What is the actual benefit of mirrorless?

ZombieArmy · 09-12-2019, 06:31 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by luftfluss

Yeah, I know he has a K-01, but the tone of the OP is clearly negative.

I own a Q and a GH2 as well (for video). I'm negative at people pushing mirrorless like DSLR can not do the same things, and sorry I don't have all the time in the world to respond to everyone (I had left soon after my 1 or 2 replies). I think the biggest enemy isn't someone like me it's the ape like youtube influencers who make mirrorless enthusiasts look like jackasses by basically insinuating that anyone who hasn't switched is an idiot. Or that anything with a mirror is from the stoneage and lacks modern features.

I'm sure you can understand why some would be apprehensive about that, this is not to imply that no one should own mirrorless or that I'm anti mirrorless. I'm just frustrated being put down by a large part of the photographic community for preferring an OVF.

My main argument is that besides flange distance there isn't much a mirrorless could do that a dslr couldn't. Especially if the ideas of a hybrid finder come into play.

Personally I think both options can exist just fine side by side, but it's hard to hold that opinion these days with people spouting what the "future" is at you.

Last edited by ZombieArmy; 09-12-2019 at 06:53 PM.

00rob0077 · 09-12-2019, 07:02 PM

Hasn't Pentax shown at least up to the KP offerings, that you can have mirrorless capabilities in a DSLR?

biz-engineer · 09-12-2019, 07:36 PM - **3 Likes**

Benefit of mirrorless, ehrrrr? My beginner Nikon Coolpix 2100 was a mirrorless camera, I still have it, it still works well, but it doesn't have an optical viewfinder, you compose by using a small digital display at the back of the camera, and battery life is short (100 shots or less, maybe). To put things in perspective, all the first digital camera were mirrorless, and you had to pay a premium to get a digital reflex that focused faster, had an optical viewfinder and could shoot a complete wedding on one battery. Now you have to pay a premium to compose via a small digital display, carry three battery at a wedding and you are told it is new, and it is new for people who are too young to have seen the transition from film SLR to digital compact to digital SLR.

automorphism · 09-12-2019, 08:12 PM - **1 Like**

I've used both mirrorless and DSLR. I would say the advantages of mirrorless to me are easier manual focus, and more accurate focusing (no adjustments needed). That being said, when it comes time to upgrade my camera, if mirrorless is the only option, I don't care as long as I have a camera. I'm not really sure why people get so attached to one format or another. Just buy what you can and use it.

That being said, I look through my DSLR viewfinder a lot without taking any pictures to get a sense of composition and I appreciate that I can do that without using any battery. But whatever, I'll adapt.

**PJ1** · 09-12-2019, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by ZombieArmy

besides flange distance there isn't much a mirrorless could do that a dslr couldn't

Sorry you attracted a bit of flak back there. I think I have seen enough of your posts to know that you generally ask "why" because you are trying to get things categorised in your own mind. I am a bit that way myself. Here is my take on the situation (and I don't have the money to pursue this so it is all academic): L mount has about a 20mm registration distance. Small body (perhaps) and unbalanced with, say, a 400mm lens. Now imagine you have a 80MP FF sensor in an L mount body. You could attach a top-notch 200mm lens and crop (either in camera or after the event) so you ended up with effectively a 400mm angle of view with 20MP on the equivalent of an M4/3 sensor (same size pixels). If you needed to travel light, that could have some appeal. Of course, there are a lot of other issues that arise but everything has its trade-offs. In Australia we have a saying "horses for courses". And I think it is much the same with imaging systems. Sometimes mirrorless gets the job done for me, sometimes I prefer my DSLR. Whether either gets me good images is not the point. I think the better question to ask is not why is one system is better than another, but which maximises your opportunities in any given situation.

**BigMackCam** · 09-12-2019, 09:56 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ZombieArmy:

This forum is nothing compared to the hellscape that is youtube. DPR/Jared/Others are borderline toxic when it comes to DSLRs.

I remember a small snippet I saw of Jared doing a piece on the 90d and M6 Mark 2 and he, no joke, said he didn't want to use the screen on the back of the 90d for a scene where it would have been advantageous because he thought it didn't look pro. That is just sickening to me. Mirrorless users are the ones who really need to get a grip on reasons for both existing.

Originally posted by ZombieArmy:

I own a Q and a GH2 as well (for video). I'm negative at people pushing mirrorless like DSLR can not do the same things, and sorry I don't have all the time in the world to respond to everyone (I had left soon after my 1 or 2 replies). I think the biggest enemy isn't someone like me it's the ape like youtube influencers who make mirrorless enthusiasts look like jackasses by basically insinuating that anyone who hasn't switched is an idiot. Or that anything with a mirror is from the stoneage and lacks modern features.

I'm sure you can understand why some would be apprehensive about that, this is not to imply that no one should own mirrorless or that I'm anti mirrorless. I'm just frustrated being put down by a large part of the photographic community for preferring an OVF.

My main argument is that besides flange distance there isn't much a mirrorless could do that a dslr couldn't. Especially if the ideas of a hybrid finder come into play.

Personally I think both options can exist just fine side by side, but it's hard to hold that opinion these days with people spouting what the "future" is at you.

Reading certain aspects of your posts, I think this is, with respect, more about your frustration at a small but vocal portion of mirrorless shooters - especially those with a highly public profile, such as popular vloggers, reviewers, even prolific forum posters with strongly-held opinions - throwing shade at your chosen camera technology, and hence at you. But this is nothing new, and it's not really to do with mirrorless or DSLR. Before MILCs even existed, this tribalism was evident in DSLR brand vs brand comparisons and discussions. It's happening right now, to some extent, in the recent Sigma-related threads (if you've read them) - some folks completely discounting Sigma glass out of hand as rubbish, others having chosen Pentax way back when because of the very availability of Sigma lenses in K-mount. Outside of photography, it happened (still happens) between drivers of Ford / Chevrolet / Chrysler automobiles. IMHO, though, these folks are a tiny proportion of a much wider population that otherwise just quietly gets on and drives what it wants to drive, shoots what it wants to shoot.

I don't watch a lot of YouTube vloggers, and I pay little heed to their individual opinions. They can be entertaining, on occasion, and I've gained a few useful snippets of information from them over the years, but that's about all. I don't frequent lots of forums either - this is the only one I regularly take part in, mostly because I really enjoy it but also since I help to moderate it (those two aspects don't always go hand in hand

). I don't even have accounts at the other big forums, though I might occasionally read a few posts at DPR and others if they come up in my Google searches. Everybody on forums has an opinion on gear, and often those opinions will differ from mine. There are some members here whose opinions I've come to value over the years, and I've learned a great deal with their help, but I don't always agree with them or subscribe to all of their views (often I don't) - and that's fine; variety is the spice of life. As such, I don't care what anyone thinks of the gear I choose to shoot - new or old, DSLR or mirrorless. I'll occasionally explain my choices or opinions to provide balance to an otherwise-biased discussion, but never because I feel offended or the need to defend myself or my kit.

I have a few more years under my belt than you. I claim no greater wisdom in that respect, but my advice - for what it's worth - is, pay no heed to extreme black or white views from anyone, even if they're folks you otherwise respect. Heavily polarised views - those that dismiss the possible validity of alternative and/or opposing views - are often grounded in very personal preferences. Otherwise, they can be due to defensiveness, insecurity, self-validation and self-reassurance, or simply a desire to belong to a like-minded or popular group (strength in numbers

). Do listen to folks with balanced views and those who demonstrate some open-mindedness, even if some preference or bias is evident, as their views are more likely to be based on rational thought and reason rather than emotion. And try not to get dragged into the very tribalism that frustrates you.

I'm not a religious man, but one of many biblical quotes I'm fond of in a non-religious context is:

"Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate"

Culture · 09-12-2019, 10:51 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Rather than repeat myself, I might ask you to search my posts containing "EVF". Shooting both DSLR with OVF and SLT / mirrorless cameras with EVF, and using the latter to shoot with everything from long flange distance SLR glass (including some BIG lenses) to short flange distance rangefinder glass, I'd like to think I have a pretty balanced opinion on at least the viewfinder and handling aspects.

In the same way that other forums call out Pentax as the ugly step-child, it seems mirrorless cameras with EVFs are given the same treatment here. Perhaps it's because folks are tired of hearing how Pentax should offer mirrorless instead of, or in addition to, DSLRs or get left behind. I get that.

In any case, it's tiring hearing the same polar extreme opinions time and time again regarding DSLRs and OVFs, mirrorless and EVFs. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, added to which folks have their individual preferences. The only thing I can't fathom is why everyone can't just accept there's room for both...

I couldnt have said it better. "Clap" "Clap" "Clap"

I am just tired of it. And yes I shoot mirrorless. Who cares.

Culture.

pinholecam · 09-12-2019, 11:13 PM - **2 Likes**

MILC
Pros
1. Better AF accuracy
2. Better/Faster MF
3. Faster to tell exposure with the histogram
4. Can adapt many lenses
5. Can be a very small package with the right small lenses (eg. M20/4, M50/1.4, M85/2)

Cons
1. EVF/LCD gains up in dark situations
2. Needs to de-link EVF view to actual exposure for strobist work (unless using auto flash)

Others
1. If shooting slow stuff like landscapes, no difference between DSLR LV vs MILC
2. It often also boils down to the usability / features needed for the genre of shooting and shooting style
3. Some folks can't stand EVF

I prefer to use a MILC for all my Pentax MF lenses (and non Pentax ones)
Is the MILC perfect? Of course not, Sony/Panasonic just do not implement things/features that I'd like to have (colors, interface, astrotracer, sensor moving features, etc)
I prefer my K1 for most other things.
Its just like having a film camera as well as a few digital ones as well as a handphone camera, I don't think it needs to be mutually exclusive.

Over the years, I've learned not to read too much into all these Youtube/blog personalities.
They do need to 'stir' to generate traffic and their opinions will swing whichever way the market does.

**Serkevan** · 09-12-2019, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by pinholecam

MILC
Pros
1. Better AF accuracy
2. Better/Faster MF
3. Faster to tell exposure with the histogram
4. Can adapt many lenses
5. Can be a very small package with the right small lenses (eg. M20/4, M50/1.4, M85/2)

Cons
1. EVF/LCD gains up in dark situations
2. Needs to de-link EVF view to actual exposure for strobist work (unless using auto flash)

Others
1. If shooting slow stuff like landscapes, no difference between DSLR LV vs MILC
2. It often also boils down to the usability / features needed for the genre of shooting and shooting style
3. Some folks can't stand EVF

I prefer to use a MILC for all my Pentax MF lenses (and non Pentax ones)
Is the MILC perfect? Of course not, Sony/Panasonic just do not implement things/features that I'd like to have (colors, interface, astrotracer, sensor moving features, etc)
I prefer my K1 for most other things.
Its just like having a film camera as well as a few digital ones as well as a handphone camera, I don't think it needs to be mutually exclusive.

Over the years, I've learned not to read too much into all these Youtube/blog personalities.
They do need to 'stir' to generate traffic and their opinions will swing whichever way the market does.

Very accurate. I'm one of the "can't stand EVF" folks, so for me it's a no-brainer; I *need* an OVF. At least, until EVFs are good enough. It's a shame, because the VF magnification is a feature I would like to have, like other focusing aids in the VF. The other advantages of MILCs, I don't necessarily need, and the chunky feel of a DSLR is somehow very comfortable when paired with a relatively large lens.

Trickortreat · 09-12-2019, 11:35 PM

The major benefit is that it uses the main sensor for everything. So there are no focusing errors like on DSLRs, especially with zoom lenses as you can't fine tune zooms for every single focal length and distance from camera. All the metering and scene recognition is done on main sensor as well. That is a high resolution sensor that will more accurately assess the scene and ultimately give you better results.

Originally posted by ChristianRock

It's all hype. It's like saying automatic transmission cars are the new thing and manual transmission cars are dinossaurs. When everything else (including the engine) is basically the same.

To be fair - manual transmission cars are too going the way of the dodo as even in Europe i see more and more automatic cars. Especially now that electrical cars are destined to take over. There is no manual transmission electric car.

**Serkevan** · 09-13-2019, 12:53 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Trickortreat

Especially now that electrical cars are destined to take over.

We're being sold a (currently) unfeasible idea that is not even particularly good for the environment and it's hilarious how many people are buying into it. New technology often has a new set of drawbacks associated to the benefits like MILCs having some pros and cons compared to DSLRs.

To elaborate, in Germany (just quick numbers here) there are ~47 million passenger cars. Electric cars draw, from what I've seen, on average around 4 kW from the grid while charging, being conservative. This might not seem like a lot but we are talking about 180 GW of power for charging the full country. This is a bit less than the total installed power in the country (~200 GW). The problem is that 25% of that is solar and charging would happen overnight, so it cannot even be used. Another 25% is wind, which is also intermittent.

The logistics of transitioning to exclusively, or even mostly, electric cars are not simple at all. Feasible yes, but the underlying infrastructure must be significantly overhauled and grid-level energy storage technologies are not quite there yet to enable renewable-only power generation.