Perhaps someone can tell me why the new mirror servo mechanism with at least 11 moving parts (that I can count) is considered a selling point. Less vibration? Then on top of that Canon has added a shutter delay to minimize vibration. What is Canon doing with all of this? I see this hype as only bringing to bare that there remains a fundamental design trad-off with the new cameras. Its a negative selling point if you ask me. Is having a mirror so important to sell cameras when a mirror-less camera avoids all these vibration issues?
New mirror mechanisms - how is this a good thing?
- Thread starter bob s
- Start date
bob s said:
Until mirrorless cameras can focus as well and as fast - the mirror is here to stay. Also, electronic view finders are a long way from optical view finders. That is why.
I don't see how improving a currently needed technology to improve image quality is a negative selling point. To make the most of the high megapixel resolution - requires the least possible vibration. Logically, the best would be no mirror and an electronic shutter - which is the elimination of moving parts entirely. However, until those two technologies can equal the advantages of DSLR, going mirrorless is a compromise. Too much is being given up at this point. If mirrorless was a solution right now - Pros and enthusiasts would be dumping DSLR en mass.
The future is mirrorless though. Viewfinders, shutters and AF has to improve before they take over.
I think the "death of the dslr" hype from a few years back was very premature. DSLR will be around for at least another 5-7 years. I would say solid decade before the mirrorless cameras begin seriously challenging. They won't be adopted in big switches. Slowly, as backup cameras to Pro DSLRs then as main cameras as more lenses are made.
You'll know when mirrorless is ready to be king. It will be when you start seeing massive development and releases of serious professional lenses for mirrorless.
Most people are fixated on bodies. But a camera is a SYSTEM. Lens availability is often more important that the body itself.
Upvote
0
bob s said:
Are you talking about the new 5Ds series camera? We have to assume that you are talking about the new cameras. DSLR's have mirrors, and, while they are not perfect, their performance level is well above any mirrorless FF cameras at this time.
One of the issues with mirrors is that they move very fast, and stop very fast with that high shock being imparted to the camera body. With a high MP body, this creates enough vibration so that actually getting all that extra resolution is difficult. That is the case with the Nikon bodies, testers have to take extreme measures to get the resolution the camera is capable of, most photographers never achieve it.
The new mirror mechanism in the 7D MK II and the 5Ds is needed in order to have any chance of getting the high resolution while shooting without mirror lockup.
I'd also like to see a mirrorless camera in a 5D MK III body with the high performance and get rid of that banging mirror, but as long as there is one, a better design is welcome. Since the high acceleration is part of the failure rate of mirror assemblies, the reliability compromise of having additional parts is likely more than offset by reduction of the extreme shock.
Upvote
0
bob s said:
Is being mirror-less so important to sell cameras when one with a mirror avoids all these power consumption issues ?
Upvote
0
If Canon had released a high MP camera without addressing the vibration issues then it would have been more or less a gimmick, in my opinion. The supposed higher resolution would only be realized under the best circumstances and using a tripod. The fact that they felt the need to introduce various new methods to reduce mirror vibration means that they are taking high MP seriously. Time will tell if it hype, or if these improvements give the photographer the best chance to utilize the resolution gains.
Upvote
0
I shoot my landscapes on tripod with mirror lock-up, otherwise known as "Live View" in Canon-land. 6D, 20 MP. It wouldn't make much difference if I had a 30 sec exposure or a 1/1000 sec exposure, but at the 1/15 to 1 sec range I figure mirror lockup could make a lot of difference.
Upvote
0
cam-driven reciprocating masses can be driven a little more efficiently (quicker, less power needed) and with more acceleration control than a system that's driving against a spring-return.
That means less vibration to wreck image sharpness and a mirror acceleration pulse that is probably more compatible with the OIS system than the smack-whack and vibrate conventional mirror drive systems used until now.
If they do it well, it's a good thing.
For a good comparison, check out Ducati's desmodromic valve train versus conventional cam-return-spring engine design.
You can really push those desmo's!
That means less vibration to wreck image sharpness and a mirror acceleration pulse that is probably more compatible with the OIS system than the smack-whack and vibrate conventional mirror drive systems used until now.
If they do it well, it's a good thing.
For a good comparison, check out Ducati's desmodromic valve train versus conventional cam-return-spring engine design.
You can really push those desmo's!
Upvote
0
K said:
They're called "EF", have an "L" and a red strip, and you can buy them now.
It is this fixation on smaller that is holding mirrorless back. A professional is not going to buy an EOS-M sized camera; they buy the 1 series, or the 5 series then add a grip. That reality should be a clue about the size and handling requirements of professional photographers.
Canon as a company seems to have no corporate memory. A pellicle mirror would eliminate the moving mass entirely, and Canon made and sold them 40 years ago. Surely they could reintroduce them, and perhaps improve them as well.
