[LaurenOE]

Sony makes the sensors for Pentax and Nikon (and others). They can put whatever sensors in whatever electronic gizmo they want. They embrace mirrorless because they are an electronics company, and with mirrorless, they can pretty much ignore flange focal distance and make smaller cameras by the boatloads. No need to worry about mirror boxes.

So we are seeing a ton of mirrorless cameras from Sony because they can churn them out. It has less to do with the ultimate question of OVF vs. EVF and more about Sony being both a consumer electronics company and the company that makes the sensors.

[Rondec]

Vinyl has a single advantage for a very limited number of users; scratching. Is it the case with DSLRs wrt mirrorless too? This is not rhetorical, I am asking. From top of the head I see three; seeing the actual scene (if not the way it will be recorded), lower latency, better battery life.

I think the biggest thing is the presence (or absence) of glass for mirrorless cameras versus for existing SLRs. The average photographer really doesn't want to buy a camera for which the majority of glass requires an adapter to use.

The biggest benefit that companies that make mirrorless seem to advertise, is the smaller size of the cameras. But if the lenses are still decent sized (they will be unless they are slower), then some of that size advantage is eaten up. I don't know how many people are truly looking for tiny cameras -- smaller than a K-S1 and DA limited, for instance.

[cxdoo]

Nope, vinyl has more advantages. And the advantages are REAL too. Ask the vinylaholics. They can tell you all about how horrible the digital music sounds to them and how good the tonal ranges, wave accuracies and what not. Not to mention the loss of quality due to data compression when not using vinyl. Even if we do hear the difference, do us normal consumers care about that? Nope, apparently not.

Um, I am talking about real stuff, not gold plated cables and other voodoo. Vinyl is a storage medium; analog is matched by digital provided good enough sampling rate is used.
Once EVF passes the theoretical threshold for accuracy and latency I'll concede my point.


Same goes for battery life. 120 shots is not good enough when you are sightseeing. Yes, it's usable but not comfortable.

[jcdoss]

And if I want to see the "actual scene" then I just take the camera away from my face. That shows me more of the actual scene then the OVF of my camera. But for photographing, I'm many MANY times more interested in what my sensor is seeing.

Well said. If you want to look at pictures of the Grand Canyon, then you better care what your camera sees and how it records those pictures.

[Clavius]

Same goes for battery life. 120 shots is not good enough when you are sightseeing. Yes, it's usable but not comfortable.

Ah yes... Dad at the Eiffel tower, mom at the Eiffel tower, kid 1 at the Eiffel tower, kid 2, kid 3... etc... Then repeat at the next sight. You are right, then you need extra battery capacity for that. Then why can I only spot smartphones and bridgecams at such places? I feel a bridge to the rumored ~$700,- el-cheapo Sony FF here.

[jcdoss]

Am I the only one who's noticed the insignificant amount of space and effort required to carry extra batteries around? I always have a couple extras for my NEX, and I used to carry an extra for my K-30 in my pocket.

[derekkite]

Ah yes... Dad at the Eiffel tower, mom at the Eiffel tower, kid 1 at the Eiffel tower, kid 2, kid 3... etc... Then repeat at the next sight. You are right, then you need extra battery capacity for that. Then why can I only spot smartphones and bridgecams at such places? I feel a bridge to the rumored ~$700,- el-cheapo Sony FF here.

And a new iphone with a better camera disappears that market.

I'm curious whether a $700 mirrorless ff would have a usable anything. I have my doubts. Great bragging points.

[cxdoo]

Ah yes... Dad at the Eiffel tower, mom at the Eiffel tower, kid 1 at the Eiffel tower, kid 2, kid 3... etc... Then repeat at the next sight. You are right, then you need extra battery capacity for that. Then why can I only spot smartphones and bridgecams at such places? I feel a bridge to the rumored ~$700,- el-cheapo Sony FF here.

Yeah, funny how all of a sudden market demands are ridiculous when they don't work in your favor.
BTW, I don't know which Eiffel Tower you talk about; the one I visited had the highest concentration of big DSLRs (and big glass) of pretty much any landmark I've visited in last couple of years. And yes I did take 800+ banal shots there, sue me.

@jcdoss: yes, extra batteries can be pocketed. It is slightly inconvenient. Not a deal breaker but still a minus on the mirrorless side.

[kadajawi]

Nope, vinyl has more advantages. And the advantages are REAL too. Ask the vinylaholics. They can tell you all about how horrible the digital music sounds to them and how good the tonal ranges, wave accuracies and what not. Not to mention the loss of quality due to data compression when not using vinyl. Even if we do hear the difference, do us normal consumers care about that? Nope, apparently not.

In my case the same goes for that battery life. The 'Only' ~120 shots on a battery of my A7r is less then the ~800 of my K-5. It's a real difference, but I don't give a hoot because it's still more then I'll ever need to shoot on a single battery.

