Mirrorless vs DSLR

[M_Six]

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.


Booth Library by Mark Johnson, on Flickr


Watch Macro by Mark Johnson, on Flickr

[conropl]

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

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[Kayaker72]

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 . 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.

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[Kayaker72]

Thanks...correction made.

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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

[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

[Dave Throgmartin]

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

[Dave Throgmartin]

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