Bill Pierce
Well-known
Has the small, mirrorless camera provided a bridge between reflex and rangefinder? Will mirrorless be the camera of the future and eventually replace the reflex and rangefinder?
Beyond the obvious difference in the way they focus, reflex and rangefinder are very different cameras.
The most obvious difference? Reflex bodies are bigger than rangefinders. DSLR lenses, especially at the wide angle end of the spectrum are often bigger. And big zooms, not possible on rangefinder cameras, are much, much bigger. But, if you presume the smaller rangefinder camera is more convenient in many situations and lets you always have a camera with you, mirrorless cameras can be small and, at the same time, mimic the viewfinder experience of the DSLR.
The most important difference? That DSLR viewfinder experience is totally different from the rangefinder bright line frame. Look into the viewfinder of the DSLR and you see a beautiful slide show, the image surrounded by black, the depth of field limited. And, it is the through the lens image that is a match for the image on the sensor; there is no parallax error. The bright line finder image of the rangefinder is not exact. It usually shows a little less than the sensor sees. You are not looking through the lens, and there is parallax error in close ups. It is limited in the focal lengths that it deals with and its ability to deal with extreme close ups. But all those limitations are unimportant because everything in the frame is sharp and you can see outside of the frame, a help in choosing and anticipating framing in active, changing situations. For this reason, the rangefinder is of great use to and a great favorite of news photographers, street photographers and grandparents. But Fuji now makes 2 mirrorless camera systems, one with a fixed lens, the other with interchangeable lenses, that can toggle back and forth between the through the lens viewing of the DSLR and the bright line viewing of the rangefinder.
In the past, folks have said that the electronic viewfinders of the mirrorless cameras were not as good as the mirrored finders of the DSLR. I think that was true. I think it is no longer true. Mirror shake with contemporary DSLRs is minimal. Obviously, there is none with mirrorless cameras. Rangefinders were always the discrete, quiet cameras. Mirrorless can be quieter. And so the argument for mirrorless goes on and on. Is it the camera design of the future?
Beyond the obvious difference in the way they focus, reflex and rangefinder are very different cameras.
The most obvious difference? Reflex bodies are bigger than rangefinders. DSLR lenses, especially at the wide angle end of the spectrum are often bigger. And big zooms, not possible on rangefinder cameras, are much, much bigger. But, if you presume the smaller rangefinder camera is more convenient in many situations and lets you always have a camera with you, mirrorless cameras can be small and, at the same time, mimic the viewfinder experience of the DSLR.
The most important difference? That DSLR viewfinder experience is totally different from the rangefinder bright line frame. Look into the viewfinder of the DSLR and you see a beautiful slide show, the image surrounded by black, the depth of field limited. And, it is the through the lens image that is a match for the image on the sensor; there is no parallax error. The bright line finder image of the rangefinder is not exact. It usually shows a little less than the sensor sees. You are not looking through the lens, and there is parallax error in close ups. It is limited in the focal lengths that it deals with and its ability to deal with extreme close ups. But all those limitations are unimportant because everything in the frame is sharp and you can see outside of the frame, a help in choosing and anticipating framing in active, changing situations. For this reason, the rangefinder is of great use to and a great favorite of news photographers, street photographers and grandparents. But Fuji now makes 2 mirrorless camera systems, one with a fixed lens, the other with interchangeable lenses, that can toggle back and forth between the through the lens viewing of the DSLR and the bright line viewing of the rangefinder.
In the past, folks have said that the electronic viewfinders of the mirrorless cameras were not as good as the mirrored finders of the DSLR. I think that was true. I think it is no longer true. Mirror shake with contemporary DSLRs is minimal. Obviously, there is none with mirrorless cameras. Rangefinders were always the discrete, quiet cameras. Mirrorless can be quieter. And so the argument for mirrorless goes on and on. Is it the camera design of the future?
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I think mirrorless will be the camera design of the future for most folks wanting to still take pictures with a separate device from the one they make phone calls with. But I hope the manufacturers of SLR/DSLR and Rangefinder cameras still produce at least a few designs.
I've stocked up on both, have a couple of film rangefinders and one digital, and a few old SLR's and a couple digital. I expect the rangefinders and film SLR's will serve me well for my remaining time here on this earth; the DSLR's will probably need eventual replacement. And who knows, if mirrorless is equivalent to my current D4, I would certainly consider it, especially if it will take my F mount lenses.
PS: Can only speak for myself, but I use my rangefinders and film SLR's to take pictures for myself, and the DSLR's to take pictures other people want. I'm happy to use "whatever gets the job done" when it comes to taking pictures that other people want. But for taking pictures for myself, I like the experience of an optical viewfinder, be it a rangefinder or an SLR.
I've stocked up on both, have a couple of film rangefinders and one digital, and a few old SLR's and a couple digital. I expect the rangefinders and film SLR's will serve me well for my remaining time here on this earth; the DSLR's will probably need eventual replacement. And who knows, if mirrorless is equivalent to my current D4, I would certainly consider it, especially if it will take my F mount lenses.
PS: Can only speak for myself, but I use my rangefinders and film SLR's to take pictures for myself, and the DSLR's to take pictures other people want. I'm happy to use "whatever gets the job done" when it comes to taking pictures that other people want. But for taking pictures for myself, I like the experience of an optical viewfinder, be it a rangefinder or an SLR.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
EVF still nowhere near OVF. EVF shows how camera interpreters what you might see in OVF.
EVF replacing RF and Reflex for simple reason. It is less expensive in manufacturing.
My future digital camera exist in the past:
It very small, very simple and has OVF where it should be.
I think it just a matter of time before this design will be returned in production.
EVF replacing RF and Reflex for simple reason. It is less expensive in manufacturing.
My future digital camera exist in the past:
It very small, very simple and has OVF where it should be.
I think it just a matter of time before this design will be returned in production.
btgc
Veteran
DSLR this days can be very small and has both OVF and Live view. I'd choose mirrorless if taking pictures during lecture for quiter shutter or have higher flash sync speed than DSLR has. Otherwise DSLR is just fine for me.
Spanik
Well-known
Well, evf is still nowhere compared to ovf. And mirror shake has been replaced by shutter shake on mirrorless. The Fuji "rangefinder" mirrorless show how bad parallax error is even in cameras stuffed with electronics. Flash sync is more a function of shutter design and has nothing to do with having a mirror or not, central shutters are still king and there are none such lenses for mirrorless (at least not interchangable lenses). Electronic rolling shutter is more a gimmick than usable. Mirrorless might be cheaper to make but it isn't cheaper to buy.
Still a lot of work before the full electronic camera takes over.
Still a lot of work before the full electronic camera takes over.
bmattock
Veteran
Yes. One of the major upsides of an EVF is that it can 'gain up' to provide a clear view for focus and framing when conditions would otherwise not permit it. With the much-higher ISO capability of the current crop of sensors, this is very important.
I agree with everyone who says that the EVF is not 100% a replacement for a ground glass or a coincident image for manual focusing, but I believe it is getting there quickly.
I also agree that manufacturers like EVF because it costs less to make. Fewer mechanical moving parts.
Given that there is a definite and fairly short lifespan to digital technology as we move forward, it hurts to invest in the latest greatest, to include precision moving mechanical parts, and then abandon that investment in a few short years.
I am looking forward to high grade EVF cameras taking the place of both SLR and RF type cameras.
That is not to say that I will abandon either one, but the market will, and that's OK with me.
GaryLH
Veteran
The mirrorless is definitely getting closer...especially w/ the Sony a6300 announcement today. But there is something to be said of the ovf, whether on a dslr or drf. Even when mirrorless can match the af performance of a dslr or have an evf that u can't tell the difference, for those who want a drf experience or the familiarity of the dlsr setup, I sure they will be around for a long while yet.
But even Canon is rethinking what to do next.. Note their announcement today about FF mirrorless.
I still have an old Nikon d7100 and Sigma sd1.. The Nikon will be my last from them.. It handles my wildlife shooting. Nikon matrix meterng is always spot on compared to others.
The Sigma dslr depends on what they do next w/ the foveon sensor.
Gary
But even Canon is rethinking what to do next.. Note their announcement today about FF mirrorless.
I still have an old Nikon d7100 and Sigma sd1.. The Nikon will be my last from them.. It handles my wildlife shooting. Nikon matrix meterng is always spot on compared to others.
The Sigma dslr depends on what they do next w/ the foveon sensor.
Gary
Dwig
Well-known
Mirrorless is here to stay, and I think it will become the dominant form for interchangeable lens cameras. EVFs are very very good, better than direct OVF (read: RF cameras) in terms of framing accuracy and FL flexibility and better than reflex OVFs when it comes to usability in very low light. They don't win all comparisons (yet), but do win many and they keep improving.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Eliminating the mirror mechanism or the rangefinder mechanism considerably cuts the cost of manufacturing the camera. I suspect this appeals to the manufacturer on several levels. And since he, in a way, will decide what cameras we have the option of buying, that may be a plus for mirrorless.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I like my mirrorless cameras (fuji). They are ready for further evolution though.
Mirrorless has a way to go in the designs and designations that manufacturers are targeting.
When the Mirrorless cameras reach a performance level (and beyond) of the Leica SL I think we can start talking about other designs phasing out.
Image quality is there already from Fuji, Sony, etc...
By performance I'm referring to Speed of writing to card, refresh rates and Resolution of EVF, focus speed and accuracy.
DSLR's are still King when it comes to hit rate and bringing home the bacon.
It seems to me most all mirrorless cameras that came before the SL were willing to sacrifice ultimate performance for small size and light weight.
I would take back some performance even if it meant a bit more weight and bulk.
Mirrorless has a way to go in the designs and designations that manufacturers are targeting.
When the Mirrorless cameras reach a performance level (and beyond) of the Leica SL I think we can start talking about other designs phasing out.
Image quality is there already from Fuji, Sony, etc...
By performance I'm referring to Speed of writing to card, refresh rates and Resolution of EVF, focus speed and accuracy.
DSLR's are still King when it comes to hit rate and bringing home the bacon.
It seems to me most all mirrorless cameras that came before the SL were willing to sacrifice ultimate performance for small size and light weight.
I would take back some performance even if it meant a bit more weight and bulk.
BillBingham2
Registered User
An interesting point.
I used an old Olympus D-100 for several years and then sent it to a new home who used it for another two or three. It served both our purposes well. I would suggest that it's a marketable lifespan for the price point manufacturers want to target. While the sunk costs of design and tooling are recovered as part of the cost manufacturers are often looking to price points rather than units sold. Fujifilm might be a notable exception.
Companies live on selling new for as high a margin as possible. If they can create a new and improved version to sell without incurring major expenses (e.g., tooling, testing) that people want they often will stop making the current version.
So many factors come into making product decisions, I know I know but a few. If you want to look at an interesting example of stretching your sunk costs (developing and tooling) look at Intel with chips. I wonder if that approach could be the same for camera manufacturers?
Is there a market for a camera who's chip isn't passing the 4K video requirement so those features are removed from the product and it's sold at a lower cost? Perhaps the buffer isn't big enough for 20 shots, but would hold 5 before you get the "I'm processing as fast as I could, please leave me alone" message. Unlike the Nikon F and Nikkormat cameras you wouldn't need to make that many changes to the basic system, just the software. Sort of the reverse of the Sony A7 family
Sony a7 ... $1700
Sony a7R ... $2300
Sony a7S ... $2500
Sony a7RII ... $3200
While I would love to have 4K video in my mirror-less camera, I'd be more willing to jump in and try a system, and if I like it build on it if I had a less expensive, less fancy function starting body. Kind of like the Fujifilm XT1 and XT10 but without the major body changes.
Thoughts?
B2 (;->
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Mirrorless probably is the future for the bulk of interchangeable lens digital cameras, but largely driven by price of manufacture.
