Mirror or Mirrorless

[CMoore]

Sorry, this might be old hat, but i have never been on this side of the house before.
I have Heard/Read, maybe for the last year or two, about Mirrorless being "the future" of.....well i guess not SLR"s, but 35mm.
Has that started to happen, or is it going to happen in a way that Digital has "replaced" film as the dominant technology.?
Thank You

 

[Chan Tran]

I think it would get to the similar point of film and digital that is there will still be DSLR but the mirrorless will be in the majority. I say so because large number of people prefer the EVF and with technology at this point about the only disadvantage of the mirrorless is the EVF in my opinion. AF performance, battery life, shutter etc.. all those issues will go away. Also the technology is at the point where it's less expensive to make the mirrorless than the DSLR.

 

[jeffreyg]

With most people using their phones I agree that those who want digital other than their phone or upscale DSLR will go mirrorless. The camera makers will make what sells and keeps them in business. For me, my first choice is still film 2 1/4 and 4x5. But that said I do have and use a DSLR as well. I also have a ZS100 that I can carry in a pocket and have made prints up to 16x20 from . When I want to have some fun I break out my 4x5 pinhole. I pretty much have most of the bases covered making silver gelatin , platinum/palladium and computer prints. At least we have choices.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[faberryman]

Mirrorless hasn't taken over yet. Canon and Nikon still make up the lion's share of the market.

 

[nmp]

Absence of mirror/prism allows the Mirrorless cameras to be more compact and lighter. If I compare Nikon D850 vs the Sony A7R II, the latter is about 10oz lighter. However when you consider the lenses the combined weight/size savings are not that much. Price-wise the Mirrorrless lenses seem to be much more expensive - not sure why. Are there third party lenses available for Fuji's and Sony's cameras?

There seems to be lot of hype surrounding the Mirrorless right now, but one must do proper comparison looking at all pros and cons based on one's particular needs before concluding either better than the other. I suspect ultimately they both will exist - much like the SLRs vs Viewfinders of the film cameras.

 

[Chan Tran]

Once again if you want me to predict? I say mirrorless will be as popular as digital and DSLR will be as popular as film. Not what I want to happen but that what I predict will happen.

 

[CMoore]

Thanks for the Replys/Info.....appreciate it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Depends how deep is the fanatizm of convert to mirrorless is. Some are comparing it to MF film format.
In the real, no fantasy world, 35mm mirrorless are nothing special.
Sony has R series and Leica has 35mm mirrorless cameras.
If you want spend even more where are larger than 35mm sensors in mirrorless cameras.

Another dream of forum dwellers is how popular and significant mirrorless is.
They think what mirrorless is thier cameras and they think it is popular.
In real world I see more people with DSLRs and even with film cameras.

Also in real world 35mm film was replaced long time ago with digital P&S.
Those are first and true mirrorless; but for typical gearhead who spend time and money on endless updates of fjipsonics it is hard to swallow.

I own old DSLR, old P&S and true 35mm sensor mirrorless.

 

[MattKing]

I don't know whether I should admit this here, but my wife and I recently acquired an Olympus OMD M10 Mark II- a micro 4/3 mirrorless.
It seems to be tremendously capable, and it is wonderfully small and light.
Based on the small amount of experience I have had with it, I would say that it does a good job of incorporating the inherent advantages of a small sensor, mirrorless mechanism and a distinct design philosophy.
I've a nice 12x16 print here that was ordered through Costco (RA4 paper) from a jpeg that came straight out of the camera and was edited only to change the canvas size to the 12x18 size that Costco charges $6.99 CDN for in my area.
That relatively tiny 4/3 sensor creates some challenges - I lean toward wider angles, but if I want something wider than the 14mm (28mm equivalent on 135) wide end on the kit lens that came with the camera, I need to spend significant money. And it takes some getting used to when it comes to the depth of field that flows from the small sensor and shorter focal lengths. I can always avoid that easily though with my film cameras that stretch up to 6x9.
The EVF is also different. I do appreciate, however, how it makes use with my OM lenses on an adapter almost effortless - stop down metering doesn't mean a dim viewfinder. I can even buy an adapter to use the Robot lens I was given!
I certainly have never experienced before a camera with a shutter that offers controlled speeds between 60 seconds and 1/32,000 of a second!
All of which is to say that I think that mirrorless does add options that are important, and may end up being determinative of a lot in the market.
If Olympus had a full frame DSLR, or if I owned a few Canon L lenses, I would probably be harder to convince.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Much depends on how one photographs. Last year I finally 'went digital' in a serious way, purchasing a Nikon D810 and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art lens, recently supplemented with Sigma's 50mm version from the same line. Even nearly 50 years ago when first starting out with 35mm film, I always worked as if using sheet film. That is, the camera on a tripod and a small number of carefully planned exposures. Back then it was challenging for me to use up a 20-exposure roll.

Nothing's changed with the D810. I always have it on a tripod, always work from the rear screen in "Live View" mode and always have the eyepiece blind closed. Its + and - buttons combined with the multifunction control are just like using a loupe on a view camera's ground glass screen. I've not once peered through the viewfinder. If Sigma had announced that its Art lenses were going to be available in native Sony mounts before I bought the D810, I'd probably have gone with an A7RIII instead.

