4 ms·

For the uninitiated, does this have an implication in terms of quality of photo or video? Do DSLRs have some insurmountable advantages compared to mirrorless ca

For the uninitiated, does this have an implication in terms of quality of photo or video? Do DSLRs have some insurmountable advantages compared to mirrorless cameras?

elliottkember 5y ago
I think the original reason was that viewfinders were not very good, so you wanted to be able to look directly through the lens with a mirror.
- andi999 5y ago
  Brightness was also a problem.
  - staticautomatic 5y ago
    Except for rangefinders.
zinekeller 5y ago
DSLRs were introduced at a time where portable displays were, in charitable terms, not par to broadcast or photography standards. However, the advances brought by smartphones and the consumers' desire for realistic color-accurate small displays means that small displays now can actually simulate everything* that was previously handled physically. Some might grumble with this and might have reservations like how the transition from film to digital photography left some people stick to film, but considering that most of the time the pictures taken are being looked at the exact same screens as smartphones have, it's not surprising that more and more photographers have traded weight reductions rather than dealing with a physical viewfinder. > For the uninitiated, does this have an implication in terms of quality of photo or video? The quality of the photo or video doesn't depend on whether it has mirrors or not (since that the mirror is solely used for viewfinder) but on the sensor, lens and the internal algorithms (if not taking raw shots for further processing). So practically none. > Do DSLRs have some insurmountable advantages compared to mirrorless cameras? A bit lighter (no more mirrors) and a bit more reliable (the mirror system is a physical component that can shatter when the camera is dropped), although if someone is using a relatively heavier lens then there's nearly no difference on that front. Some might hate the fact that the viewfinder is now a screen though. * Technically it isn't, but does that have a real practicable difference? Some may get annoyed, sure, but most will just ignore small differences.
- guenthert 5y ago
  > For the uninitiated, does this have an implication in terms of quality of photo or video? Not sure about the current generation, I guess the problems have been surmounted, but originally, if you wanted to forgo the mirror you had to use the main sensor as viewfinder, powering it on continuously, thereby heating it, which caused higher noise.
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    > Not sure about the current generation, I guess the problems have been surmounted, but originally, if you wanted to forgo the mirror you had to use the main sensor as viewfinder, powering it on continuously, thereby heating it, which caused higher noise. Ah, I remembered this debate clearly. Technically, it's still there, but it was much worse 20 years ago where cooling techniques were also frankly not great (for certain current models, still not great).
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  I've heard that the smaller flange distance of mirrorless cameras improves image quality. Or at least it lets lens makers delivery the same image quality with smaller and cheaper components, thus increasing image quality for the same price.
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    > Or at least it lets lens makers delivery the same image quality with smaller and cheaper components, thus increasing image quality for the same price. This is the correct interpretation, by removing parts it's now possible to reallocate the money (and R&D) to cheaper but more effective sensors and lenses.
rwmj 5y ago
Another question from someone who knows nothing: What are professional photographers using, like the sports photographers who hang around at the edge of soccer pitches with those enormous telephoto lenses? Are there still "pro DSLRs" or are they using mirrorless or something else?
- regulation_d 5y ago
  Only within the last year have Sony, Nikon, and Canon released their flagship mirrorless cameras (the Alpha 1, Z9, and R3 respectively, though the R3 might be semi-flagship if R1 becomes a thing). From what I gather, before this generation of "stacked" sensors there would have been too much warbling from the rolling shutter to be truly useful for things like sports photography. So most sports stuff is probably still shot with DSLRs, but that will likely change in the coming years, as (a) mirrorless cameras can ostensibly shoot more quickly (b) photographers replacing their gear won't have much of a choice.

For the uninitiated, does this have an implication in terms of quality of photo or video? Do DSLRs have some insurmountable advantages compared to mirrorless cameras?

elliottkember 5y ago

I think the original reason was that viewfinders were not very good, so you wanted to be able to look directly through the lens with a mirror.

andi999 5y ago
Brightness was also a problem.
- staticautomatic 5y ago
  Except for rangefinders.

zinekeller 5y ago

DSLRs were introduced at a time where portable displays were, in charitable terms, not par to broadcast or photography standards. However, the advances brought by smartphones and the consumers' desire for realistic color-accurate small displays means that small displays now can actually simulate everything* that was previously handled physically. Some might grumble with this and might have reservations like how the transition from film to digital photography left some people stick to film, but considering that most of the time the pictures taken are being looked at the exact same screens as smartphones have, it's not surprising that more and more photographers have traded weight reductions rather than dealing with a physical viewfinder. > For the uninitiated, does this have an implication in terms of quality of photo or video? The quality of the photo or video doesn't depend on whether it has mirrors or not (since that the mirror is solely used for viewfinder) but on the sensor, lens and the internal algorithms (if not taking raw shots for further processing). So practically none. > Do DSLRs have some insurmountable advantages compared to mirrorless cameras? A bit lighter (no more mirrors) and a bit more reliable (the mirror system is a physical component that can shatter when the camera is dropped), although if someone is using a relatively heavier lens then there's nearly no difference on that front. Some might hate the fact that the viewfinder is now a screen though. * Technically it isn't, but does that have a real practicable difference? Some may get annoyed, sure, but most will just ignore small differences.

guenthert 5y ago
> For the uninitiated, does this have an implication in terms of quality of photo or video? Not sure about the current generation, I guess the problems have been surmounted, but originally, if you wanted to forgo the mirror you had to use the main sensor as viewfinder, powering it on continuously, thereby heating it, which caused higher noise.
- zinekeller 5y ago
  > Not sure about the current generation, I guess the problems have been surmounted, but originally, if you wanted to forgo the mirror you had to use the main sensor as viewfinder, powering it on continuously, thereby heating it, which caused higher noise. Ah, I remembered this debate clearly. Technically, it's still there, but it was much worse 20 years ago where cooling techniques were also frankly not great (for certain current models, still not great).
Manuel_D 5y ago
I've heard that the smaller flange distance of mirrorless cameras improves image quality. Or at least it lets lens makers delivery the same image quality with smaller and cheaper components, thus increasing image quality for the same price.
- zinekeller 5y ago
  > Or at least it lets lens makers delivery the same image quality with smaller and cheaper components, thus increasing image quality for the same price. This is the correct interpretation, by removing parts it's now possible to reallocate the money (and R&D) to cheaper but more effective sensors and lenses.

rwmj 5y ago

Another question from someone who knows nothing: What are professional photographers using, like the sports photographers who hang around at the edge of soccer pitches with those enormous telephoto lenses? Are there still "pro DSLRs" or are they using mirrorless or something else?

regulation_d 5y ago
Only within the last year have Sony, Nikon, and Canon released their flagship mirrorless cameras (the Alpha 1, Z9, and R3 respectively, though the R3 might be semi-flagship if R1 becomes a thing). From what I gather, before this generation of "stacked" sensors there would have been too much warbling from the rolling shutter to be truly useful for things like sports photography. So most sports stuff is probably still shot with DSLRs, but that will likely change in the coming years, as (a) mirrorless cameras can ostensibly shoot more quickly (b) photographers replacing their gear won't have much of a choice.