Mirrorless vs DSLR? What are the advantages?

Clavius · 01-20-2012, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by ofer4

Mirrorless also provides the potential for (much) faster fps shooting and less vibration from the mirror movement itself.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the FPS of all mirrorless cameras I've tried was... well...

For example the NEX, there's this wait time after each shot in which I think 'wtf is it doing??'.

You said it right: 'potential' maybe in a year or 10. Provided that all further development in DSLRs is halted that is.

Anvh · 01-20-2012, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves

I say possibly, but very likely, since there's more room for future improvement on OLED and sensor technology than in DC motors to drive the mechanics. Solid-state technology continues to evolve, nowadays we have transitors with a fraction of the resistivity we had 10 years ago, and the electronics industry will keep pushing this further with smarter materials (e.g., graphene).

Yeah but explain me how an optical viewfinder that doesn't use any power is less power efficient then an OLED screen?
Will you think they will make a screen that actually generate power?

hcarvalhoalves · 01-20-2012, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

Yeah but explain me how an optical viewfinder that doesn't use any power is less power efficient then an OLED screen?
Will you think they will make a screen that actually generate power?

OVF doesn't use any power, but moving the mirror and shutter does. Also, driving the actuator requires the camera to charge a capacitor, more power is wasted there. Want more FPS? Faster shutter speeds? All those require more power-hungry, less efficient components.

It's not just one component, it's the whole design. The bottom-line is that solid-state has the potential to scale much better than a mechanical design. Just look at the revolution of solid-state storage, compared to old, mechanical media (computer HDDs, magnetic tapes, etc.)... And all those new media use just a fraction of the power, since there are no movable parts (no spindles, no gears, no power lost on friction).

Unless you're an engineer, I think there's little we can add to the topic.

Philoslothical · 01-20-2012, 03:21 PM

One thing I keep seeing people post as a "pro" is the smaller and different form factor of the camera body. For me, it's a huge "con". I don't want some silly little rectangular box that is unbalanced and absurd with a telephoto lens attached. The only way I'd ever consider a mirrorless is if it has an SLR form factor (which seems very unlikely), and even then I'd be loathe to give up my OVF. I haven't had any experience with an EVF I'd want to shoot with, or at least, I wouldn't want it to be my only option. Maybe EVF will improve to the point I'd be happy, but until then, traditional DSLRs are fine by me.

JHD · 01-20-2012, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

I keep reading in here the people want mirrorless, and I've seen some of the mirrorless cameras. Other than being smaller, what is the real advantage of them?...

They are much lighter, and that alone beats packing a boat anchor around all day. According to dpreview, "the NEX 5n is capable of capturing images that rival some of the best APS-C format DSLRs on the market..."

I also have a Nikon V1. The mechanical shutter in the V1 makes the shutter of the K-5 sound like a clap of thunder. And if total silence is required, the electronic shutter is absolutely dead quiet. The V1 will focus much quicker and track much better than the K-5 or any DSLR currently available for that matter. When it comes to street photography, small cameras are less intimidating. The more I use the V1 and NEX, the more I like them. I'm in the process of parting with my DSLRs and most of my K-mount lenses.

**luftfluss** · 01-20-2012, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

You can magnify optical viewfinders as well, pentax make two at the moment. a 2x and 1,3x or something like that.

I've owned the Pentax 1.3x eyecup, and it create a slightly dimmer VF, and also the fact that it's expanding on the OVF specifically designed for the camera means that it cuts out part of the OVF's viewable image, unless you carefully roll your eye around the perimeter prior to taking the shot. I was underwhelmed by it and sold it.

Originally posted by Anvh:

CDAF is more accurate but PDAF is faster and it knows which way to focus so it can track focus, something you can't do with CDAF.
Some brands now convert some pixels on the sensors to PDAF like focussing, nikon 1 use them for example.

Yes, that is why I said AF can be more accurate, not better at tracking.

