3 ms·

>> DSLRs are quicker, sharper and have much better low light performance. Sharpness and low light performance have less to do with the type of camera you're us

>> DSLRs are quicker, sharper and have much better low light performance. Sharpness and low light performance have less to do with the type of camera you're using than the sensor and lens combination you have. DSLRs might still be faster than mirrorless for action, but for the average person, that speed difference probably isn't meaningful enough to justify the added bulk. For most people, the best camera is the one you have with you, and for most people, I highly doubt that's going to be an DSLR.

brudgers 10y ago
The camera most people have with them most of the time also makes phone calls. By the time a person brings a second camera, mirrorless and DSLR are approximately the same bulk. The photographer has something that uses a strap and perhaps a bag. The price point of mirrorless cameras suggest to me that a substantial part of what is driving them is manufacturer's desire to introduce new systems for consumer sale. The problem with point and shoot cameras (also mirrorless) is the lack of follow on lens sales to create the idea of investment. Mirrorless cameras and their lenses are almost certainly cheaper than DSLR's to produce due to smaller size of bodies and lenses and the mechanical simplicity and smaller average sensor size of bodies. Those savings are not reflected in retail prices.
- username223 10y ago
  > By the time a person brings a second camera, mirrorless and DSLR are approximately the same bulk. Not true. I use a mirrorless APS-C camera with a prime lens, and it's small enough to carry in a case on a backpack's shoulder strap while running. A DSLR would probably require a chest harness.
- ghaff 10y ago
  >Mirrorless cameras and their lenses are almost certainly cheaper than DSLR's to produce due to smaller size of bodies and lenses and the mechanical simplicity and smaller average sensor size of bodies. But you do have an electronic viewfinder and you're cramming things into less physical space--at the offsetting benefit of eliminating some moving mechanical and optical parts which have been optimized over decades. I don't have the numbers but I'm unconvinced absent evidence that mirrorless cameras are so much higher margin. The fact tht they're new systems that can't piggyback on decades of development may well play a role.
  - brudgers 10y ago
    Although mirrorless cameras are not necessarily higher margin (though I suspect that they are based on reduced size and complexity), they are potentially higher revenue because purchasing used lenses and accessories is a significantly attractive option than with 35mm systems. Less diversity of options, fewer total available units compared to say a Canon 300mm f2.8.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      Maybe. OTOH, big glass pretty much negates any advantage of mirrorless systems so (other than the effects of buying into a new system) there's less potential for add-on sales with mirrorless. But then most people don't buy many lenses anyway.
sigi45 10y ago
I was not referencing to DSLRs vs. Mirror Less but to the authors use of smartphone camera. I do know that DSLR and Mirror Less can/are often the same quality.

brudgers 10y ago

The camera most people have with them most of the time also makes phone calls. By the time a person brings a second camera, mirrorless and DSLR are approximately the same bulk. The photographer has something that uses a strap and perhaps a bag. The price point of mirrorless cameras suggest to me that a substantial part of what is driving them is manufacturer's desire to introduce new systems for consumer sale. The problem with point and shoot cameras (also mirrorless) is the lack of follow on lens sales to create the idea of investment. Mirrorless cameras and their lenses are almost certainly cheaper than DSLR's to produce due to smaller size of bodies and lenses and the mechanical simplicity and smaller average sensor size of bodies. Those savings are not reflected in retail prices.

username223 10y ago
> By the time a person brings a second camera, mirrorless and DSLR are approximately the same bulk. Not true. I use a mirrorless APS-C camera with a prime lens, and it's small enough to carry in a case on a backpack's shoulder strap while running. A DSLR would probably require a chest harness.
ghaff 10y ago
>Mirrorless cameras and their lenses are almost certainly cheaper than DSLR's to produce due to smaller size of bodies and lenses and the mechanical simplicity and smaller average sensor size of bodies. But you do have an electronic viewfinder and you're cramming things into less physical space--at the offsetting benefit of eliminating some moving mechanical and optical parts which have been optimized over decades. I don't have the numbers but I'm unconvinced absent evidence that mirrorless cameras are so much higher margin. The fact tht they're new systems that can't piggyback on decades of development may well play a role.
- brudgers 10y ago
  Although mirrorless cameras are not necessarily higher margin (though I suspect that they are based on reduced size and complexity), they are potentially higher revenue because purchasing used lenses and accessories is a significantly attractive option than with 35mm systems. Less diversity of options, fewer total available units compared to say a Canon 300mm f2.8.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Maybe. OTOH, big glass pretty much negates any advantage of mirrorless systems so (other than the effects of buying into a new system) there's less potential for add-on sales with mirrorless. But then most people don't buy many lenses anyway.

sigi45 10y ago

I was not referencing to DSLRs vs. Mirror Less but to the authors use of smartphone camera. I do know that DSLR and Mirror Less can/are often the same quality.