A Practical & Civil Discussion about Mirrorless vs DSLR

snakebunk

The pentaprisim will always beat an EVF for clarity, lag, etc... The best an EVF can hope for is to be almost as good in these areas. Now you can do other things, focus-peaking, zoom, with an EVF.

All true, but the greatness of the EVF is that it shows the photograph as it is recorded by the sensor, WYSIWYG so to speak.

The DSLRs are a transition technology between film and mirrorless (fully digital) cameras. When we don't need the mirror anymore, it will be gone.

haroldp

@Ironheart

I generally agree with your analysis, clearly mirrorless is not there yet for the most critical applications. I think it will be closer to 3 years than 5 for most of the catch up, but as physicist Neils Bohr said ' predicting is difficult, particularly when it involves the future '.

After a 40 year career in tech (computing), I have learned that always and never are a long time.

If EVF's improve lag and resolution of todays best (fuji, Sony, Olympus) by a factor of 4, they will be good enough for sports and wildlife for almost everyone. That is reachable in 3 years.

Mirrored finders in smaller, cheaper DSLR's are already unpleasant.

Pentaprism's are much better, but are expensive and heavy. Being large, mechanically built chunks of glass, they will not get any lighter or cheaper.

Today's optical DSLR finders are awful for manual focus. Having used both focus peaking and 10X box magnification on a Sony, that (and Leica) are where my manual focus lenses will go.

Whether it is 3 years or 5, the performance gap will close, and the cost gap will open to where mirrored DSLR's either not made or a boutique item.

If the rumored Nikon F mount to Sony FE autofocus adapter actually works well, I will stand pat on my D810, buy lenses, and my next FF body will be mirrorless. I would prefer Nikon but I am already living with a Sony and like it.

Nikon is creating what marketers call a 'discontinuity' and hurting brand loyalty and future market share.

Regards to all ... H

WestEndFoto

It's gonna take 3-5 more years for mirrorless tech to catch up to DSLRs. It's not like Sony or Fuji's engineers are sandbagging it, they are trying their best to make the most awesomest camera they can. There are still many inherent advantages to the SLR and the way metering and focus are done. Also the industry has had 60+ years to perfect it. The pentaprisim will always beat an EVF for clarity, lag, etc... The best an EVF can hope for is to be almost as good in these areas. Now you can do other things, focus-peaking, zoom, with an EVF. What it really boils down to is image quality. Until Canon or Nikon gets their secret sauce into a Full-Frame mirrorless we are going to get 2nd best. And they won't do that until all of the other guys beat themselves bloody solving all of the other issues with EVF and handling. Once the dust settles they will leapfrog to the top of the heap. Again.

You may have something here Ironheart. It has occurred to me that the best strategy for Canon and Nikon is to let others spend the money on the R&D, the most expensive of which you cannot patent, testing the market.

WestEndFoto

The pentaprisim will always beat an EVF for clarity, lag, etc... The best an EVF can hope for is to be almost as good in these areas. Now you can do other things, focus-peaking, zoom, with an EVF.

All true, but the greatness of the EVF is that it shows the photograph as it is recorded by the sensor, WYSIWYG so to speak.

The DSLRs are a transition technology between film and mirrorless (fully digital) cameras. When we don't need the mirror anymore, it will be gone.

WYSIWYG works just fine for me through an optical viewfinder. Any shortcomings that may exist my brain already compensates for and I don't even think about it. And if I really want to know, I can chimp. I am not sure this is a real benefit of an OVF.

I actually don't really care that much about the mirror as I am not an action shooter typically. However, I will be pissed if Nikon comes out with a mirrorless camera with a new mount and forces me to adapt my legacy lenses to it with an adapter. I will sell my Nikon gear and go to Canon just on general principle.

Which is one reason that if they offer mirrorless, it will be an f-mount (I believe). I doubt that they will abandon the f-mount just for about 20 centimetres in depth.

haroldp

The real ultimate benefit of the EVF is that it is cheaper and smaller / lighter. When it gets close enough to as good, the game is over.

... H

WestEndFoto

The real ultimate benefit of the EVF is that it is cheaper and smaller / lighter. When it gets close enough to as good, the game is over.

... H

Yes there is that. But I don't imagine that it will offer a superior viewing experience.

Msmoto

A couple thoughts....I do believe at some point we will see an EVF which will be indistinguishable from live ground glass viewing.

As to image quality, for sure, when I can stick my current "F" mount lenses on a mirrorless which will do everything the current pro Nikon bodies can do, I am in.

Three to four years....I think this sounds about right. Both Nikon and Canon realize when they provide the same functionality in a mirrorless that is present in the pro DSLR's, the DSLR is history. At least in terms of profitability as in the Leica story of the 1960's....almost put E Leitz out of business.

nukuEX2

One of the worst feature on mirrorless is EVF and the exposed sensor. At least DSLR 's sensor is covered with curtain and then a mirror when you remove a lens. I'd love to see Nikon and other current DSLR makers adopting Sony's SLT technology as an alternative to mirrorless.

Ironheart

Maybe they just need to cover the sensor with gorilla glass with a fluorine coating. Then you could clean it with a huff of your breath and a corner of a dirty t-shirt ;-)
Maybe I should patent this idea :-?

haroldp

SLT is a horrible idea, Canon could not make it work 30 years go and Sony can't do it now.

The SLT reflects about 1/3 of the light turning your f1.4 into an F1.8, and may degrade the image as well. This translates to higher ISO, longer shutter or more lens.

All serious mirrorless cameras have shutters.

What they could (and should) easily do is close the shutter when the camera is turned off or a lens is dismounted.

Without a mirror, moving the cover glass 2-3 mm further forward will put any dirt so far out of the plane of focus that it would not be a problem.

... H

WestEndFoto

SLT is a horrible idea, Canon could not make it work 30 years go and Sony can't do it now.

The SLT reflects about 1/3 of the light turning your f1.4 into an F1.8, and may degrade the image as well. This translates to higher ISO, longer shutter or more lens.

All serious mirrorless cameras have shutters.

... H

Yes, SLT is a horrible ideas as implemented. The brighter the viewfinder, the less light to expose the image. The more light to expose the image, the dimmer the viewfinder. It is a zero sum game.

However, some bright boy will figure out how to make glass nearly 100% transparent or nearly 100% reflective and make the transition electronically. Then SLT could work work without the tradeoffs. Maybe somebody has already done it.

WestEndFoto

SLT is a horrible idea, Canon could not make it work 30 years go and Sony can't do it now.

The SLT reflects about 1/3 of the light turning your f1.4 into an F1.8, and may degrade the image as well. This translates to higher ISO, longer shutter or more lens.

All serious mirrorless cameras have shutters.

... H

Yes, SLT is a horrible ideas as implemented. The brighter the viewfinder, the less light to expose the image. The more light to expose the image, the dimmer the viewfinder. It is a zero sum game.

However, some bright boy will figure out how to make glass nearly 100% transparent or nearly 100% reflective and make the transition electronically. Then SLT could work work without the tradeoffs. Maybe somebody has already done it.

Hmm......almost seems to easy.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/glass-switches-from-transparent-to-reflective-without-drawing-on-power-video/

haroldp

Yes, SLT is a horrible ideas as implemented. The brighter the viewfinder, the less light to expose the image. The more light to expose the image, the dimmer the viewfinder. It is a zero sum game.

However, some bright boy will figure out how to make glass nearly 100% transparent or nearly 100% reflective and make the transition electronically. Then SLT could work work without the tradeoffs. Maybe somebody has already done it.

This is an interesting idea.

It still leaves the question of requiring minimum rear element to focal plane distance, but if the mirror does not move, this could be much less.
It also requires precision alignments, but this also may be more robust if stuff isn't moving.

It would have the advantage of a shutter protecting the sensor until actual exposure.

It would have the disadvantage of interrupting the image to the AF sensors while exposing, but they could be supplemented with PDAF sensors on the sensor.

A lot depends on how good EVF's get, and if this is still a problem worth solving.

... H

WestEndFoto

I hope that they don't adjust the rear element to focal distance. I don't see much of an advantage, especially when changing that will render the entire selection of Nikon lenses obsolete.

If you buy into the adapter "ya but", I have a bridge to sell you. Small change and no receipts please. Better yet, I will sell you my worthless Nikon glass for a good price as I switch to Canon.

PB_PM

Assuming Canon does not do the same thing at some point, they aren't exactly known for keeping mounts around long term.

WestEndFoto

Assuming Canon does not do the same thing at some point, they aren't exactly known for keeping mounts around long term.

Let's hope not.

haroldp

I hope that they don't adjust the rear element to focal distance. I don't see much of an advantage, especially when changing that will render the entire selection of Nikon lenses obsolete.

If you buy into the adapter "ya but", I have a bridge to sell you. Small change and no receipts please. Better yet, I will sell you my worthless Nikon glass for a good price as I switch to Canon.

A line of lenses with rear element to FP distance optimized for mirrorless, could not be adapted to DSLR's because they would not clear the mirror. For FL's shorter than 58mm, they would be smaller, lighter, and probably sharper lenses. Longer than 58mm there would be no difference as a simple double gauss design clears a 35mm mirror.

Any DSLR lens could be adapted to mirrorless as we would be adding flange distance.

PeachBlack

Here is a simple visualization why I'm thinking about jumping ship and getting the new Sony full frame mirrorless. This is an *extremely* typical composition for me and I can't shoot it with any Nikon full-frame DSLR. I have to severely crop practically every photo I take in post. Please Nikon... listen.

WestEndFoto

You have succinctly illustrated what many of us find annoying.

PeachBlack

I am really past fed up with this. Nikon keeps bragging about how great their autofocus systems are, but seriously, none of the improvements that have taken place over the last five years have made the lives of most photographers any better.

Do you know what you lose when you have to back up and crop to the proper composition? Subject sharpness and background blur. I am throwing away up to a stop of background blurring with every shot I take in landscape mode. Yeah, this is important.

You know what would be cool? Really good facial recognition that automatically focuses on the closest eye... or calculates the minimum aperture to get both eyes in focus... or if multiple subjects, the minimum aperture to get both subjects in focus. Yeah, that would be cool. The tech exists and those would be the kind of innovations that would excite me. Not making the autofocus a zillionth of a second faster or a crop sensor camera that can take lots of pictures. The more things I can get the camera to do automatically, the more I can focus on the two things that make a great photo: lighting and composition.

heartyfisher

Re: focus coverage.. depends on where the eye is looking ;-)

Yeah, the AF coverage of FX dslr is a bit "old" these days. Its fun(and still surprising) to see my nikon mirrorless follow the face to the edge of the frame :-) .. I am sure the FX mirrorless nikon is on the way. I think the D5/D500 AF system will be the last great mirrored AF from Nikon. Hopefully, we wont have to wait as long as the D400(AKA D500). Still, the coverage on the D500 is pretty sweet ! if you shoot in m43 mode(1.3 crop) its covers as good as any m43 mirrorless.




About a year ago, after I evaluated the AF systems I still chose DSLR over mirrorless for now. I expected that it would be another 1-2 years before mirror-less generally matches mirrored. and another 3-5 years before it overtakes mirrored. Seems to be playing out as I perceived/predicted.

Still regarding jumping to the sony FX.. I think the decision will depend on if it actually matches your style of photographing. For you, the slight AF speed and acquisition advantage may not be enough to offset the better coverage that you like. However, for most I think the d5/d500 coverage is more than enough.. and we are expecting the new AF system in the next version of D810 at least and maybe in the next version of D750/D700 ... I have some friends who have moved to the Sony FX .. and have regretted it due to the quirks and weird ergonomic. Others have loved it. so I think its a personal thing. I will be waiting for the Nikon Mirrorless and probably the second generation.

WestEndFoto

I think that mirrorless has a long way to go before the AF can match what a D500 or D5 can deliver. Granted, it is not an issue with portraits or landscapes, but I can't see a sports photographer using a mirrorless any time soon.

I fail to understand why Nikon cannot extend the AF coverage on a DSLR to the edge of the frame, or at least to where Pitchblack is suggesting. Can anyone think of a material technical challenge?

rmp

You people keep this up and I might understand my cameras -- sooner or later.

PeachBlack

WestEndFoto said:

I fail to understand why Nikon cannot extend the AF coverage on a DSLR to the edge of the frame, or at least to where Pitchblack is suggesting. Can anyone think of a material technical challenge?

I have seen it argued that there are certain huge technical hurdles that need to be overcome in order to make it happen and that the further you move out from center of a sensor, the less reliable the points become. The bigger the sensor, the more chance for error as you move from the center. Don't quote me on this, it's just from memory. Either way, I think it's BS. They don't think that it makes a big enough bullet point to lead to more sales in order to make it happen. And if they spread the points out too much, you couldn't cut and paste the autofocus system into a crop camera because the outer points would extend past the sensor. So Nikon wouldn't be able to recycle the D5 AF into the D500.

WestEndFoto

I wonder if I will get an answer?


Case Number: 01724824 Status: OPEN

Why do you put such a crappy focus system into such a great camera?

Submitted: 27/12/2016 07:27 PM by Web

Read the last part of this post about focus coverage (see part at end of year):

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/4644/a-practical-civil-discussion-about-mirrorless-vs-dslr#latest

Product: D5
Category: Other
Computer Operating System: Windows 10
Service Order Number:
Uploads: