Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Is mirrorless really better thand DSLR? (modern versions only)
Page 1 of 46 next> last>>
Apr 3, 2021 15:54:35   #
JohnR Loc: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
 
Just a little food for thought

Looking completely dispassionately which is better photographically – for image quality?

First the significant differences (Comparing APS-C and full frame only):

DSLR bodies are bigger and heavier than mirrorless bodies.
DSLRs take many more photos per battery charge than mirrorless
DSLRs have mirrors :)
Mirrorless don’t have mirrors :) :)
Mmmm – can’t think of any other significant differences.

Second important similarities:

Both have sensors
Both have viewfinders
Both have LCDs
Both have lenses
Mmmm – can’t think of any other important similarities.

So how does any of this make a mirrorless better than a DSLR?? Well IMHO it doesn’t, it can’t and it won’t as far as image quality of photographs is concerned. Excluding the photographers skill levels and the many personal preferences involved, the image quality of a photograph is directly proportional to the quality of the lens and the sensor.
Mirrorless do not have better sensors than DSLRs. Mirrorless do not have better lenses than DSLRs. So photographs from mirrrorless cannot have better image quality than those from DSLRs.

Reply
Apr 3, 2021 16:00:28   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA
 
I agree.

Some like them, some do not.
Some think they are the greatest thing since sliced bologna.
Just another camera design to me.

Reply
Apr 3, 2021 16:05:53   #
rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA
 
Better, no. Just a little different.

But some people need mental justification for their frequent camera purchasing. Even if deep down they know that their photography will probably not noticeably improve with a new camera.

Reply
 
 
Apr 3, 2021 16:08:41   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA
 
rook2c4 wrote:
Better, no. Just a little different.

But some people need mental justification for their frequent camera purchasing. Even if deep down they know that their photography will probably not noticeably improve with a new camera.


Reply
Apr 3, 2021 16:12:22   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Camera considerations are accurate shutter speed, accurate ISO settings, good glass, and accurate aperture settings. Weight has nothing to do with the quality of an initial captured image.

If one wants to take weight into consideration, the more weight the less the camera is influenced by small internal or external vibration. Though, it's actually mass that is involved in this part.

The EVF of mirrorless cameras would be a distraction, to me. I prefer to see what's happening in real-time.
--Bob
JohnR wrote:
Just a little food for thought

Looking completely dispassionately which is better photographically – for image quality?

First the significant differences (Comparing APS-C and full frame only):

DSLR bodies are bigger and heavier than mirrorless bodies.
DSLRs take many more photos per battery charge than mirrorless
DSLRs have mirrors :)
Mirrorless don’t have mirrors :) :)
Mmmm – can’t think of any other significant differences.

Second important similarities:

Both have sensors
Both have viewfinders
Both have LCDs
Both have lenses
Mmmm – can’t think of any other important similarities.

So how does any of this make a mirrorless better than a DSLR?? Well IMHO it doesn’t, it can’t and it won’t as far as image quality of photographs is concerned. Excluding the photographers skill levels and the many personal preferences involved, the image quality of a photograph is directly proportional to the quality of the lens and the sensor.
Mirrorless do not have better sensors than DSLRs. Mirrorless do not have better lenses than DSLRs. So photographs from mirrrorless cannot have better image quality than those from DSLRs.
Just a little food for thought br br Looking comp... (show quote)

Reply
Apr 3, 2021 16:20:09   #
Ysarex
 
JohnR wrote:
Just a little food for thought

Looking completely dispassionately which is better photographically – for image quality?

First the significant differences (Comparing APS-C and full frame only):

DSLR bodies are bigger and heavier than mirrorless bodies.
DSLRs take many more photos per battery charge than mirrorless
DSLRs have mirrors :)
Mirrorless don’t have mirrors :) :)
Mmmm – can’t think of any other significant differences.

Second important similarities:

Both have sensors
Both have viewfinders
Both have LCDs
Both have lenses
Mmmm – can’t think of any other important similarities.

So how does any of this make a mirrorless better than a DSLR??
Just a little food for thought br br Looking comp... (show quote)

You missed a difference. The wide angle lenses I have for my mirrorless cameras are better than any wide angle lenses you can get for a DSLR. This is because of the design difference in the lenses. Wide angle lenses for a DSLR have to be designed to provide room for the mirror. Wide angle lenses for mirrorless camera don't have to accept that compromise.
I enjoy the superior image quality I get using wide angle lenses on my cameras that are unavailable for DSLRs.
JohnR wrote:
Well IMHO it doesn’t, it can’t and it won’t as far as image quality of photographs is concerned. Excluding the photographers skill levels and the many personal preferences involved, the image quality of a photograph is directly proportional to the quality of the lens and the sensor.
Mirrorless do not have better sensors than DSLRs. Mirrorless do not have better lenses than DSLRs. So photographs from mirrrorless cannot have better image quality than those from DSLRs.
Well IMHO it doesn’t, it can’t and it won’t as far... (show quote)

Reply
Apr 3, 2021 16:31:39   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
I see no rationale for the statement, "Wide angle lenses for a DSLR have to be designed to provide room for the mirror. Wide angle lenses for mirrorless camera don't have to accept that compromise."

It would be interesting if you provided some other, than your opinionated, view as evidence to back up that statement.

Simply changing the distance to the plane on which the image is focused should not affect the quality of the image projected. Each lens was designed to optimally project the image at its particular focal plane.
--Bob

Reply
 
 
Apr 3, 2021 16:34:26   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Mirrorless cameras are a way of feeling, of touching, of loving. Images captured from behind a mirror are cold, heartless and uncaring.

