Mirrorless vs The World

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
3:26 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
Rangefinder Forum or not, there are a lot of folks on this forum that use DSLR’s and the smaller mirrorless cameras. Toolboxes have hammers and saws and screwdrivers. Gadget bags have DSLR’s, rangefinders and mirrorless cameras. They probably would have view cameras, too, but those are awfully big for a gadget bag.

Rangefinders and reflexes date from the days of film and have kept many of the features that were a necessity for a film camera. a camera which couldn't have an image sensor that could be used for both capturing the image and actually focusing it. And both cameras can have focusing and other problems, major or minor, because they don't use the actual image for focusing.

Mirrorless is not problem free, but, without a mirror and pentaprism the cameras can be smaller and simpler mechanically (and cheaper to make). Without a long-based rangefinder, they can be smaller and simpler (and a lot cheaper to make).

The major problem with mirrorless cameras is that live view focusing is really the hunt and peck focusing system of all time and one of the strong arguments for manual pre focusing and scale focusing for a lot of subjects. But the situation is definitely improving in newer camera models, especially those using sensors that combine on-sensor phase detection and live view fine tuning (along with much improved viewfinders).

I think film rangefinders and reflexes are top grade cameras sadly tied to a diminishing availability of film and darkroom gear (hooray for Freestyle Photographic Supplies). But I think “mirrorless” has a bright future, even on the Rangefinder Forum.

Your thoughts?
 
These days I would definitely go for a mirrorless instead of a DSLR. The main factor f course is size. That said, a digital camera for me is "just" a digital camera... I would first look at practicality and ruggedness before image quality. Most of them are good enough. My only digital is the X100S, chosen for its form factor, silent mode and optical viewfinder. IQ was a given, as it would be with any other decent DSLR or mirrorless. I wish the Fuji was weatherproof though.
If I was to take photos for a living again, the choice would be hard, Nikon DSLR or some mirrorless... The later are pretty new, so it remains to be seen how they'll take hard use in the field. Maybe I would try the EM-1. I am not sure I would trust the X100S on a long trip, but maybe I'm wrong.
My ideal camera would be a Monochrom without a screen and manual shutter rewind to save batteries.
At to mirrorless, the cat is out of the bag now...

Gil.
 
It's a bit like the question ... 'will digital take over from film?'

The market appears to be swamped with the things already from what I can see ... with the camera phone lurking in the back ground.
 
.. The major problem with mirrorless cameras is that live view focusing is really the hunt and peck focusing system of all time ..
Click to expand...

Bill,

Why do you always start your op-ed column with such prejudicial nonsense?

G
 
About two years ago I switched from Canon DSLRs to an Olympus m4/3 kit for my professional work, and I have not regretted it once.

To me, the strength of mirrorless is that it is a fully integrated digital system, unlike DSLRs or dRFs that hybridize old film concepts. I love shooting film, but for digital, it just makes sense that focusing, framing, and shooting are all done directly off the sensor.

They have so many benefits you don't realize from a spec sheet, like being able to preview white balance in the EVF, or manual focus magnifiers, or extremely accurate single-AF that never requires micro-adjustment. Sure, my EM-5's continuous AF can't compete with a 1D X or D4s yet, but they will get there eventually!
 
If you ignore AF then mirrorless is just a digital view camera. And for comparison with a film view camera you need to ignore AF!

View cameras came first and digital view cameras (mirrorless) will be the final form.

Sony's option of a pellicle mirror adapter allows the best of all focussing options to be selected as and when required.
 
I have a digital slr, a rangefinder and two slr's (film) and a mirrorless, and do you know what camera I take with me all the time and to meets?? the mirrorless it's just the small size of the whole package including a lens. It's a great carry around camera. Bill's right that
they are getting better and better even the latest one's are proving that. I'm thinking of buying my friends
Hasselblad 500cm, but I wonder now.


Range
 
I think most people get a hammer and saw because they require both a hammer and a saw, and think we here buy different types of cameras because we like them.

I think mirrorless has a bright future for the companies who make them, but for photographers/camera enthusiasts, it's going to depend on whether you like them, and if the industry goes in certain directions. Unfortunately, for me, anyway, I think the digital camera industry will keep going in the same direction as the rest of the consumer electronics industry, fashion driven (OMG! It can upload to Instagram!), numbers driven (MHz! MBs!), and cost driven.

That said, mirrorless cameras are certainly small, affordable and useful, and I certainly would not rule out getting one, at some point. Same goes for DSLRs though, excellent advantages there too.
 
Thoughts?
Three!

Mirrorless don't have what I have with DSLR. Fast AF, OVF combined with affordable, bugs free FF and most of them have high ISO which sucks.

I'm 99 % b/w film user, your statement about diminishing film and darkroom, to be polite and respectful for you - not true statement. I haven't even tried all emulsions and papers yet :)

Mirrorless has bright future. With crowd, for sure.
 
Mirrorless cameras of some type will dominate in the foreseeable future.

Advances in focusing (automatic, manual and/or afterwards) are required for mirrorless to become as good as or better than the digital rangefinder for my needs, though. There are some solutions at least on paper, but time will tell what gets implemented and how they turn out.
 
I think you pretty much nailed it, Bill. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any camera manufacturer that doesn't have a foot in the mirrorless camp.

It's where all the action (volume sales) is.

~Rif
 
Mirrorless is great but there is still a way to go before they will replace a DSLR everyone.

Biggest problem is the bodies are so small and many are only interest in mirror less due to small size.

Now I like a small camera for some things but a camera body needs to balance the lenses put on it.

I find my D800 too small with an 80-200 f2.8 attached to it, I really must get the grip sometime soon.

I've been messing with mirror less for the last 3 years, I started with a Sony NEX C3 which I still have, well my daughter has claimed it as hers.
Later I bought the Fuji XE1 with kit zoom, to be honest I didn't like it, I got rid of it after some months.
Now I use a Sony A7, I use the 50mm f1.5 Nokton and the 35mm f2.5 Skopar. Also I have a Nikon f adapter sadly the A7 is a bit small and fiddly and is better suited to the smaller lighter lenses.
I would like Nikon to released a decent sized mirror less body so I can happily use my manual focus Nikkors maybe something about the size of a D800.
 
For all those that think that size is the most important advantage of mirrorless camera's, there is such a thing as making something too small. The same happened with mobile phones. There was a race to make everything so small that it could hardly be used anymore, batterylife was dire and so on. They all became a bit bigger and now it looks like they found a good compromise that is able to combine usability/ergonomics with size. Mirrorless still has to go through that phase.

And to be honest the viewfinders, screens and/or evf, are still no competition for even the most elementary optical viewfinder. Certainly in full sunlight and they still consume battery like you're lugging a generator set along.
 
Spanik said:
For all those that think that size is the most important advantage of mirrorless camera's, there is such a thing as making something too small. The same happened with mobile phones. There was a race to make everything so small that it could hardly be used anymore, batterylife was dire and so on. They all became a bit bigger and now it looks like they found a good compromise that is able to combine usability/ergonomics with size. Mirrorless still has to go through that phase.

And to be honest the viewfinders, screens and/or evf, are still no competition for even the most elementary optical viewfinder. Certainly in full sunlight and they still consume battery like you're lugging a generator set along.
Click to expand...

Totally agree on the size point. I recently bought a Nikon Df. I have not used my Oly EM-5 since. Love the Df with my MF Nikkors, and just sent a second batch to John White to be AI'd.
 
I like small cameras, and for me the size of the EM-1 is just about perfect. With the fixed zoom I think he balance is just right. I wish the digital M's weighed the same and was as easy to hold!

I prefer the latest generation evfs to slr viewfinders-I like the information available right there, and the focusing aids are better than anything available in an slr viewfinder. And the evfs will only get better...!

All cameras are compromises... It's nice to have choice, and to have great quality in a smaller package than was available just a few years ago.
 
I totally agree. Setting aside the photography aspect of photographic gear for a moment, the cost of manufacturing is completely on mirrorless's side. RFs are quite expensive to make, and the cost of a mirror box and optics cannot be avoided with an SLR.

But take a look at an A7 or EM1. It's all electronics. Electronics is cheap, and it'll only get cheaper - compare the laptops today with those ~10 years ago, and you see electronic evolution at its best. But that fine-grounded mirror in a DSLR? That's not getting cheaper any time soon.

On the optimistic side I'd say we'll have truly "retina" class EVFs (300ppi over the coverage range) within 5-10 years, and completely pocketable Full Frame compacts, with the help of curved sensors. Great times to be a photographer :D
 
Spanik said:
For all those that think that size is the most important advantage of mirrorless camera's, there is such a thing as making something too small. The same happened with mobile phones. There was a race to make everything so small that it could hardly be used anymore, batterylife was dire and so on. They all became a bit bigger and now it looks like they found a good compromise that is able to combine usability/ergonomics with size. Mirrorless still has to go through that phase.

And to be honest the viewfinders, screens and/or evf, are still no competition for even the most elementary optical viewfinder. Certainly in full sunlight and they still consume battery like you're lugging a generator set along.
Click to expand...

I can get 400 shots out of any of my mirrorless bodies. I never take 11 rolls of film out for a day trip. The portable power source I use is barely larger than my phone and can fill an A7 ~7 times over. That's 2,800 frames, more than what I shoot per pro basketball game :D

Some people prefer OVFs, and some people prefer EVFs...Personally the EVF makes a lot more sense if you care about the results more than the picture-making process. It becomes trivial to fine-control the shooting parameters as you focus - as long as I'm not in a huge hurry, I never miss exposure or focus with an EVF. If I do, I immediately know and take another shot.
 
Would a smart phone be considered a mirrorless camera?

Talking to a friend of mine who works at a camera store, he believes smart phones are changing the camera market.

Rangefinder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom