Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

We keep hearing the hubadubs that DSLR is dead. Maybe it is time to look beyond the news and advertisements.

Manufacturers want sales. That is what all this noise is about. Everyday we encounter advertisements and press release all pointed to that direction - sales.

It's always a miracle product that will bring heaven to earth and to hell and back being shoved up all our senses and body openings. All for sales.

It doesn't matter to them if we need it or not. They will lie and hustle the green out of our hands.

So why listen? Why do we believe the press releases and the ads? Why not have a look beyond?
Stand on your own and Have a different view.

Here is my own. Warning, its not mainstream and may touch some egos and probably hate. But this is just me talking out loud, speaking my own.

DSLR is dead!!!

Well maybe that is what they wanted. All the hype and misdirection pushes the mirrorless wonder product so far ahead of the DSLR that it is obsolete- so they say.
Be truthful. Is it? When you bought that mirrorless, did your photography improved by 10 folds? 100? 1000 times better? Or were you just conned out to get the latest gear?

Manufacturers are always looking to produce with the least cost and sell at the highest price. If mirrorless is sold with the same "cost to sales" premium, it will cost about 3/4 or at extremes 1/2 the price of an equivalent DSLR. Why? Because mechanical parts, materials like magnesium bodies and actual assembly of such, cost more. Electronics, molded plastics and smaller amount(size) cost much less.

Imagine a single button on a Toyota. What if that button cost dollar? If i produce 1 million cars, that is an extra 1 million dollars of investment. Meaning if i design something without buttons, I save millions. Suddenly touch screens makes a lot of sense!

A mirrorless is basically a dumbed down video camera. They made it look like a DSLR so it can take its place. Instead of shooting video they made it shoot slower, then advertise that their camera shoots 20 frames per second!!! Faster than your DSLR!!! Yea right...

So it shoots 10 - 20 - 25 frames a second, how many are in focus? 50%? 25%? 1 image?

The technology of the mirrorless has been around since the invention of the tv and are just getting repurposed. Innovation as some would say. It is not new, that is just hype. Don't buy into it.

Am I against mirrorless? Nope, not at all. But let us see things the way they really are. Cut the bull, forget the advertisement and hype. If it fits your style and improves your photography, then by all means buy as much as you can. Help the manufacturer so they can go back to making better cameras.

But if you are buying just for the hype, you are feeding the money train instead of supporting the production of better equipment.

Ask yourself, If they can put 4 cameras in a celphone and sell it for half the price of a mirrorless, what did you miss? Have you just been robbed?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The universe works in crazy ways. You can have good luck wash over you in waves, just like bad luck. Or, you can change to a mirrorless camera.

weberwest Loc: Ferndale WA

I am with you all the way on this Wallen. Don't see the need yet for a mirrorless, but maybe, eventually I will, or will have to, depending on how the markets develop. Isn't it funny how some here tout the mirrorless as the only real thing and anything else is no longer acceptable - while others (or maybe the same) insist that it is NOT the camera, but the person behind the camera that makes or breaks the picture?

BTW, I bought my first digital camera in 2004 I believe, it was a mirrorless, if that is what is was called - or at least it didn't have a mirror: the KonicaMinolta Dimage A2, was a neat little camera then, unfortunately I cannot use it anymore because one of the darn pins is bent.

Have a great week Wallen - Joe

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Do they say? Or is it you putting words in their mouths?

Always. Are you?

Well it's not just an obvious yes or no that someone swinging an ax might like to make it appear.

I haven't tried to quantify it so specifically but yes indeed. My photography has improved technically over what was possible using DSLR cameras and I'm pleased about that -- with both my FX and DX cameras. A reason why that's so you can see in the photo below. You can't do that with a DSLR and I'm very happy that I can do that now with my mirrorless cameras -- it does make a difference.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

An interesting post by Wallen concerning mirrorless cameras. One coment I really like:
“A mirrorless is basically a dumbed down video camera. They made it look like a DSLR so it can take its place. Instead of shooting video they made it shoot slower, then advertise that their camera shoots 20 frames per second.”

If I wanted a video camera, there are lots of options, many of which are available at less cost than a new mirrorless camera.

Do I really NEED 64 or 128 focus points? Probably not. (I do a lot of manual-focus work anyway, and can not depend on autofocus).

Do I really NEED a touch-screen operating camera? Probably not. I can just about figure out how to thumb-a-wheel or toggle-a-button.

Do I really NEED the “super-duper” resolution of the new sensors at 4/3rds size? Probably not. 20 Megapixels is good enough for what I am doing, I feel no need to be able to produce 30 by 70 inch prints (or whatever astronomical size). Once you get to a certain point, the concept of “empty magnification” comes into play, and the pixels just get bigger, but the resolution does not change, and you have to be further away from the prints — so the pixels appear smaller.

Do I really NEED to invest heavily in new glass (assuming I already have adequate coverages? Probably not. Oh, there are some “dream lenses” out there, but I will only continue to dream about owning them. Some standard fixed lenses, a good fast-50, a nice tele-macro, a perspective-shift, proper adapter-lenses for microscopy work, a good mid-range (300mm +) tele, and that is good coverage FOR MY NEEDS.

If you NEED a 700mm tele or a 11mm wide angle, fine. Go for it/them. And maybe the new “ultra-glass” lenses will work for you, too. I hope so. I just think the new mirrorless craze is overblown and over-hyped. Some new techno-super-mega$$ camera is not going to improve composition, posing, scene-choice or “craftsmanship”.

Ollieboy

Do you really need ABS braking in your car?
Do you really need BSM in your car?
Do you really need 20 frames per second?
They are technological advances that have crept into our cars and cameras as standard equipment.
If your happy driving a car without it, fine. Just understand progress isn't always bad including cameras.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I embraced mirrorless photography about 7 years ago. At the time I bought a used Olympus Pen, a little camera that as soon as I picked it up in my hands I knew I was going to have fun with it. I did and my first wonderful experience with it was when I traveled for the first time with it. It was a totally different experience than using a dSLR camera, it was small, light, fit anywhere and it was very capable for the type of photography I do. Did I neglect my dSLR cameras? No, I did not but I find myself reaching more often for my mirrorless cameras than my dSLR bodies.

I am not into video, I am strictly a still life photographer. I do believe and I am convinced that mirrorless cameras have better features and are more technologically advanced than dSLR cameras. If in the near future those cameras will replace completely the dSLR I cannot predict that. Most probably there will be a place for both. I do not shoot sequential photography so to me 10, 20 or 60 frames per second shooting is not my piece of bread. If I shoot 5 FPS I call it a miracle.

Has my photography improved using mirrorless cameras? Absolutely. I can use useful features that in my mirrorless bodies make dSLR cameras obsolete in technology. At the end of the day when in the mountains I do not feel tired and a couple of lenses is all I need in a very small bag. Even a cheap Dolica aluminum tripod that weights nothing is a very useful accessory when I am shooting. I almost forgot to say that 17 Mp. are more than enough for my needs. I do not print murals and my most common enlargement is a 13x19 inch where I can see all of the fine details that I need. I bet I can go larger but I am not in need of it.

In regard to all the hypo about mirrorless I can only tell you that mirrorless cameras changed my life as a photographer. I do not run to buy a new camera and my cameras are old and bought second hand. I do not have professional class lenses either, I am good with what I am presently using.
More of those cameras will continue to be available because right now the tendency is to use them. Professionals have embraced mirrorless so we can say they are here to stay.

Do not forget that camera and lens companies are in business to make a profit. If we do not buy they will not exist or like it happened to Olympus the camera division will be sold to someone else. No buying means no cameras although I agree that it is not necessary to go after the latest and the best with all those bells and whistles that most photographers do not use anyway.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

This is a really good analysis. It's fascinating to me how many can't see the commonalities between, say, a D500 and a D850, or who can't see the real differences between a D7500 and a D500 (or between a D750 and a D850), but claim to immediately recognize the superiority of a Z50 over a D500.

My conclusion is that the word "lemming" is buried somewhere in the word "photographer." I'll say again that it is very interesting to me that we see somewhere between few and no images on this site flagged as being made with mirrorless cameras and explaining exactly what is so much more superior about them. The proof should be in the pudding. In the almost four years I've been a member here, I've read a lot of hype but tasted no pudding.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you can't feel that an image came from a mirrorless camera, it probably didn't.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Well stated.
A lot of people get caught up in the next new thing.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

No autos come with cranks to start the engine any more.

We don’t call them crankless autos. A better name might be needed for modern cameras. Perhaps EVF? But then what do we do when the mechanical shutter goes the way of mirrors? Shutterless?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You’re a crazy fool if you think this contraption will ever displace the horse ...

You’re a crazy fool if you think autofocus has a place in professional photography ...

You’re a crazy fool if you think digital cameras will replace film ...

You’re a crazy fool if you think Americans will sit on their couch and order their shoes (groceries, books, clothes, etc) and have them delivered without ever trying them on ...

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

People claim their photography has improved since moving to mirrorless and their images are sharper. And since they are saying that I don't doubt them. Where I'm confused is why? I would like for them to let others know the reason why. Both DSLR's and mirrorless use lenses and sensors the same way so why would an image captured on a mirrorless sensor be sharper than one captured on a DSLR sensor? I'm thinking mirrorless may have an advantage in a specific type of photography such as fast action sports but what would be the advantage in scenics, portraits or nature shots? I'm seriously curious.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Have you owned and used one yet?

Like anything there are pluses and minuses. You have to weigh those for your circumstance. When I bought my first DX mirrorless the first lens I bought was a 14mm prime. Point being my priority is wide lenses in the range of 20mm to 35mm for FX cameras. Because I use mirrorless cameras now I can use better lenses in my favorite lens range than are possible to make for SLR cameras. It shows both in the results and in use since those lenses are both optically superior as well as smaller and lighter.

Using a DSLR you can use a light meter to determine exposure. A mirrorless camera can do the same. A mirrorless camera can also use a live-view histogram before taking the photo and a highlight clipping warning before taking the photo. A DSLR can't use either a live histogram or a clipping warning except after the fact while reviewing the photo. That doesn't mean the DSLR is useless. It isn't a black and white dichotomy. But I sure do like being able to have all three of those exposure aids available up front rather than just one. It makes the task easier and the result more certain and I do use them -- I'd miss them if they were gone. Doesn't mean I couldn't use a DSLR effectively, but use of the mirrorless camera is enhanced.

I do a lot of close-up macro work on a tripod. Focusing a mirrorless camera in that circumstance is hands down superior to focusing a DSLR. Speaking of focusing I do remember having to fuss with adjusting/tuning a DSLR PDAF focusing system for specific lenses. Glad that nuisance is behind me.

There are also minuses about mirrorless. It seems I'm always charging batteries. But in my circumstances the scale tips overall plus toward mirrorless.

Have you owned and used one yet?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Take Nikon, they made the mouth / throat of their new Z-mount wider by 8mm from 47mm to 55mm. For all mirrorless cameras, the lens sits closer to the sensor because space is not needed inside the camera for the flipping mirror between the lens and sensor. Example, Canon went from 44mm 'flange' to 20mm. Both changes allow for larger (wider) glass in the rear of the lens, offering potential lens designs, especially at wide apertures, that were not technically possible for SLR-based lenses.