6 ms·

The mirror box / pentaprism combo is not required. DSLR cameras were built as the technology did not exist to eliminate them. Now that processor, LCD and AF s

The mirror box / pentaprism combo is not required. DSLR cameras were built as the technology did not exist to eliminate them. Now that processor, LCD and AF systems have caught up, the SLR is redundant. The primary advantage of the SLR was that you can see the image as the lens is framing the image - a huge improvement over rangefinder systems (such as the Leica M). This allowed the use of super telephoto, wide angle, macro and tilt shift lenses to be much easer. The primary downside of the SLR was that it did not show you how the exposure was going to be recored on the film or digital sensor. The mirrorless system eliminates that and now lets you see precisely how the image is framed as well as how it is exposed in real time *without* taking the image as the LCD and viewfinder are constantly reading from sensor. In addition you gain the possibility to handhold at much lower shutter speeds due to the mirror slap being removed and the on board sensor shift stabilization systems. DSLRs couldn't do this and relied on lens based solutions (Olympus & Pentax did have sensor shift stabilization, but it was niche and the market leaders Nikon & Canon relied on lens based stabilization). Another advantage is that with the removal of the mirror box, you can have short flange distances allowing new lens designs and lens interoperability. Nikon has the shortest flange distance in the industry and has support for just about every other lens mount out their (though through third party adapters - some with full AF capability also). So the DSLR, except for maybe a few niche cases is old technology that is superseded in every single way. The interesting thing will be to see how the new mirrorless cameras effect the UI and ergonomics of the camera systems. So far, the pro level systems (Z9, R5, etc..) are all still for the most part using the DSLR form factor. Especially Nikon. I actually like this, but lets see what the future holds.

spookthesunset 4y ago
Hopefully the lenses from their DSLR stuff will work on the mirrorless cameras. My lens investment is more important than the camera body.
- achairapart 4y ago
  One problem may be that your long and heavy zoom/telephoto lens (plus adapter) may be extremely unbalanced attached to the light and compact body of a mirrorless camera.
- hef19898 4y ago
  The FTZ adaptor, both gen 1 and 2, works pretty well from what I hear. So no real need to throw all your good F mount lenses out. If you do so, well there will be plenty of happy takers!
jjav 4y ago
> So the DSLR, except for maybe a few niche cases is old technology that is superseded in every single way. This is a one-sided comment, as you describe the advantages of mirrorless but don't discuss the significant disadvantages. With mirrorless you don't see through the optical lens, you're always looking at an LCD even on the viewfinder. This is not a good thing, it means the camera is always consuming battery. With a DSLR battry life is measured in months (I go on vacations and don't even bother bringing a charger) since the camera doesn't need to consume any power most of the time.
- vparikh 4y ago
  True the DLSR has the advantage in power consumption, however, most users will accept the trade of and carry extra batteries / charge more often to take advantage of the advantages that mirrorless provides. The battery consumption is improving with every generation of mirrorless. But yes, that is probably the biggest advantage the DSLR has left.
- snapetom 4y ago
  Here’s the thing. Yes, you’re giving up battery life with the EVF. However, you’re also giving up all the other new advances manufacturers are shoving into newer mirror less cameras. Eye tracking auto focus, great low light performance, next gen lenses, etc. I too was very anti EVF until I used one last year. In the end, the visual performance fears didn’t show up, the battery life can be dealt with, and the benefits of the Canon R5 were just too much.
  - lttlrck 4y ago
    The Canon EOS 50 film camera had eye controlled focusing in 1995... sure it could only manage 3 zones but that's all the camera had :-)
    - Scene_Cast2 4y ago
      That's a different type of eye AF. One is AF point controlled by where the photographer is looking, the other detects the eyes of the subject.
vngzs 4y ago
I spent some time doing press photography for concerts and couldn't imagine shooting mirrorless during a show. High-action environments demand super low-latency, high-resolution viewfinders. No mirrorless I've handled so far can keep up with an optical SLR. And the crummy digital viewfinders make low-light manual focus into a painful chore. The closest thing I've found is the Fujifilm X-Pro 3's "hybrid" viewfinder. It has a Leica-style rangefinder that can, with the flip of a switch, convert into a digital image like every other mirrorless. It can even overlay the frame and a digital focus preview onto the analog image in the rangefinder as you move it around. It's not useful for concerts - the 23.5x15.6mm sensor is too small - but I photographed some of the the 2020 protests in NYC and the extra field of view in the rangefinder is actually an advantage in that kind of hectic environment.
- aspyct 4y ago
  I spend my time doing horse sports photography, and I can tell your mirrorless is fine. Zero latency problem, really. Go for it, you'll love it! It's a game changer.
  - jgalt212 4y ago
    Low light is probably not an issue here, as horses don't tend to congregate indoors in low light environments. I would take a pentaprism SLR over an EVF any day. That being said, my budget has usually been constrained to penta-mirror SLRs.
    - aspyct 4y ago
      Low light absolutely is a thing in this field, I am regularly working around 4000 - 6400 ISO: indoors in the mornings with shutter speeds of 1/1000 on a f/2.8 lens. I'm also not splurging a huge budget: the OM System OM-1 is available for half the price of the equivalent DSLR from Canon. I mean it, mirrorless is fine.
- retcon 4y ago
  EVFs can be better than the Fujifilm you have and especially Nikon is (currently giving theirs better signal than other makes. I cannot agree more about low light photography. The problem with EVF design common to all current mirrorless is the autofocus needs more exposure to work in low light. This refutes just one of the OP's marketing claims which I disagree with Thom Hogan isn't the under sold story because of poor marketing (Nikon is selling their flagship to, to quote Thom *[sic] "users who buy my 1200 pages guidebook to use their "automatically everything" wonder and don't even know how to download and open the PDF" my view is that the Japanese manufacturers are being sensitive to over promising during this extremely painful transition. Having a six figures toolkit (not atypical sports pro investment just buy a couple of super telephotos and the accompanying bits) made obsolete and second class over night naturally offends American and most western sensibilities. Edit: spelling of EVF first line; can be instead of are first sentence; about not able para2; under sold story for story told para3
brudgers 4y ago
a huge improvement over rangefinder The SLR is a great alternative to a rangefinder. But not necessarily an improvement because rangefinders often show what is outside the image frame, the view through the finder can be close to f1 without weight or bulk, and the absence of a mirror tends to make cameras quieter. To be fair I always thought of SLR’s as the pinnacle in accord with decades of marketing. Until I bought my first rangefinder, an Olympus 35RC which is not all that much much bigger than a pack of cigarettes. I still like SLR’s as an alternative experience to rangefinders (and zone focus viewfinder cameras and view cameras, and TLR cameras). And just to make a pedanticism, view cameras also let the photographer compose through the taking lens…without a pentaprism in the way.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  I've been a photographer for decades, and I have used everything from tiny pocket 110 cameras to bulky 4x5 view cameras. For many years a couple of Nikon SLRs were my primary "work" cameras. I always carried around at least one small 35mm rangefinder with me. The Olympus XA for a long time, A Voigtländer Bessa L until the gears wore out, a Canonet QL17 G-III, and other simple cameras. I've made some of my best photos with them.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
Personally I prefer looking through a viewfinder rather than at an LCD. It's also much easier to hold the camera steady if it's closer to my body. And EVF's? I'm not convinced of their use. But my current DSLR (Nikon D50) is around 15 years old so I'll just grab another late model and it'll do me for decades :)

spookthesunset 4y ago

Hopefully the lenses from their DSLR stuff will work on the mirrorless cameras. My lens investment is more important than the camera body.

achairapart 4y ago
One problem may be that your long and heavy zoom/telephoto lens (plus adapter) may be extremely unbalanced attached to the light and compact body of a mirrorless camera.
hef19898 4y ago
The FTZ adaptor, both gen 1 and 2, works pretty well from what I hear. So no real need to throw all your good F mount lenses out. If you do so, well there will be plenty of happy takers!

jjav 4y ago

> So the DSLR, except for maybe a few niche cases is old technology that is superseded in every single way. This is a one-sided comment, as you describe the advantages of mirrorless but don't discuss the significant disadvantages. With mirrorless you don't see through the optical lens, you're always looking at an LCD even on the viewfinder. This is not a good thing, it means the camera is always consuming battery. With a DSLR battry life is measured in months (I go on vacations and don't even bother bringing a charger) since the camera doesn't need to consume any power most of the time.

