The Mirrorless Future

[apw100]

The DSLR isn't going anywhere, it's simply better than anything else for certain applications. That being said, compact mirrorless camera's have their place too, especially with smaller prime lenses. If I was Leica, I would be very concerned right now.
A photojournalist or street photographer will appreciate how discreet a mirrorless camera is, allowing them to blend in more with their surroundings than a large body DSLR with an L lense. The compact size also makes it less intimidating to the subject. Try plodding around Port au Prince all day with a 5D MkII and a 24-70L around your neck. Not only do you basically have a sign saying "journalist" around your neck, but it's not very comfortable either. I would have killed to have a Fuji X Pro-1 or similar...
I am really hoping that Canon will release a more "pro" M body soon, or else I may have to consider Sony or Fuji.

 

[Tcapp]

I really, really don't get all they hoopla about mirror-less. What exactly is wrong with having a mirror? As a wedding photographer, I don't find the mirror ever gets in the way of me doing my job. Sure, the mirror makes a bit of noise when it moves, but the 5d3 can be pretty quiet when it needs to.

What benefit would a mirrorless system bring to me? Even if the mirrorless technology was perfect. Even if the af is just as fast as current af systems, why do I need to change things up? Why do I need an EVF? So my battery can drain faster? SO I can use live view all the time, and not be able to stabilize the camera against my face?

If the sensor is always on, doesn't it heat up? And doesn't it heating up cause more image noise?

Did I mention the reduced battery life?

I just don't understand all the hate for the good ol' mirror. As I understand it, mirrorless cameras still have a shutter. Wouldn't a shutter-less camera be more exciting? That is the one component that we always talk about as having a finite life expectancy. And that is the component that limits us to a shutter speed of 1/200 on most cameras when using flash. After the mirror is locked up, its the one making all that noise, and causing a blackout in an EVF. And it is what prevents us from taking stills DURING video recording (without interrupting the video) like you can do on some cell phones now. If there was no physical shutter, wouldn't it maybe be theoretically possible to take multiple exposures from a single exposure just by recording the sensor data multiple times at different points during an exposure? Infinite dynamic range anyone (or at least never a blown highlight)??

What does the mirror prevent us from doing? Don't say it limits the FPS cause I'm pretty sure the 1dx has that all figured out.

Sorry for the rant, but I just feel the desire for EVERYTHING to be mirrorless is ridiculous. Mirrors are awesome cause they can be down when you need them, and LOCK UP for when you don't.

Feel free to let me know if I've missed the point entirely or if I'm not making any sense. /rant

 

[apw100]

@Tcapp- As a wedding photographer, a mirrorless probably isn't of much use to you. These camera's are designed for street photographers and people who want DSLR image quality without the bulk. It's just another tool, no more, no less.

 

[Tcapp]

@Tcapp- As a wedding photographer, a mirrorless probably isn't of much use to you. These camera's are designed for street photographers and people who want DSLR image quality without the bulk. It's just another tool, no more, no less.

Sure, I understand that. That is a very very small niche. But what the OP is talking about is totally doing away with the current DSLR design and having everything be mirrorless. No more mirrors in anything. I don't see the point in that. He said that the 1dx is the last mirrored camera he will ever buy. Unless he is specifically an undercover street photographer, it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[paul13walnut5]

@apw100

If I was Leica, I would be very concerned right now.

Leica have their niche users, and though I am not one, they have seen off many challenges in the past (I covet a contax G2, logically, operationally, technologically and dare I say optically a better camera, where are contax now?) voigtlander, Minolta CLE (miles ahead of Leica at the time), EPSON RD-1, compact form high quality compact cameras like the Nikon and Canon rangefinders, British Reids, and still folk flock to the red dot.

I kind of hanker after a Panasonic L-1, which can be bought for peanuts. The same camera with a red dot has held its value.

