Mirrorless vs DSLR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conropl

Besides cost reasons I guess I always assumed the real long term goal for mirrorless was to get to an electronic shutter. Then as video gets to the point of extremely high frame rates, then you could pull frames (grab frames) at any instant of the action. What if you could produce high res 200 (or more) frames a second and you could pull any one of the frames. Or even high speed video capabilty with super slow-moving mo or each frame can be pulled out for a photo. Aren't we getting close to that senarrio?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

---

Took this as a chance to look at rolling vs global electronic shutters. Concepts I was generally aware of, but had never really looked into. I found this on Cinema 5D. While my recent math skilz might not be up to standard, I would still interpret the 25 ms to be 1/40th of a second. So, the Canon 5DC has a rolling shutter speed equivalent to 1/40th of a second. The fastest reported by cinema 5d is the Arri Alexa at 6 ms or ~1/160th of a second shutter speed. And these are for 2k-4k video, not 50 MP (so the number of rows that need to be read would be much higher for still photography which would require even longer read times).

So, rolling shutters are still a long ways away from the performance of a mechanical shutter.

Of course, the next option would be a global shutter. Reading up on that a bit:

1. Very expensive
2. Requires a lot more on-sensor circuitry that cuts down on pixel area. Microlenses has helped the light gathering ability but, in addition to cost, noise/circuitry/heat/and just managing all that data at once seem to be issues.

Then, of course, is memory. I already think the 5Ds(R) ISO range was limited for no other reason than bandwidth. But say you design around the 100 MP files that are maximum there (keep the math easy for me :)...and designing around a max is usually a good idea). 5 fps is 500 MB/sec, 14 fps is 1,400 MB/sec.....So, say we have a 256 GB card, it could be filled up in ~3 min at 14 fps. 200 fps...256 GB card filled in 13 secs.

I am really not trying to be so negative about mirrorless. It is just one of those topics that I see so many people talking about with a lot of passion and I just look at and think "meh".....makes me feel like I am getting old.


BTW...some links I was reading on electronic shutters...if interested:
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/global-rolling-shutter
http://caspegroup.com/How%20an%20ele...S%20camera.pdf
http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php...tronic_shutter
http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin

Long term I think mirrorless offers a lot of potential upgrades from DSLRs:

1) Much less complicated mechanically, more reliable
2) Less cost assuming economies of scale
3) Less size and weight, particularly with the scope of APS-C sensor sizes or non-tele lenses
4) WYSIWYG electronic viewfinder performance eventually should present more positives than negatives versus optical viewfinder
5) Greater autofocus accuracy

---

1) Supported by Lensrentals repair data.
2) Less cost to produce – no guarantee that gets passed along to customers.
3) The smallest possible size (small body, pancake lens) is smaller for MILC than dSLR; small bodies present ergonomic challenges as lenses get larger (the new Sony 24-70/2.8G is bigger than its Canon equivalent).
4) More lag even with the fastest refresh, but the additional display options are great
5) More accuracy, but not necessarily more precision or faster AF b

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I am really not trying to be so negative about mirrorless. It is just one of those topics that I see so many people talking about with a lot of passion and I just look at and think "meh".....makes me feel like I am getting old.

---

I am not advocating mirrorless... at least not at this time. However, what I am saying is I can see some good reasons for manufacturers to be playing in the technology. They would do that to try to advance it for 1) cost reasons to reduce costs and increase profits, and 2) use it as a platform for future leap in technology from were we are today in order to drive up replacement sales.

I have a hard time seeing the current mechanical system getting that much better over time - some room for improvements, but leaps seems tougher. I would think there is more improvement headroom on the electronics side. However, this is just speculation... no real bases for it.

I do not think I said was excited with what is out there now. Yes, I agree there is not that much to be excited about - especially when compared to the hype.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conropl

However, what I am saying is I can see some good reasons for manufacturers to be playing in the technology. They would do that to try to advance it for 1) cost reasons to reduce costs and increase profits, and 2) use it as a platform for future leap in technology from were we are today in order to drive up replacement sales.

I have a hard time seeing the current mechanical system getting that much better over time - some room for improvements, but leaps seems tougher. I would think there is more improvement headroom on the electronics side. However, this is just speculation... no real bases for it.

---

I completely agree with all of this. Of course, we've recently seen some small improvements like a new mechanical system to move the mirror rather than a spring loaded system, "silent" shutter mode, etc. But, I would also think there is more headroom for eventual change/improvements by improving the electronics and introducing them via a hybrid system as has been discussed or, potentially, eventual total replacement of the mechanical systems. My suspicion, and I think most on this forum would agree, this will be more of an evolution rather than a revolution.

I also wonder if the most headroom is in something unexpected. Completely new sensor tech like Lytro (who needs AF when you focus in post)? Or something that gets rid of the bayer filter like foveon sensors? How about a technology that can eliminate diffraction? Then, ultimately, the thing I hear people talk about the most and would even get me to replace my camera body faster than anything is dramatically improved high ISO performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conropl

I do not think I said was excited with what is out there now. Yes, I agree there is not that much to be excited about - especially when compared to the hype.

---

Sorry for any confusion, I cited your post as it introduced a topic that I wanted to look into and evaluate where I hadn't before. And, really, I did think it was interesting to consider the electronic vs mechanical shutter as part of all this whereas before had just thought about removing the mirror. But the "hype" or "passion" for mirrorless, especially in its currant state, was definitely from other sources.

I had bought a Panasonic mirrorless 4+ years ago, and it really sucked. Focusing was slow, the image quality wasn't any better than my original XTi, and no viewfinder. Fast forward 4 years, the technology (as a humble consumer) has matured for mirrorless, where the quality of the bodies & lenses now rival the DSLR world. And for the average consumer, who wants to take a better picture than on their phone, mirrorless is positioned to take much of the market, without having to buy into the bulk of a DSLR.

I have a fairly extensive Canon system, but find that the Sony A6000 is perfect as a travel camera, whether used with Sony or Canon (or vintage) lenses. For my crappy eyes, I like the EVF viewfinder, especially when using my Takumar 55 lens. I do wish my Canon bodies had the ability to zoom to focus in the viewfinder and unless Canon comes out with a hybrid viewfinder in the next iteration of the 6D, I am more likely to switch to Sony (with IBIS). But speaking as a consumer with worsening medical issues, I have to think about my future and my ability to take good photos.

I kinda find the mirrorless vs DSLR thing very similar to the Android vs iOS debate in that I'm very happy with my iPhone, but every single person I meet who has an android based phone almost falls over themselves to tell me how great android is, it does this, that and the other, how new features on iOS were on android first... Well great, I'll stick with my DSLR and iPhone thanks ;-)

The PalmOS and film cameras rule them all... :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

The PalmOS and film cameras rule them all... :cool:

---

I have polar opposite memories of these two. PALM I have memories of a reverse stock split that cost me money. Appropriate emoji :(
Film cameras I have fond memories of b&w film and real light rooms. Appropriate emoji :)

I loved the samsung Android phone. Much easier to take pictures one handed than with my iPhone 6+. But the integration with MS Outlook on the iPhone wins hands down, as the Samsung software would crash or break the link with Outlook on a regular basis. So can we have the speed and camera of the Samsung phones with the iOS software? :D