3 ms·
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 lens
by 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 agoc) doesn't apply to Nikon so, does it?
- gruturo 4y agoIt certainly did for a long time. The Nikon 1 series felt deliberately unattractive from a price/performance standpoint.
- hef19898 4y agoThe 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 agoa) 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 agoThe 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.