Same goes for VF latency. Sure, in some conditions I see some latency. Especially when I'm panning hard for example. I just don't care. It's still showing me live DOF preview whilst continuously autofocussing during that panning. (Is that why I need less shots maybe?)

And if I want to see the "actual scene" then I just take the camera away from my face. That shows me more of the actual scene then the OVF of my camera. But for photographing, I'm many MANY times more interested in what my sensor is seeing.

I'm sorry, but that's bull. I consider myself a bit of an audio enthusiast, and vinyl has one big advantage. It's crap. Let me elaborate: It has a pretty limited dynamic range (the needle would jump if it's too great), which ironically leads to a greater dynamic range because the sound engineer can't make it as loud as possible. Also, as of now it's the format of choice by audiophiles, which means vinyls are engineered with those customers in mind. Best possible sound quality. You could do the same to CDs, or digital downloads, but those are meant for average consumers who just want LOUD (or so bands and producers believe). The problem is that when you hear 2 songs, you'll probably like the one that's a bit louder more. Louder is better. So since CDs have a big dynamic range without any jumping needle they pushed it as far as possible. But since everyone pushed it THAT far, they wanted to push it even further... and further... and further. Which leads to absolutely awful sound quality.


I have some Red Hot Chili Peppers albums (Californication for example) in several versions. The original CD and a high quality rip of the vinyl version. The vinyl version sounds much better, despite the crackling and other noises, because it is mixed better. I also have an early mix from the studio, before Rick Rubin f***ed up the mix. It is MUCH better than either version, despite being a CD.


People who listen to vinyl simply have great sound systems, and vinyl is a bit of a celebration of music. You've got huge cover artwork, you have to clean the record before putting it on the player, it's just a lot of effort to get it right, which makes you value the product more. A CD is _technically_ better. There are also SACD and DVD Audios... improvements on the CD, though not significant IMHO. They sound a lot better though (even when you copy them onto a CD), because they were meant for an audiophile market. They were produced for someone who has a high quality sound system and cares about sound quality.


As for compression: It depends on the compression. There is lossless compression, which is, well, lossless. As good as uncompressed. And there are some pretty good formats (MP3 not so much) and encoders which, at high enough bit rates sound just like the original. Unless you have a "weird" ear. Lossy compression works by leaving away what humans don't hear in the first place. If you try to get too small files, it has to leave away too much stuff/tries to bring it back artificially, and that sounds bad. But at high enough bit rates... The problem is not everyone works the same way, so if your ear is able to hear exactly those things that others don't, then you'll notice. Imagine having eyes that see infrared light. Photographs won't be able to come close to what reality looks like for you. And you can train yourself to hear the artefacts that digital compression can produce. But again, at good enough quality, with good enough encoders and bit rates, it becomes transparent. You can AB test it on a good sound system, and you still can't differentiate.


120 shots on a battery is not enough. Oh my god is it not enough. I can go through that with 2 interior photos (HDR panoramas).


@Rondec: But that situation is turning around. One day there'll be more glass for mirrorless than for DSLRs... at least new glass.


I don't need a tiny camera, but one that, all in all, body + lens, takes up less space and has the weight more around the center. I can hold a 50 1.8 much more steady than a 18-55 at 50mm. Not sure why exactly, but it works for me. The problem is that most camera makers, when they make a mirrorless one, aim for the smallest possible camera, sacrificing usability in the process. I want something that is usable like a DSLR, just as a whole smaller and lighter than DSLRs. More flexible, and with a bigger and sharper screen (i.e. EVF). More useful info on the screen too. And to be able to use the screen while recording video.


I wouldn't compare vinyl with DSLRs... if anything, vinyl is film. An analog medium that has certain characteristics that people find pleasant (though IMHO film can be better in terms of quality than digital, vinyl can't. That vinyl sounds better than CDs and downloads only shows how badly they are mixed. Think badly done HDRs). Whether you shoot mirrorless or DSLR doesn't make a difference on the end result.


Btw., am I the only one who wants a USB power input in my camera? i.e. being able to charge the battery via USB, especially while using the camera. Imagine shooting star trails at night... the battery dies. Changing it ruins the picture. But if you can simply keep the camera running via external USB battery? Even if that dies, the internal battery will be charged enough for you to switch the external battery without interruption. I am already really enjoying the external battery charger that can take USB power sources...

[LensBeginner]

Ah yes... Dad at the Eiffel tower, mom at the Eiffel tower, kid 1 at the Eiffel tower, kid 2, kid 3... etc... Then repeat at the next sight. You are right, then you need extra battery capacity for that. Then why can I only spot smartphones and bridgecams at such places? I feel a bridge to the rumored ~$700,- el-cheapo Sony FF here.

I do sightseeing snapshots from time to time, but they seldom are "dad et al. at the Eiffel Tower"...
By the way, if I'm sightseeing and I see something that could be a good subject for a proper photo, I want to have the proper equipment with me.
Average Joes & Janes can't distinguish between a picture taken with a smartphone and one taken with a proper camera, even if at night, so quality is obviously not a concern for them.

