Is mirrorless as we know it the future .. … or is it mirrorless cell phones? :sm01 "TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan’s Sony Corp (6758.T) surprised the market by reporting on Tuesday a record...

Bill_de Loc: US

… or is it mirrorless cell phones? :sm01

"TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan’s Sony Corp (6758.T) surprised the market by reporting on Tuesday a record first-quarter operating profit despite the slowing gaming business, as strong demand for multiple-lens camera systems for smartphones boosted sales of image sensors."

---

Quixdraw Loc: x

Gas on the fire? For some, I suppose. I have several, they have their strengths but will never replace my Nikon DSLRs. When I have taken both on trips, the mirrorless were almost unused.

RichinSeattle

quixdraw wrote:

Gas on the fire? For some, I suppose. I have several, they have their strengths but will never replace my Nikon DSLRs. When I have taken both on trips, the mirrorless were almost unused.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'll admit. I've never taken a mirrorless on a trip. No interest in owning one. I prefer the benefits offered by *SLRs.
--Bob

quixdraw wrote:

Gas on the fire? For some, I suppose. I have several, they have their strengths but will never replace my Nikon DSLRs. When I have taken both on trips, the mirrorless were almost unused.

BassmanBruce Loc: Middle of the Mitten

At some point in the future mirrorless and smartphone cameras will get replaced by some as yet uninvented device.
If we get busy planning on it we will be Rich!!

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Of course mirrorless is the future, the present and the past. There have been more mirrorless cameras made over the past 150 years than any other type of camera. A mirrorless camera is simply a camera that has no mirror. Are MILC'S the future? Again, yes, the future and the present. MILC'S are in direct competition with DSLR'S and eventually the manufacturers will concentrate on making what sells. Since DSLR technology is more mature, therefore possibly more advanced, but not necessarily, than MILC'S, there will continue to be a demand for DSLR cameras. As MILC technology reaches a point were it excels over DSLR technology, MILC'S will become the dominant type of interchangeable lens cameras.
I'll never understand the people who drone on and on about how obsolete DSLR'S are and how superior MILC'S are, as if owning a MILC actually makes them some sort of a better person. Believe me, it doesn't. They are just cameras; tools for recording photographs. You remove the pentaprism or pentamirror and the reflex mirror and examine the remaining technology, there's a whole lot DSLR'S and MILC'S have in common. And if it's simply technology we're talking about, look at the technology in cameras like the Canon 1DX or the 5DS models or Nikon D5, that operate the mirror. There's actually some pretty amazing technology that goes into enabling the mirror to move as fast as it does and have no ill effects on the images.
I personally own both types of interchangeable lens cameras and presently the camera I use the most is my Canon 5D mk IV. The camera I use second most is probably my Nikon D500 followed by my Canon M50, followed by my Canon SL2; although I'm beginning to use my Nikon D7200 more often in situations I usually use the SL2, my designated puppy cam.
So, in conclusion, yes MILC'S are here to stay and are definitely the future. No, they do not generally record better images than DSLR'S. There are certain things you can do with certain newer MILC'S because of the higher thru put, but for the vast majority of your average every day photophiles, a MILC will give you no more of an advantage than you have with a DSLR.
For the folks who feel the need to put down DSLR'S and in extension, their users, get over yourselves, it's just a camera. For the folks who feel it's necessary to defend DSLR's and the DSLR community, no one is asking, or telling, you to retire your camera. Continue to enjoy your DSLR'S for as long as possible.
I for one am waiting for the next iteration of full frame MILC's, that I can easily use my stable of very expensive lenses on, to come off the assembly line. I like what Canon and Nikon released but it's still bleeding edge technology. Besides, I already own some pretty nice cameras so I can afford to wait.
For those who would say, what about Sony? There's absolutely nothing wrong with Sony except, none of my aforementioned lenses for 35mm cameras has SONY printed on them.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

What cameras were mirrorless in the past?
--Bob

rmorrison1116 wrote:

Of course mirrorless is the future, the present and the past. There have been more mirrorless cameras made over the past 150 years than any other type of camera. A mirrorless camera is simply a camera that has no mirror. Are MILC'S the future? Again, yes, the future and the present. MILC'S are in direct competition with DSLR'S and eventually the manufacturers will concentrate on making what sells. Since DSLR technology is more mature, therefore possibly more advanced, but not necessarily, than MILC'S, there will continue to be a demand for DSLR cameras. As MILC technology reaches a point were it excels over DSLR technology, MILC'S will become the dominant type of interchangeable lens cameras.
I'll never understand the people who drone on and on about how obsolete DSLR'S are and how superior MILC'S are, as if owning a MILC actually makes them some sort of a better person. Believe me, it doesn't. They are just cameras; tools for recording photographs. You remove the pentaprism or pentamirror and the reflex mirror and examine the remaining technology, there's a whole lot DSLR'S and MILC'S have in common. And if it's simply technology we're talking about, look at the technology in cameras like the Canon 1DX or the 5DS models or Nikon D5, that operate the mirror. There's actually some pretty amazing technology that goes into enabling the mirror to move as fast as it does and have no ill effects on the images.
I personally own both types of interchangeable lens cameras and presently the camera I use the most is my Canon 5D mk IV. The camera I use second most is probably my Nikon D500 followed by my Canon M50, followed by my Canon SL2; although I'm beginning to use my Nikon D7200 more often in situations I usually use the SL2, my designated puppy cam.
So, in conclusion, yes MILC'S are here to stay and are definitely the future. No, they do not generally record better images than DSLR'S. There are certain things you can do with certain newer MILC'S because of the higher thru put, but for the vast majority of your average every day photophiles, a MILC will give you no more of an advantage than you have with a DSLR.
For the folks who feel the need to put down DSLR'S and in extension, their users, get over yourselves, it's just a camera. For the folks who feel it's necessary to defend DSLR's and the DSLR community, no one is asking, or telling, you to retire your camera. Continue to enjoy your DSLR'S for as long as possible.
I for one am waiting for the next iteration of full frame MILC's, that I can easily use my stable of very expensive lenses on, to come off the assembly line. I like what Canon and Nikon released but it's still bleeding edge technology. Besides, I already own some pretty nice cameras so I can afford to wait.
For those who would say, what about Sony? There's absolutely nothing wrong with Sony except, none of my aforementioned lenses for 35mm cameras has SONY printed on them.

Of course mirrorless is the future, the present an... (show quote)

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

rmalarz wrote:

What cameras were "mirrorless" in the past?
--Bob

Instamatics never had mirrors.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

rmalarz wrote:

What cameras were mirrorless in the past?
--Bob

OMG, did you read past the first sentence?!
Lets try this explanation. The D in DSLR stands for digital but not all digital cameras are DSLR'S. There are more digital cameras that aren't DSLR'S than there are DSLR'S. They're still digital cameras.
The M in MILC stands for mirrorless but not all mirrorless cameras are MILC'S. There are more mirrorless cameras that aren't MILC'S than there are MILC'S.
Mirrorless means it doesn't have a mirror. My Canon G1X, G1X mk II and G1X mk III are mirrorless cameras but they aren't MILC'S.
My Canon M50 is a mirrorless camera and it is an interchangeable lens camera making it a MILC.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

rmorrison1116 wrote:

Of course mirrorless is the future, the present and the past. There have been more mirrorless cameras made over the past 150 years than any other type of camera. A mirrorless camera is simply a camera that has no mirror. Are MILC'S the future? Again, yes, the future and the present. MILC'S are in direct competition with DSLR'S and eventually the manufacturers will concentrate on making what sells. Since DSLR technology is more mature, therefore possibly more advanced, but not necessarily, than MILC'S, there will continue to be a demand for DSLR cameras. As MILC technology reaches a point were it excels over DSLR technology, MILC'S will become the dominant type of interchangeable lens cameras.
I'll never understand the people who drone on and on about how obsolete DSLR'S are and how superior MILC'S are, as if owning a MILC actually makes them some sort of a better person. Believe me, it doesn't. They are just cameras; tools for recording photographs. You remove the pentaprism or pentamirror and the reflex mirror and examine the remaining technology, there's a whole lot DSLR'S and MILC'S have in common. And if it's simply technology we're talking about, look at the technology in cameras like the Canon 1DX or the 5DS models or Nikon D5, that operate the mirror. There's actually some pretty amazing technology that goes into enabling the mirror to move as fast as it does and have no ill effects on the images.
I personally own both types of interchangeable lens cameras and presently the camera I use the most is my Canon 5D mk IV. The camera I use second most is probably my Nikon D500 followed by my Canon M50, followed by my Canon SL2; although I'm beginning to use my Nikon D7200 more often in situations I usually use the SL2, my designated puppy cam.
So, in conclusion, yes MILC'S are here to stay and are definitely the future. No, they do not generally record better images than DSLR'S. There are certain things you can do with certain newer MILC'S because of the higher thru put, but for the vast majority of your average every day photophiles, a MILC will give you no more of an advantage than you have with a DSLR.
For the folks who feel the need to put down DSLR'S and in extension, their users, get over yourselves, it's just a camera. For the folks who feel it's necessary to defend DSLR's and the DSLR community, no one is asking, or telling, you to retire your camera. Continue to enjoy your DSLR'S for as long as possible.
I for one am waiting for the next iteration of full frame MILC's, that I can easily use my stable of very expensive lenses on, to come off the assembly line. I like what Canon and Nikon released but it's still bleeding edge technology. Besides, I already own some pretty nice cameras so I can afford to wait.
For those who would say, what about Sony? There's absolutely nothing wrong with Sony except, none of my aforementioned lenses for 35mm cameras has SONY printed on them.

Of course mirrorless is the future, the present an... (show quote)

👍👍 well said.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

TriX wrote:

👍👍 well said.

Thank you, thank you very much.

Doc Barry Loc: Huntsville, Alabama USA

rmalarz wrote:

What cameras were mirrorless in the past?
--Bob

Hi Bob,
I believe the first SLR camera was a medium format and was introduced in the mid 1880s. It wasn't until the 1920s that smaller format SLR camera was available and the 35 mm came about in the mid 1930s. Lots of others came into being after WWII, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s. Likely the most popular mirrorless camera in the past was the famous Kodak Brownie camera introduced in 1900 and unbelievably was made in one form or another until the 1980s! If memory serves me correctly, Kodak sold well over 100,000 cameras in 1900 alone. I have no idea how many total were produced, but saying it was tens of millions is likely not far off. I remember the thrill of taking my first photos with a Brownie camera my parents had.

Doc Barry

User ID

rmalarz wrote:

What cameras were mirrorless in the past?
--Bob

You are kidding, right ?

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

rmalarz wrote:

I'll admit. I've never taken a mirrorless on a trip. No interest in owning one. I prefer the benefits offered by *SLRs.
--Bob

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

rmorrison1116 wrote:

Of course mirrorless is the future, the present and the past. There have been more mirrorless cameras made over the past 150 years than any other type of camera. A mirrorless camera is simply a camera that has no mirror. Are MILC'S the future? Again, yes, the future and the present. MILC'S are in direct competition with DSLR'S and eventually the manufacturers will concentrate on making what sells. Since DSLR technology is more mature, therefore possibly more advanced, but not necessarily, than MILC'S, there will continue to be a demand for DSLR cameras. As MILC technology reaches a point were it excels over DSLR technology, MILC'S will become the dominant type of interchangeable lens cameras.
I'll never understand the people who drone on and on about how obsolete DSLR'S are and how superior MILC'S are, as if owning a MILC actually makes them some sort of a better person. Believe me, it doesn't. They are just cameras; tools for recording photographs. You remove the pentaprism or pentamirror and the reflex mirror and examine the remaining technology, there's a whole lot DSLR'S and MILC'S have in common. And if it's simply technology we're talking about, look at the technology in cameras like the Canon 1DX or the 5DS models or Nikon D5, that operate the mirror. There's actually some pretty amazing technology that goes into enabling the mirror to move as fast as it does and have no ill effects on the images.
I personally own both types of interchangeable lens cameras and presently the camera I use the most is my Canon 5D mk IV. The camera I use second most is probably my Nikon D500 followed by my Canon M50, followed by my Canon SL2; although I'm beginning to use my Nikon D7200 more often in situations I usually use the SL2, my designated puppy cam.
So, in conclusion, yes MILC'S are here to stay and are definitely the future. No, they do not generally record better images than DSLR'S. There are certain things you can do with certain newer MILC'S because of the higher thru put, but for the vast majority of your average every day photophiles, a MILC will give you no more of an advantage than you have with a DSLR.
For the folks who feel the need to put down DSLR'S and in extension, their users, get over yourselves, it's just a camera. For the folks who feel it's necessary to defend DSLR's and the DSLR community, no one is asking, or telling, you to retire your camera. Continue to enjoy your DSLR'S for as long as possible.
I for one am waiting for the next iteration of full frame MILC's, that I can easily use my stable of very expensive lenses on, to come off the assembly line. I like what Canon and Nikon released but it's still bleeding edge technology. Besides, I already own some pretty nice cameras so I can afford to wait.
For those who would say, what about Sony? There's absolutely nothing wrong with Sony except, none of my aforementioned lenses for 35mm cameras has SONY printed on them.

Of course mirrorless is the future, the present an... (show quote)

Quote:

No, they do not generally record better images than DSLR'S.

But they MAKE better pictures.