What's the appeal of new mirrorless cameras?

[HHPhoto]

Hi Murray,

I've read elsewhere that the shorter shutter-to-flange distance in mirrorless cameras allows lens designers to produce lenses better matched to the performance characteristics of digital sensors. I would be curious to know more about this, myself.

- Murray

there is a lot of marketing and misinformation in such statements. From a technical point of view it only matters (a bit) in the field of extreme wide angle lenses (below 20mm) with wide apertures. They can be easier designed (and could be a bit cheaper) compared to (D)SLR extreme wide angle lenses.
But even as they could be made simpler and cheaper, they won't be cheaper offered.
We clearly see that for years now: Manufacturers offer their mirrorless products always at higher prices compared to DSLR counterparts. Whether this is because of much higher R&D costs, or just to get higher profit margins, I don't know. Mirrorless is more expensive compared to DSLR.

Concerning lenses: We have such excellent lenses for (D)SLRs even for extreme wide angles (and wide apertures) so the evidence is clear: Excellent performing lenses can be made and are be made in this field for SLRs, too.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

The appeal is less mechanical complication, quieter and hopefully more reliable operation operation for some purposes,

Concerning more reliable operation: In all the decades I am using SLRs and DSLRs I have never had one single problem with the mirror. Never, nothing, nada.
I am not convinced that an EVF will work for decades without problems. Have TVs or computer monitors life spans of decades? No, they haven't.

But I know from friends with their mirrorless cameras that they have more problems with dust on the sensor of their mirrorles cameras (the mirror is a kind of protection for dust, and that protection is gone with mirrorless).
And one has damaged his sensor because the camera with lens was pointed into direct sun light. You have to be really careful with mirrorless in such situations. DSLRs are robust and not in danger in such situations.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Sumarongi]

Something that's been baffling me a bit lately is the appeal of the new mirrorless cameras from Canon and Nikon.

I had thought that the appeal of mirrorless cameras was that they could be made smaller and lighter than SLRs and loose the big prism bump. Also that you could make smaller and lighter lenses.

However the new Canon and Nikons don't seem to be any less large and bulky than a traditional DSLR and the lenses are simarly larger.

So what are the advantages of it, from a consumer standpoint? I can't imagine that mirror blackout is that big of any issue for anybody really.

...
"If you want to lose weight, your best bet is to follow the latest diet."
"The department will become more profitable because it has been reorganized."
"Upgrading all your software to the most recent versions will make your system more reliable."
"Things are bad with party A in charge, thus party B will bring an improvement if they're elected."
"If you want to make friends, you have to wear the latest fashion and the trendiest gadgets."
...

Appeal to novelty 😀

 

[RichC]

Concerning more reliable operation...
I am not convinced that an EVF will work for decades without problems. Have TVs or computer monitors life spans of decades? No, they haven't.

Who seriously considers long-term reliability for digital cameras?

They're disposable tools, with the expectation that they'll be replaced in a few years - like modern cars - before components start failing through age and wear and tear.

I would never rely on a digital camera that's over about 5 years old. When my main camera is about 3-5 years old, it's replaced - always.

In addiction to reliability, I upgrade to gain useful advances in technology that make a real difference to my photography - higher usable ISO, and better dynamic range, image stabilisation, etc. Sony's pixel shifting is one I'm keeping an eye on - it noticeably increases the subtlety of colours and tone.

This is not change because of novelty but from necessity (i.e. need for reliability) and useful new features (i.e. improving my photography or ease of use).

In my view, a good mirrorless camera beats a good SLR hands down when considered only from the viewpoint of which is the most effective at capturing the picture you intend to take - simply because it does everything an SLR does but better.

 

[Out to Lunch]

The main appeal of mirrorless cameras is that soon they will be the only cameras in production.

 

[HHPhoto]

Who seriously considers long-term reliability for digital cameras?

They're disposable tools, with the expectation that they'll be replaced in a few years - like modern cars - before components start failing through age and wear and tear.

I would never rely on a digital camera that's over about 5 years old. When my main camera is about 3-5 years old, it's replaced - always.

My opinion is different both from an economical and ecological point of view:
1. I am not so rich that I could afford an expensive digital system camera (no matter whether DSLR or DSLM) every 3-5 years. I have to support my family.
2. Replacing digital cameras just after only 3-5 years is very bad for the environment. Production of digital cameras has a very high negative impact on the environment because of sensor production. It is a very polluting industry.

I am using my cameras as long as possible (film and digital). My oldest DSLR is about 14 years old and still working (meanwhile used as a backup). Best for my wallet and the environment.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

The main appeal of mirrorless cameras is that soon they will be the only cameras in production.

