Mirrorless vs DSLR

I know we have discussed mirrorless vs dSLR several times. But this is a well thought out article specifically regarding FF mirrorless by someone that has heavily invested in both:

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...fatal-mistake/

Its interesting as now that Sony has released the "G" series lenses, much of what has been foreseen is reality. Sure you can make a smaller body, but to get the light gathering ability and to project a FF image circle, you still need a large lens. I actually thought there would be some savings in size/weight. Turns out, as designed, not really.

And that is only meant as an observation. If someone is happy with Sony, great. A one time contributor to our forum wrote about his switch to mirrorless awhile ago. Granted, that was to an APS-C body and the above review is FF.

I believe each person should search and choose what works best for him/her. I started with a T2i then moved to a 7D. I found the noise from the 7D was too much for me so I picked up a 6D (Yes, it's called GAS). I love the 6D but was tired of the size and weight of the load to be carried around for my style of shooting.

I then found the Fuji X-T1 and picked up the lenses to go with it. Unlike the Sony the size and weight are an advantage. I can carry my 10-24, 18-55, 55-200, and 27 mm pancake in one bag plus extension tubes. This allows me to walk about the outdoors prepared to shoot whatever catches my curiosity and all I need can be carried in one simple messenger bag.

However I do find I still prefer the 6D when it comes to night shooting and really close Macro, so I have held on to that camera and use both the 6D and the X-T1 based on what works best for the moment.

Nice. I have the M1 that I use for that purpose. I am still thinking about even going smaller, the GX7. But, for now, when I want small, its the M1. Or, of course, if I want really convenient, it is the iPhone. Vast majority of time, though, when I want a camera it is the 5DIII.

On the topic of iPhone camera, I was recently in LA and had some time to kill before a redeye. Headed to the beach and lined up a sunset shot with my iPhone and a pier....and....let's just say I still see the need for the dSLR. ;)

Attachment 2543

Good points. Somewhat known, perhaps overlooked - I had a mirror-less system back in 1976, it stomped on all the Canon, Nikon, Leica and even Hassy offerings... It was the Deardorf 8x10 with a set of 3 Schneiders of various focal lengths. Had dynamic range that was unparalleled, could crop the image like crazy - you get the point. (Frames per minute or even minutes per frame might be another parameter :) ) (yea it wasn't mine, it was the camera stores'/studio in which I worked but I got to use it on Sundays).

Bigger sensors have behave/need differently than smaller sensors. What was grabbed as an advantage was a marketing wiz flop vs. what I think may be the real advantages. With more real estate there are more options. Even in the view camera I could change ISO between frames, even after the film was loaded by changing the development times. Much of this is about compromises in sensor size/density and certainly speed.

Regardless of sensor size (and resulting system size) here is my beef w/ the mirror -

Lots of mechanics that can go wrong.
Sound
Can't electronically amplify the image in dark settings
Can't electronically aid me in focus peaking/highlight/blacks (I have take a frame and look at the LCD on the back - why take the camera away from my eye?

The original advantage of the optical view finder is seeing what the lens sees. Soon w/ improved display tech, we can improve what our eyes see at the extremes of the imaging effort/frame, etc. I for see being able to tone map an HDR view in the electronic view finders some day in the future.

Give up on mirrorless = smaller, rather focus on the electronic aids to the imaging process. I really don't want to bust out my canvas and paint, nor the view camera, nor my old film bodies, nor film. Help me take the best compromised picture for the system size I have chosen.

My 2 pennies.

Mike

Mirrorless is the way of the future. If you can eliminate a mechanical part that introduces shake why not get rid of it.
You can look at the current mirrorless bodies and say there is no way it would come up to the level of current DSLR's, but the mirrorless bodies of today will not be the replacements for DSLR's.

I have always heard the idea of a SLR was to give you the same light path as the lens that you were using. This can be replicated digitally now with an LCD viewfinder in live view. Just because they are mirrorless doesn't mean you have to hold the camera at arms length to shoot.

There are still a few limiting factors for a FF mirrorless still to overcome. Auto focus performance, specifically shooting action is one of the main.

I hacked a LCD Loop/Hood - for my T3i. I bought a cheap ebay diopter eye cushion, just to have something that connected w/o tape/magnets, etc.

Drilled a couple of very small holes for the very small screws that hold the LCD hood to the diopter eye cushion and then put the two together (with a tiny piece of foam as the there is a slight angle to the LCD hood.)

Works wonderfully..... except. It is big, heats up a sensor that isn't designed to be "on" all the time (I imagine I could train myself to hit the live view button in the 5d3).

I did buy a LCD hood for the 5d3 just haven't gotten around to the other part of the hack w/ the eye piece.

With Magic Lantern I get all the focus/exposure features. Just in a large form vs. through viewfinder.

Mirrorless may not be ready yet, but I can not see why a manufacturer would not push the technology forward until it is equivalent or better that DSLR's. The reason is for quality & cost reductions. The more you can drive towards replacing mechanical systems with electronics, the more you can drive your costs down and the quality issues tend to be reduced as well. As an example, if you can get the LCD viewfinder working on par with the DSLR, then you can eliminate a fair amount of precision injected and machined parts as well as high end glass for the mirror and prism. All those components tend to add more variability to the system than would mature electrical systems that would replace the mechanical systems. Additionally, as electrical systems mature, the costs continue to be driven down as better manufacturing methods and shear volume eliminate waste and variability. On the contrary, mechanical systems used today are already mature and new injection, machining, and glass production methods are not changing very rapidly (and therefore costs are stagnant or on the rise due to inflation). Electronics tend to defy inflation as they mature, and the quality will improve beyond the mechanical systems. So... are all the electronics ready to make the mirrorless change over yet? Probably not, but they probably will be some day in the near future.

Being a Mechanical Engineer (by background and training), it is sad to see one more mechanical system thrown in the scrap heap. However, I also understand that it is a sound business decision to do so, and will likely be a better long term path to drive improvements to the consumer faster than trying to keep the mechanical systems alive.

Pat

The Fuji system makes sense as a way to get quality with very good lenses and an APS-C sensor. The system is quirky with dodgy flash support. The micro 4/3 sensor size is so small.

I don't think Canon's brought out a very serious mirrorless option -- yet. Bare minimum the system needs a viewfinder.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conropl

Mirrorless may not be ready yet, but I can not see why a manufacturer would not push the technology forward until it is equivalent or better that DSLR's.

---

i think what many overlook is that the technology is being pushed forward right in front of us. Every time you shoot in live view you are shooting mirror less. The 1Dx II will have faster tracking in live view, it will be touch screen focus. Modify the body and remove the mirror and you have a great mirror less body.

We can say that Canon has not released a FF mirror less, I would contend it is as much because of marketing as technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

We can say that Canon has not released a FF mirror less, I would contend it is as much because of marketing as technology.

---

It seems clear that the big boys, Canon and Nikon, are generally disinterested in making interesting mirrorless cameras. They have the most to lose if mirrorless becomes a larger % of camera sales and DSLRs become a smaller %.

You'd have to imagine they have the technology though and if they chose to deploy it they could make a much better mirrorless camera than Sony or Fuji.

Dave

I don't know if it's GAS or just the need to have the right sized camera for the type of shooting I do, but I just added a G7x to my stable so I'd have a (mostly) pocketable camera when I need it. I actually have an easily concealed belt case for it. I'm pretty impressed with the IQ, especially in good light. We're going on a short cruise to the Bahamas in a few weeks and I plan on traveling light with a simple SL1 kit and my G7x. Neither will replace my FF bodies for poster quality prints, but for general web and/or 8x10 prints, the SL1/G7x combo is a great lightweight option.

Here are a couple of G7x shots.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/586/2...2649ba2c_c.jpg
Booth Library by Mark Johnson, on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5654/...dc03fe5c_c.jpg
Watch Macro by Mark Johnson, on Flickr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

i think what many overlook is that the technology is being pushed forward right in front of us. Every time you shoot in live view you are shooting mirror less. The 1Dx II will have faster tracking in live view, it will be touch screen focus. Modify the body and remove the mirror and you have a great mirror less body.

We can say that Canon has not released a FF mirror less, I would contend it is as much because of marketing as technology.

---

That is what was one of the things going through my head when I wrote the previous post. Basically, AF needs to get faster, sensor temperature needs to be controlled when on for extended periods, batteries may need work, etc... However, that technology is being incrementally improved with every DSLR release. Eventually, they will have the technology proven out with various DSLR (or at least proof of concept) that Canon's management will have the confidence to push full ahead without fear they will be taking a step back in capability (like Sony's lack of battery life as one example).

Since the 1DX II announcement, I have been curious how well the Live View focusing was going to work on the 1DX II. Getting that focusing system speed up is one of the enabling technologies to jump to mirrorless. It is still probably not good enough for a pro level sports camera, but it is a push in the right direction for most other cameras. That one new feature tweaked my interest... not as a need of mine, but more as an indicator of what's coming.

Pat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conropl

Since the 1DX II announcement, I have been curious how well the Live View focusing was going to work on the 1DX II. Getting that focusing system speed up is one of the enabling technologies to jump to mirrorless. It is still probably not good enough for a pro level sports camera, but it is a push in the right direction for most other cameras. That one new feature tweaked my interest... not as a need of mine, but more as an indicator of what's coming.

