[séamuis]

Mirrorless doesn't mean that you can use the LCD for composing. Anything that is not an SLR is technically a mirrorless camera.

dont TLR’s have mirrors?

[RioRico]

dont TLR’s have mirrors?

Darn, I was just about to mention that.
Anything named REFLEX contains a mirror.
RF's have mirrors too, as do many box.cams.
I think EVIL is a perfectly appropriate label.
Those without EVs? Call then OVILs, Ok?
New camera breeds require new names.
I await the Sensor-On-a-Stick (SOS).

[RioRico]

While many cameras have mirrors somewhere, i think people mean mirrorless to refer to the fact that they have no mirror behimd the taking lens.

Really, the whole system of nomenclature for new cameras needs an overhaul, and such naming is currently evolving. Nothing new there. We can force-fit many realities into just a few names. Thus, many cameras are called SLR regardless if their finders use fixed or interchangeable pentaprisms, porroprisms, pentamirrors, ground-glass; and whether or not lenses are interchangeable; and whatever their frame format. Y'all ought to see pre-WW1-era 4x5in SLRs! Be glad they've shrunk down to Rebel size!

And rangefinders -- are they limited to cams with coupled RF's, or do the uncoupled qualify? How about an SLR-RF? The most prominent of these was the Polaroid SX-70, a folding fixed-lens SLR with a sonar RF autofocus kit and a split-image RF prism. If 'true' RFs are only those with a mechanically-coupled mirror system, then they're now as obsolete as the uncoupled RFs.

So, what are some possibilities? Cameras may have fixed or interchangeable lenses and VFs; may have a variety of MF/AF systems; may have quite varied frame sizes, or as with the GXR, the possibility of interchangeable frames! Sorting out comprehensible names for all these will be fun, eh? Maybe we need a contest. Or a poll. Yet another poll...

[séamuis]

but id still consider an M a "mirrorless" camera.

id consider it a rangefinder, because its important to keep in mind that the rangefinder is how you focus and compose. while a ‘mirrorless’ as the term has been coined to describe, almost always has no optical viewfinder. the ‘mirror’ aspect is describing a part of the viewing and focusing mechanism, thus a camera without a mirror or optical viewfinder at all would be certainly ‘mirrorless’ but a rangefinder is a rangefinder because it has a rangefinder. thus it should not be dubbed ‘mirrorless’ in terms of its focusing mechanism. I also agree that EVIL is the most appropriate, because it accurately describes the focusing mechanism, like all the other common names and acronyms do for their systems. lumping a rangefinder in with mirrorless is just confusing things more than they already are really.

[Christine Tham]

Me and my friend have been using MILF (!): "Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Format" :-)

[Christine Tham]

And here's a photo of me using the M9 - I really did not like this camera, even though the image quality (at base ISO) is really, really good (okay, pretty incredible). I think my NEX-5N is a much better camera (for me - a lot easier to manual focus using a combination of focus peaking and zoom):

[unixrevolution]

Really, the whole system of nomenclature for new cameras needs an overhaul, and such naming is currently evolving. Nothing new there. We can force-fit many realities into just a few names. Thus, many cameras are called SLR regardless if their finders use fixed or interchangeable pentaprisms, porroprisms, pentamirrors, ground-glass; and whether or not lenses are interchangeable; and whatever their frame format. Y'all ought to see pre-WW1-era 4x5in SLRs! Be glad they've shrunk down to Rebel size!

And rangefinders -- are they limited to cams with coupled RF's, or do the uncoupled qualify? How about an SLR-RF? The most prominent of these was the Polaroid SX-70, a folding fixed-lens SLR with a sonar RF autofocus kit and a split-image RF prism. If 'true' RFs are only those with a mechanically-coupled mirror system, then they're now as obsolete as the uncoupled RFs.

So, what are some possibilities? Cameras may have fixed or interchangeable lenses and VFs; may have a variety of MF/AF systems; may have quite varied frame sizes, or as with the GXR, the possibility of interchangeable frames! Sorting out comprehensible names for all these will be fun, eh? Maybe we need a contest. Or a poll. Yet another poll...

Since you're so keen to pigeonhole everything into as few categories as possible, how about we just call them all cameras?

I personally think there's value in differentiating as much as possible, and to that end, creating new categories. As for the Sony NEX/Olympus EP1 type camera, I agree that EVIL is the best acronym. You have an electronic view finding mechanism (wether it's a hooded EVF or an LCD screen), and the camera is interchangeable lens. Calling it a mirrorless doesn't say much about it.