[BrianR]

Btw., am I the only one who wants a USB power input in my camera? i.e. being able to charge the battery via USB, especially while using the camera. Imagine shooting star trails at night... the battery dies. Changing it ruins the picture. But if you can simply keep the camera running via external USB battery? Even if that dies, the internal battery will be charged enough for you to switch the external battery without interruption. I am already really enjoying the external battery charger that can take USB power sources...

Some models have a "DC in" slot that you can hook an external battery up to, DIY Power Supply for Pentax K5 DSLR . I think the USB voltage is too low to power the camera, but some of the portable chargers also have higher voltage DC out ports, like this one. I'm not sure if there's an 'off the shelf' option for pentax though.

[philbaum]

I think the biggest thing is the presence (or absence) of glass for mirrorless cameras versus for existing SLRs. The average photographer really doesn't want to buy a camera for which the majority of glass requires an adapter to use.

The biggest benefit that companies that make mirrorless seem to advertise, is the smaller size of the cameras. But if the lenses are still decent sized (they will be unless they are slower), then some of that size advantage is eaten up. I don't know how many people are truly looking for tiny cameras -- smaller than a K-S1 and DA limited, for instance.

I've had some doubts about the glass issue as well, but was very encouraged recently to see that Sony has scheduled 2 of their FE zooms for remakes - i think they are taking criticism of their early lenses to heart. The ability to use legacy manual lenses mean that i can buy a single AF standard zoom to start with - and then use manual focused lenses for other applications. So one can upgrade slowly. IIRC, in Sony's 2015 Lens Roadmap, they will have 20 native lenses.

The A7II now weighs in at 600gm while the k3 weighs 800gm. The A7's are slightly smaller than the K3 and the D7100, i know because i compared the K3 and A7S on a table together :-)

I'm not looking for a tiny camera, but i do like the size of a K3 and a FF camera that is K3 sized is much more appealing to me than the bulk of a Canikon camera, especially considering the advantages that Sony IBIS offers to legacy lenses. I'm going to rent one of the A7 models, not sure which one yet.

As to the premise of this thread - are SLRs dying - who cares? Those of us who have tried mirrorless, don't need anyone at this point to validate that decision :-)

[kadajawi]

I've had some doubts about the glass issue as well, but was very encouraged recently to see that Sony has scheduled 2 of their FE zooms for remakes - i think they are taking criticism of their early lenses to heart. The ability to use legacy manual lenses mean that i can buy a single AF standard zoom to start with - and then use manual focused lenses for other applications. So one can upgrade slowly. IIRC, in Sony's 2015 Lens Roadmap, they will have 20 native lenses.

The A7II now weighs in at 600gm while the k3 weighs 800gm. The A7's are slightly smaller than the K3 and the D7100, i know because i compared the K3 and A7II on a table together :-)

I'm not looking for a tiny camera, but i do like the size of a K3 and a FF camera that is K3 sized is much more appealing to me than the bulk of a Canikon camera, especially considering the advantages that Sony IBIS offers to legacy lenses. I'm going to rent one of the A7 models, not sure which one yet.

As to the premise of this thread - are SLRs dying - who cares? Those of us who have tried mirrorless, don't need anyone at this point to validate that decision :-)

The A7 II I suppose? The others don't have IBIS.

The DC input is not nearly as convenient as a USB input. And while the camera may sometimes need more power, the USB input would be used to charge the battery consistently. The camera itself runs off the internal battery.

I also have a two port USB charger, and there are some with 4 and more. When traveling you just need to bring one of those, no small charger you can loose, and you can charge the camera and your phone, tablet, ...

Or you just charge your camera at the end of the day by plugging it into the computer... And at the same time the files are transferred.

As an additional bit of convenience it would be great.

[LensBeginner]

I'm sorry, but that's bull. I consider myself a bit of an audio enthusiast *snip*

Post of the Year Nomination, at least for the "audio" part.

[Timichango]

Sony makes the sensors for Pentax and Nikon (and others). They can put whatever sensors in whatever electronic gizmo they want. They embrace mirrorless because they are an electronics company, and with mirrorless, they can pretty much ignore flange focal distance and make smaller cameras by the boatloads. No need to worry about mirror boxes.

So we are seeing a ton of mirrorless cameras from Sony because they can churn them out. It has less to do with the ultimate question of OVF vs. EVF and more about Sony being both a consumer electronics company and the company that makes the sensors.

Stated as if Sony is the only player in the mirrorless game? Olympus and Fuji are photography companies, and it shows in their cameras and their glass (and in their rate of expansion and adoption).

Sony's only claim to fame in the mirrorless space is that they're the only one currently doing FF mirrorless — but adopters of the other major mILC systems don't seem to care too much.