[Uluru]

It's better to say this: will mirrorless be the same as we think it will be in the next 30 years?

With smartphones tech advancing rapidly, and challenging all kinds of devices, the shape and state of mirrorless and digital imaging in general will change so radically that the state of mirrorless in 30 years may be quite impossible to imagine now. Say, Google glasses — what are they?

However, will the SLRs and rangefinders remain? I think they will, because they represent the art of photography. Mirrorless, on the other hand, represent the convenience of image taking. They are not the same thing.

If nothing else, there will be a company or two that will find their niche and still produce old-fashioned optics and photography taking devices. Leica is a proof of that — people will always be nostalgic, yearn for direct experience, they will like stuff that provenly works, and more than anything — things that have the power to absorb you into the art and in the world itself.

I know I will spit on any kind of EVF as my main viewer— no thank you, even if it's acclaimed as 'better' than the pentaprism.

If I take an EVF to give me the idea what the world looks like, then I entrust some electronic circuitry to substitute my own eyes. And no brother, that is no photography anymore — it's just rubbish.

The idea of photography I have in my mind, and many have had before, is to have as little interference in front of eyes; a clear piece of glass is one thing, but replacing it completely with virtual reality that interprets the world for me, is a wholly another thing.

By that same token, future babies may be turned in borgs in nurseries, substituting their natural eyes and arms with implants because implants will make them 'better'. And is more cost effective, because treating real eyes and mending real muscles is more expensive than substituting few circuits.

So you see, it is not the same sport anymore, life is not same life anymore. To me, it is not photography — it's just rubbish. Get it? It's just image taking, pure brainless convenience. However, photography is not just the end result, some image taken — it's everything, starting from how I see the the world and how I feel when taking a photograph — the world how I experienced it as directly and with as little interpretation as possible. You take even that last stand from me, and I'm left with an imitation of life.

I want to be a human, with all imperfections, and I do want an 'imperfect' camera. Because they then make perfect photography experience.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 07-16-2013 at 08:26 PM.

[Clavius]

Old school photographers tend to like the OVF because they are used to it from the film days. (Or, more probable, because they have a mountain of SLR glass for which they don't want to see the mount dissappear.) But... Nowadays people grow up using electronic displays. TV's, computers, laptops, camcorders, tablets, phones, washingmachines, copiers, dishwashers. When they buy a DSLR and peer through the OVF, something is instantly missing to them: brightness lacks, can't use it during movie mode, size lacks, no CDAF, VF is grainy / details are gone, lots of information missing, customisability is non existent, no peaking, no zooming, you name it - it's all gone or seriously lacking. The big (and only) advantage of the OVF is the speed. It doesn't lag. But who of those people that grew up with electronic displays is going to appreciate the speed advantage? They are completely used to the slight lag anyway. They grew up with it. I doubt they even notice the speed advantage of te OVF, not when they are overloaded with all the disadvantages. And I think that is why I see people around me buying DSLRs, but still use the back LCD exclusively because of all the advantages.

That's why I think a way should be found to get all those things that are missing from the OVF into the VF. Peaking, zooming, more brightness, sharpness, etc. Otherwise I don't see any future for the VF, regardless of the type, optical or electronic. If whole generations are growing up with having to resort to using the backpanel of the DSLR anyway... In time, there won't be anybody around that will miss the VF.

[philbaum]

Its clear that people are involved with photography for many different reasons. But for me, not much matters except for the final image. I want it to be so good that when some people see it, they feel some emotional connection with it. Today i heard from a shopkeeper who gave me a name and phone number for me to call. A customer came back to his shop to buy a print, only to discover that it had already been sold. He wants a print for himself.

To me there is no higher compliment than someone who felt some sort of emotion looking at one or your pictures and wants to keep it around. And there are other reasons to be into photography - for some its a profession, for some its the story telling, for others its the process and the socialbility of other artists. And thats ok - it is what it is. No reason to argue about it in any case.

[Ash]

Old school photographers tend to like the OVF because they are used to it from the film days. (Or, more probable, because they have a mountain of SLR glass for which they don't want to see the mount dissappear.)

I think I'm not alone in saying that as a new school photog, I like the OVF because it is real time and responsive as opposed to what technology we have available to us right now in OVF. I don't have a mountain of MF glass (I have one old Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 that I never use) but the glass that I have is K-mount, and I'd be keen to see the K-mount continue and evolve.

Nowadays people grow up using electronic displays. TV's, computers, laptops, camcorders, tablets, phones, washingmachines, copiers, dishwashers. When they buy a DSLR and peer through the OVF, something is instantly missing to them: brightness lacks, can't use it during movie mode, size lacks, no CDAF, VF is grainy / details are gone, lots of information missing, customisability is non existent, no peaking, no zooming, you name it - it's all gone or seriously lacking.

Yep, as a technophile, I appreciate what developments do for quality of life, but EVF is not yet there. Brightness is not everything, movie mode is available through LV, size is not as big a deal as it is made out (but a FF OVF would be a charm and solve much of the debatable differences), CDAF is in LV, so is peaking. OVFs are not grainy (there is no gain - perhaps you mean EVF there) and zooming is achieved with lenses, not the VF.

So to me, there is no serious lacking, just differences that some value and others don't.

[Clavius]

movie mode is available through LV, CDAF is in LV, so is peaking.

Thank you for your confirmation. If all those functions are in LV, when and/or why use the VF at all?

I only use the OVF for simple snaps where the utmost quality and control are not important: family snaps of the kids. But there my phone wins, because I always have that handy. But for serious photography work always use the LCD panel because of the control advantages and the better IQ caused by accurate CDAF and lack of mirror slap.

OVFs are not grainy (there is no gain - perhaps you mean EVF there)

I definitely meant that the OVF is grainy. I can see the grain of the matte focus screen in the VF. That grain is even more present then the pixels of any bad EVF. It's so freaking annoying.

and zooming is achieved with lenses, not the VF.

Zooming the VF image during focussing, to improve focussing accuracy, is definitely not done by the lens.

[Ash]

Well there is no argument from me regarding all of those points. I guess I have found them all no dissuasion from continuing with the OVF even an APS-C one. The experience of shooting with the K-5 IIs, and the results I get from it, keep me well impressed personally.

I do believe this format (APS-C or FF dSLR) is not for you (and you have found what you were after elsewhere) but your perpetual case for the next flagship camera from Pentax to be a mirrorless one is excessive. Let Ricoh deliver the products they see fit for the future of the brand, take them or leave them.


Ash.

[Clavius]

I do believe this format (APS-C or FF dSLR) is not for you (and you have found what you were after elsewhere) but your perpetual case for the next flagship camera from Pentax to be a mirrorless one is excessive. Let Ricoh deliver the products they see fit for the future of the brand, take them or leave them.

Ummm... The mirrored vs mirrorless -debate is actually what this thread is about.

[Ash]

It's been discussed ad nauseum in the previous thread on a similar topic (OVF vs. EVF - pros and cons), much of these same thoughts were expressed there remember?


Ash.

[Clavius]

It's been discussed ad nauseum in the previous thread on a similar topic (OVF vs. EVF - pros and cons), much of these same thoughts were expressed there remember?


Ash.

If repeating topics is your main concern then please head off to the FF section, lots of work for you to do there. LOL!

[Ash]

Indeed, there is nothing new under the sun.


Ash.

[magkelly]

With the advances in mirrorles cameras do you think that someday they will replace the dsrls?
Also what are the advantages of dsrls? (i am kinda new in them)

Sorry if this is a repeated threat.