There may remain sufficient other markets to allow slr's and possibly the odd rf to survive.
For me, the key difference is the way you view the world - an rf is a window and tends to make the subject more of the focus. An slr abstracts towards the final image and the evf is a step further along the path, but in may experience to date neither fast enough or of high enough quality - and simply not pleasing.
Mike
There may remain sufficient other markets to allow slr's and possibly the odd rf to survive.
For me, the key difference is the way you view the world - an rf is a window and tends to make the subject more of the focus. An slr abstracts towards the final image and the evf is a step further along the path, but in may experience to date neither fast enough or of high enough quality - and simply not pleasing.
Mike
charjohncarter
Veteran
I have probably the most unpopular mirrorless: Pentax K-01. I works like a dream. Small but still uses all my old lenses, it is loaded down with too much unless garbage so the menu is smaller. I don't understand why we need mirrors and don't use RF lenses on mirrorless. I guess Leica or the old RD are the ones with the right idea.
Kevcaster
Well-known
I recently went to buy a Fujifilm X-E2 and after some playing with various models, X-Pro, XT-1 and X30 and finally lost perspective and left the store without any of them. I could not pin down my drop in enthusiasm but Mike has nailed it. The viewfinders are 'simply not pleasing' and found myself detached in a sci-fi way from my potential image. In my briefcase was a Contax lla and Sonnar, this also has a poor viewfinder and yet I took a few pictures on my way home feeling fully connected to my subjects and smug (surely one of the most unattractive human qualities) about using film in a classic camera.
Mirrorless is certainly the future and the viewfinders will be better than a real view in the future, just not yet for me. I also understood the wisdom of the Leica M digitals, they are directly connected with the subject and seem to me to offer the best of all worlds, full frame, evf option, compact system, awesome image quality.
Kevin
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Oh Bill.
I think it might be a "sure, maybe, depends," answer.
I (and dear hubby too) shot rangefinders before going over to the dark side.
On the new mirrorless cameras, the magic of the EVF is of course the "gain-up". But the magic of the Nikon full-frame is the sheer size of the view. Anyone with any sensitivity who has put their eye to an F anything or D3 and after, or an Olympus OM or ...
Well, you get my point, don't you?
I've always shot with both eyes open so the brightlines aren't really that important to me. The size is... Size matters. The size of the view and the size of the camera.
Here is what I've been lugging around.
The Fuji compliments the Nikon wonderfully and has replaced the second Nikon.
Every month or so I think, "Mme. O., perhaps this is the time you leave the Nikons behind (and take a second Fuji)."
But then I relent. The TTL OVF in the Nikon has an immediacy that isn't quite there in the X100. I do love my husband's X100T, though.
So I suppose the real answer is "when the view is as immediate and transparent as the Nikon finder."
Best,
Mme. O.
I think it might be a "sure, maybe, depends," answer.
I (and dear hubby too) shot rangefinders before going over to the dark side.
On the new mirrorless cameras, the magic of the EVF is of course the "gain-up". But the magic of the Nikon full-frame is the sheer size of the view. Anyone with any sensitivity who has put their eye to an F anything or D3 and after, or an Olympus OM or ...
Well, you get my point, don't you?
I've always shot with both eyes open so the brightlines aren't really that important to me. The size is... Size matters. The size of the view and the size of the camera.
Here is what I've been lugging around.
The Fuji compliments the Nikon wonderfully and has replaced the second Nikon.
Every month or so I think, "Mme. O., perhaps this is the time you leave the Nikons behind (and take a second Fuji)."
But then I relent. The TTL OVF in the Nikon has an immediacy that isn't quite there in the X100. I do love my husband's X100T, though.
So I suppose the real answer is "when the view is as immediate and transparent as the Nikon finder."
Best,
Mme. O.
willie_901
Veteran
Being able to use either an EVF or OVF as one pleases is a useful feature.
Only two mirrorless brands (Leica M and Fujifilm) provide digital products where EVF And OVF viewing are not mutually exclusive. This statement is almost certainly incomplete as some larger format, out-of-production or extremely low-volume mirrorless hybrid EVF/OVF finders must be out there.