Upvote
0
Reduction of the mirror's vibration is a huge deal. The difference using live view is very noticeable in most situations. Mirror/shutter delay is also a big step for improving quality for landscape work. The biggest advantage will some for wildlife photographers using long lenses where the slightest mirror induced vibration kills the fine detail in an animals coat or the feather detail in birds. Even though the 5Ds/SR was designed for landscape and portrait photographers, I think the nature photographers will be the big winners. We need a good side by side shootout video with a Nikon D800 to see how effective the anti-vibration is.
Upvote
0
TAF said:
Whose memory is failing
Canon has made several Pellical mirror cameras over the years. Some were limited editions, but two or three models were mass produced. None of them caught on.
First came the Pellix, then the Pellix QL, then the limited production F1-HS, then the EOS RT, and finally the EOS 1N RS. I think that they remember the failures very well.
Refresh your memory.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1956-1965/1965_prx.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1956-1965
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1956-1965/1965_prx.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1956-1965
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1976-1985/1984_nf1-hsmd.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1976-1985
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1986-1990/1989_eosrt.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1986-1990
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1991-1995/1995_eos-1n-rs.html
Upvote
0
First off, yes any improvement in reducing mirror vibration is desired with each new camera.
Second off, Bad EVF in mirrorless? Folks, while this is true when comparing an optical finder in a good DSLR to all but one Mirrorless, have you had a Fuji X-T1 in your hand? Go and visit a camera shop and look thru one. That SLR like bump on the top is to make room for a larger EVF, and it is marvelous.
Third, yes the mirrorless crowd is into lighter, smaller, to a fault.
My two bits, Canon, pay attention to Fuji. Drop that current toy mirrorless camera, and come out with a full size mirrorless. Say a Canon 5d body, EF lens mount, same flange distance (no need for new lenses) Bigger or more battery, an EVF better than the Fuji, mirrorless, dual CF slots, touch screen, wifi, oh, and a real no anti aliasing filter, not some odd canceling filter filter.
And as long as I am dreamin, TIFf instead of JPEG
Second off, Bad EVF in mirrorless? Folks, while this is true when comparing an optical finder in a good DSLR to all but one Mirrorless, have you had a Fuji X-T1 in your hand? Go and visit a camera shop and look thru one. That SLR like bump on the top is to make room for a larger EVF, and it is marvelous.
Third, yes the mirrorless crowd is into lighter, smaller, to a fault.
My two bits, Canon, pay attention to Fuji. Drop that current toy mirrorless camera, and come out with a full size mirrorless. Say a Canon 5d body, EF lens mount, same flange distance (no need for new lenses) Bigger or more battery, an EVF better than the Fuji, mirrorless, dual CF slots, touch screen, wifi, oh, and a real no anti aliasing filter, not some odd canceling filter filter.
And as long as I am dreamin, TIFf instead of JPEG
Upvote
0
bob s said:
Yes.
bob s said:
As you wrote, "less vibration" during image capture.
bob s said:
Save the very few with electronic shutters, many mirrorless cameras have a thumping great mechanical shutter that still causes vibration, some far louder & energetic than DSLRs.
Technologies that might make mirrorless cameras the vibration free, autofocus masters of high resolution photography are yet to mature and converge.
Someday not too far off, there will be a 50 MP Full Frame mirrorless camera with global (electronic) shutter and minimal vibration issues over the operation cycle. Until that day, high resolution DSLR will be as good as it gets.
Upvote
0
There good and not so good mirrorless as there are DSLR as there are P&S and really 1 size doesn't fit all. Not even in DSLR land. Good and not so good physical shutters.
I do agree w/ the point on pros needing some physical real estate as do many other types of shooters. There are also those who don't need all that real estate.
My beef is that the mirror has been around a long, long time and it is about time to do away w/ it for most circumstances.
I would really like to see the physical shutter tossed as well. I am not the techie I would need to be to provide meaningful manufacturing guidance, I am just an enthusiast that would love to see something of another branch in development away from mechanicals. I think would be really cool (as someone else posted) if the 5d4 was mirrorless, an ultra low read noise, electronic global shutter and only 18 mp, oh giggle and snort I would fly to the factory and hijack the truck to get one.
Perhaps I am an example of modern expectation.... camera that can't automagically take a panorama - that is so 6 months ago.
I am not too interested in the 5Ds/r (really depends on my bonus check) than as Kayaker has suggested, getting the most out of the gear I have at locations that are interesting
I do agree w/ the point on pros needing some physical real estate as do many other types of shooters. There are also those who don't need all that real estate.
My beef is that the mirror has been around a long, long time and it is about time to do away w/ it for most circumstances.
I would really like to see the physical shutter tossed as well. I am not the techie I would need to be to provide meaningful manufacturing guidance, I am just an enthusiast that would love to see something of another branch in development away from mechanicals. I think would be really cool (as someone else posted) if the 5d4 was mirrorless, an ultra low read noise, electronic global shutter and only 18 mp, oh giggle and snort I would fly to the factory and hijack the truck to get one.
Perhaps I am an example of modern expectation.... camera that can't automagically take a panorama - that is so 6 months ago.
I am not too interested in the 5Ds/r (really depends on my bonus check) than as Kayaker has suggested, getting the most out of the gear I have at locations that are interesting
Upvote
0
Similar threads
