5 ms·

Mirrorless is going to completely kill DSLR? Really? I need to do some serious soul-searching before I continue buying DSLR equipment, assuming this is true. M

Mirrorless is going to completely kill DSLR? Really? I need to do some serious soul-searching before I continue buying DSLR equipment, assuming this is true. More research needed.

bennesvig 10y ago
Definitely for video.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  Agreed. I've read some great reviews of mirrorless cameras, but they always seemed a bit fan-boyish -- and I don't want to invest in gear simply because it's something all the cool kids are doing. All I care about is the art, and I understand that there's always going to be trade-offs. Quite frankly, the main attraction to me right now with mirrorless cameras is the incredibly high ISO I'm seeing. But since photography is a long-term hobby, and since I don't go out and buy the new stuff simply because it's the new stuff, I figured the DSLR guys will be along in a few years with just as good sensitivity only it'll work with all of my other stuff, right? I have no problem shooting with a cell phone if I think I've got a good shot. The problem is when I gear up and specifically go out to try and get something. At that point, what does mirrorless really get me? (assuming the DSLR bodies catch up over the next few years) I'm already hauling stuff. I'm thinking the mirror itself is a nit either way at that point. Like I said, I need to keep an eye on this. The field is evolving quickly.
  - brudgers 10y ago
    One of the potential art side technical differences is vibration from mirror slap. Though many DSLR's offer mirror lockup or live view shooting, mirrorless systems do eliminate it completely from the process.
    - frankchn 10y ago
      I don't think that's entire true, since both mirrorless and DSLR live-view still suffer from shutter slap unless you enable electronic first-curtain shooting, which may or may not degrade image quality a bit.
      - brudgers 10y ago
        I mentioned "mirror slap". Sorry for not being clear.
ghaff 10y ago
As with many things, it depends. I have a fairly large Canon EOS system that I use with my 5D mk3. It's great. Extremely responsive, bright viewfinder, and nice long teles. It's absolutely my go to choice for sports, concerts, poorly lit speaking events, and wildlife. That said, for my typical trip I take my Fujifilm gear because it's so much lighter and more compact. I just wish they'd do an X-E3. I'm not going to get rid of my DSLR gear because I do use it but I know people who have.
petepete 10y ago
The three main things holding mirrorless back (slow evf, slower af and battery life) will all improve drastically over the next few years. DSLRs won't be overtaken in those areas for a while, but mirrorless is the future in my opinion.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  So looking at this over a 5-10 year period and not just about today's specs, what's to keep a manufacturer like Canon or Nikon from building a mirrorless body that continues to work with all of their existing gear? If I were them and that's where I thought the market was going, that's what I'd do.
  - slantyyz 10y ago
    >> what's to keep a manufacturer like Canon or Nikon from building a mirrorless body that continues to work with all of their existing gear? Old school management thinking. The most common speculation as to why Canon and Nikon are behind in mirrorless is that they're afraid of cannibalizing their DSLR product lines.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      The bigger thing is that, if taking advantage of a mirrorless format requires a new lens form factor, that means that Canon and Nikon effectively eliminate a huge lock-in to their system. As soon as you've said you have to start over again (Maybe with some kludgy options for existing high end telephoto glass) you've basically eliminated whatever advantage you may have as an incumbent. It's as if Microsoft introduced a great new operating system that couldn't run any existing applications. (This has been done in various ways like Apple with Intel but it's hugely painful.)
  - petepete 10y ago
    When that happens, I'll buy one. There are some difficulties with the distance between the sensor and lens (flange distance) being so different between DSLR and mirrorless but surely there will be a sensible solution at some point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
monk_e_boy 10y ago
Removing the mirror and pentaprism makes the mirrorless camera smaller and cheaper. The digital viewfinder shows you exactly what the sensor is seeing, so you have a better idea of what the final image will look like. They focus better during video. I think there are also some technical details on how the auto focus points work better mirrorless and the depth of field in the viewfinder is more accurate. I think DSLRs hold the apature wide open when you look through the view finder, then stop it down when you take the photo -- this keeps the view finder bright but effects the depth of field. Not 100% sure on this though. But a SLR or DSLR with a bright 100% view finder is a thing of beauty. So big and crisp and clear.
slantyyz 10y ago
>> I need to do some serious soul-searching before I continue buying DSLR equipment, assuming this is true. More research needed. Not really. If your photographic needs are satisfied with DSLR equipment, why worry about it? Don't change for the sake of change.
tristor 10y ago
I have both, I've switched completely back to DSLR. Why? Ergonomics. The primary advantage of mirrorless cameras is the smaller weight and size, but if you do extended photo sessions you'll soon find the weight difference doesn't really matter and the smaller size of a mirrorless is actually a disadvantage. There's a very real reason professional DSLR bodies are massive with defined grips, it's because your hand can start to cramp or it can otherwise be uncomfortable to stay in position for a long time waiting on a shot if you have a small body or poor grip angles. When doing wildlife photography and insect photography this becomes incredibly obvious because both require patience since you can't control your subject. At this point I either go out the door with my DSLR kit or I stick to my phone. A phone camera is very good these days and can even shoot in RAW with manual adjustments for everything but aperture. When I need to specifically do distance or macro photos, nothing beats a full sized DSLR on ergonomics. I love the Sony tech, but unless they end up building an optional grip systems for their bodies I doubt I will ever attempt mirrorless again.
- simonsarris 10y ago
  Huh, I greatly prefer the ergonomics of the Fuji XT-1/2 over the Pentax and Nikon DSLRs I've owned. It may depend on the kind of photography you're doing too. For street photography and hiking I'd never go back to DSLR. They are simply bulky and (for street) do not look nearly as friendly.
  - frankchn 10y ago
    I agree for street and some kinds of landscape photography that the more compact mirrorless bodies have an ergonomic advantage. However, for things like sports, events, and weddings, where you are carrying the pro f/2.8 zooms (which are about the same size and weight whether it is on Sony or Canikon) on multiple bodies, I find that the well-defined grips and balanced handling of the Canikon pro bodies (and the OVF rather than the EVF) are less fatiguing personally.
brudgers 10y ago
For the foreseeable future, I suspect there will be a professional market for DSLR's because that's where the glass is. So long as that market exists, there is an incentive to produce consumer level DSLR's because selling upgrades to consumers is a major source of revenue. I mean, weather sealing a camera is about $1.00 worth of gaskets. A 100% FOV viewfinder is another $1.00. And a second dial is a third dollar. Selling cameras without those feature means people miss shots because it might rain and screw up shots because they forgot to set the aperture/shutter/sensitivity and wind up with great photos except for the random 'compositional noise' creeping in from the frame edges.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
simonsarris 10y ago
I switched fully to mirrorless in 2013, long before they were really "ready" (or good enough to use). At first it was just for the fun of trying new tech and having a "more compact" that's still APS-C. The advantages were just too much and for hiking and street photography it felt much more comfortable to use a film-camera-sized (and lookalike). I eventually sold off my nikon gear. The XT-2: Dedicated aperture dial, ISO dial, shutter speed dial. Compact, looks more friendly to onlookers (can be important if you shoot street photography). I like the ergonomics of them a lot (esp compared to the Fuji E-series, which is not so good). If you enjoy shooting film, it has a very similar feel.

Mirrorless is going to completely kill DSLR? Really? I need to do some serious soul-searching before I continue buying DSLR equipment, assuming this is true. More research needed.

bennesvig 10y ago

Definitely for video.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Agreed. I've read some great reviews of mirrorless cameras, but they always seemed a bit fan-boyish -- and I don't want to invest in gear simply because it's something all the cool kids are doing. All I care about is the art, and I understand that there's always going to be trade-offs. Quite frankly, the main attraction to me right now with mirrorless cameras is the incredibly high ISO I'm seeing. But since photography is a long-term hobby, and since I don't go out and buy the new stuff simply because it's the new stuff, I figured the DSLR guys will be along in a few years with just as good sensitivity only it'll work with all of my other stuff, right? I have no problem shooting with a cell phone if I think I've got a good shot. The problem is when I gear up and specifically go out to try and get something. At that point, what does mirrorless really get me? (assuming the DSLR bodies catch up over the next few years) I'm already hauling stuff. I'm thinking the mirror itself is a nit either way at that point. Like I said, I need to keep an eye on this. The field is evolving quickly.
- brudgers 10y ago
  One of the potential art side technical differences is vibration from mirror slap. Though many DSLR's offer mirror lockup or live view shooting, mirrorless systems do eliminate it completely from the process.
  - frankchn 10y ago
    I don't think that's entire true, since both mirrorless and DSLR live-view still suffer from shutter slap unless you enable electronic first-curtain shooting, which may or may not degrade image quality a bit.
    - brudgers 10y ago
      I mentioned "mirror slap". Sorry for not being clear.

ghaff 10y ago

As with many things, it depends. I have a fairly large Canon EOS system that I use with my 5D mk3. It's great. Extremely responsive, bright viewfinder, and nice long teles. It's absolutely my go to choice for sports, concerts, poorly lit speaking events, and wildlife. That said, for my typical trip I take my Fujifilm gear because it's so much lighter and more compact. I just wish they'd do an X-E3. I'm not going to get rid of my DSLR gear because I do use it but I know people who have.

petepete 10y ago

The three main things holding mirrorless back (slow evf, slower af and battery life) will all improve drastically over the next few years. DSLRs won't be overtaken in those areas for a while, but mirrorless is the future in my opinion.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
So looking at this over a 5-10 year period and not just about today's specs, what's to keep a manufacturer like Canon or Nikon from building a mirrorless body that continues to work with all of their existing gear? If I were them and that's where I thought the market was going, that's what I'd do.
- slantyyz 10y ago
  >> what's to keep a manufacturer like Canon or Nikon from building a mirrorless body that continues to work with all of their existing gear? Old school management thinking. The most common speculation as to why Canon and Nikon are behind in mirrorless is that they're afraid of cannibalizing their DSLR product lines.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    The bigger thing is that, if taking advantage of a mirrorless format requires a new lens form factor, that means that Canon and Nikon effectively eliminate a huge lock-in to their system. As soon as you've said you have to start over again (Maybe with some kludgy options for existing high end telephoto glass) you've basically eliminated whatever advantage you may have as an incumbent. It's as if Microsoft introduced a great new operating system that couldn't run any existing applications. (This has been done in various ways like Apple with Intel but it's hugely painful.)
- petepete 10y ago
  When that happens, I'll buy one. There are some difficulties with the distance between the sensor and lens (flange distance) being so different between DSLR and mirrorless but surely there will be a sensible solution at some point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

monk_e_boy 10y ago

Removing the mirror and pentaprism makes the mirrorless camera smaller and cheaper. The digital viewfinder shows you exactly what the sensor is seeing, so you have a better idea of what the final image will look like. They focus better during video. I think there are also some technical details on how the auto focus points work better mirrorless and the depth of field in the viewfinder is more accurate. I think DSLRs hold the apature wide open when you look through the view finder, then stop it down when you take the photo -- this keeps the view finder bright but effects the depth of field. Not 100% sure on this though. But a SLR or DSLR with a bright 100% view finder is a thing of beauty. So big and crisp and clear.

slantyyz 10y ago

>> I need to do some serious soul-searching before I continue buying DSLR equipment, assuming this is true. More research needed. Not really. If your photographic needs are satisfied with DSLR equipment, why worry about it? Don't change for the sake of change.

tristor 10y ago

I have both, I've switched completely back to DSLR. Why? Ergonomics. The primary advantage of mirrorless cameras is the smaller weight and size, but if you do extended photo sessions you'll soon find the weight difference doesn't really matter and the smaller size of a mirrorless is actually a disadvantage. There's a very real reason professional DSLR bodies are massive with defined grips, it's because your hand can start to cramp or it can otherwise be uncomfortable to stay in position for a long time waiting on a shot if you have a small body or poor grip angles. When doing wildlife photography and insect photography this becomes incredibly obvious because both require patience since you can't control your subject. At this point I either go out the door with my DSLR kit or I stick to my phone. A phone camera is very good these days and can even shoot in RAW with manual adjustments for everything but aperture. When I need to specifically do distance or macro photos, nothing beats a full sized DSLR on ergonomics. I love the Sony tech, but unless they end up building an optional grip systems for their bodies I doubt I will ever attempt mirrorless again.

simonsarris 10y ago
Huh, I greatly prefer the ergonomics of the Fuji XT-1/2 over the Pentax and Nikon DSLRs I've owned. It may depend on the kind of photography you're doing too. For street photography and hiking I'd never go back to DSLR. They are simply bulky and (for street) do not look nearly as friendly.
- frankchn 10y ago
  I agree for street and some kinds of landscape photography that the more compact mirrorless bodies have an ergonomic advantage. However, for things like sports, events, and weddings, where you are carrying the pro f/2.8 zooms (which are about the same size and weight whether it is on Sony or Canikon) on multiple bodies, I find that the well-defined grips and balanced handling of the Canikon pro bodies (and the OVF rather than the EVF) are less fatiguing personally.

brudgers 10y ago

For the foreseeable future, I suspect there will be a professional market for DSLR's because that's where the glass is. So long as that market exists, there is an incentive to produce consumer level DSLR's because selling upgrades to consumers is a major source of revenue. I mean, weather sealing a camera is about $1.00 worth of gaskets. A 100% FOV viewfinder is another $1.00. And a second dial is a third dollar. Selling cameras without those feature means people miss shots because it might rain and screw up shots because they forgot to set the aperture/shutter/sensitivity and wind up with great photos except for the random 'compositional noise' creeping in from the frame edges.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

simonsarris 10y ago

I switched fully to mirrorless in 2013, long before they were really "ready" (or good enough to use). At first it was just for the fun of trying new tech and having a "more compact" that's still APS-C. The advantages were just too much and for hiking and street photography it felt much more comfortable to use a film-camera-sized (and lookalike). I eventually sold off my nikon gear. The XT-2: Dedicated aperture dial, ISO dial, shutter speed dial. Compact, looks more friendly to onlookers (can be important if you shoot street photography). I like the ergonomics of them a lot (esp compared to the Fuji E-series, which is not so good). If you enjoy shooting film, it has a very similar feel.