Do you think Mirrorless Cameras will replace dSLR Cameras?
May 7, 2017 07:10:55 #
SLRs and DSLRs have been around for a long time. The technology is getting old and stale. New ways of doing things comes along all the time. It is the same with photography. I look at a SLR as a typewriter. Lots of moving parts to put things on paper. All typewriters have been replaced with computer controlled printers. It will be the same with cameras. Canon and Nikon have invested a lot of money and energy in their DSLR lines. They are reluctant to give up that market. Eventually they will have to give into newer technology for their high end cameras. I think the writing is on the wall.
May 7, 2017 07:24:14 #
I think it's important to separate the two issues most people merge - image quality and ergonomics.
IQ wise, mirrorless (I like the term EVIL- Electronuc Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens myself) cameras with the same imaging chips (DX or FF) have precisely the same quality as their DSLR brethren.
The real difference lies in the ergonomics. As has been mentioned, EVIL cameras can be smaller and lighter, with fewer mechanical parts that lead to both lower manufacturing costs and higher reliability as well as lighter weight. Lenses designed for them, with their smaller chip-to-lens flange distance can also be made smaller if less retro focus design is required. Plus, an EVF can compensate for some difficult lighting issues-put a 10 stop ND filter on a DSLR and you'd better already have the subject framed as you won't see squat through the eyepiece- put the same filter on an EVIL camera and view and frame as normal. At least, that's how it is with my Fuji X-T1 and 2.
However, I haven't sold off my DSLR gear just yet, mainly because there is still a discernible time lag between the action and seeing it in the viewfinder. This makes perfect sense, since what you see in the EVF is the image as processed from the chip's raw data output and converted to a real image. Just as you can see the time lag of a video camera attached to a monitor (pan the camera quickly and the monitor image trails a bit) the same thing effectively happens with an EVF.
So in low light live action event shooting I use the DSLR to capture that kid's smile exactly when it occurs rather than a fraction of a second later. I shoot macro with a ring flash on the 200MM Micri Nikkor-no tripod- the flash speed freezes motion and I can use small apertures-but a flower waving in a breeze would be impossible to grab with the EVF delay.
Will technology improve? No doubt, and at an exponential rate. Will it catch up to the speed of photons passing through the lens and bouncing off of 3 mirrored surfaces before hitting your eye? Not so sure-that's an awful lot of processing the camera's computer has to do to render ever-bigger raw files instantaneously.
So both approaches have their merits. And if all you shoot are tripod-based landscapes etc. then EVIL can well suffice. Personally, I'm keeping both.
Besides, it gives me double-GAS- what could possibly be wrong with that?
IQ wise, mirrorless (I like the term EVIL- Electronuc Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens myself) cameras with the same imaging chips (DX or FF) have precisely the same quality as their DSLR brethren.
The real difference lies in the ergonomics. As has been mentioned, EVIL cameras can be smaller and lighter, with fewer mechanical parts that lead to both lower manufacturing costs and higher reliability as well as lighter weight. Lenses designed for them, with their smaller chip-to-lens flange distance can also be made smaller if less retro focus design is required. Plus, an EVF can compensate for some difficult lighting issues-put a 10 stop ND filter on a DSLR and you'd better already have the subject framed as you won't see squat through the eyepiece- put the same filter on an EVIL camera and view and frame as normal. At least, that's how it is with my Fuji X-T1 and 2.
However, I haven't sold off my DSLR gear just yet, mainly because there is still a discernible time lag between the action and seeing it in the viewfinder. This makes perfect sense, since what you see in the EVF is the image as processed from the chip's raw data output and converted to a real image. Just as you can see the time lag of a video camera attached to a monitor (pan the camera quickly and the monitor image trails a bit) the same thing effectively happens with an EVF.
So in low light live action event shooting I use the DSLR to capture that kid's smile exactly when it occurs rather than a fraction of a second later. I shoot macro with a ring flash on the 200MM Micri Nikkor-no tripod- the flash speed freezes motion and I can use small apertures-but a flower waving in a breeze would be impossible to grab with the EVF delay.
Will technology improve? No doubt, and at an exponential rate. Will it catch up to the speed of photons passing through the lens and bouncing off of 3 mirrored surfaces before hitting your eye? Not so sure-that's an awful lot of processing the camera's computer has to do to render ever-bigger raw files instantaneously.
So both approaches have their merits. And if all you shoot are tripod-based landscapes etc. then EVIL can well suffice. Personally, I'm keeping both.
Besides, it gives me double-GAS- what could possibly be wrong with that?
May 7, 2017 07:26:13 #
Ok so the old M. Brady cameras eventually died out. So maybe Mirrors will go, but IMHO, not very soon. 😄
May 7, 2017 07:44:17 #
All this is well and good but what about IQ? The images posted by the OP all seem soft to me. IMHO.
May 7, 2017 07:49:43 #
I have been thinking of buying an older version Nikon, Somy or Panasonic Mirrorless Camera. I see them for around $400 or less. Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GX1, Sony Alpha NEX-7 for example used from BH cost $234 and $339 from BH for example. But I can pick up the Nikon D5300 for $479.
My daughter and I are going on Safari June 11-25 in S. Africa. I own the Nikon D500. The second camera would be for her to use during the trip and one I use as a carry around to take shots of job sites for work.
The mirrorlist interest me but own a number of lenses for my D500 which means I'd be set for lenses if I buy the D5300.
What are your thoughts.
My daughter and I are going on Safari June 11-25 in S. Africa. I own the Nikon D500. The second camera would be for her to use during the trip and one I use as a carry around to take shots of job sites for work.
The mirrorlist interest me but own a number of lenses for my D500 which means I'd be set for lenses if I buy the D5300.
What are your thoughts.
May 7, 2017 07:56:50 #
mikegreenwald
Loc: Illinois
Looking forward requires looking back to see the trends. Smaller and lighter have dominated for decades. Mirrorless leads in that direction.
As sensors continue to improve, smaller cameras also improve, and enable smaller lenses. That is where the greatest weight diminution lies.
Mirrorless is still far short of it's potential, as described by many of the posts above. If one combines the probable gains in both sensor and mirrorless technology, I think we see the future.
For the moment, the cost of replacement glass seems to be a huge factor in the change away from DSLR to MiLS. It is far from the only factor though. Changes will come, and most of the changes will be improvements.
As sensors continue to improve, smaller cameras also improve, and enable smaller lenses. That is where the greatest weight diminution lies.
Mirrorless is still far short of it's potential, as described by many of the posts above. If one combines the probable gains in both sensor and mirrorless technology, I think we see the future.
For the moment, the cost of replacement glass seems to be a huge factor in the change away from DSLR to MiLS. It is far from the only factor though. Changes will come, and most of the changes will be improvements.
May 7, 2017 08:00:21 #
Reinaldokool wrote:
I'm glad you like your Nikon MILCs. The Nikons and... (show quote)
Do you have a clue about the M5 Canon so before you spout of actually read about it. Your entire diatribe against it sounds like a prejudice against Canon that is deep due to extreme jealousy of a superior system you wish you had been smart enough to get but settled for less.
May 7, 2017 08:05:50 #
The mirrorless by Nikon and Canon are strictly for amateur picture takers. They are doing that for reasons. Sony's line of mirrorless are fantastic and a much better price than Canon and Nikon with equal quality. There are definite advantages for dSLR's and Mirrorless, depending on the photographer. Neither one being better than the other.
May 7, 2017 08:07:36 #
Sony keeps improving while Nikon and Canon are repackaging and only fooling themselves. I have been picking up old Nikons and Canons just because and can see they have well deserved reputations. Would have been fine but financially poorer had I started with any instead of my Minolta. For starting a career Sony is the way. For a hobby it doesn't and never really did matter as much as a good book like Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure.
May 7, 2017 08:22:56 #
StanRP
Loc: Ontario Canada
JPL wrote:
I think it will not take any decades to do the market transitions. Camera manufacturers will just ditch the mirror when they need it no longer, just as film was ditched in a few years when it was no more needed. This will only take a few years. Consumer choices will speed the process.
Many of today's DSLR cameras, such as the Nikon D500, can operate in mirrorless mode. They pull the mirror up in what they call 'direct mode' and the LCD is the viewfinder.
May 7, 2017 08:26:20 #
What will happen is hybrid cameras, capable of capturing 100 fps video at very high resolutions. You will film like a videocamera and pick out your favorite frame. RED cameras are already close to this.
May 7, 2017 08:34:57 #
May 7, 2017 08:37:40 #
I think eventually yes but not until the EVF becomes indistinguishable from the OVF. As for the high frame rates not everyone needs 20 fps - overkill even for most action shots. I have been looking at the Olympus system but i wish they made a FF or APS-C line. The funny thing is when digital was becoming popular in the early 2000s I thought this would make mirrors/ pentaprisms obsolete - surprised the DSLR lasted this long.
May 7, 2017 08:37:41 #
May 7, 2017 08:42:00 #
IMHO Yes, Mirror-less will over-shadow DSLRs and eventually replace them. DSLRs will probably become a niche product ... keeping in mind that there is always a market for legacy type photo gear trading on steadfast preferences and the lure of nostalgia.
I still have a foot in both camps. Personally and professionally I use both type cameras. I have a Digital Rangefinder that only shoots B&W (speaking of steadfast preferences); a digital Medium Format kit with a big, bright OVF and leaf-shutter lenses; and a Sony FF mirror-less digital system.
The Sony mirror-less kit replaced a traditional DSLR/SLT system. That transition was NOT without its challenges at first, but was made easier because almost ANY lens ever made can be adapted to my new Sony mirror-less camera ... and most adapters allow full functions and communication with the camera including AF. So, a favorite Nikon lens can be used one minute, and a great Canon T/S lens the next, or a old Minolta gem. I can even use my manual focus Leica M rangefinder lenses with a TechArt adapter and they Auto Focus! Then to top it all off, any lens I mount to the Sony A7R-II is in-body 4 axis stabilized!
The size advantage of mirror-less is obvious, but often exaggerated. If you use faster aperture lenses or f/2.8 zooms designed for a mirror-less camera, they are no smaller than similar lenses for a DSLR.
Native lenses for the Sony were slow coming but that is in the past. There are all sorts of choices of native FE lenses now available. I chose the Zeiss/Zeiss Batis series that now includes a 18/2, 25/2, 55/1.8, 85/1.8 and 135/2.8 ... a series of smaller, lighter optics designed for current Sony mirror-less cameras that remarkably includes 5 axis image stabilization with ANY native FE mount lens.
IMO and experience there are a few remaining points of contention regarding mirror-less cameras for those used to a DSLR.
Some of them (mostly Sony) are overly complex ergonomic nightmares bristling with buttons better suited for video game players than traditional photographers (especially older ones like me). The Sony menu system is widely regarded as horrid-terrible ... a true dog's breakfast of controls thrown in helter-skelter. I learned to ignore 90% of it and memorized the location of the 3 essential menu commands I needed access to. Others I assigned to instant access buttons which takes some dedicated practice to memorize (not that DSLRs do not have similar customizable button arrays, but their's are generally more intuitive and ergonomically thought out. The new Leica SL mirror-less camera is much simpler and intuitive and shows that all this complexity is not due to mirror-less design, but just bad design.
The electronic viewfinder will remain a key point of debate. The very first thing you notice is that you have to turn on the camera to see anything. One other thing I had to get used to was that IF you have auto-review set to ON, the last image shot appears in the viewfinder ... which is un-nerving ... to avoid that you have turn off auto-review and press a review button to see the last shot taken. I suspect that will eventually change when they get around to it. With a DSLR you can quickly check the LCD anytime with just a quick glance (which is how I worked while shooting something like a wedding).
While it is increasingly difficult to see the optical difference between OVF and EVF when shooting in normal light, EVF can get contrasty in very bright ambient, or digital gain (noisy and movement-smear) in very low light. That will be mitigated as the pixel count and refresh rate increases. Also, when you work in low light your eyes adjust to the ambient, but when you are looking at a brighter electronic image in the viewfinder, then take your eye away you can experience some night blindness.
There are two basic ways of setting up the viewfinder ... "Setting Effect On" and "Setting Effect Off".
"On" allows you to see the actual effect of your settings ... I shoot using manual exposure with this setting, and "What You See Is What You Get" ... DOF, W/B, aperture/shutter-speed exposure level as it all will be captured.
If you turn setting effect Off it is more like a traditional OVF ... with the cavates of contrast and digital gain mentioned above. BTW, if you shoot with strobes in a studio or dark location using a stopped down aperture, you have to turn the setting effect off or you will be looking through a pitch black viewfinder. At first, that one threw me more than once.
The end image quality is no different between either type of system. Now with the Sony A9 "Speed Demon" the dominance of Pro level DSLRs for sports and such is being seriously challenged. It is just a matter of time.
- Marc
I still have a foot in both camps. Personally and professionally I use both type cameras. I have a Digital Rangefinder that only shoots B&W (speaking of steadfast preferences); a digital Medium Format kit with a big, bright OVF and leaf-shutter lenses; and a Sony FF mirror-less digital system.
The Sony mirror-less kit replaced a traditional DSLR/SLT system. That transition was NOT without its challenges at first, but was made easier because almost ANY lens ever made can be adapted to my new Sony mirror-less camera ... and most adapters allow full functions and communication with the camera including AF. So, a favorite Nikon lens can be used one minute, and a great Canon T/S lens the next, or a old Minolta gem. I can even use my manual focus Leica M rangefinder lenses with a TechArt adapter and they Auto Focus! Then to top it all off, any lens I mount to the Sony A7R-II is in-body 4 axis stabilized!
The size advantage of mirror-less is obvious, but often exaggerated. If you use faster aperture lenses or f/2.8 zooms designed for a mirror-less camera, they are no smaller than similar lenses for a DSLR.
Native lenses for the Sony were slow coming but that is in the past. There are all sorts of choices of native FE lenses now available. I chose the Zeiss/Zeiss Batis series that now includes a 18/2, 25/2, 55/1.8, 85/1.8 and 135/2.8 ... a series of smaller, lighter optics designed for current Sony mirror-less cameras that remarkably includes 5 axis image stabilization with ANY native FE mount lens.
IMO and experience there are a few remaining points of contention regarding mirror-less cameras for those used to a DSLR.
Some of them (mostly Sony) are overly complex ergonomic nightmares bristling with buttons better suited for video game players than traditional photographers (especially older ones like me). The Sony menu system is widely regarded as horrid-terrible ... a true dog's breakfast of controls thrown in helter-skelter. I learned to ignore 90% of it and memorized the location of the 3 essential menu commands I needed access to. Others I assigned to instant access buttons which takes some dedicated practice to memorize (not that DSLRs do not have similar customizable button arrays, but their's are generally more intuitive and ergonomically thought out. The new Leica SL mirror-less camera is much simpler and intuitive and shows that all this complexity is not due to mirror-less design, but just bad design.
The electronic viewfinder will remain a key point of debate. The very first thing you notice is that you have to turn on the camera to see anything. One other thing I had to get used to was that IF you have auto-review set to ON, the last image shot appears in the viewfinder ... which is un-nerving ... to avoid that you have turn off auto-review and press a review button to see the last shot taken. I suspect that will eventually change when they get around to it. With a DSLR you can quickly check the LCD anytime with just a quick glance (which is how I worked while shooting something like a wedding).
While it is increasingly difficult to see the optical difference between OVF and EVF when shooting in normal light, EVF can get contrasty in very bright ambient, or digital gain (noisy and movement-smear) in very low light. That will be mitigated as the pixel count and refresh rate increases. Also, when you work in low light your eyes adjust to the ambient, but when you are looking at a brighter electronic image in the viewfinder, then take your eye away you can experience some night blindness.
There are two basic ways of setting up the viewfinder ... "Setting Effect On" and "Setting Effect Off".
"On" allows you to see the actual effect of your settings ... I shoot using manual exposure with this setting, and "What You See Is What You Get" ... DOF, W/B, aperture/shutter-speed exposure level as it all will be captured.
If you turn setting effect Off it is more like a traditional OVF ... with the cavates of contrast and digital gain mentioned above. BTW, if you shoot with strobes in a studio or dark location using a stopped down aperture, you have to turn the setting effect off or you will be looking through a pitch black viewfinder. At first, that one threw me more than once.
The end image quality is no different between either type of system. Now with the Sony A9 "Speed Demon" the dominance of Pro level DSLRs for sports and such is being seriously challenged. It is just a matter of time.
- Marc
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.