Will Mirrorless Cameras Make Our Current DSLR Equipment Obsolete?

[dgatwood]

2. automatic dimming of the EVF in sync with ambient light levels is quite easy to implement.

At least with backlit EVFs, there's a minimum threshold brightness below which your only choice is to shut off the backlight. It may be that OLEDs reduce that problem significantly. I don't have enough experience with them to say.

Then again, unless they've fixed the life expectancy issues, OLEDs have problems of their own, just different problems.

 

[moreorless]

I wonder how good they can make pancake primes.

Have a look, how small, light, fast and good primes can be made: http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/

And contrary to urban legend, adding Ring-USM-AF to those lesnes would not cause additional bulk, but actually make them even smaller and lighter, once the utterly unneccessary manual focusing gear and focus ring will be finally exterminated.

Look at what it'll cost you.

 

[weixing]

And one of the advantages of going mirror less is no more need for AFMA. I, for one, will not miss having to calibrate lenses...... And I can certainly live with F11 autofocus.

Why would there be no more need for AFMA? Did Canon miraculously find a way to eliminate manufacturing variation in lens and body manufacture while I wasn't looking?

In a DSLR, normal focusing is done by diverting light to a focusing sensor. The camera then focuses accurately to this sensor, not the image sensor. If all is perfectly manufactured and aligned, the image is also focused properly for the image sensor, but as we know, with manufacturing tolerances and wear, this is not always true. aFMA calibration is how we correct for this discrepancy.

In live view, focusing is done on the image sensor so there is no second path to correct for.... Therefore, no mirror, no AFMA.

If that were the only reason for AFMA, then the AFMA value for every lens should be identical (or at least mathematically proportional in a trivially calculable way), because the difference in placement between those two sensors doesn't change when you change lenses. More to the point, Canon would presumably calibrate out that difference at the factory, because there's no good reason not to do so.

If lenses adjusted their focus until infinite precision was achieved, then yes, it would eliminate the need for AFMA. Then again, it would mostly eliminate the need if they did that for DSLRs, too. It would also lengthen the delay before you take a picture, which is why they don't do that. Instead, at least as I understand it, cameras compute the distance to move the lens, and where it stops, that's assumed to be in focus. If that computation is off because the lens is even slightly imperfect in any way, then the lens will consistently either front-focus or back-focus. This is why AFMA varies from lens to lens instead of being a constant value for each body. Thus, mirrorless cameras won't eliminate the need for AFMA, to the best of my understanding.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

Hi,
The AFMA is used to compensate both the distance error between the AF sensor and imaging sensor, and the manufacture tolerance of the lens... that's why the error is different for every lens.

Mirrorless camera don't require AFMA because the AF system will keep measuring the error and move the lens until it's in focus (or at least within the allowable error), so there is no need for AFMA. If 70D live view phase detect AF also use this method, then AFMA on live view is not required.

Have a nice day.

 

[sdsr]

I wonder how good they can make pancake primes.

Have a look, how small, light, fast and good primes can be made: http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/

And contrary to urban legend, adding Ring-USM-AF to those lesnes would not cause additional bulk, but actually make them even smaller and lighter, once the utterly unneccessary manual focusing gear and focus ring will be finally exterminated.

Look at what it'll cost you.

Sure - but there are excellent m43 primes that are relatively inexpensive (the best and most expensive is probably the Olympus 75mm f/1.8, which costs c. $900 - but the marvelous 45mm 1.8 and 60mm macro are half that).

I look forward to the disappearance of mirrors, for various reasons. Whatever else one might say about the relative performance of my Canon 5DII and 6D vs my Olympus OM-D, the latter invariably nails focus precisely (and it's nice to buy a new lens and not worry about front/back focusing, let alone trying to fix it). I don't much care whether the resulting cameras are smaller (the top of the line Panasonic m43 body isn't much smaller than a 6D); in fact, as long as I'm going to be using my Canon lenses, I would prefer the body to be bigger for the reasons given by others.

I do want a viewfinder, though. In some ways electronic viewfinders are already superior to optical viewfinders. I realize it's nice to see what you're photographing as you're photographing it, and what you see through an optical viewfinder is certainly nicer (though that will doubtless change as technology improves), but optical viewfinders are misleading - it's surely more useful to see through the viewfinder roughly how the image will look as you're taking that photo that waiting until you've taken it and checking on the monitor. One of the OM-D's dials adjusts exposure, and it's nice to be able to do that while you're taking the photo, looking through the viewfinder and seeing what happens as you turn the dial.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I loved the electronic viewfinder on my Konica Minolta Dimage A2. Best thing about the camera. And that is now getting on 10 year old tech.

Maybe a look again at the solution devised by Olympus for the E-330 and also used in the Panasonic L-1 / Leica Digilux 2 is an idea. Not all that compact, even with a compact sensor, but maybe a viable best of both worlds.

The areas where I can an an EVF or LCD only option failing are:

Situations where the eyes dynamic range or low light abilities are just better (as iso noise rises AF performance drops for on sensor AF right?)

Situations where the glow of LCDs is undesirable or distracting (surveilance, nature)

 

[tpatana]

1. You can only add so much gain to the output before the signal you're getting becomes too poor to use even for viewfinder purposes. Therefore, when you're shooting 30 second exposures at high ISO already, unless you're willing to accept a very low frame rate in the EVF, it isn't likely to let you see as well as you could with your naked eye through an OVF.

1. when 30sec exposure are required with Hi ISO, the naked eye will se squat in an optical viewfinder.

2. automatic dimming of the EVF in sync with ambient light levels is quite easy to implement.

Exactly what I was planning to respond to him, until I saw you already did.

 

[moreorless]

Sure - but there are excellent m43 primes that are relatively inexpensive (the best and most expensive is probably the Olympus 75mm f/1.8, which costs c. $900 - but the marvelous 45mm 1.8 and 60mm macro are half that).

Considering the sensor size I'v always felt m43 primes were rather expensive as well, I'm guessing because as with Leica building that much smaller costs more.

I look forward to the disappearance of mirrors, for various reasons. Whatever else one might say about the relative performance of my Canon 5DII and 6D vs my Olympus OM-D, the latter invariably nails focus precisely (and it's nice to buy a new lens and not worry about front/back focusing, let alone trying to fix it). I don't much care whether the resulting cameras are smaller (the top of the line Panasonic m43 body isn't much smaller than a 6D); in fact, as long as I'm going to be using my Canon lenses, I would prefer the body to be bigger for the reasons given by others.

do want a viewfinder, though. In some ways electronic viewfinders are already superior to optical viewfinders. I realize it's nice to see what you're photographing as you're photographing it, and what you see through an optical viewfinder is certainly nicer (though that will doubtless change as technology improves), but optical viewfinders are misleading - it's surely more useful to see through the viewfinder roughly how the image will look as you're taking that photo that waiting until you've taken it and checking on the monitor. One of the OM-D's dials adjusts exposure, and it's nice to be able to do that while you're taking the photo, looking through the viewfinder and seeing what happens as you turn the dial.

The ideal situation would I'd say be a system like Fuji's recent cameras were you have an OVF and EVF in one finder, just have the mirror flip up at the touch of a button.

I do think we'll see a few compact FF mirrorless cameras in the coming years going after a market similar to Leica(but with AF) but I have my doubts there going to make up as much of the market as on ASPC/43 sensor sizes.

I actually think the more obvious size advantage would be when you push up to MF if theres a long term market for sensors that size. When you get to that size I think the mirrorbox clearly starts increasing the size of the camera beyond that which could be argued to be ergonomically ideal.

 

[sdsr]

Whatever we may or may not want, if this is correct obsolescence is hardly imminent:

http://www.43rumors.com/camera-slaes-history-from-2011-till-today-mirrorless-hype-is-over-dslr-rules/

 

[DanielW]

I would like to have a camera which allows me to go on holiday and take 5000 or 10000 photos without changing the battery.

I can't even imagine myself flagging 10,000 photos on LR after some holiday... To be honest, I'm currently taking 4 GB cards around instead of 16 or 32 GB because I've found myself taking so-so pics much too often (and I'm actually much too lazy to import and categorize zillions of pics). I'd rather have 20 great pics a day.

