[ScreamingIdiot]

By the way, did I mention that you would not need a "traditional" camera to do this? These 4th gen cameras will be built-in ocular implants using 100 petabyte storage wafers that plug into the SD slot at the base of your neck.

I love this forum. Glad there are more reasons than I thought for keeping the optical viewfinder!

[normhead]

Listen, mirror-less guys...

Quit beating around the bush...

Does the viewfinder, the optical system that allows you to frame your picture, superior in Dynamic range and other optical qualities?

The clear answer is no.... and until it is, there are always going to be people arguing that whatever tradeoff you offer, it's not worth giving up the clarity and range of optical over digital.

That's the only issue. There is no reason a mirror-less camera can't be as good as a camera with a mirror, you can argue that forever, just as good fine, better, there's no reason to assume they will ever be better.

Right now... lenses are better for DSLRs... viewfinder optics are better for DSLR's.. and as long as the lenses are better it makes little difference what that sensors the are the same. Right now a mirror-less system lacks some of the functionality of a DSLR. Whether or not that is made up for in smaller size and lighter weight is just personal preference. But you have to expect, Ansel Adams types lugging their 8x10 camera equipment up into Yosemite are going to snort. And right now Ansel Adam's quality of imagery etc. is fact. That there might be a photographer some day using a mirror-less camera, your task will get easier. Those of us who like Ansel's style can emulate what Ansel Adams did, (personally I don't really like mules, but hey), but there's no one out there right now using mirror-less who's images I like enough to say "hey, I'm going to stop doing what I'm doing and do that". That is the test for a new technology. Someone who can bring it to life. Until that happens.. it's just another unproven technology. Camera companies are looking that way right now... they also went big into 110 film at one time. Pentax even made a 110 camera with interchangeable lenses. Where are they now?

I'm glad everyone can be happy with their point and shoots or other mirror-less cameras. Photography has many incarnations. Thinking that has anything to do with the death of DSLR's, sorry , but at this point that's just hype. Technically, DSLRs are better in some ways. They are apples and oranges. Leave the death of DSLRs out of the conversation and have a blast. It shouldn't make your enjoyment of mirror-less cameras in any way less, because others still prefer DSLRs. People can enjoy mirror-less and DSLRs at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive outcomes.

DSLRs may die out, but they could also be the technology of the 22cnd century as well. Mirror-less may in the end win out, or it may go the way of the 110. Right now it's my impression they are pretty much fad cameras sold to people upgrading from point and shoots that already use a digital viewfinder. I don't think many are giving up an optical viewfinder for something so inferior in terms of technical performance, unless they have really good reason to do so. And I can't even think of who that might be. People with muscular dystrophy for whom a DSLR weighs too much? People too lazy to carry a DSLR because of it's weight? Maybe those of you who own them should be telling us... what is it that's worth giving up seeing a scene with your own eyes for a digitized rendition of the same scene?

[eddie1960]

but but but Ansel's camera was mirrorless

otherwise i agree (and without an 8x10 digital you won't ever entirely duplicate what ansel did with film FOV and DOF and the swing shift capacity of a big view camera cannot be rendered with a nex 7 i don't care what you glue to the front

as for the DSLR argument, I'm entirely with you. What i think we are seeing is the p/s customer and the people who bought big dslr who don't need them or like thwem for their style driving mirrorless - much the same as the good enough point and shoots drove down slr sales in the 80's/90's. not much chance they will drive people who do appreciate them for all the reasons you stated away from the SLR format for benefits that mean nothing to them. Heck one of the reason's RF cameras are still selling is people like the optical easy to focus view that never blacks out. it is really the ideal street shooting form factor (and the reason the Fuji alternative has captured so many peoples imagination because it has the OVF not some much for the EVF) and gives some of the RF benefit without the huge leica M9 price - I wish Cosina would partner with someone again and release a digital bessa R4D (with say the k5 sensor) to go with all the great m and ltm lenses out there including their own. - or pair with Zeiss ikon to release one (zeiss has long been rumoured to be developing a cm,os one)

[Macario]

I just saw a part of the you tube film. And quickly went to the last 10 minutes where he does the most talking. And yes he makes sense, and also he talks a lot of BS. There are so many very good mirrorless cameras out there, so to me it seems very stoopid to talk about them, while you are shooting with a DSLR. And they also so popular because they are so much smaller than the DSLR. Yes they are, with small prime lenses. But people want 18-1000mm zoom lenses, so whats the point of having a small camera, if you will put a gicantic lens on it. Then there is the power consumption. mirrorless will never, never get as many shots on one battery as a DSLR will. Just not possible. Yes the cappacity will get better, but that means that on a DSLR you will get even more. And I do alot of surf photography, and in sports DSLR is king, and will rmeain king for a long time I think. Shootong sequences will eat your battery even quicker, well I wouldn't want to miss that one perfect wave, just because I am changng batteries.
I am not against the mirrorless at all ( just saw what the new fuji could be, and I want one, I really do. Will be like shooting those old range finders I used to). But to say that the DSLR is history because of mirrorless, well I don't think you really know what is going on then in camera land. And yes I also agree, I think the non moving electronic parts will fault a lot sooner that the moving mechanical ones

[pinholecam]

I won't say one is fully better than the other, but mirrorless should be weighted for its overall applicability to the needs of the user before its 'written off' :


Mirrorless does many things well.
1. Magnification for manual focus (on some of them it can even be set to automatic once in MF mode when the user turns the focus ring)
2. Window in window view again for MF (a smaller zoomed in window allows ease of focus while the larger window allows for proper composition)
3. WYSIWYG DOF on stopped down apertures
4. Focus peaking (for some (ie. NEX, GXR); though I must say its not does not detect lower contrast parts and not exactly what its touted to be)
5. Simply a larger viewfinder to MF or compose in
6. No FF-BF issues due to alignment between sensor/AF sensor
7. Smaller/lighter with primes and some zooms (applies to properly designed ones like m4/3 and NX, maybe to the new Fuji Xpro too, but not to NEX)


There are disadvantages as well of course :
1. Not as 'real time' as OVF in low light conditions (in well lit ones, difference is negligible)
2. Not as high in resolution as OVF (but can get used to and the new one on the A65, A77 and EVF attachment for NEX a far better and pretty close)
3. Batt power consumption (but it still last through a day of shooting; one ought to carry 1-2 spares anyway even for a DSLR)


I look forward to seeing a Pentax MILC preferably with K-mount adaptability for all the above pros of such a system.
Why not NEX?
I think Pentax will make a better camera for one.
Certainly better lenses from Pentax (smaller; as good if not better);
Don't like Sony with its 'suspect' commitment to any of its mount/format (DSLR; SLT; NEX) and also their typical drive for proprietary stuff and bad pricing.
I love Pentax
I'd rather give my money to Pentax
Poor egro imo for NEX

[normhead]

FOV and DOF and the swing shift capacity of a big view camera cannot be rendered with a nex 7 i don't care what you glue to the front

Without sounding a little too much like an old geeser, I don't know how you even understand how DoF works.. if you've never been out with an 8x10 camera with a swing front and tilt front and back. DoF on a DSLR or even a 645 or 6x7 is static. On an 8x10 it's dynamic in a way it would be hard to explain...well OK, not that hard to explain conceptually, but seeing it work is a different thing altogether.

[twitch]

Right now... lenses are better for DSLRs... viewfinder optics are better for DSLR's.. and as long as the lenses are better it makes little difference what that sensors the are the same.

You could make a good argument that in fact rangefinders have superior (wide to normal) lenses to DSLR's both in theory (due to having shorter registration distance) and practice (Leica lenses aren't shabby), and rangefinder viewfinders are in some ways far better too (like being able to see outside the frame while composing and they are big and bright).

On the future direction of cameras I think Fuji is on the right track with their new cameras. I think Pentax is completely on the wrong track with the Q. I hope Ricoh does something this year for Pentax new products-wise. When you look at what Nikon, Canon, Sony & now Fuji have released recently Pentax must be slipping from the photography public view.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Sadly, nobody can tell me why it's so hot to have less moving parts.

Because they are costly to produce, assemble, and calibrate, and they also get out of calibration with extended use. And any error in their calibration will also affect focusing accuracy. Not to mention that their operation itself causes issues - like vibrations and limitations around frame rates with continuous AF.

Lack of a mirror or a fixed mirror, as in the case of SLT cameras, are thus a significant step forward, away from the mirror related issues. The impressive thing is not that SLR mirrors will go away, but that it took so much time to replace them.

How do you deal with the fact , that no sensor is as sensitive as the human eye?

The same way you deal with the fact that it's the sensor that records the images and not your eye!

The market for mirror-less systems is the point and shoot crowd , not DSLR users.

Right now... lenses are better for DSLRs... viewfinder optics are better for DSLR's.. and as long as the lenses are better it makes little difference what that sensors the are the same.

Actually, mirrorless systems can produce images of the same quality as DSLRs - as long as you don't have the Pentax Q in mind as the posterchild of mirrorless cameras.

And don't forget about SLTs (if you're going to say that these are not mirrorless, you should read Trey's article again - these are part of the 3rd gen cameras that he's talking about when he predicts the demise of the SLR design). The A77 is a match for the K-5 and the rumored A99 will have a FF sensor.

Therefore, the only point that one can argue about is whether one can live without an OVF or not. But most people can, so that issue becomes moot, because the market is driven by the needs of the majority.

[Clavius]

Because they are costly to produce, assemble,

You really think replace a simple mirror with a electronic path with a multimegapixel oled screen will be less costly??? Or are you repeating propaganda?

and they also get out of calibration with extended use.

Did it ever happen to you? Not to me. This is something from the past. Or one-offs maybe.

The impressive thing is not that SLR mirrors will go away, but that it took so much time to replace them.

Don't be silly. A shutterspeed of 1/1000 is terrible performance. If that will not improve match that of the SLR, no pro or wannabe pro amateur will use one. Only the point and shoot crowd. The same goes for battery life. I go on trips in which I don't see a powerplug for weeks. Carrying a mirrorless with 30 charged spare batteries hardly feels like a improvement.

Actually, mirrorless systems can produce images of the same quality as DSLRs.

...but? It's harder to produce that?

And don't forget about SLTs (if you're going to say that these are not mirrorless, you should read Trey's article again - these are part of the 3rd gen cameras that he's talking about when he predicts the demise of the SLR design). The A77 is a match for the K-5 and the rumored A99 will have a FF sensor.

You haven't checked it's performance then? The A77 is a terrible advocate for '3rd' gen cameras. LOL, it does NOT match the K5. Have you seen the amount of noise at 1600?!?

[eddie1960]

Without sounding a little too much like an old geeser, I don't know how you even understand how DoF works.. if you've never been out with an 8x10 camera with a swing front and tilt front and back. DoF on a DSLR or even a 645 or 6x7 is static. On an 8x10 it's dynamic in a way it would be hard to explain...well OK, not that hard to explain conceptually, but seeing it work is a different thing altogether.

that's why i mentioned it. the best thing about large format is the fluidity. it is hard to explain but makes instant sense when you see it in action. I don't have a sherpa though and not a big donkey fan so large format is off the books for me (not the most convenient camera for certain)
on any large format (4x5,8x10) you have complete control over DOF in a way not possible on a fixed film plane
I get it in a small way on my super 23 using cut 6x9 film and a ground glass back (there is a small amount of tilt shit built in but nothing near the big cams)

MILC though has little appeal to me for the same reasons you object

[eddie1960]

Because they are costly to produce, assemble, and calibrate, and they also get out of calibration with extended use. And any error in their calibration will also affect focusing accuracy. Not to mention that their operation itself causes issues - like vibrations and limitations around frame rates with continuous AF.

Lack of a mirror or a fixed mirror, as in the case of SLT cameras, are thus a significant step forward, away from the mirror related issues. The impressive thing is not that SLR mirrors will go away, but that it took so much time to replace them.



The same way you deal with the fact that it's the sensor that records the images and not your eye!


Actually, mirrorless systems can produce images of the same quality as DSLRs - as long as you don't have the Pentax Q in mind as the posterchild of mirrorless cameras.

And don't forget about SLTs (if you're going to say that these are not mirrorless, you should read Trey's article again - these are part of the 3rd gen cameras that he's talking about when he predicts the demise of the SLR design). The A77 is a match for the K-5 and the rumored A99 will have a FF sensor.

Therefore, the only point that one can argue about is whether one can live without an OVF or not. But most people can, so that issue becomes moot, because the market is driven by the needs of the majority.

you talk like slt is a new idea, it's not canon tried it way back and it was rejected by the buying public despite the increased frame rate it offered pro's for instance.
Sony has improved it certainly and are using it to differentiate themselves from canikon. will they overcome it's limitations - not the light loss at the sensor. no matter what the DLSR variant with the same sensor should outperform it. However eventually it will be moot because high ISO will be so good up to normal limits it won't make a big difference. not there yet.

You also seem to want to imprint what is good for you on all other users. The thing is there are a lot of users who can't see making the change for the advantages you list (look at Norm's objections, they hold true for a large portion of the higher end market.)
For the entry market MILC will do well.
Smart MILC like the Xpro-1 will capture it's own niche by combining ideas
OVF will continue as a standard for the pro market though for a long while. (maybe once all us geezers retire and die off it will change - hell at that point i don't care anymore it'll be someone else's headache)

[normhead]

With all due respect Mr. Cristofor, as I said before, I'm not giving up my mirror and prism, which to me is a positive reason for buying a camera, so I can "deal with it". I'm not trading "can get just as good" for already gets just as good and does get just as good on a daily basis. You seem to be missing the point. The DSLR system is a selling point... you look through that view finder and if you are used to mirror-less.. you say "wow". With your made up stories about prisms going out of alignment etc. you've done your best to convince us that the mirror and prism system is a negative. I can take images with a pinhole camera made with a shoebox. I can take 360 degree images made with a cake tin. You can take amazing images with practically no technology at all. The only question is what do you want to do. And every DSLR user, has looked through that prism and said, "this is what I want." If you think a few rants about never experienced problems,( including film, I'm on about my 10th set of prisms and mirrors), are going to make the view through the the DSLR less enjoyable for those of us who have been paying for years to use this technology... and in some way make your tiny screen more enjoyable... you're delusional. ON the odd chance something ever did go wrong with my DSLR system.. I'd just buy a new one, for as long as I can afford it.

All you're saying to me is you never appreciated the beauty of the SLR. That's not new, many people continued to use viewfinder, camera even after the advent of SLRs. Many people never moved beyond point and shoots.

And I get it, you and people like you don't value what I value. My point is, for those of us who do value those little mirrors and prisms, you can never be in a position to understand when we might ditch them, because you didn't value what we valued in the first place. Different values lead to different conclusions. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And as long as people go to Best Buy , pick up a DSLR and go "wow" because the view is so much better.. they are going to buy DSLRs. They are going to pay the extra dollars, the higher cost, and suffer any other possible problems... because it's just better. The viewfinder and it's performance are the most used user function on a camera. Using live vew on my wifes K-x just isn't as enjoyable. Most of my time like 90 -95% is spent peering through the viewfinder. It's not part of the experience, it's most of the experience.

Anyway enough... you can only flog a dead horse for so long. Go stare at your pixels.