Reply
Apr 3, 2021 16:35:10   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA
 
rmalarz wrote:
I see no rationale for the statement, "Wide angle lenses for a DSLR have to be designed to provide room for the mirror. Wide angle lenses for mirrorless camera don't have to accept that compromise."

It would be interesting if you provided some other, than your opinionated, view as evidence to back up that statement.

Simply changing the distance to the plane on which the image is focused should not affect the quality of the image projected. Each lens was designed to optimally project the image at its particular focal plane.
--Bob
I see no rationale for the statement, "Wide a... (show quote)


Reply
Apr 3, 2021 16:36:19   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Mirrorless cameras are a way of feeling, of touching, of loving. Images captured from behind a mirror are cold, heartless and uncaring.

No wonder the pictures of things I don't care about in the winter come out so great.

Reply
Apr 3, 2021 16:38:00   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
JohnR wrote:
Just a little food for thought

Looking completely dispassionately which is better photographically – for image quality?

First the significant differences (Comparing APS-C and full frame only):

DSLR bodies are bigger and heavier than mirrorless bodies.
DSLRs take many more photos per battery charge than mirrorless
DSLRs have mirrors :)
Mirrorless don’t have mirrors :) :)
Mmmm – can’t think of any other significant differences.

Second important similarities:

Both have sensors
Both have viewfinders
Both have LCDs
Both have lenses
Mmmm – can’t think of any other important similarities.

So how does any of this make a mirrorless better than a DSLR?? Well IMHO it doesn’t, it can’t and it won’t as far as image quality of photographs is concerned. Excluding the photographers skill levels and the many personal preferences involved, the image quality of a photograph is directly proportional to the quality of the lens and the sensor.
Mirrorless do not have better sensors than DSLRs. Mirrorless do not have better lenses than DSLRs. So photographs from mirrrorless cannot have better image quality than those from DSLRs.
Just a little food for thought br br Looking comp... (show quote)


You said 'modern' versions, and yet, you mention a mirrorless battery issue of the past. All the major players have resolved this issue in all releases in the past 2+ years, soon eventually to be the distance past.

Reply
 
 
Apr 3, 2021 16:43:45   #
Ysarex
 
rmalarz wrote:
I see no rationale for the statement, "Wide angle lenses for a DSLR have to be designed to provide room for the mirror. Wide angle lenses for mirrorless camera don't have to accept that compromise."

It would be interesting if you provided some other, than your opinionated, view as evidence to back up that statement.

Start here: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses/
rmalarz wrote:
Simply changing the distance to the plane on which the image is focused should not affect the quality of the image projected.

Wide angle lenses for DSLRs are retro-focus designs. They have to be in order to clear the mirror cage. A retro-focus design is difficult and extremely hard to design without distortion (you can read that as no one in fact makes one). (See article above.) Without the mirror a different design approach is possible and wide angle lenses without distortion become much more attainable (you can read that as yes they're available).
rmalarz wrote:
Each lens was designed to optimally project the image at its particular focal plane.
--Bob

Here's the classic example from Zeiss/Hasselblad. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/swc.htm
The Hasselblad of the film era was an SLR. A Zeiss 40mm Distagon wide angle lenses was available for the camera. Nonetheless Hasselblad made and sold at the same time the SWC which was fitted with a 38mm Zeiss Biogon. It was a lot of money back then. Why buy a whole new camera without SLR viewing just to use that one fixed lens. And the answer is distortion -- as in not there in the 38mm Biogon but very much there in the 40mm Distagon.

Reply
Apr 3, 2021 16:52:46   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas (Dallas area)
 
Shorter flange distance as a benefit is actually one of the most bogus arguments in favor of the new designs. Shortening this distance causes wider angles to be required to reach the corners of the sensor. Wider angles mean that the ratio of the distance to the corner against the distance to the center of the frame is larger. The natural result of this is greater brightness falloff in the corners. That has to be corrected in some way. One is simply moving everything forward in the lens barrel, making the lens longer and heavier. The other is introducing some additional non-spherical lens elements to pump more light into the corners. That, in turn, is going to introduce some novel new forms of distortion requiring additional lens elements and weight to correct.

There is no free lunch here, folks. If you want a new camera, by all means buy one. The manufacturers all desperately need your money. Just quit making up stuff and blowing smoke to justify spending your money. The rest of us have figured out that we don't need to do it. Quit trying to tell us that we are wrong. We don't care what you do with your money.

Reply
Apr 3, 2021 16:52:59   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA
 
Ysarex wrote:
Here's the classic example from Zeiss/Hasselblad. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/swc.htm
The Hasselblad of the film era was an SLR. A Zeiss 40mm Distagon wide angle lenses was available for the camera. Nonetheless Hasselblad made and sold at the same time the SWC which was fitted with a 38mm Zeiss Biogon. It was a lot of money back then. Why buy a whole new camera without SLR viewing just to use that one fixed lens. And the answer is distortion -- as in not there in the 38mm Biogon but very much there in the 40mm Distagon.
Here's the classic example from Zeiss/Hasselblad. ... (show quote)

Cheaper to make the lenses or just a different process.

Reply
Apr 3, 2021 17:02:12   #
Ysarex
 
Longshadow wrote:
Cheaper to make the lenses or just a different process.


A completely different design but yes likely cheaper. Here's some background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angénieux_retrofocus The ideal design for a wide angle lens is off the table for an SLR because of the required mirror clearance. The retrofocus lens will be more complex, have more glass, be heavier and yes likely cost more to make. It will solve the problem of mounting to an SLR but it will come with a cost.

My first mirrorless digital camera was purchased not because it was mirrorless but because it was all that was available to put behind the lens I purchased. I still have my Fuji XF 14mm f/2.8. I love it and no one using a DSLR has a similar (90 degree angle of view) lens with as little distortion.

Reply
Page 1 of 46 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2021 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.