 

[DanielW]

No place for m4/3 to me. I like the size of a DSLR in my hands; in fact, I'm very happy with my 60D and the 17-55/2.8 and the pics I can take of my kid with it. I wish, though, I had a smaller yet capable camera for carrying around. I've considered a Canon EOS-M, especially after firmware + crazy deal, but I'd rather have a small camera with a fixed lens and built-in flash, and letting the lens-changing and flash-attaching thing for DSLR-demanding situations.
I can't really see much of an advantage of m4/3s over DSLRs. Smaller, yeah, but still not pocketable, and you still have to change lenses and all that.
I'm probably getting a Sony RX-100 ii for good enough casual pics and video, and sticking with DSLRs (maybe a 7Dm2) for important or challenging situations, like my kid learning to walk or playing soccer. I can't myself going FF, as next gen sensors will probably be very good, at least for my amateurish needs.
My future kit, as I can think of right now:
- Sony RX-100 ii for everyday things
- DSLR for important moments -- 7Dm2, 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/4L is what I'm thinking of right now
- Borrowed Handycam when really good video matters (not often to me; not a video guy)
Cheers!

 

[sdsr]

I can't really see much of an advantage of m4/3s over DSLRs. Smaller, yeah, but still not pocketable, and you still have to change lenses and all that.

All true; there is, however, a vast difference in weight and bulk. The biggest m43 lens is the Panasonic 100-300mm (200-600mm equiv), and even it weighs only 20oz (compare the closest dslr equivalents, such as the Canon 100-400 or Sigma 50-500); the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz. Most of the primes seem almost weightless. Plus, as mentioned elsewhere, they have some technological advantages. Of course, if you have a smallish DSLR and don't carry around more than a couple of fairly lightweight lenses, or don't carry your equipment around for hours on end, these differences may seem trivial....

 

[Aurora Borealis]

I can't really see much of an advantage of m4/3s over DSLRs. Smaller, yeah, but still not pocketable, and you still have to change lenses and all that.

All true; there is, however, a vast difference in weight and bulk. The biggest m43 lens is the Panasonic 100-300mm (200-600mm equiv), and even it weighs only 20oz (compare the closest dslr equivalents, such as the Canon 100-400 or Sigma 50-500); the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz. Most of the primes seem almost weightless. Plus, as mentioned elsewhere, they have some technological advantages. Of course, if you have a smallish DSLR and don't carry around more than a couple of fairly lightweight lenses, or don't carry your equipment around for hours on end, these differences may seem trivial....

Lets do a bit of spread sheeting:
5DmkIII 1kg
17-40 f4L 0.6kg
24-70LII 0.8kg
70-200 f4LIS 0.7kg
= 3,1kg

OM-D 0.4kg
Panasomic G 7-14 0.3kg
Panasomic G 12-35 0.3kg
Panasomic G 35-100 0.3kg
= 1,3kg

Please note that the OM-D have f2.8 over a wider range than the Canon. The OM-D also goes a lot wider (14 vs 17 mm).

 

[ecka]

I can't really see much of an advantage of m4/3s over DSLRs. Smaller, yeah, but still not pocketable, and you still have to change lenses and all that.

All true; there is, however, a vast difference in weight and bulk. The biggest m43 lens is the Panasonic 100-300mm (200-600mm equiv), and even it weighs only 20oz (compare the closest dslr equivalents, such as the Canon 100-400 or Sigma 50-500); the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz. Most of the primes seem almost weightless. Plus, as mentioned elsewhere, they have some technological advantages. Of course, if you have a smallish DSLR and don't carry around more than a couple of fairly lightweight lenses, or don't carry your equipment around for hours on end, these differences may seem trivial....

Lets do a bit of spread sheeting:
5DmkIII 1kg
17-40 f4L 0.6kg
24-70LII 0.8kg
70-200 f4LIS 0.7kg
= 3,1kg

OM-D 0.4kg
Panasomic G 7-14 0.3kg
Panasomic G 12-35 0.3kg
Panasomic G 35-100 0.3kg
= 1,3kg

Please note that the OM-D have f2.8 over a wider range than the Canon. The OM-D also goes a lot wider (14 vs 17 mm).

First - Why are you putting Panasonic (3rd party) lenses on your OM-D, while asking for Canon OEM equivalent? Sigma 12-24mm is available + Nikkor 14-24mm can be adapted as well.
Second - There are no f/2.8 FF equivalent zoom lenses in M4/3 system. EF 28-300/3.5-5.6L is like M4/3 14-150/1.8-2.8 (which would be near as big, as heavy, as expensive and most likely not as good).

 

[Pi]

... the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz.

That is a f/5.6 eq. lens. The closest comparison is the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, which is more than twice (!) the weight and the price of the equivalent 70-200/4 IS, longer, and not as good.

The m43 14-35/2 is 28-70/4 eq., and it is a heavy $2.3K monster. The overpriced Canon 24-70/4 IS looks like a bargain next to it, and it is considerably lighter and smaller, not to mention wider and better.

 

[Don Haines]

You can not do a fair comparison between a m4/3 camera and a FF dslr (or APS-C). They are different beasts. A fair comparison would be micro 4/3 compared against Canon M.

Also going mirror less on a full frame camera does not necessarily mean that you have to have a tiny body. The body can be kept similar and the existing suite of lenses can be used. I have no doubt that eventually we will see mirror less FF bodies and that they will be using the same lenses.

 

[AvTvM]

... the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz.

That is a f/5.6 eq. lens. The closest comparison is the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, which is more than twice (!) the weight and the price of the equivalent 70-200/4 IS, longer, and not as good.

The m43 14-35/2 is 28-70/4 eq., and it is a heavy $2.3K monster. The overpriced Canon 24-70/4 IS looks like a bargain next to it, and it is considerably lighter and smaller, not to mention wider and better.

Exactly!
4/3 has in no way delivered on the promise of smaller, lighter or better lenses. Neither has APS-C. We know it is not possible for tele lenses where size is determined solely by entrance pupil, not by image circle. But manufacturers have also failed to deliver on the wide-angle side.
I will wait for a sony RX1-sized body with FF sensor and a number of tiny, native flange distance FF-capable primes with AF. I expect these pancake fixed focals between 20 and 80mm to be similar in size and cost to the excellent EF 40/2.8. plus a series of faster, somewhat larger and significantly more expensive "L" lenses, which will deliver Leica-M class image quality minus manual focus mechanics - at about 50% of current Leica M lens prices.

And i also expect a more compact 24-70/4 with short flange-back as hi-IQ kit lens. Priced at less than 1k.

It will come. Sooner rather than later. DSLRs are on the way out.

 

[mkabi]

Your needs or wants of today, aren't exactly your needs or wants of tomorrow.

Fact is... yes mirrorless cameras will make current DSLR obsolete... the keyword here is "current" DSLRs.

Most of you guys think that mirrorless will be evolving, but DSLRs will remain constant.

Thats like comparing todays laptop to a desktop of the late 80s or early 90s.

 

[mwh1964]

I will stay with full frame. That's how I first got introduced to photography in the 80ties - Pentax ME Super which I still have - and this what counts for me. And then perhaps a Fuji X100s which reminds me of me Canon QL17 which I also still have.

 

[tpatana]

I will stay with full frame.

Is there a law telling mirrorless cannot be full frame?

Sounds also that there's law telling mirrorless must be too small to be convenient with big lenses.

After they change those laws, then mirrorless bodies start (slowly) replacing traditional DSLRs.

 

[deleteme]

... the Panasonic equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, the 35-100 2.8, weighs 13 oz.

That is a f/5.6 eq. lens. The closest comparison is the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, which is more than twice (!) the weight and the price of the equivalent 70-200/4 IS, longer, and not as good.

The m43 14-35/2 is 28-70/4 eq., and it is a heavy $2.3K monster. The overpriced Canon 24-70/4 IS looks like a bargain next to it, and it is considerably lighter and smaller, not to mention wider and better.

The aperture equivalences are only valid if you are interested in equalizing narrow depth of field. Many people and most pros like a fast lens to be able to use a higher shutter speed. The DOF issue in no way affects that.

As for the price of any lens, it is either worth it or it isn't. I would gladly pay $2500 each for the f2 Olympus lenses if they would focus quickly on an OM-D. Not only would I be able to shoot wide open at good shutter speeds in dim light but I would also have the advantage of being able to have two people in focus in the frame.

Even though those lenses are large, the comparable lens in terms of true speed will never be made for a FF body.