4 ms·

The end of an era, but Nikon is following a lot of other manufacturers like Olympus, Sony, Leica. SLRs were a great product, but about 10 years ago, mirrorless

by _ph_ 4y ago

The end of an era, but Nikon is following a lot of other manufacturers like Olympus, Sony, Leica. SLRs were a great product, but about 10 years ago, mirrorless cameras started to overtake them in many aspects. The EVF has many advantages, of course especially for video recording. All new camera models now are mirrorless. Like analog SLRs gave way to DSLRs, now the migration to mirrorless is going to be finished. I wouldn't expect Canon to stick to DSLRs much longer either.

BeetleB 4y ago
For the same price point, mirrorless cameras are of inferior quality when it comes to noise. This is why many still choose DSLRs. Edit: OK, I should say inferior quality w.r.t noise when all other features are similar. Certainly, it's not anything specific about mirrorless that makes it noisy. It's just that if I have a DSLR with certain features, and another mirrorless with similar features (and noise profile), the latter tends to cost more. And my information may be a bit dated - the last time I checked was in 2018. And I only buy APS-C, which usually was quite a bit more expensive for mirrorless, with not better quality.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  Why would they be? Where is any noise advantage of the DSLR?
- eropple 4y ago
  I'd be interested in seeing substantiation of this claim. I can't think of why mirrorless cameras would have more noise.
  - radlad 4y ago
    Here's something I found: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57249761 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57249761 It basically seems to come down to the fact that with DSLR you can disable Live View, therefore keeping the sensor cool until you take your exposure. I expect then that a camera like the X100V or X-Pro3 - both of which are mirrorless cameras that also have an OVF - would have the same advantage as a DSLR.
    - _ph_ 4y ago
      The argument has been made often. Yes, noise raises with sensor temperature. But I haven't seen a test which shows that it makes any difference in real-life situations.
    - kllrnohj 4y ago
      > therefore keeping the sensor cool until you take your exposure. That'd only be true if the sensor is a significant heat source that's unable to dissipate that heat adequately. Which... I can't think of any reason that would be inherently true. The ISP generates some decent heat, which is why many cameras have limits on how long you can record 4k video. But does the cmos sensor? Especially when you're talking full-frame, the energy density seems like it'd be pretty tame. If it's not meaningfully rising above ambient temperature, then there's no reason a DSL sensor would be cooler & therefore less noisy.
- gruturo 4y ago
  This is only true when: a) You use a smaller sensor (while this is the norm, mirrorless does not absolutely imply APS-C vs Full Frame) b) You use smaller lenses (same disclaimer as above) and, above all else, by far c) You deliberately cripple your mirrorless line because you're too afraid to cannibalize your SLR business, praying really hard that everyone else is doing the same
  - hef19898 4y ago
    c) doesn't apply to Nikon so, does it?
    - gruturo 4y ago
      It certainly did for a long time. The Nikon 1 series felt deliberately unattractive from a price/performance standpoint.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        The Nikon 1 was an ugly camera, usually Nikon bodies a rather well designed ergonomically and optically. Isn't the Nikon 1 series deprecated by now? To me it seemd that the Nikon 1 series was kind of a trial for Nikon to feel the waters for DSLR alternatives.
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    a) Yes, true. c) Possibly true. My point isn't that fundamentally mirrorless has more noise. It's that for the same price mirrorless cameras tend to be inferior in this regard. For context, my DSLR is APS-C and not full frame. The last time I looked (2018), I couldn't find a mirrorless camera that performed as well noise wise than my Nikon for the same price (and other features).
    - gruturo 4y ago
      The price is actually also a choice of the vendors. Some of it is actual economies of scale, returns on R&D and cost of manufacturing, but some is certainly a deliberate choice of where to position the product on the market. They build (or used to, until very recently) considerably inferior mirrorless cameras, but did not price them proportionally lower compared to the SLR ones, because they would again cannibalize their sales by doing it.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Aren't, e.g., the Z6 and D780 and the D850 and Z7 using the same sensor? There arw differences between the two technologies, better noise performance is purely driven be the sensor, not the presence or absence of a mirror.
rr888 4y ago
ugh its a potential death spiral. I bought an Olympus and expected to keep the 4/3rds lenses for decades. Now its mostly a dead end, I have to choose another and start from scratch now. I’d actually like to go Nikon but don’t want to get burned twice in a row.
- CydeWeys 4y ago
  Sadly the only rational choice left might be Sony. I chose between Sony and M4/3 five years ago, went with M4/3, and now regret it took should've gone with alpha APS-C.
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    Why are you regretting it? I am still extremely happy with mFT.
    - CydeWeys 4y ago
      It seems like a dying platform, and Sony sells better camera bodies (though admittedly they still aren't as ergonomic to use). I went with Olympus, and in particular, Sony does better video.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  Well, the Olympus FT system had its last camera 2010. But there was the migration path to mFT, which supports FT lenses. You might though hurry to grab the lens adapters, as they are no longer in production. The mFT system is quite alive and the camera spin-off from Olympus, OMDS, seems to do well with the recent OM-1 camera. You should definitely give it a try.
  - rr888 4y ago
    I shouldn't have said dead end, its been a great camera but the truth is I bought the Panasonic 18-35 zoom which has gone a bit soft I must have damaged it. I have a few nice primes but figure its a good time to change platforms. My usage has changed. 10 years ago I was happy with the e-m5 as it was lightweight. Now my phone is great lightweight camera, I need something once a month for special shots, so might as well get something bigger. I think my main point is that once a camera company starts losing market share its very difficult to attract new users.

