5 ms·

It's because SLRs are superior to mirrorless, since there are no advantages of a mirrorless camera over SLR tech. SLRs don't have the latency that mirrorless c

It's because SLRs are superior to mirrorless, since there are no advantages of a mirrorless camera over SLR tech. SLRs don't have the latency that mirrorless cameras have, which is important for sports & journalism. If you're shooting still-life, then mirrorless is probably fine. SLRs also have better phase-detect AF sensors available to them. Mirrorless phase-detect sensors are primitive, and eat up image sensor area, so they can't be as sensitive. Also, mirrorless eats up batteries, since you now have to power the sensor and viewfinder full-time. Really, companies need to stop making mirrorless cameras, since they're not useful. I don't know why anyone would buy them.

ygra 9y ago
> Companies need to stop making mirrorless cameras, since they're not useful. They sell, so they appear to be useful to people. Just maybe not to you.
shawnz 9y ago
> there are no advantages of a mirrorless camera over SLR tech. Here are a few I can think of. - Less moving parts, so increased reliability. - Possibility of faster shutter time (assuming the autofocus issues with mirrorless can be resolved). - No high precision SLR mechanism means more engineering budget to spend on better sensors, etc. Thus producing a better camera at the same price. - Viewfinder shows a truer representation of the final image since it's reading from the same data as what will ultimately be captured.
- petre 9y ago
  - Shorter sensor to flange distances which allow for simpler design, more compact wide angle lenses, plus any kind of mirrorless to SLR adapter.
- rrauenza 9y ago
  - Smaller body due to smaller mechanical footprint - using image processing for focus rather than finicky focus sensors which only cover a small part of the image (and having to tune your lenses...) I’ve been on the fence of getting the latest Nikon 850 or waiting to see if Nikon announces a full frame mirrorless compatible with DSLR lenses someday... I saw a rumor they may announce some kind of mirrorless this year.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- rangibaby 9y ago
  > Less moving parts, so increased reliability. I use Nikon and haven't heard of a mirror failing on its own. Ever! Dead cameras due to some electronic part that got wet or desoldered OTOH... > No high precision SLR mechanism means more engineering budget to spend on better sensors, etc I don't think the way the reflex mirror works has changed for ~50 years.
  - shawnz 9y ago
    > I don't think the way the reflex mirror works has changed for ~50 years. True, but integration of a complex mechanism still adds complexity, even if the mechanism itself has already been designed.
  - shawnz 9y ago
    Furthermore (sorry, can't edit my post): A mirrorless camera would require strictly less electronic parts than a DSLR. So your experience with electronics failures supports the idea that a mirrorless design could be more reliable.
dingaling 9y ago
One huge advantage of mirrorless is the absence of mirror-slap vibration at shutter speeds. Finally i can do long fast bursts when panning at 1/60 Plus the removal of flappy mechanical bits improves reliability and offers even faster frame rates. There's a Canon full-frame mirrorleas prototype in the hands of their "Explorers of Light" now, so expect a big advertising push next year.
- mozumder 9y ago
  So, instead of mirror-slap blur, you now have camera motion blur?
  - dingaling 9y ago
    No worse than when panning with a DSLR. Of course the keeper-rate drops dramatically in direct relation with shutter speed but that's the beauty of digital. Even one out of 20 keeps me happy and the rest go to the bitbucket. At present I have to restrict my camera to about 5fps when panning at 1/60 and even slower when at 1/30; if non-slappy mirrorless boosts that two or threefold I'll be delighted.
- culot 9y ago
  There's also Sony's SLT system, where the mirror is translucent and stays put.
twblalock 9y ago
Not everyone is a photojournalist, so why should they lug the bulky SLR bodies and lenses around? And not every amateur photographer is happy with a point-and-shoot camera or a phone camera. Mirrorless cameras are a good option for a lot of photography enthusiasts who like to travel light but also benefit from the advantages of interchangeable lenses. They wouldn't sell so well if people didn't find them useful.

ygra 9y ago

> Companies need to stop making mirrorless cameras, since they're not useful. They sell, so they appear to be useful to people. Just maybe not to you.

shawnz 9y ago

> there are no advantages of a mirrorless camera over SLR tech. Here are a few I can think of. - Less moving parts, so increased reliability. - Possibility of faster shutter time (assuming the autofocus issues with mirrorless can be resolved). - No high precision SLR mechanism means more engineering budget to spend on better sensors, etc. Thus producing a better camera at the same price. - Viewfinder shows a truer representation of the final image since it's reading from the same data as what will ultimately be captured.

petre 9y ago
- Shorter sensor to flange distances which allow for simpler design, more compact wide angle lenses, plus any kind of mirrorless to SLR adapter.
rrauenza 9y ago
- Smaller body due to smaller mechanical footprint - using image processing for focus rather than finicky focus sensors which only cover a small part of the image (and having to tune your lenses...) I’ve been on the fence of getting the latest Nikon 850 or waiting to see if Nikon announces a full frame mirrorless compatible with DSLR lenses someday... I saw a rumor they may announce some kind of mirrorless this year.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
rangibaby 9y ago
> Less moving parts, so increased reliability. I use Nikon and haven't heard of a mirror failing on its own. Ever! Dead cameras due to some electronic part that got wet or desoldered OTOH... > No high precision SLR mechanism means more engineering budget to spend on better sensors, etc I don't think the way the reflex mirror works has changed for ~50 years.
- shawnz 9y ago
  > I don't think the way the reflex mirror works has changed for ~50 years. True, but integration of a complex mechanism still adds complexity, even if the mechanism itself has already been designed.
- shawnz 9y ago
  Furthermore (sorry, can't edit my post): A mirrorless camera would require strictly less electronic parts than a DSLR. So your experience with electronics failures supports the idea that a mirrorless design could be more reliable.

dingaling 9y ago

One huge advantage of mirrorless is the absence of mirror-slap vibration at shutter speeds. Finally i can do long fast bursts when panning at 1/60 Plus the removal of flappy mechanical bits improves reliability and offers even faster frame rates. There's a Canon full-frame mirrorleas prototype in the hands of their "Explorers of Light" now, so expect a big advertising push next year.

mozumder 9y ago
So, instead of mirror-slap blur, you now have camera motion blur?
- dingaling 9y ago
  No worse than when panning with a DSLR. Of course the keeper-rate drops dramatically in direct relation with shutter speed but that's the beauty of digital. Even one out of 20 keeps me happy and the rest go to the bitbucket. At present I have to restrict my camera to about 5fps when panning at 1/60 and even slower when at 1/30; if non-slappy mirrorless boosts that two or threefold I'll be delighted.
culot 9y ago
There's also Sony's SLT system, where the mirror is translucent and stays put.

twblalock 9y ago

Not everyone is a photojournalist, so why should they lug the bulky SLR bodies and lenses around? And not every amateur photographer is happy with a point-and-shoot camera or a phone camera. Mirrorless cameras are a good option for a lot of photography enthusiasts who like to travel light but also benefit from the advantages of interchangeable lenses. They wouldn't sell so well if people didn't find them useful.