And the term Rangefinder should apply to cameras with a mechanical rangefinder, or those that use a similar principle to determine range to subject, then set the lens based on that range. Cameras that focus based on contrast or phase detection AF are not rangefinders because they are not calculating the actual distance to the subject. A Split-image in an SLR's prism isn't a rangefinder because it doesn't correlate a specific focus to an actual distance in any meaningful way; IE, the camera has no idea how far the subject is, and if the lens barrel has no distance scale, neither do you.

I have a spreadsheet of my own collection I've been amassing and the variety of cameras is staggering, but it's a good thing because you know with as few words as possible how a camera operates...and sometimes the camera's method of operation is very important.

id consider it a rangefinder, because its important to keep in mind that the rangefinder is how you focus and compose. while a ‘mirrorless’ as the term has been coined to describe, almost always has no optical viewfinder. the ‘mirror’ aspect is describing a part of the viewing and focusing mechanism, thus a camera without a mirror or optical viewfinder at all would be certainly ‘mirrorless’ but a rangefinder is a rangefinder because it has a rangefinder. thus it should not be dubbed ‘mirrorless’ in terms of its focusing mechanism. I also agree that EVIL is the most appropriate, because it accurately describes the focusing mechanism, like all the other common names and acronyms do for their systems. lumping a rangefinder in with mirrorless is just confusing things more than they already are really.

I wasn't lumping a rangefinder in with mirrorless cameras...I was just saying, in a slightly subtle, possibly confusing way, that the term "Mirrorless" is horribly vague and uninformative.

It'd be like calling all cameras that don't take roll film "non-roll" cameras. That'd include packfilm, sheet film, plates, discs, and of course digitals...it's just silly.

And here's a photo of me using the M9 - I really did not like this camera, even though the image quality (at base ISO) is really, really good (okay, pretty incredible). I think my NEX-5N is a much better camera (for me - a lot easier to manual focus using a combination of focus peaking and zoom):

Since the M9 is so horrible, I'll do the charitable thing and take it off your hands, saving you from having to use such a backward, unfriendly piece of equipment.

[RioRico]

Since you're so keen to pigeonhole everything into as few categories as possible, how about we just call them all cameras?

That's about the ultimate in taxonomic conservatism. In botanical taxonomy, those who lump subspecies together are 'conservatives' and those who divide them into further subspecies and varieties are 'liberals'. The ultimate conservatism there would be to just all them all 'plants' and be done with it. Oops, can't tell a rose from rosemary then.

Back to cameras: I like many categories with comprehensible descriptions. So my trusty Yashica GSN Electro 35 and Petri 7S's and Olympus XA and Kodak Signet 35 are all RFF (rangefinders, fixed lens) and my Universal Mercury II CX half-frame and Argus C3's (The Bricks!) and old FED-5 are all RFI (rangefinders, interchangeable lens) in my database.

TLR's cover a wide range from interchangeable-lens Mamiyas (I haven't any) through my Minolta Autocord and Argoflex-E and old YashicaMat 125g with full manual controls, down to the Ansco Panda and Anscoflex and Kodak Twin 20 which are essentially P&S's. Maybe those should be )respectively) TLRI and TLRM and TLRP? My mind is boggling.

Camera nomenclature will sort out. Whether we understand the names that evolve is another matter. When does a P&S become a Compact? What's the difference between a vidcam that takes stills and a stillcam that shoot video? Some P&S digicams have two taking lenses -- are they TLP's? What's the size limit on a spycam? Et cetera.

Meanwhile, 'mirrorless' is as good (or bad) a name as any for cams lacking reflex action. MILC or EVIL or OVIL or CYCLOPS, whatever.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I wasn't lumping a rangefinder in with mirrorless cameras...I was just saying, in a slightly subtle, possibly confusing way, that the term "Mirrorless" is horribly vague and uninformative.

+1. Rangefinder, SLR, TLR, EVIL - these are terms that describe some characteristic of the respective cameras. Mirrorless is describing what the camera doesn't have instead of describing what it has.

[RioRico]

+1. Rangefinder, SLR, TLR, EVIL - these are terms that describe some characteristic of the respective cameras. Mirrorless is describing what the camera doesn't have instead of describing what it has.

OK, what are the common features of these advanced fairly-compact imaging systems?

* Interchangeable lenses
* Digital sensor
* LCD screen
* Maybe EVF, or OVF, or no VF except the LCD screen

Except for the VF, those are exactly what's inside a dSLR, everything but... the mirror. So what common name can distinguish the New Breed from a dSLR or a P&S?

* EVIL, or OVIL, or NVIL if lacking a VF -- no; no commonality
* CILC - compact interchangeable-lens camera -- that'll do
* CILIS - CIL imaging system -- now we're getting clumsy
* CILIA - CILI appliance -- hey, it's almost microbial!

