Mirror vs Mirrorless

Jayaram

I have never used my mobile camera simply because I hate to compose a picture on an lcd screen. For more than 55 years, I have been used to SLR cameras and the idea of seeing a subject and composing is real unlike composing it on a lcd screen or monitor. Checking depth of field, sharpness, composition, angle of view, perspective observing critical expression is all real when you view through the actual view finder rather than with live view!. Besides, I guess that the mirrorless cameras are going to consume more battery and the sensor life is going to be short just as we change our mobiles very frequently these days. Even the Apple's touch screen has failed many times and the live view has disappeared! Humidity and dust causes lots of problem!? I feel that the SLR should remain as such and mirror less for those who prefer to carry less weight. I think, I will give up photography once and for all, if DSLR disappears!

sport

In the early 2000's I owned some of the Olympus uz cameras. One of the things that I miss from those cameras was the ability to view menus while looking thru the viewfinder. I could also chimp images on the viewfinder. There are some advantages to having an evf.

Lastly, I don't think slr's are going to be extinct anytime soon.

EricBowles

I think you're mixing up viewfinder cameras with no viewfinder cameras rather than mirrorless vs. mirror cameras. You're right - the LCD is not always the best tool whether for a mirrorless camera or LiveView. But an Electronic Veiwfinder (EVF) is an option on many cameras. It's possible to have an EVF on a camera with a mirror because there are some benefits - especially if you have a choice.

Think of a future viewfinder as a heads up display - closer to what a pilot uses than a 100% visual viewfinder. It can and should have all the benefits of a visual viewfinder, but let me also have the ability to use an EVF for magnified viewing, zooming, histograms, and focus peaking all through a viewfinder. It's not new technology - just not available in a top DSLR today. Nikon had most of this in the V1.

retread

If a mirrorless has a view finder I can use at eye level like a DSLR and use the same lenses and accessories as my DSLR I may add one to my kit when they prove themselves. The best of both worlds. If not I really am not interested in mirrorless.

HankB

Generic DSLR vs generic "mirrorless" translates to optical vs electronic (eye level) viewfinder. There are no other INDEPENDENT variables separating the two designs. Every single EVF deficiency will be engineered out well within the next few years. The added power drain can be compensated for by a larger battery which utilizes only a portion of the space and weight saved by eliminating the mirror including its mechanicals and box, and the pentaprism. We are then left with just the EVF advantages.

Pistnbroke

Mirror or mirroless makes no difference its just a thing on the end of our arm that takes pictures ..BUT it must do it without problems like blackout etc ..time will tell

CaMeRaQuEsT

I too love the view out of a big, bright OVF, but I hate to deal with the focusing and mirror/shutter shake issues inherent to most DSLRs, especially . I've used the 1st. generation of 2.4Mp EVFs on the Fuji X-E1 and the Sony A7 and, while I was not impressed with their lag, low brightness, low perceived definition due to low resolution/contrast/sharpness (2.4Mp is only enough to resolve XVGA, a resolution that only looked good at up to 15" diagonal sized screens, is only 1/3 the resolving power of a 1080 HD screen, and 4K is already at commodity levels nowadays), what did impress me was being able to, one, confirm focus with either focus peaking or by punching a button to see a magnified view of the area I need in focus and, two, preview what the exposure will look like, along with zebras to warn me of clipping. These functions let you have a more complete and natural shooting experience in this digital era than with an OVF, which in all fairness is more of a leftover from the film days. I haven't experienced the latest and greatest EVFs on the market, but they are said to be a huge improvement over what I have experienced. I am really looking forward to what Nikon is bringing to the enthusiast/pro mirrorless market, especially their EVF solutions.

HankB

And now that Sony has demonstrated no blackout during exposure on their latest pro level camera, there is now another advantage of EVF over OVF. EVF development will continue to engineer out any remaining disadvantages vs OVF's while retaining their intrinsic advantages.

The replacement of DSLR's by "mirrorless" is 100% certain. I will miss the viscerally satisfying mechanical feel and sound of the SLR, but look forward to the many many advantages of the EVF.

PB_PM

HankB said:

And now that Sony has demonstrated no blackout during exposure on their latest pro level camera, there is now another advantage of EVF over OVF.

Until this is absololty no delay in the EVF, like an OVF, that doesn't matter. Blackout time is still shorter in a fast DSLR (D5) than the visual delay caused by a EVFs refresh rate. EVFs will always have a delay, always. It cannot display what there is without some, because it has not seen it yet. The only inherent delay in an OVF is your eye. Cannot beat that, sorry.

HankB

Yes, obviously EVF will "always have a delay" due to signal processing throughput. But is it hard to imagine that this delay can be engineered down to being imperceptible to the human visual system? Most people can't detect fluorescent light flicker, and we humans are certainly more sensitive to steady flicker than to pure delay.

As for tracking a moving subject, I am not aware that EVF delays cause a problem in current video photography, but if I am wrong here, I am still confident that within a few short years of engineering, that delay would no longer be significant.

WestEndFoto

Mirrorless may very well win the day and if it can convince me to switch, I don't care as long as I can continue to use my investment in over 20 lenses without an adapter.

I do however have some issues with the "mirrorless" side of the argument.

The delay will be engineered out (or some other limitation).

I have been waiting 20 years for the delay to be engineered out of the internet. It still has not happened. It makes a difference if you are an accounting clerk with a stack of a hundred invoices. On an accounting system hosted on a server over an Ethernet connection. There is no latency. A good clerk just lets their fingers run. If the system is in the cloud, your fingers have to wait until the cloud based system refreshes. I had to hire extra staff to deal with this and now I am working on ways to mitigate this.

How does this relate to issues like EVF delay etc.? Well, promises are always being make and they often never materialize. Everybody assumes that technology is going to get faster and faster, but Moore's law is not what it is anymore. It is getting harder and harder to engineer those improvements.

There is an assumption that focus in DSLRs (or any other factor for that matter) is static, implicit in the comments that "Mirrorless" focus systems only need to catch up.

Well, Nikon has proven with the last few focus iterations that there is lots of room for improvement in DSLR focus technology. The D4's Canon competitor was essentially on par with the D4. Starting with the D4s and continuing with the D5, Canon is no longer a close competitor. If you read Thom's comments after extensive use of the latest Sony and Nikon, you will see that there is a gap that likely does not matter with landscapes, but will with other genres. Will Sony advance with their mirrorless? Likely. Will they close it? Well, Nikon is not standing still (though Canon is, but I suspect that Canon will eventually awake from their slumber).


So. May lag disappear and the gap in focus disappear? Maybe, but it is not a certainty and I push back against those that assume it is certain. I am still waiting for a practical flying car. That would "solve so many problems".

HankB

Mirrorless may very well win the day and if it can convince me to switch, I don't care as long as I can continue to use my investment in over 20 lenses without an adapter.

Question to WestEndFoto: If Nikon implements a mirrorless system that capitalizes on the long term benefit of no longer needing a mirror box — in other words reduces the flange to sensor spacing (and possibly increases mount diameter) on their new standard which they will be stuck with for many years to come, and sell at reasonable price (at or near cost), simple extension tube like "spacers", will you object?

You could start off with one spacer left on the camera to which you then mount any of your current lenses. Later, when you acquire new, shorter lenses, you could have several of these spacers, each left "permanently" on each old lens.

We really should cut Nikon some slack. I can't think of a manufacturer of absolutely any type of hardware (not just cameras) who has been so devoted to backward compatibility, and implemented it so well. And we know Nikon's respect for the long term lens investments of their customers has had technological costs.

PB_PM

Nikon isn't going to sell a simple spacer, it's going to be at least $300-500USD for the adapter, if the FT-P1 is any example.

WestEndFoto

HankB, depending on several variables, I may or may not object to an adapter. I won't know until I see it. All I know is that if it does not require an adapter, it will not be an issue.

PB_PM, the price of adapter is a non-issue too me. I only need one or two.

snakebunk

@PB_PM: Why is it so important to you with zero delay?

PB_PM

snakebunk said:

@PB_PM: Why is it so important to you with zero delay?

If the subject moves before you can see it move that makes tracking just that much more difficult. For any subject with irrational movements, like some wildlife, or some sports, having zero delay is a must, and the OFV wins hands down. Movement with most human subjects, or something like auto racing, are typically easier to predict, in my experience.

snakebunk

PB_PM said:

snakebunk said:

@PB_PM: Why is it so important to you with zero delay?

If the subject moves before you can see it move that makes tracking just that much more difficult. For any subject with irrational movements, like some wildlife, or some sports, having zero delay is a must, and the OFV wins hands down. Movement with most human subjects, or something like auto racing, are typically easier to predict, in my experience.

Ok, I understand. I am thinking close to zero will be good enough, but I have to try before I know.

HankB

Just to put EVF delay into perspective, suppose you have:
  •   360mm tele lens on FX camera or a 240mm lens on a DX camera
  •   Subject: say a flying bird distance 50m (164ft)
  •   Movement: say bird flying at 20m/s (45mph) horizontally across your field
  •   EVF delay: say 1/100 sec (is this a reasonable number for the state of the art today???)

For this example, at 50m range, the frame covers a 5m field, so flying at 20m/s the bird would traverse the horizontal frame in 1/4 sec. The above assumption of 1/100sec delay would cause an EVF tracking error of 1/25 of the frame width...just 4% of the frame width.

Quite likely the elimination of blackout (as in the new Sony A9) and other potential gains in shutter release lag from not having a mirror banging back and forth, would more than compensate for a small EVF delay.

I would certainly expect a pro-level Nikon mirrorless introduced in 2018-2020 to equal or exceed the 2017 Sony A9

Searcy

I spent a little time (too little) this weekend shooting with a Sony mirror less camera. I think it was an a7. The small size felt awkward to my big Nikon hands but I have to say... I love the electronic view finder! So handy to see the effects of your settings in real time. I can see this as being a very handy low light feature.

Obviously the controls were all wrong for me but I think that is something I could get used too. I'm now very interested to see what Nikon can do with the concept. I'm now thinking of renting a Sony a9 and seeing how I shoot with it.

HankB

To begin its FX/DX mirrorless era, Nikon must:

1. Design an electronic viewfinder worthy of replacing its SLR/DSLR optical viewfinder legacy. The Sony A9 proves the technology is finally there.
   
2. Overcome any legitimate (and not so legitimate) marketing considerations and inertia. Since mirrorless is clearly inevitable, why not beat arch-rival Canon to market since at least Nikon doesn’t have Canon’s huge video camera line to protect.
   
3. Decide — and here is the biggest hurdle — whether now is the time to finally replace the half century old F mount, and if so, just what will be the new specs whose basic dimensions will carry Nikon into the future to equip the first Mars and beyond manned missions.
   
4. And when replacing the F mount (now would be a good time as this half century old mount has placed Nikon at a design disadvantage to Canon for years) how to gracefully and affordably transition into the new system, all that expensive F mount glass owned by loyal Nikon customers, and continue the Nikon long, admirable and unmatched tradition of backward compatibility.
   

WestEndFoto

HankB said:

To begin its FX/DX mirrorless era, Nikon must:

1. Design an electronic viewfinder worthy of replacing its SLR/DSLR optical viewfinder legacy. The Sony A9 proves the technology is finally there.
   
2. Overcome any legitimate (and not so legitimate) marketing considerations and inertia. Since mirrorless is clearly inevitable, why not beat arch-rival Canon to market since at least Nikon doesn’t have Canon’s huge video camera line to protect.
   
3. Decide — and here is the biggest hurdle — whether now is the time to finally replace the half century old F mount, and if so, just what will be the new specs whose basic dimensions will carry Nikon into the future to equip the first Mars and beyond manned missions.
   
4. And when replacing the F mount (now would be a good time as this half century old mount has placed Nikon at a design disadvantage to Canon for years) how to gracefully and affordably transition into the new system, all that expensive F mount glass owned by loyal Nikon customers, and continue the Nikon long, admirable and unmatched tradition of backward compatibility.
   

How has the F-mount placed Nikon at a design disadvantage to Canon? Last I checked, the best auto-focus money can buy is found on Nikon cameras, not Canon.

PB_PM

I believe Hank is referring to optical limitations, not auto focus itself. While we haven't seen a F1.2 auto focus Nikkor, does it really matter? An F1.2 mirrorless Nikkor wouldn't be enough to make me switch.

Nikon is going to drop the F-mount for mirrorless, whether we like it or not. As much as I am on the side of keeping the F-mount, Nikon is a profit driven company, and will push forward with a new mount. Why? Because they know people like WestEndFoto will drop $20-35k on a new set of glass if they can convince him that the new Nikon mirrorless camera makes the Nikon D850 look like a D1 from 1999.

WestEndFoto

PB_PM said:

I believe Hank is referring to optical limitations, not auto focus itself. While we haven't seen a F1.2 auto focus Nikkor, does it really matter? An F1.2 mirrorless Nikkor wouldn't be enough to make me switch.

Nikon is going to drop the F-mount for mirrorless, whether we like it or not. As much as I am on the side of keeping the F-mount, Nikon is a profit driven company, and will push forward with a new mount. Why? Because they know people like WestEndFoto will drop $20-35k on a new set of glass if they can convince him that the new Nikon mirrorless camera makes the Nikon D850 look like a D1 from 1999.

Well, if they could do that I might drop that. But if my current glass is devalued I will be very annoyed. Perhaps annoyed enough to drop it on Fuji's medium format or even Phase One instead of Nikon.

Even the 1.2 argument. I hear it a lot but have seen nothing actually convincing. My 50 1.2 AIS seems to work fine.

PB_PM

Last time I checked the 50mm F1.2 AIS doesn't auto focus. I'm of the camp that finds that I use my F1.4 glass as at F2 most of the time to avoid the super narrow depth of field for moving subjects, so I'm not convinced of the need for F1.2 anyway.

WestEndFoto

Yes, but the Canons do and they are slow. I think that has more to do with depth of field than the mount. And HankB's comment was about the "design disadvantage to Canon". I am wondering what that might be. Certainly there can be an issue, but I am wondering what design disadvantage Nikon that Canon does not?

PB_PM

Cannot comment on the speed of Canon glass, never used any other than kit lenses and a EF 70-200mm F4. I'm sure the F1.2 lenses are large and slow to focus due to size/weight of the elements relative to the size of the lens itself though.

The EF mount is simply larger, albeit not by much, which means they have more room to work with. It's why you can mount Nikon glass on a Canon body with an adapter, but not the other way around. That and there is no physical aperture lever or hardware required for any camera bodies or lenses, since they've always used an electronic aperture, like 'E' lenses since 1987. That's about it. It's really a non-issue as far as I can tell.