SLR versus mirrorless - the gap is closing fast.

ben_dmb

I have read a lot lately about this topic and I have to agree that SLRs are lossing ground to ILCs. Here is another one.

http://www.diyphotography.net/5-reasons-dslrs-obsolete-todays-world-martin-gillman/

Let's turn upthe heat. What is your opinion.

WestEndFoto

I have read a lot lately about this topic and I have to agree that SLRs are lossing ground to ILCs. Here is another one.

http://www.diyphotography.net/5-reasons-dslrs-obsolete-todays-world-martin-gillman/

Let's turn upthe heat. What is your opinion.

Could this author be called a "mirrorless fanboy"?

Not that there is anything wrong with it. I am sure that his system works for him. But he suggests that it should work for everyone. Hmmm......

sevencrossing

He says
A mirrorless camera with a telephoto lens can almost be hidden in the hand
given that many of the lenses for The Sony Alpa 7 do not yet even exist. I am not sure how he tested this

henrik1963

As things are right now I prefer OVF over EVF and I think AF is still better in DSLRs. But I see no reason why you can't take good pictures without a mirror.

After all you can use a D800 in mirror up and LV mode - still takes great pictures :-)

manhattanboy

He says
A mirrorless camera with a telephoto lens can almost be hidden in the hand

I was thinking that this was BS as well. In my opinion the last bastion for cameras in general against cell phones is telephoto shooting. There will never be a cell phone that can shoot telephoto, so the sooner the camera makers come around to selling telephoto to the masses, the better off they will be.
Thus far I have really only seen one good telephoto lens for mirrorless and that happens to be the 70-300 for the N1. Yes, there is supposed to be a new 300 f4 for m4/3 and yes Samsung is working on a 300 2.8, but none of those things you can buy yet.
Technically the N1 with the 70-300 does "fit" in the palm of a hand, but there is no way you would shoot it like that given how heavy that lens is.

Also regarding shooting, I find the 810 much faster to get a shot off then a mirrorless camera that likely needs to be turned on prior to shooting. Mirrorless will eventually overtake DSLRs, but for shooting in the here and now I still disagree that they are superior.

haroldp

He says
A mirrorless camera with a telephoto lens can almost be hidden in the hand
given that many of the lenses for The Sony Alpa 7 do not yet even exist. I am not sure how he tested this

They were probably hidden in his hand....

I am using mirrorless (fuji x system, Leica) for some work, but for work like wildlife or sports where long lenses and fast follow focus are needed, they still have a steep hill to climb both in the cameras, and in lens offerings to be viable competitors to Nikon and Canon.

For wedding work, the cameras are serviceable (fuji x-t1 is excellent, and excellent lenses), but the lighting systems are not close to what Nikon and Canon offer, and IMHO, that is more important for weddings than the camera used.

I do believe that n time, there will be no compelling reason for a swinging mirror in a digital camera, but that is probably 3-5 years out.

.... H

KnockKnock

Let's turn upthe heat. What is your opinion.

Not sure this topic warrants "heat" - there's plenty of good input on this topic already and do we need more heated discussion? Suggest trying the Search tool.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/3708/wondering-wheather-the-inevitable-nikon-full-frame-mirrorless-will-be-an-f-mount-/p1

Also good reading if we haven't already exhausted the issues:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-question-of-balance.html
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-economics-problem.html

Paperman

I am confident Nikon one day will come up with the technology that will get rid of the mirror while still keeping the optical viewfinder

haroldp

Over time, evf's will be good enough that an optical view finder will not be worth the trouble (alignment etc.) or cost.

They are not there yet, and need more improvement in resolution, response time / delay, brightness etc.

The autofocus focus gap is being attacked creatively by Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic and needs 1 or 2 more generations to be competitive.

Fuji offer a mirrorless with optical finder (x-pro1), and without (x-t1) at about th ame price n the x-t1 outsells the x-pro1 by a lot.

I would also like o see electronic shutter options to enable high speed flash sync.

.. H

NSXTypeR

As someone who has invested in a DSLR system and still wants a wide DX prime, I would personally like DSLRs to stick around, at least until they give me a wide prime. (Sigma already sort of does with the 18-35, but damn it, I want Nikon to acknowledge us DX users!)

That being said, I think Fuji does a better job at doing retro cameras than Nikon does and they are compelling cameras. Maybe not as an action camera, but for general photography use, I can see their appeal.

