The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing

[Orangutan]

As much as I hate to support AvTvM's confrontational approach, his reasoning is basically correct: there are no inherent disadvantages to mirrorless vs. reflex. All the of the complaints I've heard about mirrorless so far are engineering problems, to be worked out over the next few years.

Just as the mechanical (even electric) typewriter was the intermediate technology between handwriting and word processing, so the SLR is the intermediate tech preceding mirrorless. Early word processors had lots of problems, but they were worked out to the point where most people no longer use typewriters, except possibly for mailing labels or envelopes.

BTW, I'm sure a few of you will write in and celebrate the fact that you still use a vintage WWII-era mechanical typewriter that saw action in Europe. I'll wish you folks a good day, and you can go back to sipping your two-cents plain.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

As much as I hate to support AvTvM's confrontational approach, his reasoning is basically correct: there are no inherent disadvantages to mirrorless vs. reflex. All the of the complaints I've heard about mirrorless so far are engineering problems, to be worked out over the next few years.

Just as the mechanical (even electric) typewriter was the intermediate technology between handwriting and word processing, so the SLR is the intermediate tech preceding mirrorless. Early word processors had lots of problems, but they were worked out to the point where most people no longer use typewriters, except possibly for mailing labels or envelopes.
BTW, I'm sure a few of you will write in and celebrate the fact that you still use a vintage WWII-era mechanical typewriter that saw action in Europe. I'll wish you folks a good day, and you can go back to sipping your two-cents plain.

So far, what caused the effect "this is not for me" was the obligation to be small and lightweight mirrorless. If I want a camera to fit in my pocket, it would be something like G15, and would not have interchangeable lenses. In the future, I could buy a camera that offers EVERYTHING that current SLR, but no mirror. Considering current mirrorless models, I see no advantages over the old mirror. However, I say to Canon: Surprise me, I can buy.

 

[AvTvM]

To me, small & light has major attraction. It is very easy to make a small camera bigger, if & when needed or wanted. Just add a vertical/battery grip, or a whole "rig" of any size.
As an non professional and for my photographic interests i prefer to have only one camera, one set of batteries, chargers, memory cards and lenses. I realize that a working pro will likely need multiple sets of equipment to handle various specilized tasks in the best and most efficient manner.

 

[unfocused]

As much as I hate to support AvTvM's confrontational approach, his reasoning is basically correct: there are no inherent disadvantages to mirrorless vs. reflex. All the of the complaints I've heard about mirrorless so far are engineering problems, to be worked out over the next few years...

I've warned you before. This kind of logical, well-reasoned approach has no place on the internet!

Seriously though, I've been amused at this ongoing debate over nothing. Does anyone really disagree that mirrorless technology has great potential? Does anyone really disagree that the technology hasn't yet achieved that potential? Does anybody really care if their camera has a mirror or not, so long as it doesn't affect usability?

When Canon releases their 7D EV or 5D EV, if I'm still alive and wanting an upgrade, I'll make the transition. But, it's not like I'm going to hold my breath and refuse to buy any camera in the meantime.

Ironically, though, almost none of this discussion has anything to do with the original post, which was all about how the present generation of mirrorless cameras is not going to reverse the collapse of the point and shoot market.

Frankly, it's kind of an uninformed premise anyway. Point and shoots are dead because the public has found a "good enough" technology that is more convenient to use (although I really wonder what could possibly be convenient about hauling around an iPad on vacation...yet I see it happening more and more). High-end mirrorless cameras were never going to replace inexpensive point and shoots and I doubt if the manufacturers thought they would.

 

[Marsu42]

Does anybody really care if their camera has a mirror or not, so long as it doesn't affect usability?

With this approach, you'll fail in marketing big time ... a mirrless dslr has a digital gadget character, while a real, heavy-duty dslr that puts weight and size in your hand & justifies people putting endless amounts of $$$ into these. Furthermore we've been shooting slr for decades including the trenches in 'nam, we got good shots in these days back then young man, the old guard certainly won't be pushed aside without a fight

 

[JohnDizzo15]

To me, small & light has major attraction. It is very easy to make a small camera bigger, if & when needed or wanted. Just add a vertical/battery grip, or a whole "rig" of any size.
As an non professional and for my photographic interests i prefer to have only one camera, one set of batteries, chargers, memory cards and lenses. I realize that a working pro will likely need multiple sets of equipment to handle various specilized tasks in the best and most efficient manner.

Small and light does have a major attraction. But the problem is that some people have talked about these small and light cameras as though they will be killing off the SLR. To reiterate what others have said, I don't think anyone minds the thought of transitioning to a mirrorless camera. It just needs to do everything they need it to do and in an efficient way. The current crop of mirrorless cameras all fail to deliver on that. Many of us believe that that is a problem which is inherent in trying to keep them small.

Once the companies get out of that mindset of mirrorless = small and start developing them as no compromises for size type devices, they will surely garner more interest.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Yes, there are still a few challenges to be met and problems to be solved. But really nothing too difficult. AF-speed ... solely dependent on processing power and smart algorithms ... the latter can be implemented via firmware upgrade. Battery charge ... with clever design 500+ shots would be possible today in a still very compact body size with ergonomic grip and more battery charge, as better battery tech gets available. Still better EVFs ... no problem, they are coming fast and almost for free as a byproduct of ever improving smartphone technology.

So all that's needed is Canon (and Nikon) moving ahead rather than holding back. I do not want to buy another old-tech, soon obsolete mechanical beast. I want my solid state camera, and I want it soon.

wow..like bait on a hook i follow...

add to that, all the r&d it's going to take to design lenses above 135mm for this fabled new system, then the giant price tag that's gonna be passed along...yeah, the price tag around every corner for this process.

Err... "solid state camera"?? Already exist and it's meet 95% of your requirement... you have it, I have it and a lot of people have it, it's call "Camera Phone".... it's better than what you describe... it's can browse internet, send/received email, read documents and communicate wirelessly, but I think only the cheapest "Camera Phone" is the only true "solid state camera" with no moving parts... the higher end model got zoom (require moving parts) and IS (require moving parts).

Have a nice day.

hehe. you are right. And I was not specific enough.

So, could you please point me to a Camera Phone with 36x24mm imaging sensor and associated image quality plus a mount to attach various lenses with focal lengths ranging from 8mm to 800mm?

Thanks, and have a nice day too.

so you do in fact want your camera to be a toy, let me guess, new mirrorless cameras should be able to play candy crush too?

sorry buddy, but not everyone is that hot to trot on making everything tiny

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

As much as I hate to support AvTvM's confrontational approach, his reasoning is basically correct: there are no inherent disadvantages to mirrorless vs. reflex. All the of the complaints I've heard about mirrorless so far are engineering problems, to be worked out over the next few years.

Just as the mechanical (even electric) typewriter was the intermediate technology between handwriting and word processing, so the SLR is the intermediate tech preceding mirrorless. Early word processors had lots of problems, but they were worked out to the point where most people no longer use typewriters, except possibly for mailing labels or envelopes.

BTW, I'm sure a few of you will write in and celebrate the fact that you still use a vintage WWII-era mechanical typewriter that saw action in Europe. I'll wish you folks a good day, and you can go back to sipping your two-cents plain.

biggest problem is that this is a 2 way street - there are no inherent disadvantages or advantages to mirrorless vs. reflex. Right now, it really does feel like a wash, a compromise - trading the versatility of an slr for the gimmick of new tech. And that's all mirrorless is now, a gimmick, a toy camera for those that want a little more than a cell phone but not willing to learn enough about photography to invest in a trusted system.

what about ergonomics? I always get asked to take peoples pictures for people on their phones or cameras at events. I generally say ok fine, but, it never feels right. When i use my cell phone, it doesn't feel right. I have a 6d as well as a 5d3 with grip, and the 6d is really as small as i would ever want to go. I want the height of the body to be close to the width of my hand, and I want room for my fingers to sit, and I want all those control buttons to be within striking distance ---and not be so small that it's hard to hit them quickly.

I'll say it again, why redesign the wheel??? There are so many amazing lenses that are made for slr mount bodies. Why put resources into redesigning these amazing lenses to be smaller when you could just take that out of the equation and focus on making a better, more viable mirrorless body?

 

[AvTvM]

Mirrorless has major inherent advantages over slr.
Vibrationfree operation possible
Extremely high fps possible
Silent operation possible
Significantly smaller & lighter possible
Short flange distance possible

"Possible" meaning it may or may not be implemented in a specific camera model. And people may or may not like it. But it will never be possible in any slr camera.

Soon we will get EVFs with eye control focus and all the information and communication functionality of google glass. Some of us might like it, many others not. To those who like, it is an advantage over what is possible in a slr.

 

[Loswr]

Mirrorless has major inherent advantages over slr.
Vibrationfree operation possible
Extremely high fps possible
Silent operation possible
Significantly smaller & lighter possible
Short flange distance possible

"Possible" meaning it may or may not be implemented in a specific camera model. And people may or may not like it. But it will never be possible in any slr camera.

FWIW, most of those are 'possible' with a fixed/pellicle mirror.

RE the bigger = better ergonomics vs. smaller/lighter = better debate, if the interverse pundits are correct and reflex mirrors disappear, that will be a non issue. There won't be just one mirrorless body type/size, any more than there's one dSLR body size/type today. Compare the 1D X to the SL1.

 

[9VIII]

The most difficult part is to design a lens with no moving parts to go with your no moving parts camera.
Wish you luck in finding one in the near future.

For a start, I'd be happy with a FF-sensored camera body with no moving mechanical parts inside.

Lenses are a different story, but I definitely see fully electronic aperture coming. Some sort of LCD, if there is one that with (close to) 100% transmission. At any opening always perfectly round, never again stuck aperture blades. Smaller and lighter.

Yes, focus group will have to move mechanically - linear along optical axis, BUT only until new concepts (e.g. lightfield imaging) are available and "up to spec".

Same for in-lens IS ... elements will have to move ... UNTIL new concepts are available and up to spec (e.g. lightfield imaging).

However, even today I'd love to get "AF-only" lenses. No focus ring, no focus gear and no "distance window". Smaller & lighter. Easier to seal. And cheaper for a given optical quality. I never touch manual focus. If my 7D can't autofocus, it's too dark or too little contrast for me to see anything meaningful either. However, the latter may change with use of an EVF.

I am convinced we will have "solid state imaging" ... some day. Unfortunately I am not sure if it's going to be in my lifetime though, given how un-innovative, conservative and slow-moving current imaging gear makers are.

I use manual focus so much that I normally wouldn't dream of getting an "AF Only" lens. But now that I think about it, STM lenses are already halfway there. Manual focus could just be done with the press of a button and your main dial, or on a touchscreen, and if it made the lens cheaper and more reliable I guess there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
IMHO, the major obstacle for mirrorless camera is AF speed in all lighting condition especially AF on moving objects.

Dual Pixel AF is one major step forward and once they are able to achieve reliable AF speed in all lighting condition, I think more mirrorless camera will be out in the market. Other minor obstacles such as battery life, heat, EVF lag & etc will be solve with faster and lower power electronics component.

I think may be in the next 10 years (remember all camcorder are already mirrorless camera), mirrorless camera will be more common, but still a long way to become "solid state camera" since I'm not sure how to make a lens that have no moving parts.

Have a nice day.

 

[Orangutan]

biggest problem is that this is a 2 way street - there are no inherent disadvantages or advantages to mirrorless vs. reflex.

Here's my list of advantages, which has some overlap with AvTvM. Essentially, it's all the advantages of mirror, plus the advantages of LiveView. I'm assuming EVF here.

• The mirror mechanism is a design constraint and a potential point of failure. Leaving it out could simplify design and construction, possibly making it more reliable and less expensive.
• You see what the sensor sees, so you know that what goes in the image file is what you saw in the EVF
• Histogram, blinkies, plus all the features of Magic Lantern: zebras, focus peaking, etc.
• Select AF point(s) anywhere in the frame
• If eye control is possible, then it could be used not only for controlling the point of focus, but also to turn on/off blinkies, zebras, focus peaking, histogram. You could set up your shot without taking eye from eyecup.

As Neuro said, this is also possible with a pellicle mirror. Also, I differ from AvTvM in that I'd like to keep my primary camera at the size it is (60D), and keep using my EF lenses. Small is not essential for me.

And that's all mirrorless is now, a gimmick, a toy camera for those that want a little more than a cell phone but not willing to learn enough about photography to invest in a trusted system.

That seems harsh and disparaging to all those who use LiveView. A lot really good landscape photographers have publicly stated that they use LiveView.

what about ergonomics?

There will be a variety here, no need to worry about all mirrorless cameras being the size of the M. Besides, even if it is, someone will make a "grip" for it that will make the ergonomics whatever the market wants.

I'll say it again, why redesign the wheel???

Iron-rimmed conestoga wheels gave way to solid rubber, which gave way to pneumatic tires, which gave way to spinners, which will give way to personal aircraft. Each tech lives its life, then is left behind for something better.

There are so many amazing lenses that are made for slr mount bodies. Why put resources into redesigning these amazing lenses to be smaller when you could just take that out of the equation and focus on making a better, more viable mirrorless body?

Again, no reason there can't be an EF-mount mirrorless.

 

[Orangutan]

Hi,
IMHO, the major obstacle for mirrorless camera is AF speed in all lighting condition especially AF on moving objects.

Yes, that's one. The other I've heard is from a low-light bird photographer in a previous thread who said that current EVF's are too noisy to be useful for that purpose. These are certainly important engineering problems to be overcome before SLRs can be completely replaced by mirrorless.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

And that's all mirrorless is now, a gimmick, a toy camera for those that want a little more than a cell phone but not willing to learn enough about photography to invest in a trusted system.

That seems harsh and disparaging to all those who use LiveView. A lot really good landscape photographers have publicly stated that they use LiveView.

to clarify - there is a huge difference between using live view for landscape shots, on a tripod, to gain criticlal focus and using live view to take a snap shot at an event. I was speaking of the latter. Hell, I use live view for landscapes, and nightscapes, and for using big ND filters. What I was referring to were those that get handed a dslr and hold it one foot in front of them and stare at the LCD screen and ask where's the power button? "no, you look through here." where??? this...it's the viewfinder... Basically, the people that want to use every camera like their cell phone. When i think of what kind of customer smaller and lighter is going to be selling points for, this is the kind of customer that pops to my mind - and when I look at the current mirrorless offerings - I don't see much that breaks from the kind of user I just described...

Though it may not sound like it, I want mirrorless to succeed. I don't want it to be a gimmick

Again, no reason there can't be an EF-mount mirrorless.

I guess it boils down to how canikon is making their decisions...both seem to be taking the pragmatic approach of making a fun trendy for now mirrorless camera's. So maybe it's time fort he size and weight don't matter crowd to speak up and let the big 2 know that this is something we'd buy if it were offered...

 

[Orangutan]

Though it may not sound like it, I want mirrorless to succeed. I don't want it to be a gimmick

I agree, but I think it will be both. Right now, mirrorless (P&S and MILC) are good enough for consumer use. I think the enthusiast/pro lines (currently DSLRs) will not be moved fully to mirrorless until it's damned good and ready, and that's fine by me. I only assert that it will happen, I just don't know when. That's why I was intrigued by a recent rumor that the next 1-series might have a hybrid OVF/EVF: I think that would be a great transitional tool, if it can be made reliable and useful.

 

[Don Haines]

Hi,
IMHO, the major obstacle for mirrorless camera is AF speed in all lighting condition especially AF on moving objects.

Yes, that's one. The other I've heard is from a low-light bird photographer in a previous thread who said that current EVF's are too noisy to be useful for that purpose. These are certainly important engineering problems to be overcome before SLRs can be completely replaced by mirrorless.

Try using an SX-50 in poor light and you will hate EVF.... try the latest from Olympus and you realize its not so bad.... A lot depends on which camera you are using..

Personal opinion is that they are close, but not there yet. I expect to see really good EVF's in a few years. I also like the idea of being able to use touchscreen interfaces on phones or tablets to control the camera... no more lying in the wet grass and mud

 

[Rocky]

Canon already has a Mirrorless and DSLR in one body. It is the 70D. Lock up the mirror and use live view. You will have a camera that will NOT have the mirror vibration. It is a faster, better ergonomic version of EOS M and use ALL the EF and EF-S lenses. What more can we ask for? Of cause, It will also function like a NORMAL DSLR.

 

[Marsu42]

Canon already has a Mirrorless and DSLR in one body. It is the 70D. Lock up the mirror and use live view.

Sure, but who would want to do that except for video and tripod? The main attraction of mirrorless is an (hopefully good) evf that has a slr usability and can harness the potential of the sensor seeing the scene all the time - meaning at least smart rgb metering, zebras, focus peaking. Can the 70d do that? No - it's just a traditional dslr with a less crappy live view af than before.

 

[Sella174]

... Can the 70d do that? No - it's just a traditional dslr with a less crappy live view af than before.

Hear that, Canon? It's the sound of the foundation cracking; of torches being lighted and pitchforks sharpened. The end is nigh! Repent, and embrace mirrorless. [cue deranged laugh]