rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

My counter-point, to leftj'swas that there was plenty of time for terminology to develop if a need had been perceived.

1950Dan Loc: Lockwood, Nevada

BebuLamar; Mirrorless has to be digital???? I'm not certain that a digital is really a camera.
http://historiccamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium/pm.cgi?action=display&login=earlypoco
https://www.wide-angle.nl/shop/nikon-model-s-with-nippon-kogaku-tokyo-nikkor-s-c-5cm-f1-4-lens-this-is-a-early-camera-nr-575/
http://www.gadgetexplained.com/2016/01/6-retro-cameras-that-are-real-blast.html

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

A valid question but one that will start WW III (or IV or V or VII...) on this forum.

I am a DSLR user. In many regards mirrorless is superior from a fps, compactness and vibration (no flopping mirror) standpoint...however, for me I did not find those benefits compelling enough to make me dump DSLR and buy a mirrorless (Sony/Fuji/Olympus)....however, SOMEDAY I will try mirrorless just to satisfy my GAS attack, but right now I find the DSLR more than adequate for my needs - I just got a new D7200 last month and very happy with it after taking several hundred shots.

Mirrorless is definitely advantageous for sports and action photography but this is not to say the same genres can't be handled by a DSLR as they are currently. I was just handling an Olympus M1 mkii in the store the other day - awesome feel and responsiveness....same can be said for the Sony A7/A9 series. I love the classic look of the Fujis....but again, not compelling enough yet for my style of photography.

The biggest drawback is the EVF....personally I am indifferent to it but some prefer the optical SLR and others prefer the EVF. I've heard stories of photographers jumping to mirrorless and then back to SLR, and also vice versa. There is the infamous lag of the EVF, but that could be countered with technologies such as in the M1 mkii which buffers images BEFORE you press the release - which means mirrorless cams are really camcorders when you think about it.

For me compactness is not an issue, and in fact I like some heft in the camera - if it's too small/light I find it harder to handle, especially with a large lens. And yes, I've tried different combos in the store.

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

And the Graflex reflex camera was introduced in 1899.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I was not talking about noise in the digitized video signal. I was referring to audible sound from the camera.

I can take my GH4 into a theatre and record stills or video without making any sound at all. I could never do that with my Canons or Nikons.

My GH4 can make 30 frames per second of 4K Photo 8.2 MP stills. The GH5 can do 30 frames per second of "6K Photo" 18MP HEVC stills, or 60 frames per second of 4K Photo 8.2 MP stills.

In still photo mode, I have a choice of mechanical or electronic shutter. Since there is no mirror, the sensor is exposed all the time. The mechanical shutter only activates when it is used. It closes, opens, closes. The electronic shutter uses a "frame grab" scheme that allows speeds as short as 1/16,000 second.

There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages of both types of shutter. Panning while using the electronic shutter can result in distortion known as the "rolling shutter effect", where vertical lines are tilted. But the high frame rates are extremely useful for sports, wildlife, and other kinds of work where the mechanical shutter, even at 12+ fps, is too slow.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

Better or worse? Maybe not. But differences. Mirrorless does not have a mechanical component clanging up and down. Serious ones have an electronic viewfinder which does not black out at the moment of exposure as does the DSLR. Also, the EVF can give you a "WYSYG" view. The DSLR cannot.

You can more easily get faster speeds of burst exposure because of the lack of mechanical movement. For the same reason, you can shoot (At least my Sonys can) completely silent. (In fact it is disconcerting to not get the audible click sometimes. But very handy when shooting in quiet locations like museums, churches, theaters, etc.

The MILC is lighter weight and can be made smaller. With the absence of the mirror (or pentaprism) the lens-sensor distance can be made smaller. This allows room for lens adapters. (I frequently shoot my Nikon 400mm and my Rokinon fisheye.)

On the other side, the very weight and size of the DSLR makes it easier to hold steady at slower shutter speeds. Stabilization helps a lot, but the DSLR does have this advantage. And there are far more lenses available for Canon or Nikon DSLRs.

Particular models of each have other differences of course.

After over 40 years of CaNik rangefinder and DSLRs (I owned one of the early Pentaxes in 1958.) I found myself heading to Europe two years ago. Instead of carrying my Nikon equipment, I bought a Sony a6000 right after it debuted. It was a bit of a learning curve to change habits but I had about six months before the trip. Came back with some great images. Went back to my Nikons until I had another trip (to Death Valley). I bought another a6000 and the new a6300 (So I'd have two compatible bodies.)

Personal preference, since I insist on printing 11x14 to 20x30 prints. No sensor smaller than the aps-c in any camera will do that. No 4/3 or 1" or other. For strictly Internet folk, I'm sure the smaller ones are fine, but why.

leftj Loc: Texas

Isn't that what UHH is? If everyone agreed there would be no need for it.

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

Sure, and that's fine. I made no reference to agreement/disagreement. What's annoying is when the infinitesimal differences in definitions go on and on and on . . . .

radiojohn

Flipping mirrors have been used for about 100 years in one form or another. With the exception of DSLRs, ALL digital cameras made in the past 15+ years are mirrorless. With the exception of some real cheapies, ALL digital cameras present a view seen "through the lens" on a screen.

The term is now being used to differentiate "traditional" mirror-prism camera shapes from removable lens cameras that no longer need to conform to the design restrictions that have been around since Exactas were new. Mirrors flip and cause vibration, but they also provide a clear real-time optical view many prefer. Mirrorless reduce vibration and electronic finders get better ever product cycle. Sooner or later mirrorless cameras with removable lens will take over.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I'm one who used SLRs from 1968 to 2005, and dSLRs from 2002 to 2012. Then I switched to mirrorless. There is a period of adaptation, but once you learn how to use a mirrorless camera as a mirrorless camera, and not as a substitute dSLR, it makes a lot of sense.

I got a Panasonic Lumix GH4 for several reasons:

I record stills and video of the same subjects for different media used in the same projects.

I wanted something light and portable that would reduce my excess baggage charges.

The camera does everything I ask of it. What I don't ask of it is the little bit of work I would rent a dSLR to photograph.

It has decent internal audio preamps, with peak limiters, level control, meters, a mic jack, and a headphone jack.

While some Canikon gear records video, there are so many limiting factors with dSLRs that the extra shallow depth of field isn't worth it for me. And since I rarely record anything that requires an ISO faster than 3200, the two-stop penalty in low light performance does not bother me. Video still looks fine up to 6400 for some uses.

I've ordered a few un-cropped 40x30 inch prints that looked fine at their normal viewing distance of 50" or greater. Pixel peepers can be comfortable up to 20x15 inches un-cropped (that's 240 PPI from the 16 MP image). Those are decent sizes for me. 99% of what I do is for the Internet, or DVDs, or PowerPoints, or direct video projection, or PDF output formatted to 8.5x11 pages. And yes, I do make some 8x10s and smaller prints.

leftj Loc: Texas

Don't read em.

BebuLamar

Did anyone call them mirrorless back in the days?????? Mirrorless camera isn't simply a camera without mirror.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

Range finder is mirrorless, but at the time they were developed cameras were not using mirrors for the most part and range finder made more since since it described how it focused. View camera is a mirrorless camera but again when it was developed no body was using mirrors so you wouldn't call something mirrorless when cameras didn't have mirrors. What I'm getting at is a Rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

rpena2860

Great discussion, but perhaps the debate over the definition of mirror-less, its history and when it actually came to be would be a great topic for another discussion thread as it's not really directly on-point with the OP's question. I seriously doubt the OP is asking whether a DSLR is better than an early 1900's box camera (which has no mirror, BTW). :D

(Usually mods keep threads on-topic and split-off worthy sub-discussions into its own thread. Where's a forum moderator when you need one.)

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Rangefinder & View Cameras (as well as TLR's which use no mirror) are all still being used to this day... There are also some other medium format cameras that don't have mirrors.