Pat

---

I watched a promo video for the 1Dx II a few weeks back and it was demonstrating the tracking ability in live view. It was much faster than the 7D II. I find the video tracking of the 7D II very adequate for slow moving things, the big negative is trying to fix on the point you want to track. I think the touch screen of the 1Dx II will be a huge improvement over the 7D II.

Lots of good points.

Just a few other thoughts on the whole issue:

• I wonder when the future might be? The 1DX II is out and it isn't mirrorless. I have not heard a single whisper about the 6D II or 5D IV being mirrorless. Given the ~4 yrs product cycle Canon has, unless they release something entirely new, that would leave 2020-2021 as the next wave of bodies they could replace with mirrorless. And I doubt we would see a complete transition even when it starts. My guess is that it will start with Rebels and then the 6D. If true, then even the 1DX III and 5D5 will have mirrors and we are waiting 8-10 years for complete integration. And I am not even sure then. My point, sometimes the future is a long ways away.
• I have never heard anything about mirrorless that screams "transformative technology," that this is really something that will change how we take photos. Of course, going from film to digital is a classic "transformative technology." Non-transformative technologies tend to creep in simply because they result in minor rather than drastic improvements.
• I am still not convinced I even hear of even that minor of improvements that require a full integration of mirrorless. The size/weight advantage of the entire system appears to be minimal. Even move away from the initial petapixel article, the M isn't that much smaller than the SL1. The vibration issue is satisfied by locking the mirror up and partial integration of mirrorless that Canon already has in "Liveview." As for the mechanical issue, the 1DX II's shutter actuation is rated for 400,000, granted, Rebel's aren't rated, but the 80D is 100,000. How much more do we need? I would say I take more pictures than most people and it would take me 5-10 years to hit the 80D's 100,000 plateau and longer for the 150,000 rating on my 5DIII and the 1DX II with 400,000 actuations is probably a life long camera for me. Even if you are a photographer that burns 100,000 photos a year, at that much usage, other things a likely to break/wear out.
• People like me. Photography is not just about the end product. If it was, why would I invest in so much in gear and time to take pictures when I could go to Jonathan's, Joel's and others websites and buy prints :confused:. I am probably as or more interested in the process of taking photos as the end product. I enjoy taking my own landscape shots. And working with an optical viewfinder is a visceral experience. To see an image with your eye, then throw up the camera and be looking at the same colors, tones and brightness. Being able to move and have the scene change at the same rate as your movement. That is all part of the experience. The EOS-M actually, IMO, takes very good photos. But I do not enjoy shooting with it, which is probably why I use it so little. I've played with the Sony's in stores and the EVF is impressive. The refresh rate was better than expected. But the colors, brightness, etc. There was no doubt I was looking at a screen and certainly not something I wanted to enjoy the "experience" of photography with.

Anyway, we'll see.

EDIT...just playing with some math, but 400,000 shots at 14 fps is 476 days of continuous shooting. Sitting there, holding a button nonstop for 1.3 years.
Edit to the edit...Rick is right...oops. Sounded great at 6 in the morning......476 minutes, or 7.9 hours.

You might want to check the math. That is minutes not days:)

i would contend that with live view the curren 5D's and 1D's are mirror less now.
They only come with a nostalgia classic viewfinder and mirror option as standard equipment.

Thanks...correction made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

i would contend that with live view the curren 5D's and 1D's are mirror less now.
They only come with a nostalgia classic viewfinder and mirror option as standard equipment.

---

I agree...and this is on my last point. How many people or what percentage of your shots are via Liveview? I use it, absolutely. Majority of the time for my tripod work. Almost all every thing not shot from a tripod is through the viewfinder. So, I can see this hybrid moving forward for a long time.

So I think this is a great way to look at it. We have mirrorless when we want it. What we do not have is an EVF.

Think back when the M was released, one of the biggest complaints, no viewfinder.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Think back when the M was released, one of the biggest complaints, no viewfinder.

---

None of the EOS M versions released so far are a serious mirrorless offering IMHO and no viewfinder is one of the main reasons why. The other reason is the only EF-M offerings now are so... slow... with the notable exception of the 22mm f/2.

Some of Fuji's APS-C offerings lenses are reasonably small yet are lenses people may want to use like 35mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2, 18-55 f/2.8-f/4, 14mm f/2.8. They are a far cry from EF-M zoom lenses that are mostly f/5.6 on the long end.

Canon and Nikon want the status quo. They rule the DSLR world. The slower the mirrorless conversion process is, the better for them. I imagine Canon is developing more desirable mirrorless options behind the scenes and will release them when they feel their market is threatened.

Dave

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

---

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

I'm sure I'm missing some.

Dave

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