Of course every mirrorless camera with a flash shoe can have an OVF by attaching an external optical finder. This seems to be rare.
Mirrorless EVF viewing for studio work (when the camera is on a tripod) is extremely valuable with WiFi based tethering. In this circumstance a large tablet beats any DSLR finder by a wide margin. Of course DSLRs can be thethered as well.
I could never, ever go back to a DSLR platform unless I was offered an incredible opportunity involving action photography. I can promise you no such opportunity will appear.
Only two mirrorless brands (Leica M and Fujifilm) provide digital products where EVF And OVF viewing are not mutually exclusive. This statement is almost certainly incomplete as some larger format, out-of-production or extremely low-volume mirrorless hybrid EVF/OVF finders must be out there.
Of course every mirrorless camera with a flash shoe can have an OVF by attaching an external optical finder. This seems to be rare.
Mirrorless EVF viewing for studio work (when the camera is on a tripod) is extremely valuable with WiFi based tethering. In this circumstance a large tablet beats any DSLR finder by a wide margin. Of course DSLRs can be thethered as well.
I could never, ever go back to a DSLR platform unless I was offered an incredible opportunity involving action photography. I can promise you no such opportunity will appear.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Reflex, RF & Mirrorless
Simply lovely to infer all the different ways people have of working with their cameras. After more than a half-century one still feels a beginner! Marvelous.
Everyone here calls hubby and me "Fujikon" because we primarily use D3s and X100s in our day to day work.
However I have a Panasonic GX1 that tempts me - I love the size and responsiveness - and then I use it and am very disappointed. The way it (jpg) handles color is problematic and the LCD on the back lies about that as well.
I'm forced to shoot raw with it when I do use it, a process I dislike.
Hubby and I destroyed a few bottles of wine last night with some colleagues and we kept coming around to how the camera (jpeg engine) handles color as being a basic requirement for camera selection.
This overrides almost any other consideration, really. It's the main reason hubby and I still carry the big Nikons around and why we use the Fuji X cameras.
Even among the few RAW-only shooters in our little group of madmen there is a desire for a certain aesthetic in the LCD review and certainly that points at potentials for them in post.
I Would love to replace the Nikon with the m4/3 GX1 but the way it does color just puts me off.
That, for me, and certainly a few others, is more important than whether the camera is an SLR, mirrorless, or rangefinder.
Warmest,
Mme. O.
Simply lovely to infer all the different ways people have of working with their cameras. After more than a half-century one still feels a beginner! Marvelous.
Everyone here calls hubby and me "Fujikon" because we primarily use D3s and X100s in our day to day work.
However I have a Panasonic GX1 that tempts me - I love the size and responsiveness - and then I use it and am very disappointed. The way it (jpg) handles color is problematic and the LCD on the back lies about that as well.
I'm forced to shoot raw with it when I do use it, a process I dislike.
Hubby and I destroyed a few bottles of wine last night with some colleagues and we kept coming around to how the camera (jpeg engine) handles color as being a basic requirement for camera selection.
This overrides almost any other consideration, really. It's the main reason hubby and I still carry the big Nikons around and why we use the Fuji X cameras.
Even among the few RAW-only shooters in our little group of madmen there is a desire for a certain aesthetic in the LCD review and certainly that points at potentials for them in post.
I Would love to replace the Nikon with the m4/3 GX1 but the way it does color just puts me off.
That, for me, and certainly a few others, is more important than whether the camera is an SLR, mirrorless, or rangefinder.
Warmest,
Mme. O.
13Promet
Well-known
EVF and elecronic shutter performace are getting better and better at a very fast pace.
Also, for RF lovers, a secondary digital window and coupled sensor will be feasible with the same or better IQ than the current optical ones.
Just a matter of time, and not a long one IMO.
Also, for RF lovers, a secondary digital window and coupled sensor will be feasible with the same or better IQ than the current optical ones.
Just a matter of time, and not a long one IMO.