Leica M are lovely objects to behold, and handle, but give me a SLR form anyday. For the folk who 'get' rangefinders nothing else will do, and it seems for many, the appeal of the Leica brand cannot be bettered.

Surprised not to have seen a Panasonic GF-1 or GX-1 rebranded, and sold for 2x the money with a leica M adaptor.

Still not a fan personally, but the brand endures.

 

[Rocky]

I really, really don't get all they hoopla about mirror-less. What exactly is wrong with having a mirror? As a wedding photographer, I don't find the mirror ever gets in the way of me doing my job. Sure, the mirror makes a bit of noise when it moves, but the 5d3 can be pretty quiet when it needs to.

What benefit would a mirrorless system bring to me? Even if the mirrorless technology was perfect. Even if the af is just as fast as current af systems, why do I need to change things up? Why do I need an EVF? So my battery can drain faster? SO I can use live view all the time, and not be able to stabilize the camera against my face?

If the sensor is always on, doesn't it heat up? And doesn't it heating up cause more image noise?

Did I mention the reduced battery life?

I just don't understand all the hate for the good ol' mirror. As I understand it, mirrorless cameras still have a shutter. Wouldn't a shutter-less camera be more exciting? That is the one component that we always talk about as having a finite life expectancy. And that is the component that limits us to a shutter speed of 1/200 on most cameras when using flash. After the mirror is locked up, its the one making all that noise, and causing a blackout in an EVF. And it is what prevents us from taking stills DURING video recording (without interrupting the video) like you can do on some cell phones now. If there was no physical shutter, wouldn't it maybe be theoretically possible to take multiple exposures from a single exposure just by recording the sensor data multiple times at different points during an exposure? Infinite dynamic range anyone (or at least never a blown highlight)??

What does the mirror prevent us from doing? Don't say it limits the FPS cause I'm pretty sure the 1dx has that all figured out.

Sorry for the rant, but I just feel the desire for EVERYTHING to be mirrorless is ridiculous. Mirrors are awesome cause they can be down when you need them, and LOCK UP for when you don't.

Feel free to let me know if I've missed the point entirely or if I'm not making any sense. /rant

Very good reason. Totally agreed.
"Street shooter needs mirroless To be discreed" it seems to be a misleading statement. When you are 6 or 10 feet from your subject, it will get noticed regardless what camera you are holding to your eye. Sticking the camera out to look at the LCD screen is even worst. A real street shooter should be someone "shooting from the hip". So whether it is an SLR or a small P & S will not be noticed. As with a SLR will make you look like a tourist in foreign country, this is an even more misleading statement. In a foreign country, the way that you dress, your skin color will make you standout without a camera. A mirrorless will not fix the about two situation.

 

[Rocky]

@apw100

If I was Leica, I would be very concerned right now.

Leica have their niche users, and though I am not one, they have seen off many challenges in the past (I covet a contax G2, logically, operationally, technologically and dare I say optically a better camera, where are contax now?) voigtlander, Minolta CLE (miles ahead of Leica at the time), EPSON RD-1, compact form high quality compact cameras like the Nikon and Canon rangefinders, British Reids, and still folk flock to the red dot.

I kind of hanker after a Panasonic L-1, which can be bought for peanuts. The same camera with a red dot has held its value.

Leica M are lovely objects to behold, and handle, but give me a SLR form anyday. For the folk who 'get' rangefinders nothing else will do, and it seems for many, the appeal of the Leica brand cannot be bettered.

Surprised not to have seen a Panasonic GF-1 or GX-1 rebranded, and sold for 2x the money with a leica M adaptor.

Still not a fan personally, but the brand endures.

With the price of 1Dx , The M9 does not sound so expensive anymore. Lens rental did a 50mm shoot out test. The M9 witht f1.4 beats everyone. This is a "professional mirrorless" with an optical view finder.

 

[zim]

Just curious, what happened to the original post ‘What utter tosh!’ by paul13walnut5 ?

 

[DianeK]

An issue I have with mirrorless EVF cameras is that I feel more removed from the photography experience. It's hard to explain, but when I look at an EVF or "live view" I feel like I am watching the camera take a photograph.

Not ready to be a spectator.

Funny you should say that, that is the exact same feeling I get too.
Diane

 

[distant.star]

.
For the folks who are trying to define "street photography" by type of camera, the real world gives the lie to your assumptions.

Street photography should be defined only by the product -- either a picture is street photography, or it is not.

Good street photography images come from every conceivable type, size and quality of camera. I've seen good work from point & shoot cameras. I've seen good work from medium format cameras. Hell, there's even one person on this forum who does it with a 600mm lens on a Canon DSLR. It's simply a matter of style and taste.

People who lean toward street photography use as many different types of cameras as exist. There is no useful argument to be made that a mirrorless is or is not for street photographers.

 

[And-Rew]

Interesting discussion, with the usual amount of one side of the coin or other comments.

I'm gonna garner the wrath of just about all on this site by speaking heresy -

I speak of the Fuji X-Pro 1.

Yes, I've invested in this little pocket marvel - and what a joy it is to behold. It brings back all the joy that the Canon A1's used to bring in the days of film (mid 1980's for me) - but with all the benefits of a mirror-less digital system.

To me, when you talk about mirror-less cameras, this is the current bench mark. Not because of its lovely retro styling or it's wonderful film emulation modes, but because of the quality of the build, the IQ, the low noise ISO, the ability to shoot colour RAW and B&W jpg side by side. Even the simple cable release for bulb or long exposure shots beats the hell off these modern computers on a cable just to press a shutter button.

It has its short comings compared with the upper end DSLR's when it comes to shooting action, but so do Hassalblads. The simple fact is - with the X-Pro 1, the future is here, the future is now.

It is for the likes of Canon, Nikon et al to start making the change.

For the purists, anything without a mirror will never be considered photography - but I thought that about anything that didn't require a roll of 24 or 36 slotted in at the back and sent off for developing.

In the way film is almost consigned to history, so will be the mirror in DSLR's.

I'm not saying this will happen at Photokina, but it will happen quicker than some people think.

Ultimately though - you should take your camera's out and actually take some pictures - that's how you'll best define yourself as a photographer

 

[zim]

.
For the folks who are trying to define "street photography" by type of camera, the real world gives the lie to your assumptions.

Street photography should be defined only by the product -- either a picture is street photography, or it is not.

Good street photography images come from every conceivable type, size and quality of camera. I've seen good work from point & shoot cameras. I've seen good work from medium format cameras. Hell, there's even one person on this forum who does it with a 600mm lens on a Canon DSLR. It's simply a matter of style and taste.

People who lean toward street photography use as many different types of cameras as exist. There is no useful argument to be made that a mirrorless is or is not for street photographers.

Absolutely correct, I know a guy who does street with a Hasselblad….. wouldn’t be my weapon of choice!
The camera is a tool 'street' is the product

 

[pwp]

Try using a mirrorless with the sun over your shoulders glaring on that screen. Anyone that has used a viewfinder would miss it. Try having a mirrorless with a large sensor and a 400+mm lens hanging off the pathetic grip, and hand-holding a shot. I'll keep my camera pressed against my face, thank you.

Professional level mirrorless cameras will need to include an EVF the likes of which we're still yet to see. But I have little doubt that we are all looking at an EVF future. So yes, like you I like to keep my camera jammed up against my face.

-PW

 

[Deleted member 42026]

Just wanting to mention Fuji is no stranger to rangefinder cameras if you look even at the 645 rangefinders they've had in the past. Rangefinders which are obviously mirrorless are not new, I don't think this is what this mirrorless argument is about. Leica M cameras have been around a long long time, again this isn't new. Even bronica had one actually which I do believe is now tamron! Contax... Same, not new. The only new thing I can see is that Fuji Is getting back into that market with digital.

Leica still make a slr camera, enter the s series, the r series was before that.

For me personally, the most interesting alternative for mirrorless vs dslr is the new Olympus om-d. That said the tiny four thirds sensor doesn't thrill me. Maybe time will tell this tale. I don't think sony's nex really competes with that sector, as it's more a point and shoot.

I find the Fuji x-pro 1 and the olympus I mentioned (for very different reasons) quite facinating. But my dslr is going nowhere!

 

[paul13walnut5]

@Danielle

Just wanting to mention Fuji is no stranger to rangefinder cameras if you look even at the 645 rangefinders they've had in the past.

Or the XPAN for that matter (yes I know it said Hasselblad on the box...)

And the Bronica RF was a thing of ultilitarian beauty. Another great camera I'll never now own (still want a contax G2 as well)

 

[kdsand]

I welcome the day when E.V.F. equals then surpasses our mirrors & prisms. There are some huge advantages to e.v.f. . We are getting closer but not quite there yet. When it equals & surpasses what we have presently - great & good but until then no thank you.

Better yet just let me wi-fi stream everything to my contact lens overlays and I'll be as happy as a pig in §π¡±. 8)

 

[jrista]

I welcome the day when E.V.F. equals then surpasses our mirrors & prisms. There are some huge advantages to e.v.f. . We are getting closer but not quite there yet. When it equals & surpasses what we have presently - great & good but until then no thank you.

Better yet just let me wi-fi stream everything to my contact lens overlays and I'll be as happy as a pig in §π¡±. 8)

Generally speaking, an optical view finder (OVF) will always be superior to an EVF in certain ways. For one there is little to no limit on the amount of detail or amount of light you could observe through an OVF. EVF's, being small digital screens, will always have certain limitations...on dynamic range, on resolution, on response time. Their small size is both a benefit (allowing the use of super cutting edge screen technology that costs a lot without it costing too much) while concurrently being a detriment (you can only do so much with so little space). We don't notice the limitations of a beautiful AMOLED screen on our smart phones because we observe them from an average distance of 10 inches...however when the same kind of screen is a mere inch or two from your eye, its limitations and flaws will become readily apparent. The key limitation that I think will always prevent EVF's from "surpassing", and possibly even equaling, an optical prism-based viewfinder, is dynamic range. With an OVF the only limit is your eye (i.e. you couldn't and shouldn't look at the sun through a camera)...however you could look at a very bright sky, and still pick out detail in the shadows with a little bit of focus. An EVF, even one using technology years from now, will never be able to offer that much dynamic range...something will have to give. You'll either get blown highlights, or lack the ability to see detail in the shadows.

There are also the inherent lifespan problems with an electronic screen...OLED devices use organic substances that have limited lifetimes. Even inorganic technology can burn out, either at the pixel level (leaving you with a dead or stuck pixel or pixels) or simply dying entirely. How many times have you heard anyone say they couldn't use that 50, 70, 80 year old or even older camera because the view finder was burnt out? Never. An optical device will last forever, so long as it doesn't receive enough shock to break it.

I think the DSLR could be improved in one primary way. Since they use electronic sensors, I don't fully understand the need for a shutter. If we drop the shutter from DSLR's, that leaves only the mirror itself as the last mechanical component that could possibly wear out from extended use or age...and they are (and have always been) easy to replace if necessary. An electronic shutter could open up new avenues for DSLR's as well.

 

[IronChef]

I welcome the day when E.V.F. equals then surpasses our mirrors & prisms. There are some huge advantages to e.v.f. . We are getting closer but not quite there yet. When it equals & surpasses what we have presently - great & good but until then no thank you.

