A Practical & Civil Discussion about Mirrorless vs DSLR

JonMcGuffin

I, as I'm sure many of you here, have been watching and paying pretty close attention to the whole Mirrorless camera movement the past few years. I recently came across a video (from last year) where Jason Lanier jumped ship from Nikon over to the Sony FF Mirror less system, his YouTube video has gotten over 500,000 views on it and it just keeps going. It's sparked responses mainly from that idiot...rgghh.. angry photographer guy who calls Jason out as a sellout, blah blah blah. That's obviously all a bunch of nonsense however.. it has me thinking why do I choose one system over the other.

Is it even possible for people to have a logical discussion about the merits of a camera without a mirror versus one with a mirror without people getting all upset about the situation? Most people in the mirrorless camp really claim that "mirrorless is the future". I'm not very sure why they say that or what grounds they have to make that claim. Who can predict the future? We've had "pure" digital mirrorless cameras here from the beginning of digital photography, they're nothing new. Those cameras are certainly getting way better but why the need to turn this into a Canon vs Nikon, Apple vs PC, Coke vs Pepsi kind of thing?

We all (should) know that the camera is a mere small piece of delivering a picture. The fact a camera has an optical viewfinder, and has a mirror that moves out of the way when the exposure is being made versus one that doesn't is hardly reason to make such a big deal of this.

I've used a Fuji XT-1 and have played with the Sony A7 series in the Sony Store. I have some feelings on the issue, I'm going to give my two cents assuming anybody cares and ask anybody out there if I'm really missing something here.

Here are my findings based on using a Fuji XT-1 vs at the time was my D7100 and D700 bodies.

#1) The EVF made me uncomfortable, not so much with the picture quality but more or less when I released the shutter the screen would go black for a longer period of time than when I'm used too. It kinda messed up my flow. And in all honesty, I felt like I was using a toy or a point and shoot. A deal breaker? Probably not, but the optical viewfinder is... well... perfect from the standpoint of what I shoot is what I get. Maybe not from an exposure standpoint of course, but in all other elements, EVF was a downer no matter what the resolution is.

#2) Mirrorless big "advantage" seems to be the size aspect. The XT-1 (and A7's) honestly don't practically have any advantage over a D7100 or say a Canon 7DM2. Are they lighter and smaller? Yes. Does it really make a difference; no. It's not as though you can put one in your pocket and the other you can't. They're all basically around the same size as one another with the bodies that have mirrors are a little heavier; it's not going to change the way I can or cannot make a picture; period. Quality lenses are still large and the better and longer they are, the bigger they get. It gets so bad that after awhile you have a kind of reverse situation going with Mirrorless in that the lens and bodies don't balance well.

#3) There is no cost savings, quite the contrary actually. At the time and still now, the Fuji-XT1 versus the D7200 is the same price and when you start factoring in glass, the Nikon pulls away. DSLR is less expensive for rough equivalent systems.

#4) I couldn't actually really find any specification that any mirrorless camera actually was BETTER than it's DSLR equivalent. AF is clearly better on the DSLR's from top to bottom. Is it good enough on the mirrorless? Maybe so, but it's not better. Some mirrorless cameras shoot really fast, but then when you look more carefully, if you're trying to track motion, they slow WAY down. No advantage there. They're not "better" in low light but they're about on par. You can't easily find a mirrorless body that can take two cards at the same time for backup or overflow. Yikes, that is a huge no.

#5) No TTL flash support or spotty at best. This is a huge feature frankly, not only do the mirrorless cameras usually sync at slower speeds (1/160th, etc) but there is no solid TTL support amongst really any of them. I know there was life making good pictures with flash before TTL but that seems like a pretty big omission to me with no change on the horizon in sight.

There are a few benefits, I know. The Fuji can evidently shoot at like 1/16,000 now? Some have a 100% complete silent shutter (very cool), the ability to see the exposure and also a histogram in the viewfinder is certainly cool and valuable. I'm not a mirrorless hater. I just don't know why it's such a big deal fight among photogs. Sensors are sensors, photographers capture pictures and the editing of those pictures is a HUGE factor in the end presentation. I like the lenses that Fuji offers, I'm liking the look and specs of the Sony A7Rii (I think). All these options are great for us!

henrik1963

I met a woman in Berlin this summer. She was very good at taking pictures and making prints. She was using an old Hasselblad film camera.

Cameras are tools.

She was taking pictures of old buildings. From a technical stand point she would have been better of using a D800 - way better DR than any film. She told me that she just had to wait for the light to be right for what she wanted - come back at the right time.

Some see the picture - others see the gear. I wish I was better at seeing the picture :-)

One_Oh_Four

Henrik is right, the camera is a tool. As such, the DSLR has a lot of moving parts that every time surprise me at how well they stay calibrated to each other! I can understand that a mirrorless system has less moving parts but at this moment in time their AF isn't yet at the level of the top-DSLR's. I shoot a lot of things, aircraft in flight asking the most of my gear. The speed of the cameras, AF and the EVF aren't there yet but may (will?) be in the next 3-5 years or so. So maybe I'll buy one at that time if it fulfills my needs. I can imagine that vibrations to mirror-slap will be a definite thing of the past, then. Not that I experienced that very much on my D800, though.

spraynpray

I would like to see proper mirror lock up on a DSLR so that CH in manual mode on a tripod is not flapping the mirror pointlessly. Mirrorless has that possibility so maybe there are potentially times they have an advantage, but I will not have one as my main camera for a long, long time. I'm happy to buy in when my current mirror-flappers don't do the job. Maybe those Nikon hacker guys could arrange that...

MaxBerlin

Nikon D810 is still the top no compromise 35mm camera. Sony's new camera already getting bashed by reviewers all over the web.

Msmoto

I think I will lurk on this thread....at least until I see a camera about the size of an M3 Leica, with the functionality of the D5 or D810.....

At that point, i am in.

BabaGanoush

Nikon D810 is still the top no compromise 35mm camera. Sony's new camera already getting bashed by reviewers all over the web.

And it's also getting enormous praise from from others "all over the web." Some reports I've read put the A7rII on a par with the D810. Whenever a new camera first comes out, it's not surprising, is it, that initial reviews are mixed: some people will find positive things to say, others find issues or weaknesses of a serious or not-so-serious nature. Does any camera emerge to unanimous, unqualified praise? At least no one has reported the Sony is spraying oil all over its insides. And have you seen the many plaintive user reports of right/left focusing issues? Oh wait, my mistake, I'm thinking of certain Nikon cameras that at first release were "bashed all over the Web."

The Sony's been out only a few days. The published reports are quick first impressions. A prudent person, I should think, would wait for more detailed evaluations before judging too harshly...so as not to make his bias any more obvious than it already is.


PS, Update: Here's a comparison between the D810 and the A7RII some of you might be interested in, so take a look: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=11168

The obvious conclusion is that the sensors are getting better all the time, which will work to the benefit of all photographers whether they are shooting Nikon or Sony gear. This is a good time to be into photography.

KnockKnock

I feel like mirrorless cameras have physical advantages: no mirror vibration, fewer moving parts, lighter viewfinder and out of my depth but I think simpler AF. But thus far camera companies haven't leveraged these. Instead they've gone retro - trying to reinvent the wheel for camera bodies in an attempt to build differentiation, and gone small. None of these help us take better pictures - seems like marketing departments over engineering.

What I'd jump in on, would be a Nikon D750 body mirrorless full-frame. It might lose a little weight due to the lack of glass in the viewfinder, and mirror. But more importantly, it would handle like a modern, fast, full-featured camera. It could shoot silent and fast, integrate with Nikon lenses and flash system. Imagine the Nikon 1 series AF fully across the sensor. Crazy possible FPS. We need advances in viewfinders, but that's getting close. I do like seeing settings represented while shooting: effects, WB etc, and manual focus assistance is really useful. But don't throw out the consistent button/menu interface that the various (pro, prosumer, consumer) lines have honed over the years.

So I wait and hope.

Pistnbroke

I dont know why its such a big problem to make a fully functioning mirrorless D810 equivalent ..why do they keep releasing these half hearted attempts ( Sony)
I have had a Fuji/ and Samsung (rubbish no viewfinder) a Oly M10 ( rubbish IQ) .

will wait for a proper job but silent would be good and 56 MP FX

donaldejose

I have been enjoying shooting portraits in LiveView with constant LED lighting. I like being able to see the effect of the lighting changes I am making on the LCD before I take the shot. To me that is a great advantage and I would like to be able to use it outdoors but cannot due to too much ambient light on the LCD. Thus, I would love to have a mirrorless body with an EVF. However, the time delay between pressing the shutter and taking the photo is too long in LiveView. Perhaps soon Nikon will offer D750 level internals in a mirrorless body with a nearly instantaneous EVF and on-sensor AF. Hopefully, the D5 with is 173 focus points is the first step to on sensor AF. Than all Nikon needs to develop is a nearly instantaneous EVF.

Ironheart

The Nikon 1 V3 has a shutter response (lag) of 0.047 second, measured after the button is already pushed halfway and focus is obtained. Under the same circumstances the D810 has a lag of 0.054 second with the viewfinder, and climbs to 0.158 second when using live view.
Point being that a properly designed mirrorless camera will have a lower shutter lag than a DSLR. Comparing to live view is like comparing apples to coconuts ;-) Which camera are you using for this test Donald?

JonMcGuffin

I feel like mirrorless cameras have physical advantages: no mirror vibration, fewer moving parts, lighter viewfinder and out of my depth but I think simpler AF.

I think KnockKnock has this one pretty well defined and nailed. Mirrorless is the future not because the "Sony A7x takes better pictures than the Nikon Dxxx, if people enjoy the Sony pictures, it's because of the sensor and that's conversely true of the Nikon. Mirrorless vs DSLR is not a "better picture" argument.

Mirrorless is an alternative mechanical design all based on the same exact digital principals we've been using in all digital cameras for 15+ years now. I'm going to agree Mirrorless "is" the future because this is the route that will likely eventually lead to a cheaper product for the manufacturer and deliver a similar experience picture quality wise and a size benefit to the photographer that it seems virtually EVERY photographer wants "give me my stuff smaller.."

The problem is that lenses don't enjoy such an advantage, so you begin to put these smaller cameras on the back of lenses that haven't necessarily shrunk and you're kind of back in the same issue you had before.

The Nikon D5 won't be mirrorless, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's the last flagship model with a mirror. By the time they replace it, I think Mirrorless cameras will catch up in AF performance and that will be the real final nail in the head for DSLR in 95% of uses.

The fact manufacturers have seemingly done a better job of incorporating other tech into mirrorless is only helping such as Wifi that actually works, etc.

I'm always watching carefully and I'm convinced a Sony A7xxx whatever camera would take as good of images as my Nikon. But I also know that when I'm counting on a machine to get me through a live event, or anything that requires a really robust AF system, I'm quite content and happy with my mirror flapping DSLR.

We are *SO* lucky to photograph in this generation.. the tools we have available to us are just incredible.

Parke1953

Mirrorless cameras maybe smaller but can be made bigger so you can hold them. They would have a lot of empty space inside filled with helium so they are even lighter. They will be a good camera in the future. I think every photographer will have one. Hope I'm around to get a good working one.

donaldejose

Ironheart: When I speak of a nearly instantaneous EVF I am not speaking of the time between pressing the shutter button and the image capture. I am speaking of the delay between what is happening real time and what you see in the EVF. For landscape photography this doesn't matter. For sports photography it matters a great deal because if you don't see what is happening in real time until a second later you cannot press the shutter to capture it. In other words if the EVF delay is too long when you shoot what you see in the viewfinder you actually will be taking a photo of what happens some time after what you saw in the EVF has already happened and your image is not what you intended to shoot. You cannot capture the "decisive moment" if your EVF doesn't show you that moment until a second after it happened and then when you combine the shutter time it takes to decide to press the shutter, the time it takes to physically press the shutter and the shutter delay itself you are capturing an image some time after the "decisive moment" you saw in the EVF. Optical View Finders are "real time" or at least "speed of light delay time." Of course, the work around is to shoot in short bursts of fast fps and start your burst before the moment you want to capture. I was shooting basketball a few years ago and wanted to get the ball just leaving the hands of the player. I found when I saw that moment and pressed the shutter the delay was such that the ball was often out of the frame already. A decisive moment can happen very fast. I solved my problem with short burst shooting and pressing the shutter when I anticipated the ball would be leaving the player's hand. My hit rate improved but I also had a lot more images to sort through after the game.

While we are at it why not make a larger EVF? It doesn't have to be limited to the same size as the current OVFs. It can show an image 1:1 with a 50mm lens. Then you can shoot with both eyes open and you will not see two different size images out of each eye. An EVF could even be adjustable to show a 1 to 1 ratio with either 35mm or 50mm lenses.

Ironheart

@donaldejose, I agree with what you are saying. I picked up on the "However, the time delay between pressing the shutter and taking the photo is too long in LiveView" comment. That delay is manageable, and for instance, the V3 takes 20 pictures before and 20 pictures after the moment you press the shutter, so you can get the "decisive moment" quite easily. They even call that mode "best moment capture".

The EVF lag, which is simply the time it takes for the signals to travel from the back of the sensor, through the video processor, and up to the LCD in the EVF, is small but perceptible. However it is only getting smaller. Earlier mirrorless (Fuji, Oly) had horrible EVF lag, but more recent releases have gotten better (not Sony though) Have you used the EVF on the V3? It's almost imperceptible. I'm going to try and measure it tonight, but I bet its less than 10ms or 100th of a second.

HockeyMan

@Ironheart Just out of curiosity, can the V3 do that "best moment" trick with a person moving between 10-30 mph in what could be sometimes random directions while keeping the person in focus? I'm asking because I play hockey and would like to take some shots during a game with a smaller camera than my D800. My gut says "no", but since I don't own one and I haven't played with one I can't say.

donaldejose

Ironheart, No I don't have a V3. I do have a V2 though. I don't find the EVF on the V2 to be a good substitute for the rear LCD on my D750. It does show some lightening and some darkening as I go through +2 Exposure Comp and -2 Exposure Comp (or do the same in Manual mode) but it is not as accurate at the LCD on the D750 so it cannot substitute for what you see on the EVF is what you get like the D750's LCD does. How is the EVF ability to show the effect of one third stop exposure compensation? Do you think it is as accurate at the rear LCD on a current version DSLR?

Best moment capture? So it must be constantly storing some images in a buffer which it can retrieve to obtain the 20 images before you pressed the shutter?

llimb

I have a love/hate relationship with my Sony a6000. I decided to dip my toe into Sony's smaller mirrorless camera, mainly for the small size, decent autofocus, fast frame rate, and the new enticing technology Sony is adding to these systems. I've used the camera quite a bit for almost 10 months and have put it through varying photographic situations, mostly family, event, and travel. I'm an enthusiast who loves to photograph my family and document our travels. I love the compactness (compared to my D800 plus lenses). I love the EVF for getting a decent initial idea of exposure and reviewing images through the EVF without having to fight outdoor light with the back LCD. I love a lot of the cool technology in this camera (WiFi, NFC, specific face recognition, eye focus and follow). I love having OSS on my 35mm 1.8 prime. I also love many other things about the camera. However, I hate the E lenses (especially the overpriced and under performing 16-70 f4) and the lens selection. I love the range of the Sony 16-70mm f4, but I hate the corner performance at the wide end, the softness at the telephoto end, and having to stop down to 5.6 and 8 to get any kind of decent performance. I know this sounds like a sweeping statement and I admit I don't have any lens experience other than the two I've mentioned, but I don't want have to buy full frame lenses to get something that's maybe decent, but in my opinion still overpriced for performance based on reviews compared to Nikkors. I bought the a6000 for it's small size and high IQ sensor. The 35mm f1.8 is a great performer in my opinion, but this makes the camera a one trick pony. The new Zeiss Batis lenses look very promising, but still too bulky for my desire to have a small system. I can't seem to extract quality images that I'm happy with and confident with unless I'm using one of my Nikkors, such as the 24-70 f2.8 or 50mm f1.8G, fitted with a Metabones adapter on the a6000. The wide open performance, corner performance, wide and zoom performance is stunning compared to the Sony E lenses. The focus peaking is also a nice feature to help with manually focusing the non-native lenses. I'm keeping the camera and lenses, but I doubt I'll get into a full frame Sony system or any other mirrorless system (unless it's Nikon), simply because I'm not confident in the lenses to deliver the optical quality of the Nikkors. I've resolved to slog through lugging a heavier Nikon with heavier lenses because I know the consistent quality I can achieve using these tools. The personal lesson I have learned in my experimentation with the Sony a6000 is that confidence in my equipment, regardless of girth, is more important to me than the cool technology Sony has integrated into their systems. The compromise for enjoying a smaller setup and giving up image quality simply does not work for me.

donaldejose

Nikon should produce a mirrorless DX and FX system with most of the features of the Sony A system but with a spacer to allow the use of all current Nikon lenses. They can produce a small series of zooms and primes specific for the mirrorless body and let the more specialized legacy lenses serve for high quality macro, wide and telephoto use. In FX if Nikon produced mirrorless 24-70 and 70-200 zooms plus 35, 50 and 85 or 105 primes that would be sufficient coverage for most ordinary uses. Soon, I hope and the sooner the better.

brownie314

You say you want a practical and civil discussion about dslr vs mirrorless, then go on to make 5 points, all against mirrorless. Hmmm.
Anyway, mirrorless vs dslr has been discussed to death. No new points will be made here.
To me, the real question is if the new crop of high quality fixed lens compacts will make all ILC irrelevant. Yeah, I know for those few very high end big spenders, they will need special equipment. But cameras like the RX100 IV and the Panasonic LX100 are tools that would be far more than enough for the vast majority of casual photographers (the ones who buy most of the DSLR and mirrorless equipment currently).
So, if nikon could make a large sensored non-ILC like the LX100 and add the magic Nikon ergos - it could be a camera that takes over the bottom end ILC market.

Nikoniser

Mirrorless and software are the future. We have hit the limits of optical glass and sensor technology, we will see improvements but they will be incremental and slow. However software and processing power is still increasing in line with Moore's Law, and the great leaps forward will come from this. Imagine for a moment you could capture 20 images in 1/3rd of a second and then combine those images to gain greater Dynamic range and lower noise than a D810 - now rest your imagination as you can already do that with a Nikon V1. This gives a glimpse of the future - scale this up and in a few years a full frame stacked sensor will take 100 pictures in a millisecond and then combine them in camera for dynamic range and high iso performance we can only dream of at this time. The bottleneck is not the sensor, the tech already exists, but the in camera processing power - and this is doubling year over year in Line with Moore's law so it is a solvable problem.

EVF technology will improve - the great driver will be virtual reality. Currently VR suffers the same lag, and it causes nausea and motion sickness - billions are being spent in labs around the world to try to resolve the issue.

There are so many advantages to being able to drop the mechanical assembly of the mirror, the autofocus module and the metering module from a camera body, and doing it all software that it is unquestionably the future of the camera.

However, before you get caught up in this great dream, you should realise that as admirable as the current mirrorless camera's are, they are still not a superior solution to the old fashioned mirror. The tech is not yet there.

Ironheart

@Ironheart Just out of curiosity, can the V3 do that "best moment" trick with a person moving between 10-30 mph in what could be sometimes random directions while keeping the person in focus? I'm asking because I play hockey and would like to take some shots during a game with a smaller camera than my D800. My gut says "no", but since I don't own one and I haven't played with one I can't say

The V3 can do continuous focus at up to 20fps, at 30 or 60 fps it will lock the focus on the first frame. For hockey, I would probably just use the 20fps mode straight up, and use technique to fire the shutter just before the decisive moment. For sports where movement is more predictable the best moment feature works really well.

