Why the obsession with mirrorless, rather than features?

[joe_r]

I have a question that's been bugging me for a while - why is there such an obsession with the mirror in a DSLR?

One thing I see is that lots of people seem to conflate the mirror with the features/technology of the camera. I don't know of anything outside of an EVF that couldn't be done whether a camera has a mirror or not. Using live view, you could get focus peaking and any other features you'd get in a mirrorless camera, and with ML, you do get some of this already. And yet, whenever Sony, Fuji, etc. release a new camera, there is always the question of when Canon is going to release a pro-level mirrorless camera, rather than incorporate the new features, which I see as the more important question.

Am I missing something?

 

[AcutancePhotography]

First of all, why do you think there is an obsession with mirrorless?

There are proponents of mirrorless of various levels of passion just like with any other emerging technology.

And the more passionate tend to post more often on the Internets Tubes. But number or frequency of postings by a select group should not be interpreted as any widespread obsession.

There are Canon customers who would like Canon to make a new mirrorless system; but then there are Canon customers who want many things that Canon may or may not be able to make a business case for.

In my opinion, it is not that big of a deal. Some like mirrorless, some don't. Just like everything else in the photography world.

 

[Djaaf]

I think that, for most people, using "mirrorless" instead of specific features is just a shortcut.
If what you want is reduced weight and size and an EVF, you probably "need" a mirrorless to get both.
(Well, weight and size can be compensated somewhat with DSLR, see the SL1 and 6D for example, but you're still quite far from the Sony A6000 or A7 (even though the A7 serie is getting bigger all the time.. )).

And let's be honest, it's easier to say "I want a mirrorless" than "I want a camera with recuced size and weight compared to the traditionnal offering and with levels, focus peaking, ability to change the grid on the fly, ability to see the shot directly in the viewfinder and high gain directly in the viewfinder".

I don't think there's much more to it than that.
You also may have a small population that just want a mirrorless because they like the idea or think it's the future... So, the feature they want... is a mirrorless camera.

Djaaf.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Interestingly, Canon has an asset to dominate the mirrorless market: Dual Pixel AF has the ability to replace the focus sensor in DSLR with advantages in accuracy and reliability. But for this to become reality, it takes an electronic viewfinder, which is good enough to replace the optical viewfinder.

Small size and weight are not unanimous. I could buy a camera mirrorles (in the near future) if it has the same size and battery life than current DSLR.

 

[unfocused]

...the more passionate tend to post more often on the Internets Tubes. But number or frequency of postings by a select group should not be interpreted as any widespread obsession...

...a small population that just want a mirrorless because they like the idea or think it's the future... So, the feature they want... is a mirrorless camera...

I think those quotes sum it up.

I agree, most people don't really care. I know I don't. As long as it has the same functionality as an SLR, it don't care what technology is used. I think you mostly get a debate (arguments) because many people feel that electronic viewfinders still have a long way to go to beat the elegant simplicity of light rays being bounced through a viewfinder by a mirror.

My "position" is that when the technology is perfected AND when it becomes cheaper to produce an electronic view finder over an optical view finder, then companies will move to mirrorless. When that happens, most users won't know or care because the image will look the same in the viewfinder and there will be no lag time. I also suspect that the cameras may not look all that much different. (Does the Fuji XT-1 look much different than a DSLR?)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm hardly obsessed with mirrorless, but I am old enough to remember the days when the switch from range finders to SLR's began. My first 35mm camera was a Argus C3 rangefinder, and it was simple and reliable. My first SLR was a fixed lens no name camera with a leaf shutter. I quickly changed it for a Canon FT QL, because I wanted interchangeable lenses.

The selling point for SLR's was being able to see more closely what your image framing actually was. Rangefinders were very inaccurate at depicting image framing at close distances.

The disadvantage of SLR's was the image blackout when pressing the shutter, and the decrease in reliability due to the increased complexity of the moving mirror, not to mention the vibration caused by the mirror motion. The SLR won out, and most of the big 35mm SLR makers stopped selling rangefinders.

Now, a mirrorless digital camera promises to eliminate the moving mirror and vibration issues. Unfortunately, its not perfect either. Accurate and fast autofocus for FF bodies is still difficult but rapidly getting better, the EVF technology still cannot handle fast moving subjects, so they are making their way into the camera market for portraits and landscape, but for fast moving subjects, they are not accepted very well.

So, I'm interested in anything with the potential to improve photography by doing away with the vibration inducing mechanical moving parts, including a need for a moving mirror or fast moving shutter that must open and close for each image. Electronics is also potentially more reliable than mechanical parts, but that relies very much on the design and on the part quality.

I'm not fooled by size reductions, because lenses do not get smaller due to mirrorless, so the overall size and weight do not reduce by much.

 

[dcm]

Mirror or not doesn't matter much to most of us, but for some it does. Some people use it as a wedge issue to drive a point/discussions, but one is not inherently better/worse than the other - its what's around it that matters.

I don't really care since I've shot digital with both over the years (G, S, M, and D bodies). In my film days I used TLR, SLR, and P&S cameras, depending on the situation. Today I split my time between M3 and 6D - soon a 5D? or 1D? (waiting for the announcements). Mirror just doesn't factor into the decision about which one to use.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I have a question that's been bugging me for a while - why is there such an obsession with the mirror in a DSLR?

I think there isn't obsession at all. Just Canon is not incorporating the latest technology in their models. Why? It may have different answers but I only want to go mirrorless for travel light with good quality glasses to capture beautifu memories, that's all.
I found myself with a heavy load while carrying my DSRL and lenses.

 

[Loswr]

...I only want to go mirrorless for travel light with good quality glasses to capture beautifu memories, that's all.
I found myself with a heavy load while carrying my DSRL and lenses.

Of course, there's the EOS M line – my entire M kit (body, 3 lenses and flash) is a similar load to my dSLR and standard zoom, which delivers image quality on par with the vast majority of dSLRs out there. Perhaps you need FF to capture beautiful memories...in that case, the body will be lighter but the quality glasses will not, and you'll be carrying a heavy load of MILC and lenses.

 

[dak723]

I agree with the OP. Perhaps I am missing something, but the only advantage I see to mirrorless is the ability to make a smaller, lighter camera. Yet, whenever people bring up size and weight, even those who want mirrorless say that those factors are not the main reason. What am I missing. Size and weight seem the only advantage. (And that is the only reason I tried mirrorless. I definitely think that is a big advantage, but so far, aside from the Olympus OM series. the EVFs of the cameras I have tried have been a major drawback.) You can get overlays on an OVF to get you the same features, so what is it exactly that those who desire the end of the "mirrorslappers" see as the major advantage in a mirrorless?

 

[Orangutan]

why is there such an obsession with the mirror in a DSLR?

Dropping the mirror will (eventually) allow a number of feature advantages. Some have already been mentioned in the thread, but here's my list:

• smaller/lighter body (doesn't help with lenses yet)
• focus peaking
• liveview exposure adjustment (you can see what the sensor sees, potentially leading to more spot-on exposures)
• zero shutter noise
• For top-end models, allows the option to use a three-sensor design to replace the Bayer array, like high-end video cameras (this will add a lot of cost)
• Higher FPS (no need to move a mirror out of the way)

Current major drawbacks are:

• Low-light EVF and focus
• Battery life
• EVF lag (although many report that this is very nearly there)

When these shortcomings are resolved, we'll all move to mirrorless with hardly a squeak. I've given up predicting when that will happen.

 

[brad-man]

When they get the EVF right, I'm all in. The ability to see the image thru the viewfinder exactly the same way the sensor will record it is of great value to me. Also eliminating the lubricants required for the shutter and the mirror box mechanisms can only be a positive move for reliability, as well as the ability of the camera to survive extremes in temperature as well as shocks (impact resistance). There really is no down side.

 

[TeT]

I am in it for a much smaller size. Will not give up FF capabilities or speed to get it...

 

[takesome1]

Probably more interst than obsession.

Shooting off the LCDis not a bad thing. I think of many reasons it could be a benefit in the future.

IMO mirrors are a holdover from the non-digital days. It's a dinosaur that hasn't meet it's time yet.
We might be fans of the conventional view finder and mirror because were set in our way. But change will eventually come and it will be at a slow pace.

It will be a while. Problems will have to be solved like overheating, AF efficiency and speed and other. Plus once it arrives they will have to convert the masses who love dinosaurs.

 

[Don Haines]

Probably more interst than obsession.

Shooting off the LCDis not a bad thing. I think of many reasons it could be a benefit in the future.

IMO mirrors are a holdover from the non-digital days. It's a dinosaur that hasn't meet it's time yet.
We might be fans of the conventional view finder and mirror because were set in our way. But change will eventually come and it will be at a slow pace.

It will be a while. Problems will have to be solved like overheating, AF efficiency and speed and other. Plus once it arrives they will have to convert the masses who love dinosaurs.

+1
Canon moves slowly. Some interpret that as resistant to change, others as "make sure it works before you sell it"... Once the bugs are out and the overall performance of mirror less exceeds mirrored cameras, you can expect the switch....

I expect that one day, the 5D? and 1D? will be released as mirror less....

 

[unfocused]

...Once the bugs are out and the overall performance of mirror less exceeds mirrored cameras, you can expect the switch....

I expect that one day, the 5D? and 1D? will be released as mirror less....

I agree. When and if mirror less technology can do the job better and cheaper, it will become the standard.

I say "if" because I do have a few minor doubts. My father was an engineer (I'm not even close) and always followed the design philosophy that if a simple solution was available, it was preferable to a difficult solution.

There is much to be said for the elegant simplicity of mirrors (they don't need any power, they work at the speed of light and they are 100% reliable). That's a pretty high bar for an electronic viewfinder to surpass.

 

[Orangutan]

My father was an engineer (I'm not even close) and always followed the design philosophy that if a simple solution was available, it was preferable to a difficult solution.

There is much to be said for the elegant simplicity of mirrors (they don't need any power, they work at the speed of light and they are 100% reliable). That's a pretty high bar for an electronic viewfinder to surpass.

But mirrors are not at all simple, they've just had the benefit of decades of refinement. Some examples: lubricant splatter, vibration, relatively slow operation (12fps on expensive models, vs. 120 fps on p&s). Even now (I read this somewhere, don't recall where, please correct if I'm wrong) mirror design is undergoing change from spring-driven mechanism to electromagnetic, to allow for higher fps. It's a question of evolutionary refinement, not inherent simplicity. It's at least as simple, inherently, to preview using the same mechanism as image capture (sensor).

 

[jrista]

Probably more interst than obsession.

Shooting off the LCDis not a bad thing. I think of many reasons it could be a benefit in the future.

IMO mirrors are a holdover from the non-digital days. It's a dinosaur that hasn't meet it's time yet.
We might be fans of the conventional view finder and mirror because were set in our way. But change will eventually come and it will be at a slow pace.

It will be a while. Problems will have to be solved like overheating, AF efficiency and speed and other. Plus once it arrives they will have to convert the masses who love dinosaurs.

+1
Canon moves slowly. Some interpret that as resistant to change, others as "make sure it works before you sell it"... Once the bugs are out and the overall performance of mirror less exceeds mirrored cameras, you can expect the switch....

I expect that one day, the 5D? and 1D? will be released as mirror less....

This is a bit of a misnomer. Canon cannot directly benefit from other companies such as Sony "working out the bugs" and then suddenly switch without having any problems. The things that currently limit mirrorless cameras and the things companies that sell mirrorless cameras are fixing and resolving are the same things Canon is going to have to deal with if and when they finally decide to take the plunge. However, because they have delayed, they aren't going to be ahead of the curve...they will be behind it.

Unless Canon is cranking away on some unknown technology in a box somewhere, hiding it from the world, not even filing any patents on it, it seems doubtful Canon will just race out the gate on a mirrorless winner that trounces all the competition. DPAF is their SOLE mirrorless-benefitting technology at the moment (one which they hardly even use for mirrorless...or have they even used it at all??)...and there are several companies (Sony does NOT appear to be one of them) out there now working on the same thing (and some of the patents filed over the last year seem technologically superior to Canon's approach.) Canon will not hold this theoretically superior technological advantage with DPAF for long, especially if they refuse to implement it broadly in the cameras that can best benefit from it.

 

[9VIII]

So, I'm interested in anything with the potential to improve photography by doing away with the vibration inducing mechanical moving parts, including a need for a moving mirror or fast moving shutter that must open and close for each image. Electronics is also potentially more reliable than mechanical parts, but that relies very much on the design and on the part quality.

That's basically the whole story for me too.
Forget "mirrorless", we need to start a "shutterless" campaign. The durability of camera with no moving parts is basically limited by the shutter button... er, firing button? Trigger? Sheesh we're going to have to re-name all sorts of things for a solid state camera.

I like that, Solid State Camera, but you can't include the lens unless you're using a pinhole.

 

[Loswr]

Unless Canon is cranking away on some unknown technology in a box somewhere, hiding it from the world, not even filing any patents on it, it seems doubtful Canon will just race out the gate on a mirrorless winner that trounces all the competition.

And yet...Canon first release rapidly became the #2 best-selling MILC in the largest global market for that segment, trouncing all but one model from one manufacturer. So it may be that your doubts are misplaced (unless, of course, you're going to judge 'trouncing' by your personal standards, DxO's Biaesd Scores, or some other totally subjective set of criteria).