Completely wrong. DSLRs and SLRs will stay.

The same (complete production stop) has been told in the past concerning rangefinder cameras and instant film cameras.
But what happened instead? Just the opposite.
The demand for Leica film rangefinder cameras is increasing (official from Leica at last Photokina).
And instant film cameras are now the most successful camera type in the photography market:
Last year about 8 million instant film cameras (Fuji Instax, Lomography instax cameras, MINT, Leica Sofort) were sold.
For comparison:
Only 4.1 million DSLM cameras have been sold last year (and about 7.5 million DSLRs).
DSLMs had their peak sales already in 2012: Since then no growth anymore in that market. And despite all the new DSLM cameras this year the market demand is also flat this year so far.

Currently the manufacturers invest lots of money in this flat market. Some DSLM manufacturers (like Olympus) haven't made any significant profits in this market for years. With the increased competition now I would not be surprised if another 1-2 brands have to follow Samsung in the future and stop producing DSLM cameras because they can't make a profit in this overcrowded market.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Contarama]

FZ7 no mirror z mount 35mm film camera coming Spring of 2019

 

[RichC]

My opinion is different both from an economical and ecological point of view:
1. I am not so rich that I could afford an expensive digital system camera (no matter whether DSLR or DSLM) every 3-5 years. I have to support my family.
2. Replacing digital cameras just after only 3-5 years is very bad for the environment. Production of digital cameras has a very high negative impact on the environment because of sensor production. It is a very polluting industry.

I am using my cameras as long as possible (film and digital). My oldest DSLR is about 14 years old and still working (meanwhile used as a backup). Best for my wallet and the environment.

Cheers, Jan

I can appreciate that. I'm coming from purely an image-making viewpoint - what will make my photography easier or better.

But I get the environmental angle. I made the decision a couple of years ago to buy only used electronics when feasible - so my new Sony A7R II is only new to me. The amount of e-waste and the speed it's increasing at is worrying... 🙁

 

[Godfrey]

Good for you. I've not had any quit on me either. But plenty do have problems... and the Nikon F that I was given had a jammed mirror from years of sitting.

Dust on the sensor of a mirrorless camera is inevitable since the sensor is exposed by default to provide the through lens viewing. The shutter in a RF or a SLR shrouds the sensor, not the SLR's mirror. But I get just about the same amount of dust on my Ms as I got on my SL or CL. And E-1, and D750, and *istDS, and K10D, etc etc.

Of the benefits I mentioned, the most important one to me is the better viewfinder of an electronic TTL camera for various purposes that I happen to find myself working a lot. Absolute framing and focusing accuracy, the ability to see DoF live, the ability to see better in very low light circumstances, and the ability to work with any lens, consistently and efficiently, that I can rig onto the front of the camera means a lot more to me than decades of use. I'm not going to last that many more decades myself, and I'm going to buy new equipment along the way anyway, so why be kidding myself about decades of use?

My only remaining DSLR is now 15+ years old. It's still working very nicely. I expect it and my M-D and my CL to still be making nice photos as I approach my 80s, another 15 years from now. Whether I'm still making photographs at that time remains to be seen. Whatever other equipment I've acquired in that time may get the bulk of my use anyway.

But enough of this silly thread. They're cameras, just like the pinhole, instant film, point and shoot, RF, and SLR devices are cameras. They're the unimportant part of photography. The photographs are far more important, however you make them.

G

Concerning more reliable operation: In all the decades I am using SLRs and DSLRs I have never had one single problem with the mirror. Never, nothing, nada.
I am not convinced that an EVF will work for decades without problems. Have TVs or computer monitors life spans of decades? No, they haven't.

But I know from friends with their mirrorless cameras that they have more problems with dust on the sensor of their mirrorles cameras (the mirror is a kind of protection for dust, and that protection is gone with mirrorless).
And one has damaged his sensor because the camera with lens was pointed into direct sun light. You have to be really careful with mirrorless in such situations. DSLRs are robust and not in danger in such situations.

Cheers, Jan

 

[NickTrop]

Surprised no one mentioned video as an advantage of mirrorless. Mirrorless use phase detection vs contrast AF for most DSLRs. DSLRs have better battery life. There are advantages to EVF as previously mentioned. However, I'll take the better battery life over the EVF. I'm on team DSLR but get the appeal of mirrorless.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Cameras can be too small. My Olympus OMD-EM10mk2 is so tiny I had to add the optional grip to make it more comfortable to use. But the lenses are very small, so it remains balanced.
I find my D850 much more comfortable to use than my Z7, because it is bigger. I have medium sized hands and it just fits perfectly. The Z7, and all it's competitors, are really only comfortable when you add a grip. Which makes it larger.. Z7 does not have a grip at the moment.