Better yet just let me wi-fi stream everything to my contact lens overlays and I'll be as happy as a pig in §π¡±. 8)

Generally speaking, an optical view finder (OVF) will always be superior to an EVF in certain ways. For one there is little to no limit on the amount of detail or amount of light you could observe through an OVF. EVF's, being small digital screens, will always have certain limitations...on dynamic range, on resolution, on response time. Their small size is both a benefit (allowing the use of super cutting edge screen technology that costs a lot without it costing too much) while concurrently being a detriment (you can only do so much with so little space). We don't notice the limitations of a beautiful AMOLED screen on our smart phones because we observe them from an average distance of 10 inches...however when the same kind of screen is a mere inch or two from your eye, its limitations and flaws will become readily apparent. The key limitation that I think will always prevent EVF's from "surpassing", and possibly even equaling, an optical prism-based viewfinder, is dynamic range. With an OVF the only limit is your eye (i.e. you couldn't and shouldn't look at the sun through a camera)...however you could look at a very bright sky, and still pick out detail in the shadows with a little bit of focus. An EVF, even one using technology years from now, will never be able to offer that much dynamic range...something will have to give. You'll either get blown highlights, or lack the ability to see detail in the shadows.

There are also the inherent lifespan problems with an electronic screen...OLED devices use organic substances that have limited lifetimes. Even inorganic technology can burn out, either at the pixel level (leaving you with a dead or stuck pixel or pixels) or simply dying entirely. How many times have you heard anyone say they couldn't use that 50, 70, 80 year old or even older camera because the view finder was burnt out? Never. An optical device will last forever, so long as it doesn't receive enough shock to break it.

I think the DSLR could be improved in one primary way. Since they use electronic sensors, I don't fully understand the need for a shutter. If we drop the shutter from DSLR's, that leaves only the mirror itself as the last mechanical component that could possibly wear out from extended use or age...and they are (and have always been) easy to replace if necessary. An electronic shutter could open up new avenues for DSLR's as well.

I find the newest EVF's to be really good and I wouldn't mind using one. I can already see the composition really well and I don't think you need to see insane amount of detail and DR through your viewfinder. EVF's can provide more information like a histogram and a electronic level. Also in low light condition evf's are much brighter.

Camera's can't last forever anyways. Because of mechanical wear, camera's are rated a limited amount of clicks , for example 150 000. An EVF can actually limit the amount of mechanical wear. OLED's last about 14000 hours. Assuming you look a minute (which I think is really long) trough the viewfinder for each shot, the evf will last you 840 000 clicks.

 

[jrista]

I welcome the day when E.V.F. equals then surpasses our mirrors & prisms. There are some huge advantages to e.v.f. . We are getting closer but not quite there yet. When it equals & surpasses what we have presently - great & good but until then no thank you.

Better yet just let me wi-fi stream everything to my contact lens overlays and I'll be as happy as a pig in §π¡±. 8)

Generally speaking, an optical view finder (OVF) will always be superior to an EVF in certain ways. For one there is little to no limit on the amount of detail or amount of light you could observe through an OVF. EVF's, being small digital screens, will always have certain limitations...on dynamic range, on resolution, on response time. Their small size is both a benefit (allowing the use of super cutting edge screen technology that costs a lot without it costing too much) while concurrently being a detriment (you can only do so much with so little space). We don't notice the limitations of a beautiful AMOLED screen on our smart phones because we observe them from an average distance of 10 inches...however when the same kind of screen is a mere inch or two from your eye, its limitations and flaws will become readily apparent. The key limitation that I think will always prevent EVF's from "surpassing", and possibly even equaling, an optical prism-based viewfinder, is dynamic range. With an OVF the only limit is your eye (i.e. you couldn't and shouldn't look at the sun through a camera)...however you could look at a very bright sky, and still pick out detail in the shadows with a little bit of focus. An EVF, even one using technology years from now, will never be able to offer that much dynamic range...something will have to give. You'll either get blown highlights, or lack the ability to see detail in the shadows.