vparikh 4y ago
True the DLSR has the advantage in power consumption, however, most users will accept the trade of and carry extra batteries / charge more often to take advantage of the advantages that mirrorless provides. The battery consumption is improving with every generation of mirrorless. But yes, that is probably the biggest advantage the DSLR has left.
snapetom 4y ago
Here’s the thing. Yes, you’re giving up battery life with the EVF. However, you’re also giving up all the other new advances manufacturers are shoving into newer mirror less cameras. Eye tracking auto focus, great low light performance, next gen lenses, etc. I too was very anti EVF until I used one last year. In the end, the visual performance fears didn’t show up, the battery life can be dealt with, and the benefits of the Canon R5 were just too much.
- lttlrck 4y ago
  The Canon EOS 50 film camera had eye controlled focusing in 1995... sure it could only manage 3 zones but that's all the camera had :-)
  - Scene_Cast2 4y ago
    That's a different type of eye AF. One is AF point controlled by where the photographer is looking, the other detects the eyes of the subject.

vngzs 4y ago

I spent some time doing press photography for concerts and couldn't imagine shooting mirrorless during a show. High-action environments demand super low-latency, high-resolution viewfinders. No mirrorless I've handled so far can keep up with an optical SLR. And the crummy digital viewfinders make low-light manual focus into a painful chore. The closest thing I've found is the Fujifilm X-Pro 3's "hybrid" viewfinder. It has a Leica-style rangefinder that can, with the flip of a switch, convert into a digital image like every other mirrorless. It can even overlay the frame and a digital focus preview onto the analog image in the rangefinder as you move it around. It's not useful for concerts - the 23.5x15.6mm sensor is too small - but I photographed some of the the 2020 protests in NYC and the extra field of view in the rangefinder is actually an advantage in that kind of hectic environment.

aspyct 4y ago
I spend my time doing horse sports photography, and I can tell your mirrorless is fine. Zero latency problem, really. Go for it, you'll love it! It's a game changer.
- jgalt212 4y ago
  Low light is probably not an issue here, as horses don't tend to congregate indoors in low light environments. I would take a pentaprism SLR over an EVF any day. That being said, my budget has usually been constrained to penta-mirror SLRs.
  - aspyct 4y ago
    Low light absolutely is a thing in this field, I am regularly working around 4000 - 6400 ISO: indoors in the mornings with shutter speeds of 1/1000 on a f/2.8 lens. I'm also not splurging a huge budget: the OM System OM-1 is available for half the price of the equivalent DSLR from Canon. I mean it, mirrorless is fine.
retcon 4y ago
EVFs can be better than the Fujifilm you have and especially Nikon is (currently giving theirs better signal than other makes. I cannot agree more about low light photography. The problem with EVF design common to all current mirrorless is the autofocus needs more exposure to work in low light. This refutes just one of the OP's marketing claims which I disagree with Thom Hogan isn't the under sold story because of poor marketing (Nikon is selling their flagship to, to quote Thom *[sic] "users who buy my 1200 pages guidebook to use their "automatically everything" wonder and don't even know how to download and open the PDF" my view is that the Japanese manufacturers are being sensitive to over promising during this extremely painful transition. Having a six figures toolkit (not atypical sports pro investment just buy a couple of super telephotos and the accompanying bits) made obsolete and second class over night naturally offends American and most western sensibilities. Edit: spelling of EVF first line; can be instead of are first sentence; about not able para2; under sold story for story told para3

brudgers 4y ago

a huge improvement over rangefinder The SLR is a great alternative to a rangefinder. But not necessarily an improvement because rangefinders often show what is outside the image frame, the view through the finder can be close to f1 without weight or bulk, and the absence of a mirror tends to make cameras quieter. To be fair I always thought of SLR’s as the pinnacle in accord with decades of marketing. Until I bought my first rangefinder, an Olympus 35RC which is not all that much much bigger than a pack of cigarettes. I still like SLR’s as an alternative experience to rangefinders (and zone focus viewfinder cameras and view cameras, and TLR cameras). And just to make a pedanticism, view cameras also let the photographer compose through the taking lens…without a pentaprism in the way.

cratermoon 4y ago
I've been a photographer for decades, and I have used everything from tiny pocket 110 cameras to bulky 4x5 view cameras. For many years a couple of Nikon SLRs were my primary "work" cameras. I always carried around at least one small 35mm rangefinder with me. The Olympus XA for a long time, A Voigtländer Bessa L until the gears wore out, a Canonet QL17 G-III, and other simple cameras. I've made some of my best photos with them.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

Personally I prefer looking through a viewfinder rather than at an LCD. It's also much easier to hold the camera steady if it's closer to my body. And EVF's? I'm not convinced of their use. But my current DSLR (Nikon D50) is around 15 years old so I'll just grab another late model and it'll do me for decades :)