BabaGanoush

He says
A mirrorless camera with a telephoto lens can almost be hidden in the hand
given that many of the lenses for The Sony Alpa 7 do not yet even exist. I am not sure how he tested this

I've had moderate success using a Panasonic mirror-less (MFT) GX1 with the Panasonic 100-300mm lens to take pictures of surfers. Normally I use a D800 with Nikon's 80-400mm for this. The Panasonic combo fits in my outstretched hand. The 100-300mm lens is quite sharp, but the AF of the GX-1 is two generations old by now and a tad slow for action shots. A more recent model camera like the GX-7, which has a faster AF system, would do much better than my GX-1, perhaps not as well as my Nikon gear, but probably good enough for many uses....and at a substantially lower cost that cannot be ignored.

Pistnbroke

Well I am on my 4 th one...Fugi M1..did not like picture .Oly EP5 not sharpe enough Samsung NX 2000 despite the 20 MP not sharpe and all the above uslesss in sun .
Now have the Olympus OMD M 10 and its great ..like a mini D7100 ..good viewfinder sharpe picture but would have been better executed as a DX/FX as picture is often slightly grainy due to low light inability.The pancake 14-42mm leaves the camera only 2.3in thick in the pocket...
Makes a great apprentice to the Nikons.

nukuEX2

Ok, if anybody tells you you don't need DSLR to do telephoto is either lying to you, smoking something, or both. )

sevencrossing

there is a wide range of DSLRs from something like the D3200 to the D4s
and wide range of mirrorless including the Nikon 1 and the Sony a7
nothing in the mirrorless range seem to come close to D4s
so IMHO the Gap is still huge

ben_dmb

The way I see it, mirrorless are already taking a good share of the entry level and enthusiast DSLRs market, and they are performing really good, I would say in par with those DSLRs. They are not competing with high end DSLRs yet, and probably they are not going to do it any time soon. I can see enthusiast photographers using mirrorless cameras for everyday shooting and DSLRs for more demanding photography.
All this hype about mirrorless cameras is pushing companies like Nikon and Canon to innovate rather than just evolve, and this is good for us, the consumer.

haroldp

@ben_dmb

I agree, I for one am lately using a Fuji X-E1 for grandchildren, and a D810 and D3x for diving Eagles.

.... H

puppycat

What exactly is the advantage of a mirrorless camera, vs a DSLR? Is it argument mainly over size/portability? What happens when the full size DSLR go without a mirror? Will the current crop of mirrorless be considered more point-and-shoot?

I'm intrigued and by what Fuji and others are doing and think a mirrorless would be a good addition to my gear, but more of an addition vs. a replacement.

As I see it the mirrorless offerings seems advantageous for features and portability, but lack the overall ease of use you get with a DSLR where many of those same features are accessible via the camera body vs. menu options that force you out of the shooting position and to dig through the camera software.

henrik1963

I am not so sure I want my camera to be a lot smaller than my D800. I would like it to be lighter. But not so light that I need a tripod to take a Picture.

I like what I see in the new Nikon 300mm F4 lens. And I think that more people are willing to carry a 300mm lens if it is smaller and lighter without hurting image quality.

If Nikon can solve the problems with EVFs and AF I will not miss the mirror. I dont think we will have to wait long for that to happen.

haroldp

What happens when the full size DSLR go without a mirror? .

It will then be a mirrorless. eg; the Sony A7's full frame mirrorless cameras.

The advantage offered by mirrorless design, is that by eliminating the swinging mirror:

1 - the camera is mechanically simpler, fewer moving part, more reliable.
2- Lenses shorter in FL than 58mm do not have to be retro-focus, simplifying lens design, allowing lenses to be smaller, lighter, cheaper, better. The Fuji 14mm f2.8 is a brilliant example of what lens designers can do when freed from the mirror box. Nobody has a DX format SLR lens that is even close to the Fuji.

3- Faster contrast autofocus as pioneered by Panasonic eliminates AF calibration as an issue.
4 - simpler mechanically ultimately means cheaper.

Current mirrorless cameras till have disadvantages vs DSLR's for fast moving subjects, but that, and poorly planned controls (the Fuji X-T1 is an example of what can be done), are not inherent to mirrorless, but are design decisions which can change.

... H

sevencrossing

1 _ Is there any evidence that Nikon SLRs or DSLR are unreliable?