[Clavius]

With all due respect Mr. Cristofor, as I said before, I'm not giving up my mirror and prism, which to me is a positive reason for buying a camera, so I can "deal with it". I'm not trading "can get just as good" for already gets just as good and does get just as good on a daily basis. You seem to be missing the point. The DSLR system is a selling point... you look through that view finder and if you are used to mirror-less.. you say "wow". With your made up stories about prisms going out of alignment etc. you've done your best to convince us that the mirror and prism system is a negative. I can take images with a pinhole camera made with a shoebox. I can take 360 degree images made with a cake tin. You can take amazing images with practically no technology at all. The only question is what do you want to do. And every DSLR user, has looked through that prism and said, "this is what I want." If you think a few rants about never experienced problems,( including film, I'm on about my 10th set of prisms and mirrors), are going to make the view through the the DSLR less enjoyable for those of us who have been paying for years to use this technology... and in some way make your tiny screen more enjoyable... you're delusional. ON the odd chance something ever did go wrong with my DSLR system.. I'd just buy a new one, for as long as I can afford it.

All you're saying to me is you never appreciated the beauty of the SLR. That's not new, many people continued to use viewfinder, camera even after the advent of SLRs. Many people never moved beyond point and shoots.

And I get it, you and people like you don't value what I value. My point is, for those of us who do value those little mirrors and prisms, you can never be in a position to understand when we might ditch them, because you didn't value what we valued in the first place. Different values lead to different conclusions. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And as long as people go to Best Buy , pick up a DSLR and go "wow" because the view is so much better.. they are going to buy DSLRs. They are going to pay the extra dollars, the higher cost, and suffer any other possible problems... because it's just better. The viewfinder and it's performance are the most used user function on a camera. Using live vew on my wifes K-x just isn't as enjoyable. Most of my time like 90 -95% is spent peering through the viewfinder. It's not part of the experience, it's most of the experience.

Anyway enough... you can only flog a dead horse for so long. Go stare at your pixels.

+1

Exactly!

[eddie1960]

plus 1^^^^ better said than I could norm

I have used (and use still) many different types of camera. they all have their uses, but still far and away the most satisfying is the slr format (followed closely for me by a RF)
Every time i've tried the milcs they've been distinctly unsatisfying - with the exception of the Fuji x100 which gives some of the RF experience - though i must say still doesn't touch a good RF with a nice contrasty focus patch. Mr Cristofor seems unable to accept that while the choice of Mirrorless makes him happy it doesn't apply to the wider community (Milc ma well have grown rapidly but the DSLR is still by leaps and bounds the predominant choice of the greater public - All I need to do to understand this is walk into any best buy or similar mass retailer and look at the camera pods DSLR is still outnumbering MILC on the posts, go to a specialty shop DSLR predominates

[Aegon]

Everyone has a threshold level of performance that they require of their own cameras. As has been stated in this and other threads, most people aren't willing to work with large format despite the benefits because large format is too cumbersome. Many people here, on this DSLR photography board, think that the minimum level of acceptable performance can only be delivered by a DSLR. I have found that µ43 delivers ulta-accurate and quick focusing, excellent image quality, and I'm not hindered by the lack of OVF. For me, my threshold level of required performance is satisfied by mirrorless cameras (for the most part) and I'm not willing to put up with the extra weight of DSLRs. I have two young kids, carrying them and their associated bags of diapers and toys is enough for me, but they are my photographic subjects and I need a camera, and µ43 works great for me.

Nothing I do will convince some people that they don't need DSLRs. That isn't the point of this thread.

But I'm positive that DSLRs are going to be replaced by mirrorless cameras for the majority of people who would otherwise buy DSLRs, and these people will be happy. I say this as a former non-believer. Mirrorless cameras help me get the photos I want because (1) they are small enough to pocket, (2) there are good lens options, including the Oly 45mm/1.8 and P-L 25/1.4, (3) Eye Detection autofocus.

In 10-15 years, there will still be film users, still be large format users, still be those who prefer manual focus lenses, and still be DSLRs. But not the way we see them today.