On the other hand, I recently had an opportunity to handle a friend's Fuji X-T2. If I were someone who predominantly composed/framed using a viewfinder eyepiece, I'd find that mirrorless experience very unsatisfying. In which case I would definitely stick with a Nikon or Canon DSLR. All this highlights why it's so important to gain hands-on time with any system under consideration before investing in it. Most people don't have access to physical camera stores any longer, so someplace like lensrentals.com can be invaluable for evaluating options.

 

[CMoore]

That's interesting.....
I AM used to the "typical" View Finder up to the eye experience of 35mm. I would not have even considered that. Never having used these modern day cameras, it would not have occurred to me. But now that you mention it, it seems obvious.

 

[faberryman]

One advantage to the EVF not often discussed is its low light performance. The EVF automatically adjusts brightness to compensate for low light conditions so that you can clearly see what you are photographing in dim light. Not that I do much low light photography, but it is a real benefit for shooting indoors. In analog terms, the microprism never goes dark.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have no problem to focus via OVF on typical BF parties with lights switched off for BD cake and candles blowing.
But, I know photographers who has to quit due to deteriorated vision and only EVF allowed them to get back.

 

[DWThomas]

I'm suffering some temptations related to all this, but perhaps fortunately, the camera I currently have my eye on costs enough to hold me back a bit. I own a working but long-in-the tooth DSLR (Canon EOS 40D) and a relatively high-end P&S (Canon G15). For me, the G15 has pretty much supplanted the DSLR for travel. It has an optical viewfinder in addition to the rear LCD screen; plus a 5:1 zoom range with a lens that opens to f/1.8. However, it's a bit slower than the DSLR, although generally quite capable. So I've been eyeing the Canon M5 (or siblings), a mirror-less EVF beastie with interchangeable lenses, etc. I would like get it with one or two new "EF-M" lenses -- perhaps a short focal length compact ("pancake") sort of lens and a fairly wide range zoom for "walking around." If I go that way, a relatively inexpensive adapter would allow me to use my current collection of EF and EF-S lenses for special needs.

Reading endless commentaries at various sites, I get the impression that such cameras may suffer a little in uses like fast action sports or birds in flight, but since I generally do neither, that wouldn't matter. Another factor currently slowing me down is that the aforementioned camera is 24 Mpixel, which probably would push me toward a new desktop computer -- and then I would likely want or be forced, to some software upgrades -- and then maybe a bigger, higher rez monitor ....

So-o-o if I find another trip like 2016's 5800 mile drive through flyover country on my calendar, maybe that will push me over the edge. Meanwhile, since I upgraded to an iPhone 6S, I'm almost embarrassed at the percentage of trip documentation that comes from that. (Just came back from a trip to include a family event -- used the 40D for the event, but for some side trips and get-togethers, the G15, the iPhone, and yes -- my 1952 vintage Ercona II!)

 

[Paul Howell]

I will be moving to mirrorless, or translucent mirror and an EVF at some point, I shoot Sony and Sigma, I have a A900 and Sigma SD 15, and a lot of lens for both. I bought a first generation Sony mirrorless to see how well I like a EVF, and not much. I then bought a Sony A99 and returned it, did not like it. I tired a new A9II at a local camera store, better but still don't like the EVF, like looking at a TV screen. Have not tired the new Sigma mirrorless, no one carries Sigma cameras in my area. What I don't like is the camera has to be on in order to see through the lens, takes longer to shoot from cold start than a DSLR, the EVR seems to lag capture. On the positive side, the new A9II shots up to 20FPS, AF is very fast, really good low light performance, and I think around 42MP. The Sigma has a APS H size sensor. I guess I could sell over everything and go with Pentax, Canon or Nikon, but seems like of trouble rather then just getting use the EVF.

 

[slackercrurster]

OP, I like dslr's but they are pretty big for my work. I prefer mirrorless, but I do have some dslr' as well.

 

[Eric Rose]

I sold my Nikon FF DSLR and switched over to m43. I do a lot of video work these days plus stills so it was a no brainer. The IQ has astounded me and the EVF is fantastic. No more chimping!

 

[Cholentpot]

Some day in the future there will be no more mirror. But for now I'm sticking with the mirror.

 

[jtk]

One advantage to the EVF not often discussed is its low light performance. The EVF automatically adjusts brightness to compensate for low light conditions so that you can clearly see what you are photographing in dim light. Not that I do much low light photography, but it is a real benefit for shooting indoors. In analog terms, the microprism never goes dark.

Yes...big advantages indoors. However in brilliant sun the built in EVF in mirrorless is a disadvantage. I shoot both mirror and mirrorless. Mirrorless is a delight in terms of low weight and better optics (no need to compensate for mirror box...same advantage Leica RFs have always had).

 

[faberryman]

Yes...big advantages indoors. However in brilliant sun the built in EVF in mirrorless is a disadvantage.

I've never noticed any problem shooting my mirrorless outdoors in daylight, so for me the disadvantage is theoretical. Maybe it is just brighter where you live.

 

[jtk]

I've never noticed any problem shooting my mirrorless outdoors in daylight, so for me the disadvantage is theoretical. Maybe it is just brighter where you live.

Yes. I'm in the desert southwest... we usually have acetylene bright days...lots of glare. My Samsung's multi-pivot external finder is excellent and can sometimes be shaded with hat or hand, but that doesn't always do the job.

 

[dankapsner]

My OMD is light. I am getting older. It works for me and the results are good.