2 _ The SUMMILUX-M ASPH 24mm f/1.4 lens for a Leica (which does not have a mirror), is retrofocus, it is also big, and expensive. Is there a better f 1.4 24mm? To take full advantage of this, Nikon have to abandoned the F mount and bring out a new rage of lens ( they currently have 84 F mount lenses)

3 _ granted this seems be an advantage

4 _ We do not know the manufacturing saving of removing the mirror box, but this may only play a small part in the final retail price that we pay

WestEndFoto

There seems to be a notion that the demise of the DSLR is inevitable. On this point I am skeptical.

There is an engineering maxim that says for a system to be replaced, the new system needs to be 10 times better. This is what is required to motivate current system owners to abandon their system in favour of the new system (eg f-mount in favour of new mount).

This is why I am skeptical that Nikon will go with mirrorless. To take full advantage, it will be a new mount.

My prediction is that Nikon will bring out mirrorless, but it will be medium format and start at the wide end where it has the retro-focus advantage and does not have the auto-focus disadvantage. Of course, medium format sensors will be very expensive. Nikon may delay until the cost declines further.

haroldp

@sevencrossing:

All DSLR's and particularly Nikon professional DSLR's are in fact remarkably reliable. How much engineering effort and cost has gone into.

- Mirror mechanisms, hinges, materials, springs,Focusing screen mounts and alignments etc.
to achieve this is unknowable to us but mechanicals over time are always more expensive and less reliable than electronics.

It is true that the low cost and high reliability of anything as complex as a DSLR is a marvel, and a tribute to engineering and mass production.

All new Leica wide lenses (< 35mm) are retrofocus because digital sensors do not like to be illuminated at acute angles. That being said, they are less radically reorofocus because they do not have to clear a mirror box.

The SUMMILUX-M ASPH 24mm f/1.4 Leica lens is still 1/2 the size of a 24mm f1.4 Nikkor (I have both) and noticeably sharper wide open (like all asph summilux's). Like ll leica products it is expensive, a major fraction of the cost is the precise mechanical mount and alignment needed to couple a mechanical rangefinder.

As mirrorless gets more capable, its share will likely not primarily come from people replacing DSLR's but from people buying something new anyway, and having no compelling reason to go with a DSLR. Particularly if Nikon and Canon execute a smart strategy of adapters for their current lens mounts. It does not have to be ten times better for that.

The combination of EVF and sensor based autofocus are also more tolerant of mechanical alignment precision and therefore further reduces cost.

... H

sevencrossing

-but mechanicals over time are always more expensive and less reliable than electronics.

One would have thought so
But in the last four cars i have owned (VW, ford, BMW Skoda) it is not the engine or the gearbox that that have failed
but those very expensive black boxes with lots of wires coming out of them

I am dreading a black box failure in my current VW; none of the controls seems to be mechanical

ggbutcher

@sevencrossing:

1 _ Is there any evidence that Nikon SLRs or DSLR are unreliable?

None I know of. My F2 Photomic flips it's mirror and cycles its shutter every bit as reliably in 2014 as it did in 1974. Reliability, in an engineering sense, is the fitness for duty in a specific application, and professionals have been 'relying' on Nikon SLRs for decades in that specific sense. That said, a professional photographer who is responsible for capturing images in an event should not go there without at least two bodies, IMHO, because the occurrence of any service-affecting failure in a single point of failure will keep them from walking away from the event with money-makers. I would think this way with a mirrorless camera as well as a DSLR, because redundancy is usually cheap insurance for any failure, no matter how low the likelihood.

Mechanical systems are simply more subject to the vagaries and eventualities of friction than electronic systems. That said, electronic systems have their own failure modes which should be respected, e.g., thermal breakdown, corrosion. DSLRs have both mechanical and electronic components; if you compare a generic mirrorless and DSLR mechanism in terms of the constituent components, the mirrorless camera is a DSLR without the flippy mirror. So, In terms of my work-a-day world, mirrorless subtracts a component from the required system, thus cutting down the number of possible failure modes. For that reason alone, I look forward to mirrorless.

It is with a bit of chagrin that I look back on the career I've built out of failure...

haroldp

@sevencrossing:

1 _ Is there any evidence that Nikon SLRs or DSLR are unreliable?

because redundancy is usually cheap insurance for any failure, no matter how low the likelihood.

You can say that again .... H

WestEndFoto

As a professional, showing up at an event without redundancy in bodies AND cards (dual slots with one set as backup) is cause for immediate termination of the contract.