by _ph_ 4y ago

BeetleB 4y ago

For the same price point, mirrorless cameras are of inferior quality when it comes to noise. This is why many still choose DSLRs. Edit: OK, I should say inferior quality w.r.t noise when all other features are similar. Certainly, it's not anything specific about mirrorless that makes it noisy. It's just that if I have a DSLR with certain features, and another mirrorless with similar features (and noise profile), the latter tends to cost more. And my information may be a bit dated - the last time I checked was in 2018. And I only buy APS-C, which usually was quite a bit more expensive for mirrorless, with not better quality.

_ph_ 4y ago
Why would they be? Where is any noise advantage of the DSLR?
eropple 4y ago
I'd be interested in seeing substantiation of this claim. I can't think of why mirrorless cameras would have more noise.
- radlad 4y ago
  Here's something I found: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57249761 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57249761 It basically seems to come down to the fact that with DSLR you can disable Live View, therefore keeping the sensor cool until you take your exposure. I expect then that a camera like the X100V or X-Pro3 - both of which are mirrorless cameras that also have an OVF - would have the same advantage as a DSLR.
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    The argument has been made often. Yes, noise raises with sensor temperature. But I haven't seen a test which shows that it makes any difference in real-life situations.
  - kllrnohj 4y ago
    > therefore keeping the sensor cool until you take your exposure. That'd only be true if the sensor is a significant heat source that's unable to dissipate that heat adequately. Which... I can't think of any reason that would be inherently true. The ISP generates some decent heat, which is why many cameras have limits on how long you can record 4k video. But does the cmos sensor? Especially when you're talking full-frame, the energy density seems like it'd be pretty tame. If it's not meaningfully rising above ambient temperature, then there's no reason a DSL sensor would be cooler & therefore less noisy.
gruturo 4y ago
This is only true when: a) You use a smaller sensor (while this is the norm, mirrorless does not absolutely imply APS-C vs Full Frame) b) You use smaller lenses (same disclaimer as above) and, above all else, by far c) You deliberately cripple your mirrorless line because you're too afraid to cannibalize your SLR business, praying really hard that everyone else is doing the same
- hef19898 4y ago
  c) doesn't apply to Nikon so, does it?
  - gruturo 4y ago
    It certainly did for a long time. The Nikon 1 series felt deliberately unattractive from a price/performance standpoint.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      The Nikon 1 was an ugly camera, usually Nikon bodies a rather well designed ergonomically and optically. Isn't the Nikon 1 series deprecated by now? To me it seemd that the Nikon 1 series was kind of a trial for Nikon to feel the waters for DSLR alternatives.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  a) Yes, true. c) Possibly true. My point isn't that fundamentally mirrorless has more noise. It's that for the same price mirrorless cameras tend to be inferior in this regard. For context, my DSLR is APS-C and not full frame. The last time I looked (2018), I couldn't find a mirrorless camera that performed as well noise wise than my Nikon for the same price (and other features).
  - gruturo 4y ago
    The price is actually also a choice of the vendors. Some of it is actual economies of scale, returns on R&D and cost of manufacturing, but some is certainly a deliberate choice of where to position the product on the market. They build (or used to, until very recently) considerably inferior mirrorless cameras, but did not price them proportionally lower compared to the SLR ones, because they would again cannibalize their sales by doing it.
hef19898 4y ago
Aren't, e.g., the Z6 and D780 and the D850 and Z7 using the same sensor? There arw differences between the two technologies, better noise performance is purely driven be the sensor, not the presence or absence of a mirror.

rr888 4y ago

ugh its a potential death spiral. I bought an Olympus and expected to keep the 4/3rds lenses for decades. Now its mostly a dead end, I have to choose another and start from scratch now. I’d actually like to go Nikon but don’t want to get burned twice in a row.

CydeWeys 4y ago
Sadly the only rational choice left might be Sony. I chose between Sony and M4/3 five years ago, went with M4/3, and now regret it took should've gone with alpha APS-C.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  Why are you regretting it? I am still extremely happy with mFT.
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    It seems like a dying platform, and Sony sells better camera bodies (though admittedly they still aren't as ergonomic to use). I went with Olympus, and in particular, Sony does better video.
_ph_ 4y ago
Well, the Olympus FT system had its last camera 2010. But there was the migration path to mFT, which supports FT lenses. You might though hurry to grab the lens adapters, as they are no longer in production. The mFT system is quite alive and the camera spin-off from Olympus, OMDS, seems to do well with the recent OM-1 camera. You should definitely give it a try.
- rr888 4y ago
  I shouldn't have said dead end, its been a great camera but the truth is I bought the Panasonic 18-35 zoom which has gone a bit soft I must have damaged it. I have a few nice primes but figure its a good time to change platforms. My usage has changed. 10 years ago I was happy with the e-m5 as it was lightweight. Now my phone is great lightweight camera, I need something once a month for special shots, so might as well get something bigger. I think my main point is that once a camera company starts losing market share its very difficult to attract new users.