I sure hope not. I can see the advantages of using them, any lens with an adapter is great, and I have one, but I totally miss the VF on that one when I use it and having to put something on the back of my screen just to be able to use it outside annoys me. Multiple brand lens capacity aside I think my K-x and the K-7 are far superior cameras than my Oly and I really wish my OIy had just come with a VF and that buying one for it wouldn't cost so much. The digital kit lens I can get around, though lately MF is more difficult as my eyes are getting worse, but the lack of a proper VF is really making it difficult for me to use it a lot and I just don't have $300 laying around to add that and the kit lens right now. M43 cameras are smaller and therefor less noticeable which can be good in some situations but the lenses for them are not cheap and the price of a VF is kind of absurd IMHO. I only got the one I have because I got an older cam body very inexpensively but I sometimes regret going there. If I had realized how hard it is for me to use one sans a proper VF and how much adding a kit lens to the darned thing would cost I probably would have said forget it.

[tclausen]

With the advances in mirrorles cameras do you think that someday they will replace the dsrls?
Also what are the advantages of dsrls? (i am kinda new in them)

Sorry if this is a repeated threat.

I think that the answer is a very definite and unequivocal "maybe".....

Next topic, please....

[philbaum]

In any case and for whatever reason, i now have a Nex 5n, mirrorless w/o VF, Nex 6 w/built-in EVF, and my older K5.

After several months of romancing with the Nex cameras, I happened to be at the right spot Sunday morning at the right time to have a photographic opportunity - not easily repeated. 27 wooden Indian canoes - of some size, were being launched from Port Townsend on a long journey out of Puget Sound and down the Pacific Coast to Quinault. It was 0530am, heavy fog, and serious paddlers were contemplating the journey ahead. There was mist coming down and i realized i had a finite time to catch some really good images. So i grabbed the K5, the 50-135 zoom and took pictures as quickly as good composition efforts would allow, before the fog moved off or the canoes were gone. In this situation, my DSLR and zoom were far quicker to use effectively than the Nex and its primes would have been, not to mention the WR of the camera and lens.

I don't believe there are any perfect cameras, they all have pros and cons and deficiencies. I won't be selling either of my cameras for awhile, The Nex are portable, more discrete, and macro monsters. The K5 is remarkably effective and efficient at the situation i described above. The Nex 6 EVF is a welcome help on bright days when framing without a VF is more a guess. I got 2 more hiking trips planned for this summer, and it'll be the Nex cameras i carry along for those trips. Tomorrow, i shoot some promo shots for a Shakespeare play in a park - K5 job for sure.

[tclausen]

In any case and for whatever reason, i now have a Nex 5n, mirrorless w/o VF, Nex 6 w/built-in EVF, and my older K5.

After several months of romancing with the Nex cameras, I happened to be at the right spot Sunday morning at the right time to have a photographic opportunity - not easily repeated. 27 wooden Indian canoes - of some size, were being launched from Port Townsend on a long journey out of Puget Sound and down the Pacific Coast to Quinault. It was 0530am, heavy fog, and serious paddlers were contemplating the journey ahead. There was mist coming down and i realized i had a finite time to catch some really good images. So i grabbed the K5, the 50-135 zoom and took pictures as quickly as good composition efforts would allow, before the fog moved off or the canoes were gone. In this situation, my DSLR and zoom were far quicker to use effectively than the Nex and its primes would have been, not to mention the WR of the camera and lens.

You just can't do that to us, dude....telling such a story and not posting images of what sounds like a really neat photo-op.

[philbaum]

You just can't do that to us, dude....telling such a story and not posting images of what sounds like a really neat photo-op.

Thanks for asking. I only found out about the specific time from a participant i saw at a coffee shop. There were only 3 or 4 other photographers there, and a video guy from the press perhaps or someone working for the tribes. They need a better media guy i'm thinking :-) Indians were courteous, but mostly they seemed to be thinking of the journey ahead. This is the 10th year they've held it and keeps getting larger every year. 27 canoes this year. A few of the photos: