - but I'll add: not always: I don't care for speed if I don't have accuracy
if the choice is between phase-detect AF without microadjustment (as in today's entry level DSLRs) and contrast-detect AF (as in mirrorless cameras in the same price range), and I plan to shoot f/2.8 or faster, I'd definitely go for contrast-detect (or, even better if that's an option for the particular shot, manual)
you may like this, and some of the links going out from there:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/510.html
as others have said, a mirror allows for phase-detect autofocus, which in general is better - but I'll add: not always: I don't care for speed if I don't have accuracy
if the choice is between phase-detect AF without microadjustment (as in today's entry level DSLRs) and contrast-detect AF (as in mirrorless cameras in the same price range), and I plan to shoot f/2.8 or faster, I'd definitely go for contrast-detect (or, even better if that's an option for the particular shot, manual)
you may like this, and some of the links going out from there:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/510.html
Upvote
0
Gothmoth said:
I rarely use the screen. I prefer the view finder because my eye sees more sharply, and use the screen when doing some distance where I can use live view zoom, in and then switch over.
The moveable screen is a nice advantage especially when shooting in crowds where you can hold your camera up to help compose an image.
Upvote
0
G
Gothmoth
Guest
NormanBates said:
i don´ t see it narrowing down quickly.
none of them come close to a good optical viewfinder yet.
better resolution, yes that´s easy.. better response time.. not a big problem i guess.
but there are other things which are way harder to improve.
of course EVF have advantages also.
a hybrid viewfinder.. where you can overlay data like in a jetfighter HUD that would be nice to have in todays DSLR cameras.
i guess we will see sensor phase AF (as in nikons 1) improve faster then EVF.
with that i mean we will see this kind of AF earlyer on PRO cameras then a EVF.
Upvote
0
squarebox said:
Let's put it this way:
I'd rather have a very good EVF & very good digital MF assist than the crappy pentamirror optical viewfinder sans interchangable focus screen found on most entry-level crop cameras.
But look through the viewfinder on any modern FF DSLR (or better yet, an older pro-level MF SLR like the Canon T90) & you'll see that EVFs and associated ergonomics still have a very very long way to go before being close to the experience.
The Fuji system seems to be a nice compromise, but I haven't had the experience of actually using one yet.
Upvote
0
squarebox said:
The problem is that this exact question will be repeated by the marketing folks and by users who never actually used a real nice viewfinder until another remainder of the analog realm has disappeared and declared obsolete/too expensive/stupid/whatever.
I sure hope not. I'm still trying to get over the disappointment that even on full frame you are pretty much stuck with the compromises in the viewfinders due to AF technology. I never "upgraded" from my FD system to the EOS line exactly because of that. I still like the old viewfinders, manual focus and the build quality of the old lenses better. Call me crazy. Now with digital there is no other choice. If the camera manufacturers now decide to even take away the optical viewfinder on my SLR(!) - as mediocre as they have become because of the ubiquitous AF gizmo - I won't be happy. Yep, you read that correctly. I just called AF a gizmo. It's rarely ever necessary or even useful and I find it a creative hindrance. Moving things to a screen now would be even worse. Not interested.
Upvote
0
While electronic viewfinders will no doubt continue to improve, I don't see any that are up to the standard of silvered mirrors and proper optics YET.
Their day will come, but its not here right now.
Their day will come, but its not here right now.
Upvote
0
Canon-F1 said:
Sure, that's why I said "rarely". This is one of those rare occasions where it is useful (though still a bit of luck involved and the faster frame rate of a modern camera may actually be contributing more to having a few keepers). In my case this is limited to my son's soccer games. Sports is not really my thing so trading my old viewfinder for the one on my 5DII still feels like a bad deal all things considered. For portraits and anything in low light (such as concert photography) I find that I'm better off turning it off - at which point the flimsy imprecise focus rings even on L lenses become more of a nuisance.Don't get me wrong, I like my new camera gear and it can do stuff that my old film gear can't do. But there are also a few things where it is clear that sometimes things are being sacrificed in the name of progress. If only the Leica M9 and appropriate lenses weren't so insanely expensive. And even that is not the same as a really good SLR viewfinder.
Upvote
0
A
archangelrichard
Guest
NO! At no time will EVF's approach the quality / resolution of Optical. They Can Not. They are manufactured pixel by pixel and glass has no pixels, transferring ALL the detail
Could they become a useful compromise? Well, yes but always a compromise, the issue is that far too many amateurs are taking pictures without focusing - letting the camera do all the work, so a viewfinder is used for FRAMING, and you don't need much detail for that. You really need to focus manually for things like Macro, etc. and you can't do that reliably with just a viewfinder, it hasn't the necessary resolution. Think of putting a DSLR on a microscope then a EVF - you can't focus clearly enough with the EVF, not enough resolution for a clear focus
This is kind of like the people who claim that you can print a 16 x 20 print from a DSLR with the same quality as film; B.S. You can do a 300 dpi (yes that is a limit of 300 dots per inch) print, my printer does 9600 dpi and film is even higher density / resolution than that. Yes you can make a 300 dpi print from a 18 MP file, the ink will smear such that it is hard to see the difference but any experienced photographer will know the difference in Quality
But the question you asked was is there an advantage to having a mirror on a DSLR - TRY having a Digital Single Lens Reflex without one (Reflex equals MIRROR!) There is no way around this, the question demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the subject asked
What you really meant is is there any advantage to a DSLR vs a Digital Single Lens Non-Reflex? Try this one, in a DSLR the mirror moves out of the way so ALL the light hits the optical viewfinder until you click the shutter then ALL the light hits the sensor; in a DSLnonR there is either no mirror so you are using the sensor all the time (and the Mean Time Between Failures is .....OOOPS! Not to mention the isue of contrast in video which fades with age) or there is a mirror that is electronically charged (a la the old Canon Pellix) so there is always some extra piece of glass / mirror in front of the sensor reducing resolution / clarity / contrast and reflecting up to video sensors
There is a disadvantage to having a mirror - if it isn't cushioned well the movement will move the camera enough to blur the image so you are more sensitive to that movement in long telephoto or macro and need to lock the camera down on a sturdy tripod; then again you wouldn't put a long telephoto on an EVF / EVIL anyways
But the biggest fail in this concept is that thees cameras are in different markets; the EVF / EVIL is in between superzooms like the SX40 HS and DSLR's; it just isn't built for the use a DSLR can be subject to (as in a 5D, 1Dx, etc.) it's just not in the same market
You must have missed that point
Could they become a useful compromise? Well, yes but always a compromise, the issue is that far too many amateurs are taking pictures without focusing - letting the camera do all the work, so a viewfinder is used for FRAMING, and you don't need much detail for that. You really need to focus manually for things like Macro, etc. and you can't do that reliably with just a viewfinder, it hasn't the necessary resolution. Think of putting a DSLR on a microscope then a EVF - you can't focus clearly enough with the EVF, not enough resolution for a clear focus
This is kind of like the people who claim that you can print a 16 x 20 print from a DSLR with the same quality as film; B.S. You can do a 300 dpi (yes that is a limit of 300 dots per inch) print, my printer does 9600 dpi and film is even higher density / resolution than that. Yes you can make a 300 dpi print from a 18 MP file, the ink will smear such that it is hard to see the difference but any experienced photographer will know the difference in Quality
But the question you asked was is there an advantage to having a mirror on a DSLR - TRY having a Digital Single Lens Reflex without one (Reflex equals MIRROR!) There is no way around this, the question demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the subject asked
What you really meant is is there any advantage to a DSLR vs a Digital Single Lens Non-Reflex? Try this one, in a DSLR the mirror moves out of the way so ALL the light hits the optical viewfinder until you click the shutter then ALL the light hits the sensor; in a DSLnonR there is either no mirror so you are using the sensor all the time (and the Mean Time Between Failures is .....OOOPS! Not to mention the isue of contrast in video which fades with age) or there is a mirror that is electronically charged (a la the old Canon Pellix) so there is always some extra piece of glass / mirror in front of the sensor reducing resolution / clarity / contrast and reflecting up to video sensors
There is a disadvantage to having a mirror - if it isn't cushioned well the movement will move the camera enough to blur the image so you are more sensitive to that movement in long telephoto or macro and need to lock the camera down on a sturdy tripod; then again you wouldn't put a long telephoto on an EVF / EVIL anyways
But the biggest fail in this concept is that thees cameras are in different markets; the EVF / EVIL is in between superzooms like the SX40 HS and DSLR's; it just isn't built for the use a DSLR can be subject to (as in a 5D, 1Dx, etc.) it's just not in the same market
You must have missed that point
Upvote
0
All point and shoot cameras are mirrorless and have been since day one. They are very slow to operate because they cannot focus quickly. Many do not have viewfinders, requiring you to use the LCD on the rear to compose, and in bright sun, this can be a challange.
Several things have happened to improve the P&S cameras.
1. larger sensors means better IQ and light sensitivity
2. Some have interchangable lenses which makes them more flexible over a wide range of focal lengths
3. Novel methods of improving focus speed have appeared, embedding focus elements in the sensor, or using a pellicle mirror to pass most of the light to the sensor, but part of it to the viewfinder. Pellicle mirrors decrease the amount of light going to the sensor, which bothers some, and reflections off both surfaces of the pellical mirror can cause a effect called ghosting, a faint second image displaced slightly from the main image.
4. Electronic viewfinders - they are getting better every year, not perfect, but have advantages as well as disadvantages. They are certainly better than no viewfinder at all.
So, what we are seeing is the industry trying to incorporate all the best attributes of a DSLR without the moving mirror, which is something out of the stone age of cameras, as well as innovating with features not possible or at least not available in DSLR's.
So far, they are a compromise, but good enough so that many will prefer them to DSLR's for ease of use and smaller form factor. They will improve each year as innovative ideas are incorporated.
I haven't yet found one good enough to replace my 5D MK II, or my 7D either. However, as a second or third camera for walk-around or use where a big DSLR can't be used, they fit in very well.
Several things have happened to improve the P&S cameras.
1. larger sensors means better IQ and light sensitivity
2. Some have interchangable lenses which makes them more flexible over a wide range of focal lengths
3. Novel methods of improving focus speed have appeared, embedding focus elements in the sensor, or using a pellicle mirror to pass most of the light to the sensor, but part of it to the viewfinder. Pellicle mirrors decrease the amount of light going to the sensor, which bothers some, and reflections off both surfaces of the pellical mirror can cause a effect called ghosting, a faint second image displaced slightly from the main image.
4. Electronic viewfinders - they are getting better every year, not perfect, but have advantages as well as disadvantages. They are certainly better than no viewfinder at all.
So, what we are seeing is the industry trying to incorporate all the best attributes of a DSLR without the moving mirror, which is something out of the stone age of cameras, as well as innovating with features not possible or at least not available in DSLR's.
So far, they are a compromise, but good enough so that many will prefer them to DSLR's for ease of use and smaller form factor. They will improve each year as innovative ideas are incorporated.
I haven't yet found one good enough to replace my 5D MK II, or my 7D either. However, as a second or third camera for walk-around or use where a big DSLR can't be used, they fit in very well.
Upvote
0
i just got some EG-s focus screens for my 5D2s I havent installed them yet but once i've got em in and had a play i'll let you know how they go, I'm hoping it makes MF easier7enderbender said:Canon-F1 said:
Don't get me wrong, I like my new camera gear and it can do stuff that my old film gear can't do. But there are also a few things where it is clear that sometimes things are being sacrificed in the name of progress. If only the Leica M9 and appropriate lenses weren't so insanely expensive. And even that is not the same as a really good SLR viewfinder.
Upvote
0
The mirror means that you have an optical viewfinder (rather than an electronic viewfinder, which is a small LCD screen). I find this much easier on my eyes to look through. However, electronic viewfinders have their benefits. What you see is what you get. The photo comes out exactly as it appears in the viewfinder. Also, with the press of a button you have instant magnification. It's easier to see if the focus is correct (which is very useful if using older manual focus lenses). But virtually everyone would prefer a good optical viewfinder to an electronic viewfinder if you are using the camera a lot.
A typical SLR also focuses a lot faster than a mirrorless camera. But mirrorless camera are said to focus more accurately. Mirrorless cameras are also improving on their speed.
Getting rid of the mirror has advantages. The main one being that it decreases the size and weight of the camera. There are some other thoertical advantages. Without a mirror, there is less vibration when taking a photo - possibly leading to sharper photos (but being lighter, they are a bit harder to hold still). You should be able to design great wide angle lenses (but apart from Leica - and do they count? - nobody has really done this). With less moving parts, you should also be able to build a tougher camera (but once again, nobody has actually done this). The Nikon V1 also shoots at 60fps. I don't think that Canon SLRs currently do this (but in theory they could add this capability by operating in mirror up mode).
Oh, and then there's batteries. I think I'm currently getting over 1500 shots per charge with my 1Ds MkII. I'm lucky to get 300 with my EPL-1. To keep the camera size down, the batteries are tiny. Its easy to carry a spare, but just another thing to consider.
For what its worth, over christmas I took a few weeks off and hit some typical tourist locations. As always, nearly everyone had a camera of some sort. But this was the first time I'd noticed a lot of the Pens, Panasonics, and new Nikons. Its not reflected in the sales figures, but it would seem that the people that actually get out there and use their cameras tend to like the new breed of mirrorless cameras.
Therefore, if you are looking for a light, portable camera for general photography and aren't interested in a lot of lenses, I think its a dead heat. In fact, assuming similar sensors, image quality would be the same. If a non-camera person asked me for a recommendation, I'd give the nod to the mirrorless camera.
If you are after something with fast focusing, that you will be using all day, with a lot of options for lenses, then the traditional SLR is the clear winner. At least for the next two years.
A typical SLR also focuses a lot faster than a mirrorless camera. But mirrorless camera are said to focus more accurately. Mirrorless cameras are also improving on their speed.
Getting rid of the mirror has advantages. The main one being that it decreases the size and weight of the camera. There are some other thoertical advantages. Without a mirror, there is less vibration when taking a photo - possibly leading to sharper photos (but being lighter, they are a bit harder to hold still). You should be able to design great wide angle lenses (but apart from Leica - and do they count? - nobody has really done this). With less moving parts, you should also be able to build a tougher camera (but once again, nobody has actually done this). The Nikon V1 also shoots at 60fps. I don't think that Canon SLRs currently do this (but in theory they could add this capability by operating in mirror up mode).
Oh, and then there's batteries. I think I'm currently getting over 1500 shots per charge with my 1Ds MkII. I'm lucky to get 300 with my EPL-1. To keep the camera size down, the batteries are tiny. Its easy to carry a spare, but just another thing to consider.
For what its worth, over christmas I took a few weeks off and hit some typical tourist locations. As always, nearly everyone had a camera of some sort. But this was the first time I'd noticed a lot of the Pens, Panasonics, and new Nikons. Its not reflected in the sales figures, but it would seem that the people that actually get out there and use their cameras tend to like the new breed of mirrorless cameras.
Therefore, if you are looking for a light, portable camera for general photography and aren't interested in a lot of lenses, I think its a dead heat. In fact, assuming similar sensors, image quality would be the same. If a non-camera person asked me for a recommendation, I'd give the nod to the mirrorless camera.
If you are after something with fast focusing, that you will be using all day, with a lot of options for lenses, then the traditional SLR is the clear winner. At least for the next two years.
Upvote
0
I think the real enduring value of optical viewfinders is not resolution, but speed, reliability (i.e. in cold weather, and no lag for processing, and you can compose without a battery), and especially in accurately depicting the actual scene, instead of having it run through the camera's metering (whether real or an approximation of the final exposure is no matter), so you can make smarter decisions about what you want the camera to do.
On the other hand, electronic viewfinders' strengths are the flipside of this; you can see how the camera is metering the scene and adjust accordingly. Being highly familiar with your camera's output reduces the need to see on-the-fly exposure predictions by the camera, but in many situations they can be highly useful.
Of course, EVFs can provide some features that optical can't: The camera can be better at seeing in the dark than you - especially notable on cameras with infrared or UV capabilities (not that this is common), but also notable on the increasingly capable high ISO settings of cameras.
This difference becomes even more pronounced if the DSLR being compared with has a cheap construction and uses a dimmer pentamirror viewfinder, instead of the slightly heavier, and more expensive, pentaprism of traditional SLRs.
On the other hand, electronic viewfinders' strengths are the flipside of this; you can see how the camera is metering the scene and adjust accordingly. Being highly familiar with your camera's output reduces the need to see on-the-fly exposure predictions by the camera, but in many situations they can be highly useful.
Of course, EVFs can provide some features that optical can't: The camera can be better at seeing in the dark than you - especially notable on cameras with infrared or UV capabilities (not that this is common), but also notable on the increasingly capable high ISO settings of cameras.
This difference becomes even more pronounced if the DSLR being compared with has a cheap construction and uses a dimmer pentamirror viewfinder, instead of the slightly heavier, and more expensive, pentaprism of traditional SLRs.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