Ironheart, No I don't have a V3. I do have a V2 though. I don't find the EVF on the V2 to be a good substitute for the rear LCD on my D750. It does show some lightening and some darkening as I go through +2 Exposure Comp and -2 Exposure Comp (or do the same in Manual mode) but it is not as accurate at the LCD on the D750 so it cannot substitute for what you see on the EVF is what you get like the D750's LCD does. How is the EVF ability to show the effect of one third stop exposure compensation? Do you think it is as accurate at the rear LCD on a current version DSLR?

On the V3 both the rear-display and the EVF seem to be pretty accurate in terms of showing the final product. I'll have to do a side-by-side later. Regardless that seems like a software issue rather than a limitation of the hardware?

Best moment capture? So it must be constantly storing some images in a buffer which it can retrieve to obtain the 20 images before you pressed the shutter?

It starts recording to the buffer when you press the shutter half-way to initiate focus. You can configure whether you want the 40 frames before, in the middle, or after, you trip the shutter.
Agreeing with @Nikoniser and others that software improvements will drive the future of cameras. Also agree we aren't quite there yet, but we are darn close and its a pretty exciting time to be a photographer!

JonMcGuffin

This guy does such a fantastic job of shooting straight in a situation like this.


So honest and clear cut. I think that's about all you need to see to know what you need to know benefits/downsides wise.

HockeyMan

@Ironheart Just out of curiosity, can the V3 do that "best moment" trick with a person moving between 10-30 mph in what could be sometimes random directions while keeping the person in focus? I'm asking because I play hockey and would like to take some shots during a game with a smaller camera than my D800. My gut says "no", but since I don't own one and I haven't played with one I can't say

The V3 can do continuous focus at up to 20fps, at 30 or 60 fps it will lock the focus on the first frame. For hockey, I would probably just use the 20fps mode straight up, and use technique to fire the shutter just before the decisive moment. For sports where movement is more predictable the best moment feature works really well.

One of these days, I'm just going to have rent one to try it out. Sounds really interesting to try. Thanks, Ironheart!

heartyfisher

I have been thinking about the future of mirror-less and sensors etc ..
and I can see a time when we wonder "what the heck, they had elements in the lense that shake the image in time with the hand shaking ! and they shook the sensor too LOL !!" May be I should patent this idea of mine.. VR without VR :-) nah ... great minds think alike .. Its just a matter of time someone will figure it out :-B ... Maybe you will remember you saw it mentioned here first :-)

GreenFlash

I wear a mechanical watch. I admire the years of fine tuning skill and precision that brought it down to daily error of only 7 seconds. My electric watches are lighter and more accurate, One of them even has a recharageable battery unit that has been going now for five years...but I still like it.
I remember reading in encyclopedia Britannica annual yearbook, 1983 edition that technology had brought the super computer chip to a point that scientists agreed was the practical limit of memory...half a kilobyte on a single chip...
And I am one who bought a quarter mega pixel sharp digital camera in the early 1990's. It had long delays, and cost $800. I didn't throw away my film camera, I think I still have it now. But now I also have a Sony A7rii, which I love, and which does some things better than my D750 and the D810 (which I don't have), but I won't be throwing away my D750 just yet. In fact, to tell the truth I am just grateful to be living at a time when I can have the benefits of both. They are nothing like what was available 15 years ago.
A lot of the problems people complained about on the a7r have been solved on the new camera. Just like the D750 is a lot better than the D600. And as they are breaking new ground, they are discovering more problems they hadn't really anticipated. What we've discovered is that mirrorless means a lot more than just getting rid of the mirror box. It means a whole bunch of the camera functions and being handled digitally and year by year, exciting advances are being made. Someday the mirror box may be gone. But not just yet.
I read people complaining that Nikon and Canon aren't making any significant advances. But no two ways about it, with an older more developed and refined technology, the advances might not be as dramatic, but the fine tuning has made a huge difference over the past few years, and those cameras just get better and better.
Hard to predict the future --- the technologies that will turn out in the future to have the most promise for advancing our art. Look what CMOS did to CCD's.
The art is changing too. No doubt about it, the new cameras are opening new artistic avenues...and some guys are blazing new super cool trails with them... I just think it would be a good idea when we are criticizing and comparing, that we do so from a positive perspective...