**luftfluss** · 01-20-2012, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Philoslothical

One thing I keep seeing people post as a "pro" is the smaller and different form factor of the camera body. For me, it's a huge "con". I don't want some silly little rectangular box that is unbalanced and absurd with a telephoto lens attached. The only way I'd ever consider a mirrorless is if it has an SLR form factor (which seems very unlikely), and even then I'd be loathe to give up my OVF. I haven't had any experience with an EVF I'd want to shoot with, or at least, I wouldn't want it to be my only option. Maybe EVF will improve to the point I'd be happy, but until then, traditional DSLRs are fine by me.

So, in other words, you'd hate a traditional SLR.

VoiceOfReason · 01-20-2012, 04:19 PM - **1 Like**

I see alot of people here see some of the cons of one like I do. EVF, smaller body, and as one thing I noticed, slower shutter speeds. I picked up the NEX 5 and I did NOT like the way it felt. It felt almost like a toy, or a P&S to me. It did not feel "right" to me at all. The battery life left alot to be desired too.

I like my optical viewfinder, 1/6000 on my Kx, 1/8000 on my K5, battery life, and size! I want something that feels comfortable in my hands!

I was concerned that with all the mirrorless talk from the different camera manufacturers that I'd be stuck with one the next time I replace/upgrade, and to me what I see now in mirrorless wouldn't feel like an upgrade to me. Heck, they did not feel like an upgrade to my Kx, which is why I now have a K5 too.

Philoslothical · 01-20-2012, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by luftfluss

So, in other words, you'd hate a traditional SLR.

At least they have a proper OVF, and often a much larger and brighter one than a DSLR. Strictly speaking on form factor, yes, I find them too small/thin. The current Pentax DSLR bodies have just about the perfect dimensions for me.

Anvh · 01-20-2012, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves

OVF doesn't use any power, but moving the mirror and shutter does. Also, driving the actuator requires the camera to charge a capacitor, more power is wasted there. Want more FPS? Faster shutter speeds? All those require more power-hungry, less efficient components.

It's not just one component, it's the whole design. The bottom-line is that solid-state has the potential to scale much better than a mechanical design. Just look at the revolution of solid-state storage, compared to old, mechanical media (computer HDDs, magnetic tapes, etc.)... And all those new media use just a fraction of the power, since there are no movable parts (no spindles, no gears, no power lost on friction).

The main component that is different and needs to move is the mirror, i very much doubt that use a lot.
Currently battery live is twice as good for DSLR compared to EVIL cameras so they have a lot of catching up to do.

Anvh · 01-20-2012, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by luftfluss

I've owned the Pentax 1.3x eyecup, and it create a slightly dimmer VF, and also the fact that it's expanding on the OVF specifically designed for the camera means that it cuts out part of the OVF's viewable image, unless you carefully roll your eye around the perimeter prior to taking the shot. I was underwhelmed by it and sold it.

Yes, that is why I said AF can be more accurate, not better at tracking.

But they are there though.
Also when you magnify an EVF you also crop your view, so no difference there.

And i didn't say otherwise, just adding to it. =]

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

I was concerned that with all the mirrorless talk from the different camera manufacturers that I'd be stuck with one the next time I replace/upgrade, and to me what I see now in mirrorless wouldn't feel like an upgrade to me. Heck, they did not feel like an upgrade to my Kx, which is why I now have a K5 too.

Well they have their strong points but we won't see them replacing DSLR just yet, there are to many cons to it at the moment and they aren't that much cheaper either...

I'm hoping a hybrid viewfinder will catch on.

hcarvalhoalves · 01-20-2012, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

The main component that is different and needs to move is the mirror, i very much doubt that use a lot.
Currently battery live is twice as good for DSLR compared to EVIL cameras so they have a lot of catching up to do.

Agreed, current DSLR does very well on battery already. But, like I said, mirrorless is more an exercise on what can be improved in the future, without being tied in the past. The first DSLRs also sucked compared to traditional SLRs, but here we are. Same thing will happen 5-10 years from now for mirrorless.

**DigiMack** · 01-20-2012, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves

Pros:
- Smaller body
- Less mechanical parts, more sturdy cameras, less QA issues
- Possibly more energy-efficient
- Possibly faster shutter speeds
- Bigger, 100% viewfinders without negatively affecting body size or price
- EVF can preview DoF, exposure, manual focus assistance

Cons:
- EVF technology still more limited in terms of resolution and brightness than true-to-life OVF
- Some argue phase-detection auto-focus is still faster than contrast-detection

The EVF is either the biggest pro or con, depending on how you use it. I would be more happy with a big, 100% coverage EVF in a compact body than the sucky OVF in my K-x.

Everything I have heard leads me to believe that battery life is a Con. Fewer shots per battery charge is not something I look forward to.

GibbyTheMole · 01-20-2012, 07:24 PM

Since I shoot a lot of stuff that moves, I'll stick with a DSLR. Mirrorless cameras reportedly suck at tracking fast moving subjects.

By the way: Speaking of mirrorless Pentax cameras, check out this monstrosity from 2006. Ew!!!

JinDesu · 01-20-2012, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by GibbyTheMole

Since I shoot a lot of stuff that moves, I'll stick with a DSLR. Mirrorless cameras reportedly suck at tracking fast moving subjects.

By the way: Speaking of mirrorless Pentax cameras, check out this monstrosity from 2006. Ew!!!

KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!

I'd get a mirrorless to replace my k-x. But I wouldn't get a mirrorless before I get a k-5 or equivalent.

01-20-2012, 03:08 PM	#18
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	Originally posted by Anvh Yeah but explain me how an optical viewfinder that doesn't use any power is less power efficient then an OLED screen? Will you think they will make a screen that actually generate power? OVF doesn't use any power, but moving the mirror and shutter does. Also, driving the actuator requires the camera to charge a capacitor, more power is wasted there. Want more FPS? Faster shutter speeds? All those require more power-hungry, less efficient components. It's not just one component, it's the whole design. The bottom-line is that solid-state has the potential to scale much better than a mechanical design. Just look at the revolution of solid-state storage, compared to old, mechanical media (computer HDDs, magnetic tapes, etc.)... And all those new media use just a fraction of the power, since there are no movable parts (no spindles, no gears, no power lost on friction). Unless you're an engineer, I think there's little we can add to the topic. Last edited by hcarvalhoalves; 01-20-2012 at 03:19 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What are the advantages and dis-advantages of using a Focusing Screen?	HoBykoYan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	10-06-2011 12:28 PM
Misc Age has its advantages	daacon	Post Your Photos!	5	08-19-2011 04:57 AM
What are the advantages and disadvantages of a 645 lens on K-X dslr?	HoBykoYan	Pentax Medium Format	5	04-19-2011 08:09 AM
Does the DA 21 afford many advantages over the DA 18-55 II at 21mm?	paperbag846	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	33	11-14-2010 02:09 PM
Advantages to old lenses	Docrwm	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	24	10-21-2010 07:51 PM

01-20-2012, 02:25 PM	#16
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by ofer4 Mirrorless also provides the potential for (much) faster fps shooting and less vibration from the mirror movement itself. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the FPS of all mirrorless cameras I've tried was... well... For example the NEX, there's this wait time after each shot in which I think 'wtf is it doing??'. You said it right: 'potential' maybe in a year or 10. Provided that all further development in DSLRs is halted that is.

01-20-2012, 02:36 PM	#17
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves I say possibly, but very likely, since there's more room for future improvement on OLED and sensor technology than in DC motors to drive the mechanics. Solid-state technology continues to evolve, nowadays we have transitors with a fraction of the resistivity we had 10 years ago, and the electronics industry will keep pushing this further with smarter materials (e.g., graphene). Yeah but explain me how an optical viewfinder that doesn't use any power is less power efficient then an OLED screen? Will you think they will make a screen that actually generate power?

01-20-2012, 03:21 PM	#19
Philoslothical Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1,889	One thing I keep seeing people post as a "pro" is the smaller and different form factor of the camera body. For me, it's a huge "con". I don't want some silly little rectangular box that is unbalanced and absurd with a telephoto lens attached. The only way I'd ever consider a mirrorless is if it has an SLR form factor (which seems very unlikely), and even then I'd be loathe to give up my OVF. I haven't had any experience with an EVF I'd want to shoot with, or at least, I wouldn't want it to be my only option. Maybe EVF will improve to the point I'd be happy, but until then, traditional DSLRs are fine by me.

01-20-2012, 03:29 PM	#20
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason I keep reading in here the people want mirrorless, and I've seen some of the mirrorless cameras. Other than being smaller, what is the real advantage of them?... They are much lighter, and that alone beats packing a boat anchor around all day. According to dpreview, "the NEX 5n is capable of capturing images that rival some of the best APS-C format DSLRs on the market..." I also have a Nikon V1. The mechanical shutter in the V1 makes the shutter of the K-5 sound like a clap of thunder. And if total silence is required, the electronic shutter is absolutely dead quiet. The V1 will focus much quicker and track much better than the K-5 or any DSLR currently available for that matter. When it comes to street photography, small cameras are less intimidating. The more I use the V1 and NEX, the more I like them. I'm in the process of parting with my DSLRs and most of my K-mount lenses.

01-20-2012, 03:40 PM	#21
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,618	Originally posted by Anvh You can magnify optical viewfinders as well, pentax make two at the moment. a 2x and 1,3x or something like that. I've owned the Pentax 1.3x eyecup, and it create a slightly dimmer VF, and also the fact that it's expanding on the OVF specifically designed for the camera means that it cuts out part of the OVF's viewable image, unless you carefully roll your eye around the perimeter prior to taking the shot. I was underwhelmed by it and sold it. Originally posted by Anvh: CDAF is more accurate but PDAF is faster and it knows which way to focus so it can track focus, something you can't do with CDAF. Some brands now convert some pixels on the sensors to PDAF like focussing, nikon 1 use them for example. Yes, that is why I said AF can be more accurate, not better at tracking.

01-20-2012, 03:41 PM	#22
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,618	Originally posted by Philoslothical One thing I keep seeing people post as a "pro" is the smaller and different form factor of the camera body. For me, it's a huge "con". I don't want some silly little rectangular box that is unbalanced and absurd with a telephoto lens attached. The only way I'd ever consider a mirrorless is if it has an SLR form factor (which seems very unlikely), and even then I'd be loathe to give up my OVF. I haven't had any experience with an EVF I'd want to shoot with, or at least, I wouldn't want it to be my only option. Maybe EVF will improve to the point I'd be happy, but until then, traditional DSLRs are fine by me. So, in other words, you'd hate a traditional SLR.

01-20-2012, 04:19 PM - 1 Like	#23
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124 Original Poster	I see alot of people here see some of the cons of one like I do. EVF, smaller body, and as one thing I noticed, slower shutter speeds. I picked up the NEX 5 and I did NOT like the way it felt. It felt almost like a toy, or a P&S to me. It did not feel "right" to me at all. The battery life left alot to be desired too. I like my optical viewfinder, 1/6000 on my Kx, 1/8000 on my K5, battery life, and size! I want something that feels comfortable in my hands! I was concerned that with all the mirrorless talk from the different camera manufacturers that I'd be stuck with one the next time I replace/upgrade, and to me what I see now in mirrorless wouldn't feel like an upgrade to me. Heck, they did not feel like an upgrade to my Kx, which is why I now have a K5 too.

01-20-2012, 04:49 PM	#24
Philoslothical Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1,889	Originally posted by luftfluss So, in other words, you'd hate a traditional SLR. At least they have a proper OVF, and often a much larger and brighter one than a DSLR. Strictly speaking on form factor, yes, I find them too small/thin. The current Pentax DSLR bodies have just about the perfect dimensions for me.