Ultimately the deal is they use the same size sensor as the equivalent DSLR, so the lenses will be the same size. Upside for me vs my D850, is that I can use any lens on it with adapters (so it may replace my Leica depending on how well it works with wides), the single point AF absolutely nails focus 100% of the time at 1.4 with my Sigma Art lenses (D850 is about 80%), the incredible EVF (best I've used) which makes manual focus crazy easy even w/o aids, and the ability to see the actual exposure real time is perfect.

Huss,

If you are still looking at this thread, are you finding the files from the Z7 to be better, worse, or the same as the files from the D850 in terms of malleability, color depth, usable dynamic range, etc?
Or, too early to tell yet?

Larry

 

[RichC]

Surprised no one mentioned video as an advantage of mirrorless. Mirrorless use phase detection vs contrast AF for most DSLRs. DSLRs have better battery life. There are advantages to EVF as previously mentioned. However, I'll take the better battery life over the EVF. I'm on team DSLR but get the appeal of mirrorless.

Don't really get the wailing about battery life - my Sony A7R II takes about 250-350 photos per battery. People seem to think that's terrible but that's at least a day's photography. (Or 10 rolls of film in old money.) If you're shooting much more than that without good reason, you're doing photography wrong...!

Also, it's not exactly time consuming to change a battery. Faster than, hmm..., loading film!

 

[css9450]

Don't really get the wailing about battery life - my Sony A7R II takes about 250-350 photos per battery.

I'd be delighted if my little Sony a6000 did that well. I think it uses the same battery as the A7.... But I might get about 40-50 photos and then the battery life is displayed at something like only 30% remaining. Maybe my battery is just a dud (both of them).

 

[Bill Clark]

I own two mirrorless cameras.

One is an iPad.

The second is an iPhone.

 

[Huss]

Huss,

If you are still looking at this thread, are you finding the files from the Z7 to be better, worse, or the same as the files from the D850 in terms of malleability, color depth, usable dynamic range, etc?
Or, too early to tell yet?

Larry

Hi Larry

I'm kinda the last person to ask that question as I minimally process my files! And I really only use these cameras to scan film - but once my Leica adapter arrives for the Z7, I may actually use it as a camera!

This thread may answer your questions though:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1570123

 

[Huss]

Don't really get the wailing about battery life - my Sony A7R II takes about 250-350 photos per battery. People seem to think that's terrible but that's at least a day's photography. (Or 10 rolls of film in old money.) If you're shooting much more than that without good reason, you're doing photography wrong...!

Also, it's not exactly time consuming to change a battery. Faster than, hmm..., loading film!

People using the Nikon Z7 are getting 1500 shots per battery charge.
So one Nikon battery = 5 Sony batteries.

Something to consider.

 

[charjohncarter]

But I know from friends with their mirrorless cameras that they have more problems with dust on the sensor of their mirrorles cameras (the mirror is a kind of protection for dust, and that protection is gone with mirrorless).
And one has damaged his sensor because the camera with lens was pointed into direct sun light. You have to be really careful with mirrorless in such situations. DSLRs are robust and not in danger in such situations.

Cheers, Jan

My friend has had trouble with dust, a lot of trouble.

 

[css9450]

People using the Nikon Z7 are getting 1500 shots per battery charge.
So one Nikon battery = 5 Sony batteries.

This, exactly. I don't necessarily think its a mirrorless vs. DSLR issue; Sony just has crummy batteries. I can use my DSLRs daily or leave them on a shelf for months and the charge barely goes down much at all. But if I shoot with my a6000 on Saturday, I MUST re-charge the battery or I won't be using it on Sunday at all.

 

[Michael Markey]

This, exactly. I don't necessarily think its a mirrorless vs. DSLR issue; Sony just has crummy batteries. I can use my DSLRs daily or leave them on a shelf for months and the charge barely goes down much at all. But if I shoot with my a6000 on Saturday, I MUST re-charge the battery or I won't be using it on Sunday at all.

I use an AR72 and A7s and the battery life is an issue if you`re using them all day for sports photography .

Constantly having to check the charge even when they haven`t been used other than that and the EVF blackout they`re great for the general stuff .

Like mine a lot but still use a DSLR for the action stuff …. well when I know that I`m going to be out all day.