There are also the inherent lifespan problems with an electronic screen...OLED devices use organic substances that have limited lifetimes. Even inorganic technology can burn out, either at the pixel level (leaving you with a dead or stuck pixel or pixels) or simply dying entirely. How many times have you heard anyone say they couldn't use that 50, 70, 80 year old or even older camera because the view finder was burnt out? Never. An optical device will last forever, so long as it doesn't receive enough shock to break it.

I think the DSLR could be improved in one primary way. Since they use electronic sensors, I don't fully understand the need for a shutter. If we drop the shutter from DSLR's, that leaves only the mirror itself as the last mechanical component that could possibly wear out from extended use or age...and they are (and have always been) easy to replace if necessary. An electronic shutter could open up new avenues for DSLR's as well.

I find the newest EVF's to be really good and I wouldn't mind using one. I can already see the composition really well and I don't think you need to see insane amount of detail and DR through your viewfinder. EVF's can provide more information like a histogram and a electronic level. Also in low light condition evf's are much brighter.

Camera's can't last forever anyways. Because of mechanical wear, camera's are rated a limited amount of clicks , for example 150 000. An EVF can actually limit the amount of mechanical wear. OLED's last about 14000 hours. Assuming you look a minute (which I think is really long) trough the viewfinder for each shot, the evf will last you 840 000 clicks.

Optical viewfinders these days, at least from Canon, already include a high resolution transmissive LCD screen. You could easily add a histogram or electronic level overlay, as well as pretty much anything else, to such a HUD. A dynamic viewfinder with useful information is not relegated to the realm of EVF's.

As for mechanical wear, read my second paragraph...I concur that a mechanical shutter is the only real legacy hangers-on in DSLR cameras, and it could easily be dropped...but keep the mirror and OVF. As for EVF lifetime...the EVF is always on if your actively using the camera as far as I've seen. Were not talking about an electronic shutter when referring to an EVF (and an electronic shutter could be used on DSLR cameras in place of a mechanical shutter as I already stated.) An Electronic View Finder, if your actively using a camera for hours at a time, will be on and wearing the whole time. I often spend 8, 10, 12 hours a day (when there is enough light) with my 7D out in the field photographing birds. I recently spent nearly two solid weeks out every day from morning till sunset photographing birds. I'm looking through the viewfinder for most of that time. If we assume I spend 8-9 hours a day looking through the viewfinder, thats about 4 years of OLED life. Once it dies, your on the hook to get it fixed...which means finding and hitting up a repair shot, leaving your camera there for however long it takes to replace...and, on top of it all, paying to replace a wearable part. Depending on usage, that might be longer than a shutter...but its a hell of a lot shorter than the overall lifetime of a heavily used camera body could take, and a hell of a lot less time than an OVF would last. With a 1D X, I could keep the same body, with the same shutter, at the rate I take photos for over 4 years, and keep on going. If I had an EVF, an OLED viewfinder could die well before that.

The hype around mirrorless cameras is, IMO, rather unfounded. There might come a time, years down the road, where we find a way to produce mirrorless cameras with EVF's and electronic shutters that provide functionality that surpasses DSLR's enough to warrant such hype...but that is years, maybe even decades, down the road. Today, next year, over the next few years...I feel there is very little to be so hyped up about in regards to mirrorless, particularly as a DSLR killer. There are so many things still going for DSLR's that put current and prospective mirrorless cameras to shame.

 

[kdsand]

I imagine consumer grade cameras especially cameras like G-12, X-1 (or was it 1-X ???) would really benefit by having a cutting edge E.V.F. especially if it is a module that's added on. Just having a high quality EVF might be enough to really spur on sales of these range finder type cameras. Perhaps the tech will then trickle over to the rebels eventually. As far as the tech goes developing the EVF should be fairly straight forward because the bodies already could support the screens & have huge processing power.
The rebels don't really have the greatest vf as it is right now so who knows perhaps eventually they will get it.

Allot can happen - change in 5-10 years & I can't see Canon & Nikons Mega pixel war lasting forever : (well I hope not) so they will have to wow consumers in other ways.