01-20-2012, 05:54 PM	#25
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves OVF doesn't use any power, but moving the mirror and shutter does. Also, driving the actuator requires the camera to charge a capacitor, more power is wasted there. Want more FPS? Faster shutter speeds? All those require more power-hungry, less efficient components. It's not just one component, it's the whole design. The bottom-line is that solid-state has the potential to scale much better than a mechanical design. Just look at the revolution of solid-state storage, compared to old, mechanical media (computer HDDs, magnetic tapes, etc.)... And all those new media use just a fraction of the power, since there are no movable parts (no spindles, no gears, no power lost on friction). The main component that is different and needs to move is the mirror, i very much doubt that use a lot. Currently battery live is twice as good for DSLR compared to EVIL cameras so they have a lot of catching up to do.

01-20-2012, 05:55 PM	#26
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by luftfluss I've owned the Pentax 1.3x eyecup, and it create a slightly dimmer VF, and also the fact that it's expanding on the OVF specifically designed for the camera means that it cuts out part of the OVF's viewable image, unless you carefully roll your eye around the perimeter prior to taking the shot. I was underwhelmed by it and sold it. Yes, that is why I said AF can be more accurate, not better at tracking. But they are there though. Also when you magnify an EVF you also crop your view, so no difference there. And i didn't say otherwise, just adding to it. =] Originally posted by VoiceOfReason I was concerned that with all the mirrorless talk from the different camera manufacturers that I'd be stuck with one the next time I replace/upgrade, and to me what I see now in mirrorless wouldn't feel like an upgrade to me. Heck, they did not feel like an upgrade to my Kx, which is why I now have a K5 too. Well they have their strong points but we won't see them replacing DSLR just yet, there are to many cons to it at the moment and they aren't that much cheaper either... I'm hoping a hybrid viewfinder will catch on.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-20-2012, 06:08 PM	#27
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	Originally posted by Anvh The main component that is different and needs to move is the mirror, i very much doubt that use a lot. Currently battery live is twice as good for DSLR compared to EVIL cameras so they have a lot of catching up to do. Agreed, current DSLR does very well on battery already. But, like I said, mirrorless is more an exercise on what can be improved in the future, without being tied in the past. The first DSLRs also sucked compared to traditional SLRs, but here we are. Same thing will happen 5-10 years from now for mirrorless.

01-20-2012, 06:13 PM	#28
DigiMack Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 169	Originally posted by hcarvalhoalves Pros: - Smaller body - Less mechanical parts, more sturdy cameras, less QA issues - Possibly more energy-efficient - Possibly faster shutter speeds - Bigger, 100% viewfinders without negatively affecting body size or price - EVF can preview DoF, exposure, manual focus assistance Cons: - EVF technology still more limited in terms of resolution and brightness than true-to-life OVF - Some argue phase-detection auto-focus is still faster than contrast-detection The EVF is either the biggest pro or con, depending on how you use it. I would be more happy with a big, 100% coverage EVF in a compact body than the sucky OVF in my K-x. Everything I have heard leads me to believe that battery life is a Con. Fewer shots per battery charge is not something I look forward to.

01-20-2012, 07:24 PM	#29
GibbyTheMole Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Iowa Photos: Albums Posts: 2,275	Since I shoot a lot of stuff that moves, I'll stick with a DSLR. Mirrorless cameras reportedly suck at tracking fast moving subjects. By the way: Speaking of mirrorless Pentax cameras, check out this monstrosity from 2006. Ew!!!

01-20-2012, 07:33 PM	#30
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by GibbyTheMole Since I shoot a lot of stuff that moves, I'll stick with a DSLR. Mirrorless cameras reportedly suck at tracking fast moving subjects. By the way: Speaking of mirrorless Pentax cameras, check out this monstrosity from 2006. Ew!!! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!! I'd get a mirrorless to replace my k-x. But I wouldn't get a mirrorless before I get a k-5 or equivalent.