And if we consider the GXR and whether it will spawn imitators, we have yet another class of CILC's, those with interchangeable mounts+sensors (mountors). It becomes:

* CILIMIS - compact interchangeable lens interchangeable mountor imaging system

Or Silly-Me's in spoken Anglish. Oh yeah, that'll go over about as well as EVIL. Somebody had better shoot me before I come up with any more of these. Mercy!!

[unixrevolution]

OK, what are the common features of these advanced fairly-compact imaging systems?

* Interchangeable lenses
* Digital sensor
* LCD screen
* Maybe EVF, or OVF, or no VF except the LCD screen

Except for the VF, those are exactly what's inside a dSLR, everything but... the mirror. So what common name can distinguish the New Breed from a dSLR or a P&S?

* EVIL, or OVIL, or NVIL if lacking a VF -- no; no commonality
* CILC - compact interchangeable-lens camera -- that'll do
* CILIS - CIL imaging system -- now we're getting clumsy
* CILIA - CILI appliance -- hey, it's almost microbial!

And if we consider the GXR and whether it will spawn imitators, we have yet another class of CILC's, those with interchangeable mounts+sensors (mountors). It becomes:

* CILIMIS - compact interchangeable lens interchangeable mountor imaging system

Or Silly-Me's in spoken Anglish. Oh yeah, that'll go over about as well as EVIL. Somebody had better shoot me before I come up with any more of these. Mercy!!

I always took the EV in EVIL to mean "An electronic screen displaying the camera's live view" rather than specifically meaning a hooded, eye-level EVF. I mean, I always thought the EP-1 was an EVIL and it's finder is external and optional. How about:

ILLVC: Interchangeable Lens Live View Camera?

NRNRFC: Non-reflex, Non-rangefinder camera?

TTLFCNRC: Through-the-lens Focus and composition non-reflex camera?

EVIL is better.

Actually, I have a really good one here:

EVC: Electronic View Camera. Since you're essentially looking directly at the image from the lens, it's like a view camera in that regard, except you're seeing the sensor's live view, rather than an image on ground glass.

[séamuis]

EVC: Electronic View Camera. Since you're essentially looking directly at the image from the lens, it's like a view camera in that regard, except you're seeing the sensor's live view, rather than an image on ground glass.
__________________

you may be onto something there.

[RioRico]

EVC: Electronic View Camera. Since you're essentially looking directly at the image from the lens, it's like a view camera in that regard, except you're seeing the sensor's live view, rather than an image on ground glass.

All my P&S digicams are EVCs then because they all have LiveView, even the most ancient. To distinguish the lens-swappable ones, call them interchangeable-lens electronic-view cameras, IL-EVCs. Yeah, right. That that fast three times.

But dSLRs with LiveView are also IL-EVCs. Oh bother. Maybe (compact) CEVC for non-reflex? No, LiveView alone doesn't set these apart. What really distinguishes these is, they aren't reflex. They're mirrorless. MIRRORLESS! We can't avoid that.

[Christine Tham]

Since the M9 is so horrible, I'll do the charitable thing and take it off your hands, saving you from having to use such a backward, unfriendly piece of equipment.

Sorry, it's already gone.

I wouldn't go as far to say that it's "backward, unfriendly", but be aware of some quirks if you buy one:
- the sensor is quite noisy - at ISO above 1000 requires post processing, ISO above 2000 is not really usable IMHO
- exposure metering can be problematic - found myself using exp compensation more often than on other cameras
- focusing can be a real issue in low light - coupled with noisy sensor the camera can be challenging in those conditions
- the battery drains relatively quickly, and the camera is prone to crashing and corrupted my memory card once - had to switch to a different card (and a new battery) to continue the shoot - luckily I was able to recover most of the contents but lost a few frames
- because the camera has only one dial, exp compensation and ISO adjustment can be fiddly

None of the above are show stoppers, but irritated me enough. Especially given the price of the body.

[unixrevolution]

All my P&S digicams are EVCs then because they all have LiveView, even the most ancient. To distinguish the lens-swappable ones, call them interchangeable-lens electronic-view cameras, IL-EVCs. Yeah, right. That that fast three times.

But dSLRs with LiveView are also IL-EVCs. Oh bother. Maybe (compact) CEVC for non-reflex? No, LiveView alone doesn't set these apart. What really distinguishes these is, they aren't reflex. They're mirrorless. MIRRORLESS! We can't avoid that.

The ability to use live-view doesn't make a camera an EVC. I can use my DSLR with a manual lens by estimating distance and setting the distance on the lens. Does that make it scale focus?

And frankly, I think the fact that most P&S digicams use live-view to be irritatingly unfair.