Buying a Mirrorless Camera

Published Dec 15, 2011 | By R Butler
30

Updated September 2013

The eternal question, 'What camera should I buy?' became more complicated with the fairly recent emergence of a new breed of cameras promising to fill a gap in the market. Previously it was a fairly simple decision - you bought a DSLR if you were most concerned about image quality, operational speed and taking control of what the camera did, or you bought one of the various sub-types of small-sensored compact camera if you prioritized pocketability, ease-of-use, price or zoom range. There were some attempts to bridge the gap - superzoom compacts and high-end enthusiast models often offered extensive manual controls - but there was no real middle ground.

Traditionally, the only real options for digital photographers have either been compact cameras which have very small image sensors, or the considerably larger - in both sensor and body dimensions - DSLR designs.

That middle ground is where you'll find Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras. These cameras take the large sensor and interchangeable lenses that help DSLRs produce such good images, and combine them with the technologies that underpin compact cameras - providing a shooting experience that will be nice and familiar to compact camera users.

Mirrorless cameras have tended to fall into roughly two basic designs. There are models that resemble the classic Rangefinder style (like the Fujifilm X-E1, above...  ...and those which resemble scaled-down DSLRs, like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 on the right.

Mirrorless cameras (also known as Compact System Cameras, amongst other names) first appeared with the launch of the Micro Four Thirds system from Panasonic and Olympus in 2008. The first generation cameras from these manufacturers reflect two distinct body styles that are still prevalent today; a rangefinder-inspired aesthetic and the mini DSLR look-alike. Of the two, rangefinder-style bodies have a smaller form factor by omitting a built-in electronic viewfinder, instead depending on the rear screen for image composition, much like current compact cameras.

Since the Micro Four Thirds launch, most of the major manufacturers have waded-in. These range from Samsung's NX, Sony's NEX, Fujifilm's X and Canon's EF-M mounts, that are based around APS-C sensors, via Nikon's smaller-sensor 1 System down to Pentax's Q, that uses sensors usually seen in compact cameras.

Why go Mirrorless?

For all of their outward differences, it's important to understand how much Mirrorless cameras have in common with DSLRs. In most cases, their sensors are the same or similar in size to most popular DSLRs. By comparison, most compact cameras have sensors that are one twelfth of that size - and this is a big deal, since sensor size is probably the largest determinant of image quality (decidedly more relevant than the number of megapixels). As a result, the image quality of the Mirrorless models we've tested has either been identical or very similar to that of contemporary DSLRs.

In addition to low-light image quality, large sensors tend to result in systems with greater control over depth-of-field, meaning that you can think about using large aperture lenses to get photos with soft, defocused backgrounds.

Putting aside for a moment the oddity that is the compact-sensored Pentax Q, the only real exception to this statement is Nikon's 1 system (surprisingly) goes against this trend and uses a sensor two-thirds smaller than most DSLRs or Mirrorless cameras. This is still four times the size of the sensors in mainstream compact cameras, but does mean the low light image quality and control over depth-of-field isn't on the same level as most of its peers.

Overall, the result is a significantly smaller camera that combines DSLR image quality with a more compact-camera-like user experience, offering 'point and shoot' users a huge upgrade in image quality without the need to change their shooting behavior.

Removing the mirror and optical viewfinder found in the DSLR allows a considerable reduction in bulk as can be seen by comparing the size of a Sony DSLR with one of its Mirrorless NEX cameras.

Putting most lenses on the front prevents them being truly pocketable but they can still be less obtrusive.

The large sensors used in Mirrorless cameras mean that their bodies and lenses don't really count as pocketable, but they are substantially smaller than even the most compact DSLR. This is an advantage not just in that there's less weight and bulk to lug around but also in that using one can be substantially less obtrusive. There are plenty of situations in which pulling out a large 'professional-looking' DSLR will influence the way your would-be subjects respond.

The smaller bodies also, in principle at least, allow for smaller lenses - though this mainly tends to be true for wide-angle and normal zooms, with telephoto lenses being essentially the same size as those used on DSLRs. The small body designs have also prompted most of the manufacturers to create at least one small 'pancake' prime lens for their system. These are fixed focal length lenses and, with the right combination of price, aperture and focal length, can be a great addition if you're looking to really engage with photography. 

Advantages of Live View

Traditionally the divide between compact cameras and DSLRs has been that digital compact offer a fast, live preview of the scene you're shooting on the rear display - often called 'live view'. By contrast, the film-era heritage of the SLR design has made adding a fast preview on the camera's rear screen has proved difficult. Several DSLR live view solutions exist but most of them still have significant drawbacks in terms of either speed or flexibility.

If you're stepping up from a compact camera, the excellent live view experience offered by a mirrorless system camera will make the transition seem a lot less daunting.

Mirrorless cameras have all been designed specifically to use the main imaging sensor to provide autofocus information and the preview of what the camera is about to shoot, just as is the case with compact cameras, rather than having this option added on later. Likewise, the lenses for Mirrorless systems have been designed for the different demands that this focus acquisition method requires, making them quicker to focus than when most DSLRs try to focus in live view mode.

This offers not just familiarity, but also another potential advantage: it means you don't need to raise the camera to eye-level to take a photograph. It means they can be used more discretely and do not require the camera to be imposed between the photographer and the subject to nearly the same degree. This feature, combined with their smaller size, results in a camera significantly less intimidating than a DSLR.

Automatic focus - contrast and phase-detection

Almost all compact and mirrorless cameras use contrast-detection autofocus - in its simplest form, this racks the lens through its range of focus distances and picks the one that delivers the highest contrast at the selected AF point. Once upon a time this was painfully slow, but focusing algorithms and lens designs have improved substantially over the past few years, and it can now be extremely fast and accurate. But it struggles in some situations - most notably with moving subjects. That's where 'Hybrid' autofocus comes in.

This cross section of the Fujifilm X-Trans CMOS sensor shows the following:

1) Microlenses

2) X-Trans color filter

3) Left/Right light interception filter

4) Phase detection sensor / green filter pixel

5) Photodiode


[Diagram courtesy of Fujifilm]

So-called 'hybrid' AF systems are becoming more common in Mirrorless cameras, and combine contrast-detection AF with phase-detection, which was traditionally used in DSLRs. A phase-detection AF system is able to tell from a single measurement exactly how to adjust the lens to achieve an in-focus image. As such, the main advantage of phase-detection AF is that it can support predictive focus tracking - a boon for all sorts of photography, from social shots of fast-moving kids to sports and wildlife. 

Hybrid AF was first employed successfully by Nikon's 1 System cameras, but other manufacturers such as Sony, Samsung, Fujifilm and Canon use similar technology, with varying degrees of success. 

In the Fujifilm design shown above (currently used in the fixed-lens X100S and X20, but representative of other similar systems in competitive Mirrorless ILCs) the PDAF sensors are localized towards the center of the frame, and use pixels that are masked to receive light from the left- and right-sides of the lens's exit pupil. The difference between the images coming from these two paths allows the focus distance to be determined. 

Manual Focusing and Lens Options

A side-benefit of their mirrorless design is its ability to assess exposure and show a magnified preview for accurate focusing of old, manual focus lenses, including some that need to be mounted very close to the sensor. This has resulted in a wide range of adapters appearing for the various Mirrorless mounts, allowing the use of a wide variety of manual focus lenses in obscure and obsolete mounts. It may not be as easy as using a native, autofocusing lens but it's a great way for budding photographers to experience fast, fixed focal length lenses without too much financial risk.

The ability to assess exposure and easily magnify the electronic preview make it easy to experiment with second-hand manual focus lenses.

It provides a cheap way to experience shooting with fast, fixed-focal-length lenses (which every budding photographer should get a chance to try).
More recently, manual focus aids such as focus peaking have become almost-standard on Mirrorless cameras. Focus Peaking provides a highlighted 'contrast' view of your subjects, allowing for accurate manual focus. This is especially useful when combined with live view magnification (shown above). 

What are the disadvantages?

Mirrorless cameras are getting better all the time, and there are far fewer disadvantages to using them now then there were in the recent past. That said, there are currently two major disadvantages we've experienced with some of the Mirrorless cameras we've encountered so far. The first is the inability of many models to match the autofocus speed of DSLRs when conducting continuous or predictive AF. Single-shot AF tends not to be so much of an issue, with most recent Mirrorless models able to match or, in the case of Nikon, Olympus and Panasonic, exceed the single-attempt focusing speed of most DSLRs. 

In general though, most Mirrorless cameras cannot track moving subjects (specifically those moving towards or away from you) as well as DSLRs. There is considerable variation between the different Mirrorless cameras in terms of autofocusing time so it's worth reading the reviews of the individual models before parting with any cash (the newer ones tend to be better than the first generation models, as you'd expect, and we anticipate newer 'hybrid' AF technology to quickly become standard and continue to improve).

The other drawback we've encountered is that some of the Mirrorless cameras we've used can struggle to focus in low light to a greater degree than we'd expect from an equivalent DSLRs. And, as the result of the way they focus, they don't always see the same benefit from using an AF illuminator as DSLRs do.

AF illuminators can be distracting but they can also give cameras (DSLRs in particular) an advantage when trying to focus in low light.

Most cameras, by default, won't take a picture unless it is in focus ('focus priority'), so the result of their inability to lock onto a moving subject is less likely to be an out of focus shot than either no shot at all (if the camera can't find anything to focus on), or such a long delay that you miss the moment entirely. Even in continuous shooting mode many mirrorless cameras struggle to keep a moving subject in focus, meaning the results will hit and miss - with a lot more miss than hit. It gets worse as focal lengths increase and as light levels drop, and as the amount your subject moves increases.

DSLRs aren't immune from this issue either, of course, and whether you're using a Mirrorless or DSLR camera, fast, bright lenses help a lot when it comes to AF performance in poor light. 

Waiting for focus means the picture is taken a fraction too late. Pre-focusing is the only solution. Many mirrorless cameras still fail to focus on a subject is moving towards (or away from) you.
Shooting in burst mode simply allows you to take more out of focus and/or mis-framed shots as the camera struggles to keep up. With the right settings, good technique and a bit of light you can take great action shots using a mirrorless camera.

Another result of small camera bodies is that the batteries have often also been pared-back. This capacity reduction, combined with the need to always use the LCD or electronic viewfinder means the battery life of some Mirrorless cameras isn't quite in the 'shoot-all-day' range that many DSLRs offer (that said, entry-level DSLR batteries have also been getting smaller, so it's worth factoring-in the cost of a spare, whichever system you choose).

What comes next?

Mirrorless cameras have only been on the market for around five years, rather than the 15-or-so years over which enthusiast-oriented DSLRs have been developed (plus, of course, more than half a century's worth of refinement of the underlying SLR mechanism), so it's understandable that there is more obvious room for improvement.

Mirrorless cameras are still a developing technology, but even in the past couple of years we've seen considerable improvements in focus speed and user interfaces designed to make it easier to access their full capabilities.

Unless you need the fast-subject shooting capability of a DSLR (most Mirrorless models are getting there, but not all), we think that Mirrorless cameras' size, accessibility and (increasingly) attractive price make them pretty compelling. In fact, if you're someone looking to upgrade from a compact camera, it's certainly worth asking yourself the question 'do I really want a DSLR?'

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by dpreview.com or any affiliated companies.

Comments

Total comments: 181
12
Theophilus101
By Theophilus101 (2 months ago)

Good article but it's in serious need of updating. Many people are very interested in the latest m43 systems and would certainly appreciate up-to-date info!

7 upvotes
Macintosh Sauce
By Macintosh Sauce (3 months ago)

I decided I'm going Micro Four Thirds, especially after getting our niece a new Lumix G5 with 14-42mm and 45-150mm lenses for $488 on Amazon. What an excellent mirrorless camera! :)

I want a GH3 with a battery grip, but I would rather have the rumored GH5 that is supposed to be announced soon. My wife? I think I'm going to get her the GX7 when it comes out.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (3 months ago)

I support the progression of high quality, *interchangeable*, mirror-less cameras; using hopefully, "full frame" sensors. This means a new mount/lenses; for the shorter flange-back distance, and as yet is unseen. That needs phase detect (like the Nikon 1 system AF). Plus, overall camera balances; that are often overlooked. This would not be a pocket camera; but would be smaller, for FF. This is how FF cams can be smaller. RX1 sized; for example. Nikon? Canon? Fuji? Wakey, wakey.

Pocket cameras might better use fixed lenses, and are in dire need of much more improvement, and lower prices. The celebrated new leaps, with pocket cams, are still leaving them very wanting. I recognize the need for a pocket cam; but wholly reject their image quality, in many cases/scenes. I say, it's better to manage a slight bigger camera. Not restrictions.

I think manufacturer need to include a high res EVF, preferable on the left to save size, and a strong built-in fill flash.

Not mention a radio flash

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (3 months ago)

By radio flash, I basically mean a built-in (non-protruding) "Pocket-wizard" type deal. You could also buy a remote speedlight, with transceiver, or just a remote shoe receiver(s). That's TTL, and fast flash sync. Remote, and automatic.

Now isn't that better than GPS, or WiFi?

0 upvotes
Pixil007
By Pixil007 (5 months ago)

Do Olympus and Nikon or Cannon DSLRs and micro 4/3 use different focusing algorithryms and if so, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (3 months ago)

No. They all try to achieve focus; but sometimes fail. :)

Actually, phase detect predictive focus is the one to beat; when it does work. Fast AF is a requirement; but so is MF abilities; when needed.

0 upvotes
Jdm308
By Jdm308 (8 months ago)

I agree with Steve. The image quality of the Olympus OM-D is nearly impossible to beat, until you quadruple the price. Though my last Canon was a bit easier to handle, it was also much bulkier, and heavier. And Briarios is also correct. There have been great improvements in Micro 4/3 AF recently. If I'm not mistaken, the Olympus OM-D is now the quickest.

0 upvotes
Steve oliphant
By Steve oliphant (8 months ago)

I work in a camera shop i test these cameras and no i'm not paid by manufactures .If you wan't a great camera for photography get the OMD EM5 from Olympus ,why the new sony sensor kicks but on anything APSC on the market today hi ISO is killer 2to 3 stops better then my 7D and you have the best lenses out there from the crazy good 45mm1.8 olympus to the wicked 25mm1.4 panasonic .Now if video is your thing then the GH3 is the king of the block and is a great camera ,but it is quit a bit bigger Micro 4/3 mount is going to crush the market soon with 5 new comers to the mix. sony well there better then canons or nikon mirror less but the lenses are well, good for maybe 3 magapixel at best, they need better glass.

4 upvotes
Briarios
By Briarios (8 months ago)

Wow, as a Sony a57 owner I take exception to this ancient article's disadvantages list - & it's worth noting that the Sony a's are given only 3 sentences at the end of this primer on mirrorless cameras though it's the Sonys that are the state of the art in this camera class. The whole article should be about the Sonys. If body size is an issue, go NEX. If one really needs more NEX lenses then get an a lens adapter. I tell ya Sonys get no respect, no respect at all.

1 upvote
kididdoc1
By kididdoc1 (9 months ago)

buyers guide??

1 upvote
kididdoc1
By kididdoc1 (9 months ago)

buyers' guide soon ?

1 upvote
Hybris
By Hybris (9 months ago)

just found the 2011 roundup, that was not very easy to find

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8986630048/mirrorless-roundup-2011

0 upvotes
Hybris
By Hybris (9 months ago)

yeah! it's time for a roundup on mirrorless cam.... since i am planning to buy one ;)

0 upvotes
kells103
By kells103 (9 months ago)

where is the promised buyers guide? This article is now over a year old!

5 upvotes
MacEddy
By MacEddy (9 months ago)

Please am love photography and am planing to buy an advance camera that will enable me take good pictures. and am seriously looking at the Sony NEX - C3 or DSLR. please i need ur advice on which to buy.

Reason are: Am a designer and wants to take my on pictures.
Wants to do video always
and do a little business with it should those opportunities come my way
these are my reasons

Thank

0 upvotes
tabloid
By tabloid (10 months ago)

I think that cameras like the Sony A77, Lumix GH3 etc are pushing the boundaries every few months.
And this is just the beginning of it all.

0 upvotes
Abdullah M
By Abdullah M (11 months ago)

Already owning good set of EF lenses, so mirror-less cameras are out of my interesting now.

0 upvotes
SHELL999
By SHELL999 (Oct 29, 2012)

I am thinking of getting the SONY NEX F3 but love viewfinders?? Will the NEX F3 take good photos in bright sunlight due to the lcd??

1 upvote
Briarios
By Briarios (8 months ago)

Viewfinder w/diopter adjust is good if like me you use reading glasses close-up, but don't like wearing them when you're shooting. You could hood the lcd of the NEX. I've read that NEX take great pics & vids but haven't tried one.

0 upvotes
Mike Sandman
By Mike Sandman (Oct 28, 2012)

This article, posted only 10 months ago, is pretty good but it needs an update. A growing number of models now have electronic viewfinders for those who prefer to put the camera up to an eye. They cost more than models that don't offer viewfinders but they may be more suitable for serious photography. And three or four now have hybrid auto-focus systems that promise faster focusing speeds, including the Nikon 1 mentioned in the article, but also including the newest Sony NEX models and the Canon M.

3 upvotes
Entropius
By Entropius (Oct 28, 2012)

Even without hybrid AF the new contrast AF systems in the Olympus E-M5 and others are blisteringly fast.

0 upvotes
CameraExpert
By CameraExpert (Aug 24, 2012)

If you're looking for the best of both worlds, I highly recommend that Olympus OM-D E-M5 camera. It's mirrorless, has a high resolution, high refresh rate EVF and beautiful classic retro design.

16MP, splashproof and has a 5-axis image stabilization which will compensate shaky hands.

Check it out here: http://getolympus.com/omd/

I LOVE IT!

1 upvote
Benny Stevens
By Benny Stevens (Oct 4, 2012)

Yes, and I would add to that : great low light capability, splendid image stabilization, fast AF, great lenses, great JPEGs, well made, beautiful, lovely, adorable,...

0 upvotes
skisagooner
By skisagooner (Jul 26, 2012)

I'm only an amateur and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the biggest disadvantage of the 'mirrorless' camera the lack of a 'live' optical viewfinder?

That's what the DSLR basically means isn't it? Digital Single Lens Reflex = mirror that reflex light to the viewfinder, as well as the sensor. So when we say 'mirrorless', it essentially means that it lacks precisely that.

There's only 1 reason why the DSLR is monstrous in size... it's for that viewfinder. And when you remove the mirror, you sacrifice that viewfinder.

And hence that is the biggest drawback of the mirrorless camera. Isn't it self-explanatory?

1 upvote
scottstensland
By scottstensland (Sep 12, 2012)

No - you need to reread above article - mirrorless offers live viewfinder, similar to pocket cameras

1 upvote
tijosamuelthomas
By tijosamuelthomas (Sep 23, 2012)

hey.. even iam an amature... but i'd really like to know why you a use viewfinder when u can directly see how your picture is going to be with use of liveview.

0 upvotes
Benny Stevens
By Benny Stevens (Oct 4, 2012)

I'm used to nice optical viewfinders in 35mm film SLR's (and not only the F3HP). Most DSLR viewfinders are merely keyholes, especially APS-C format cameras. I was afraid to switch to the OM-D EM-5, but I rather like the EVF on that camera. It's main shortcoming is that the contrast of the subject is not rendered as it should (short dynamic). Otherwise, all the rest of that great camera make up for that!

0 upvotes
NeilShah
By NeilShah (Apr 28, 2012)

I am a amateur photographer and planning to get a new camera.

I almost bought Nikon d5100 DSLR and came across mirror less cameras and this article.

Now I am confused btw the two types. I have listed my top needs below. Can you please help me decide.

- I have an infant and planning to use my new camera for photos and videos mainly inside with my little princess.
- I am also planning to take photography class and get into next level of photography
- I love traveling and I usually take my tripod and Sony dsc3 with me all the time.
- my hand shakes a bit whenever I take photos and am looking for appropriate camera which will nullify it.

Thanks a lot for your help.

0 upvotes
ebosch
By ebosch (May 6, 2012)

I have a nikon D5000 and a canon 1D Mk III.
looking at your needs, i would personally recommend you the nikon,
because a mirrorless camera, while good, isn't ideal for taking photos of kids that moves unpredictably all the time. You're going to miss the precious shots just trying to focus a mirrorless, and while some mirorrless lenses are stabilized, they're not as efficient as DSLRs stabilized lens when it comes to eliminating hand shakes.
And when planning to go to the next level of photography, certainly a DSLR is a wise choice. I see that you like travelling, but since you already have a sony dsc3, I wouldn't worry. Besides, nikon D5100 is a small camera already.
My take would be the nikon, and buy the 35mm f/1.8 lens. It's cheap, bright, small, and since it's a prime lens, it will train you to be a better photographer.
hope it helps.

2 upvotes
BlackStar269
By BlackStar269 (Jun 25, 2012)

You sound like a DSLR would be more what you are looking for. The few restrictions in the new technology would prove irritating as you watched your fellow students with DSLR cameras.
Regarding your hand shake, consider a mono-pod. Most, if not all, of the cameras have image stabilization technology, and that will deal with much of the shake. With a longer lense and mono-pod or even a tri-pod will be very helpful.
Enjoy your new hobby.

0 upvotes
CameraExpert
By CameraExpert (Aug 24, 2012)

If you're looking for the best of both worlds, I highly recommend that Olympus OM-D E-M5 camera. It's mirrorless with an EVF and beautiful classic retro design. 16MP, splashproof and has a 5-axis image stabilization which will compensate shaky hands.

Check it out here: http://getolympus.com/omd/

I LOVE IT!

0 upvotes
DoctorJerry
By DoctorJerry (Apr 3, 2012)

Mirrorless cameras are NOT for everyone. However, if you love photography but do NOT want to lug 2-5 pounds of gear with you, nor do you want less than sharp images and do want the ability to duplicate anything a big, bulky dSLR can do then you do want to explore getting a mirrorless camera.

I have owned 3 Panasonics (G1, G2 and the GF1) 3 Sony NEX cameas (NEX 3, NEX 5N and the NEX7) along with the Canon G1 X.

I can stick the NEX 5N or the 7 in a large vest pocket with the lens attached. In fact I do carry both cameras (one in each front vest pocket) and with a jacket on and no one even knows I am carrying a camera, let alone 2. Both cameras easily duplicate and surpass in most ways my old Nikon D90, especially at higher ISO speeds. I have the 16mm prime on the 5N and the 18-55 on the NEX 7. Both cameas are very fast focusing and produce very sharp great images.

For me, mirrorless cameras have made travelling a great experience once again.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
wasserball
By wasserball (Feb 23, 2012)

Am I wrong to say that mirrorless cameras are just glorified point-and-shoot cameras with a larger sensor and the ability of interchanging lens? OK, they are thinner and lighter than DSLR cameras, but their smaller size does not have that much advantage of DSLR cameras. Before I would consider replacing my DSLR cameras they will have to be quicker in low light auto focus and less noise at high ISO. Having the live view on all the time means more wear and tear on the sensor, and using up battery life.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
lapdog99
By lapdog99 (Dec 25, 2011)

For those of you with a small camera and DSLR, which one do you most often have with you (lx5 for me)? Which one avoids the "professional camera" problems on the street? Which camera would be best for birds in flight or fast moving animals (my Nikon)? All of this may eventually lead me to a Sony family of Nex 7/ alpha series someday. If only Canon or Nikon lens were compatible with full function on either version of cameras...but I expect all of the big 3 to extend their family vision along the EVIL/SLR progression over time. Great, thought provoking article.

1 upvote
Nis
By Nis (Dec 23, 2011)

Still the lacking "look through" viewfinder keeps me from turning into mirror-less. Taking more than 80% of my pictures looking into this viewfinder due to faster reaction. I see the Oly add on electronic viewfinder as a clumsy solution bringing technology back to the 1930's LEICAs series I & II. So I have a hard time leaving my OLY e-620 for something not being much lighter and smaller.
When that is said I see the "daylight coming" with the NIKON V1, where the smaller sensor is in some cases is better than many bigger 4/3 sensors re. DPR test results.

0 upvotes
cits
By cits (Jun 13, 2012)

The DSLR type of body has a viewfinder, the rangefinder style do not. Saw an Oly and it was much tinier than the Pan G3 but it had no viewfinder and I found the menus confusing and the salesperson was not help...kept trying to sell me a Leica superzoom (probably quite similar to the Panny FZ150.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Dec 20, 2011)

Wow, "mirrorless" analog video cameras, a.k.a. television cameras have been around at least since the 1940s. And "Live View" technology has been around since then in the form of B&W CRT monitors/viewfinders on these cameras.

Maybe it's time to get over the shocking novelty of "mirrorless" cameras already, hmmm?

4 upvotes
SW Anderson
By SW Anderson (Dec 20, 2011)

I 'm sure manufacturers hope these mirrorless cameras will create a lucrative market for additional lenses. I read years ago that was the thinking of leading film SLR makers, which competed more on camera price but realized bigger per-item profits from lens sales. However, I think what spurred the growth of film SLR sales from the 1970's-1990's was the availability of more-affordable, good- to excellent-quality lenses from third-party makers.

So far, I don't see third-party lens makers hurrying out products for ILC's. They're probably in wait-and-see mode. If independent lens makers do bring out some "popular"-priced ultrawides, faster-than-kit medium zooms and faster fixed focal length portrait lenses, I think they will be rewarded with good initial sales. But down the line, when more people buy ILC's in part because more more-affordable lenses are available, the lens makers will enjoy even bigger sales.

Just a thought, anyway.

0 upvotes
pirx
By pirx (Dec 20, 2011)

1. I like this overview a lot. Concise and collecting info otherwise dispersed. An angle not mentioned enough for me: high-end compacts and size+usability+price tradeoffs with mirrorless (though I understand this deserves a separate topic).

2. Background: I use both a Nikon DSLR and a Panasonic LX3, looking for a newer camera. With 28-200 zoom the mirrorless will be about as large as D40 with similar reach - not pocketable - comparing to P7100. Also, for high-end compacts you can get 24mm on the wide end (S100, LX5) with 90mm+ on the far end - not easily available on mirrorless, esp. for the price.

3. Mirroless IQ is not be better than DSLR and the lens are not smaller (enough to matter) for frequently used zoom range. Within this scope mirrorless sits slightly awkwardly between high-end compacts and small DSLRs. There will be always some market segment when the _current_ mirrorless will be a good fit, but many amateur photographers will not be in it, I suspect.

0 upvotes
sjdigital
By sjdigital (Dec 19, 2011)

Interesting article - thanks.

I've used a Canon 30D for a number of years now but got a 'surprise' birthday present of a Sony NEX 5 in anticipation of a family vacation to Florida, i.e. the theme parks, with our grandkids. The benefits of the NEX as I found them were excellent image quality, excellent video capability (which is barely mentioned in the article) and a considerable saving in weight compared to carrying the Canon and a video camera as well, not to mention the sheer convenience of being able to switch from still to video at the touch of a button.

But as ever, YMMV!

1 upvote
M1963
By M1963 (Dec 19, 2011)

@Revenant: depth of field is not simply an effect of sensor size, as the lens also plays a fundamental role. I get completely dilluted backgrounds with an Olympus E-P1 when I mount an old (though excellent) OM 50mm/f1.4 lens. That depth of field issue would be true if the 4/3 sensor was as small as a compact camera sensor (as with the Pentax Q, and to some extent the Nikon 1 series), but fortunately it isn't. So, while you pamper your worries about 4/3 large depth of field, I go on taking pictures with a fantastic bokeh with my m4/3 camera :)

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Dec 19, 2011)

Yes, I know that DOF is also a function of aperture, focal length and distance to the subject, but with a sensor of the size we were discussing, you have to zoom in and get very close in order to get a short DOF. I was talking about a hypothetical 4x3mm sensor, in reply to tem00, and not a 4/3 sensor, which is 17.3x13mm. But I now realize that he probably meant a 4/3 sensor, which makes my comment about DOF less relevant. :)

1 upvote
tem00
By tem00 (Dec 18, 2011)

Sensor size has nothing to do with it. It's the technolgy in the sensor and the relationship with the lens. In years ahead, a 4x3mm sensor will most likely be resolving 12mp very well. Lenses designed to use it will give all the benefits you think you need in large sensors today.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Dec 18, 2011)

Sensor size has much to do with it. Sure, technology improves, but a large sensor using the same technology as a smaller one will always yield better image quality (with the right lens, of course). The more light you gather, the better. Also, there's one benefit a 4x3mm sensor never can give, and that's a short DOF. There's no way around the laws of physics.

2 upvotes
tem00
By tem00 (Dec 20, 2011)

No, I meant 4mm by 3mm, you read right. One micron per pixel for 12 megapixels. Visible light wavelength is centered ~.5 microns and can potentially be focused within 1 micron no problem, with good design and technique of course.
Perhaps if your physics were learned from reading photo blogs you would disagree, because I would like to know what law you are referring to? Unless you think photons are much larger than they are. The DOF calculations all the photo experts quote are based on charts made for spherical lens design of the 1930's. Besides, shallow DOF, is a relic of the slow film days and today there is no use for it, except to imitate a look of a bygone age. Sort of like plugins that simulate grain. Any 9th grader with a DSLR and fast lens can create it. Besides, it usually just shows the limitations of the photographer's skill to compose a image with what's there. Do you really think photons change properties when landing on a sensor 20mm bigger? Its all lens.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Dec 20, 2011)

I learned my physics at university, so no need to lecture me there. I know what photons are, and of course they don't change properties with sensor size. But IQ doesn't just depend on what happens at the quantum level, but also on the total amount of gathered light. I've no doubt that a small sensor could accomplish exactly what you say, but still, the same amount of pixels on a larger sensor will reduce stochastic photonic noise, which decreases with pixel pitch. Read about photonic noise here:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/Noise-characterization/Noise-in-mid-tones

The laws I was referring to was the laws of optics, not quantum physics. I simply meant that DOF is a function of (among other things) sensor size. All else being equal, you just can't get as short DOF with a small sensor as with a larger one, and that's nothing to do with individual pixels. As for the aesthetic merit of a short DOF, that's a question of individual taste, don't you think?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Dec 20, 2011)

Okay, so I don't have a Ph.D. in Quantum-XYZ whatever, but it seems to me that a 4mm x 3mm sensor is rather smallish in size, at least we so think today. Not to say if the image sensors are not going to be reduced further in years to come, what at what price? Personally, I hope that they won't be, because a lens small enough to cover such a tiny sensor will have all sorts compromises. At least there will not be a need to have a focus ring on lenses covering a 4x3mm sensor -- everything will be in deep focus, all the time. "Citizen Kane," here we come again!

0 upvotes
tem00
By tem00 (Dec 22, 2011)

You all make some good valid points. In the 80's I used Arri and Panavision. The DP's struggled to get more DOF in most situations with that equipment, so I find it amusing this generation gets turned on by blurry disk in the background. It's a matter of taste I suppose.

I don't have a Ph.D. But know optics, lasers, and photonics, as now we manufacture H.O.E.'s (holographic optical elements) and optical films for tech. I think it is premature to nay a product because the specs indicate a small sensor.

Technology improves and innovation has us rethinking the state of the art. I was just predicting that near future cameras will blow the lid off most ideas today. Probably even capture some wavefront info like Lytro too.

I also remember in the 90's my cousin, who held a PhD in computer technology, saying the 486 66mhz chip they were developing was pushing the limit of any computer speed possible and didn't think it would EVER be possible to go faster due to the "physics".

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 9, 2012)

I agree, we probably will see amazing innovations in sensor design. It's just that those innovations will benefit both small and large sensors, and a large sensor will always handle photonic noise better, all else being equal. So I don't see small sensors closing in on larger ones performance-wise. But who knows? Let's see what the future brings :-)

0 upvotes
unixwiz
By unixwiz (Mar 15, 2012)

Tem00: Your cousin with a PhD was "mistaken". Even Freshman Comp Sci majors know that Moore's law has been applicable since the seventies (transistor density doubling approx every two years, with concomitant performance increases - See Pollack's rule!)

0 upvotes
The six
By The six (Dec 18, 2011)

Umm, not quite. DSLR typically have apsc size sensor, but csc have 4/3 size - much smaller. I realize you're trying to get people excited but its best to tell the truth instaed of dissapointing people. The csc cameras will not have same image quality as dslr.

0 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Dec 18, 2011)

'Much smaller'? It's not like we're comparing a mouse to an elephant! 4/3 sensors are not that smaller compared to APS-C. See for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg
As for your last sentence, I wonder if it's based on actual experience, or just a guess.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Dec 18, 2011)

Sony NEX and Samsung NX use APS-C sensors. Csc is not synonymous with m4/3.

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Dec 20, 2011)

MFT sensor size is not all that much smaller than the smallest of APS-C sensors (Sony, Canon), but it has a 4:3 aspect ratio in lieu of 3:2. AFAIK, only two camera companies even make 4/3 size sensor cameras.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm

When you shoot video with a 4/3-inch sensor Panasonic Lumix GH2 at a 154 or 176Mb/second patched codec, you are basically shooting the equivalent quality of 16mm motion picture film scanned in at 3K resolution, or 2-perforation 35mm MP film scanned in at 2K. Not too shabby, in other words.

APS-C is of a nice size, and so is 4/3rd sensor nice. In fact, the app. 1-inch sensor in the Nikon V-series and the 2/3-inch sensor in the Fujifilm X10 and X-S1 are pretty decent sizes as well.

0 upvotes
tem00
By tem00 (Dec 18, 2011)

I found the Nikon V1 blended the best of SLR and m4/3. Focus speed exceeded anything I have tried and the IQ is exceptional, especially raw in NX2. If you are past 40, a good EVF is great when in low light or when you don't want to wear reading glasses. The quality of these smaller cameras is there.

1 upvote
Swiss Forester
By Swiss Forester (Dec 17, 2011)

This article is very informative for everybody looking for an alternative to traditional DSLR-cameras - thank you R. Butler! It answers the question what you possibly will miss and what you get by choosing a mirrorless system.

I already made my choice: I traded my excellent, but heavy Nikon-D700 equipment for a lightweight Panasonic Lumix GH2-system - and I never look back, particularly not when I am on a hiking tour in the Alps...

Of course there are some (minor) drawbacks in particular situations compared to high end DSLR's, but mostly you will appreciate the convenience of this handy camera; and if you shoot RAW and develop with DxO Optics Pro, you also will be delighted about the image quality you bring out of the relatively small four thirds sensor!

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rjx
By rjx (Dec 17, 2011)

I agree it's size can be an advantage, however, it's size can also be a disadvantage. I prefer something meaty that fits in my hands well, with lots of buttons and dials for easy access to the camera's features. The DSLR's are designed so well that even people with small hands will probably find the ergonomics a good fit.

I prefer a viewfinder which I feel allows me to get more involved with the scene and helps me concentrate on composition. And when I am looking through the viewfinder I am able to keep the camera more still while I securely hold the camera against my face, as opposed to holding a smaller camera up in the air and trying to frame everything with the LCD.

I am anal. So for me, I want the best image quality I can afford. So for me it's a DSLR, hands down. Some of these mirrorless cameras are as expensive as DSLR's and all you are saving is a little bulk / weight. You still need a bag with mirrorless cameras, even if it is slightly smaller.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
rjx
By rjx (Dec 17, 2011)

The way I look at it is, there are two types of cameras. Cameras that fit in pockets and don't need bags. And cameras that don't fit in pockets that need bags.

There is proper techniques of how to correctly hold a DSLR which will make it feel lighter and take the stress off your wrist, shoulders and back.

I prefer a nice DSLR w/ a nice pocketable compact camera.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Gregor Pogschnik
By Gregor Pogschnik (Dec 17, 2011)

"The way I look at it is, there are two types of cameras. Cameras that fit in pockets and don't need bags. And cameras that don't fit in pockets that need bags."

Concerning size, i totally agree. Why pay 600 for a "compact" one that wont fit into my pants?

0 upvotes
datiswous
By datiswous (Dec 19, 2011)

It depends what mirrorless camera/lenses you use. Combination of my E-P2 with a pancake is pocketable (I'm talking about jeans with small pockets). The new Panasonic 14-42 is allmost the size of a pancake.

Btw. I think that most grips of entry level dslrs are not better than those of mirrorless camera's, the fiewfinder is often also worse.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
JWest
By JWest (Dec 19, 2011)

My Samsung NX100 with 30mm pancake prime fits in my coat pocket just fine. Now I can take my DSLR when I'm setting out specifically to take a particular shot, yet still have an almost equally capable camera in my pocket at all times.

This argument over whether mirrorless cameras are pocketable seems to go on endlessly. Can't people just accept that everyone has different needs? For some the flexibility of a DSLR is essential, for others the portability of a compact is paramount, but there's plenty of room in the middle ground for mirrorless cameras.

0 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Dec 16, 2011)

'In fact, if you're someone looking to upgrade from a compact camera, it's certainly worth asking yourself the question 'do I really want a DSLR?'' For me the answer was always no.
I started developing an interest for photography only last year, when I bought a p&s. I knew nothing about photography then, but it only took me a couple of months to realize that camera was a limiting factor. I needed something better, especially when it came to lenses. When I saw the first picture of the Olympus E-P1, I almost had a heart attack: that was exactly what I needed! Beautiful and with great IQ.
The E-P1 taught me how to photograph. Out of financial constraints, I decided to venture into OM lenses, and found they work wonderfully with the E-P1. That was one of the wisest decisions I've ever taken.
Yes, compact system cameras are a godsend to someone upgrading from a compact camera who wants a small camera with great image quality without paying Leica prices. Your article is right on the ball!

1 upvote
Tawen Mei
By Tawen Mei (Dec 17, 2011)

As a matter of fact, I upgraded from DSLR (Canon 20D, once hailed as the "mini 1D" by DPreview) to a M3/4 (GF2). I totally agree it's the lens. For me, the 17mm f/1.7 lens was the main motivation.

There's a huge gap in DSLR lens line-up. There're decent but ridiculously bulky stuff designed for yesterday's film SLR, then the cheaper stuff meant for grocery stores like Costco and Walmart. A modern 24mm or 28mm f/1.7 for APS-C sensor is clearly missing, and that's why I upgrade to the GF2 instead of 7D.

1 upvote
John Kim
By John Kim (Dec 18, 2011)

That's a limitation of physics, not choice. Due to the mirror in a DSLR, the absolute minimum distance from the lens to the sensor must be the same as the sensor's height. Then you have to add more room for filters and protection for the sensor, a swivel mount for the mirror, and a beefy mount for the lens.

The net result is that the closest the lens can be to the sensor is 44mm on Canon's EF mount, 46mm on Nikon's (shorter for EF-S and AF-S, though obviously the mount distance remains the same). Any lens with a focal length shorter than this must be a retrofocus design (basically two lenses, one in front of the other). This is what makes wide-angle lenses so big and expensive on DSLRs.

The cheap, wide, high-quality fixed focus lenses are just beyond this distance. For DSLRs, it's 50 and 55mm, which is a normal lens on full frame but unfortunately a slight telephoto on APS-C. A 24 or 28mm on APS-C has to be a retrofocus design, adding bulk and expense. That's why you don't see them.

1 upvote
datiswous
By datiswous (Dec 19, 2011)

John Kim: The 25mm 2.8 FourThirds lens has a retrofocal design, but is a pancake lens...

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Dec 20, 2011)

Re. the digital photo lenses, these babies are light weight and dirt cheap compared to the cine-style lenses. Like, Canon had just had released a 10x zoom lens last month that is not particularly bright, yet weighs in at 6 kilograms = 13 pounds. Oh yeah -- it costs US$50,000.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/cinema_lenses/ef_cinema_lenses_pl_mount/cn_e30_300mm_t2_95_3_7_l_sp

In comparison, ALL digital photo lenses are light weight and cost very little, people. Be happy!

0 upvotes
Photo Grapher
By Photo Grapher (Dec 16, 2011)

I started to use mirrorless cameras with micro four thirds and Panasonic Lumix g system, that was in 2008, now I continue to use them and don't want to go back to an SLR system

I have now two Panasonic Lumix cameras from the G system, and four lenses, image quality is very good, I love the colors also, and lenses are great and not expensive

Things I like is the fast and accurate AF, the always on Live view, both on LCD and EVF, the small size of cameras and lenses, accurate exposure, easy of use, design and good built

I advice all to try this new cameras as a replacement for SLR, the image quality is similar, only at high iso you notice a small difference, and we all almost only use ISO 100 or 200, so it is not an great disadvantage, only people that take always pictures at high ISO like 3200, will need an SLR and in this case it will be a fullframe SLR not an APS-C SLR

I think that micro four thirds is the best system for this cameras and a very mature one with good choices

3 upvotes
Aleo Veuliah
By Aleo Veuliah (Dec 17, 2011)

I agree with you, I started also with Panasonic Lumix G system, and it is great and a pleasure to use

0 upvotes
mpetersson
By mpetersson (Dec 17, 2011)

I agree that for most uses a mirrorless system is a perfectly good replacement for a DSLR. I am right now moving from a Sony Alfa DSLR-system combined with a Panasonic m4/3-system to just a NEX-7. I like m4/3, but basically I have two reasons for going with the NEX-7 instead. First of all I really like the camera and the sensor, second I want the reduced crop factor for legacy glass. I am going to miss the Panasonic lenses though. Anyway, I am never going back to a DSLR, at least not as my main camera.

2 upvotes
jeff_006
By jeff_006 (Dec 19, 2011)

" lenses are great and not expensive " come on ! Every equivalent in APS-C is far less expensive !! make the comparison !!
Else, I'm a happy m43 user but price is clearly not the argument here...less weight has a price...

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Dec 20, 2011)

Yeah, re. lens prices, Olympus and Panasonic MFT lenses are so much more money than 3rd-part APS-C lenses are. And the native MFT lens availability is still very narrow.

0 upvotes
Photo Grapher
By Photo Grapher (Mar 9, 2012)

Maybe some cheap APS-c lenses, but from my experience (and I came from DSLr's) the image quality is not so good, anyway what I mean is that Micro 4/3 is very pleasant to use and it is a very good choice for those who don't want big gear

0 upvotes
wrcak
By wrcak (Oct 27, 2012)

Pleasure to use folks.

0 upvotes
Alexsfo
By Alexsfo (Dec 16, 2011)

Live View is superior to OVF. I wasn't able to judge colors, WB, exposure, DoF, various color modes, accurately through OVF when I had Canon DSLR (Its live view is unusably atrocious). I much rather prefer Live View full time cause I know exactly how my shot is gonna look like so mirrorless is the way to go. With the arrival of Nikon 1 we now know that on-sensor phase detect AF is a piece of cake so I have no doubt we'll be seeing a lot of tracking and continous AF improvement next year making DSLR even more irrelevant and suitable only for folks who are too old to give up OVF.
Mirrorless is not necessarily about size reduction. We now have a choice of large mirrorless system (Nex) and smaller compact Micro Four Thirds system.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Cass_Rimportant
By Cass_Rimportant (Dec 17, 2011)

I'm not sure I agree. There's something about a good OVF that, for me, can't be beat. Now, I have to qualify what I mean by "good" OVF. My FM2n is excellent, my D200 is mediocre. And my Pentax 645n is a whole different world. I use a GF1 and used to have a Nex-3 so I have plenty of experience with mirrorless cameras, but my favorite mirrorless viewfinder so far is the X100's, which I mostly use in OVF mode.
Considering I just turned 26 this month, I don't think liking OVFs is correlated with being "too old."

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Renard DellaFave
By Renard DellaFave (Dec 18, 2011)

I just can't get into OVF (or EVF) shooting at all. I did it back in the film days but once I got a screen on the back of the camera it was just such a relief.
How that'll change when I need glasses to see at arm's length, we shall see...

0 upvotes
Alexsfo
By Alexsfo (Dec 20, 2011)

LCD is a type of EVF in mirrorless cameras

0 upvotes
zacster
By zacster (Dec 16, 2011)

As a new convert to mirrorless cameras (E-PM1) and as someone that never gave cameras much thought, this would have been a great starter article for me. Too late now, but I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that would like to know what is really available.

I've had film SLRs since the late 60s, from manual to auto focus, but never really used them to their full capabilities. When I traveled I always carried my Ricoh P&S film camera, and more recently my FZ35 superzoom (SLR like but smaller).

The E-PM1 was really for my daughter, and she is thrilled. It is full featured, not too big to carry, and expandable. She's had it for 3 days and has taken more pictures than she had over 3 years of P&S. I bought an adapter for the lenses from my 35mm days, but she is still learning how to use the kit lens and the camera, so that'll have to wait.

Time lapse is possible on this camera without anything additional, as is a B setting. And 3D since I have a 3D tv.

0 upvotes
migus
By migus (Dec 16, 2011)

one issue of Live View: slightly higher sensor noise vs. the same sensor in a mirror-slapping SLR. See Sony.

Yet the benefits in size and handling are tremendous, despite the sizeable lenses required to cover the APS-C chips. Hope for FF sensor soon from Sony or Samsung.

Missing: Stealth mode - shut all the LEDs and LCDs off and shoot (street, wildlife, night, show)... with OVF or blind.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Dec 20, 2011)

What?

0 upvotes
onix
By onix (Dec 16, 2011)

It irritates me that cameras like these going after enthusiasts lack basic features and settings, such as arbitrary long open shutters and time-lapse photography. Why do I have to buy another ($200) adapter just to automate the shutter for time-lapse.

Also wouldn't it be great if there was an API that let us automate more things on cameras via a computer? Imagine using your camera as a webcam, or recording directly to computer HD if there might be a memory limitation. In my case, I'd like to be able to attach the camera to a telescope and microscope to automate some measurement, e.g. strobe photography.

These things seems so simple, and yet so far from getting any attention.

Maybe I'm the only one... someone please cheer me up.

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
migus
By migus (Dec 16, 2011)

count me in

0 upvotes
didida do da do da do da
By didida do da do da do da (Dec 16, 2011)

I would definitely also like having these features.

0 upvotes
GeoNiko
By GeoNiko (Dec 16, 2011)

I totally agree. They could also enable electronic shutter for time-laps.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Dec 20, 2011)

"Imagine using your camera as a webcam, or recording directly to computer HD if there might be a memory limitation."

I can not only imagine it, I am doing it already! All you need to do is get something like a Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2, and plug it into your laptop via a USB 3.0 capture card, or straight into the HDMI INPUT jack if your laptop (like Alienware) has that. Or to any internal/external HDMI capture card. You can record exactly what the camera sees at 1920 x 1080.

0 upvotes
mss
By mss (Dec 16, 2011)

I've been waiting a long time for these capabilities. My primary desires have been manual focus accuracy (e.g. magnification) and live-view preview of depth of field and exposure. I've been suffering with my Sony A1 and A2, waiting for someone to have interchangeable lenses with live preview. (I recall there was a low-end pro camera for $3500 with it, too expensive for me) I consider these mirror-less cameras and the Sony A65/A77 (which is what I plan on getting very soon) all part of a revolution - getting away from "tradition" and simply providing features.

0 upvotes
HIScamera
By HIScamera (Dec 16, 2011)

Walking around the downtown Vancouver with NEX-5N is perhaps the most gratifying experience I had taking photos of interesting street scenes. Had I done it with, say a Canon 7d with an L glass, that experience would have ended much earlier than I would have liked. Not because of image quality, but because of its weight. When your camera weights close to 2kg, that continuous motion of bringing the camera up to your eye level becomes strenuous over time. If you are not a pro photographer, and do not depend on that shot to make your living, Mirrorless makes so much more sense in terms of street photography.
But of course, to say something is good or bad for any one other than yourself, is foolish at best. I’ve seen people who lug around +3-5kg gears all day long, and still have enough strength to lift that mug of beer at the end of the day. (Which the experience they tend to repeat over time)

So in closing, I guess have not contributed much to whatever this is. C'est La Vie.

0 upvotes
WhyNot
By WhyNot (Dec 16, 2011)

I'd like to suggest another disadvantage of the current CSC's – size! As an owner of a G2, I appreciate the smaller size and weight of these cameras: however, with most lenses they're never going to fit comfortably in any pocket that's not on a winter coat. Therefore, I'd like them to be a little wider so that I can hold them comfortably without always brushing a button or dial and find that I'm looking at a menu instead of the scene in front of the camera – give me a reasonable grip. Alternately, the designers could find room on the back of their cameras if they revolutionized the user interface in some acceptable way. Smallness is not necessarily an advantage just for smallness sake.

2 upvotes
Cass_Rimportant
By Cass_Rimportant (Dec 17, 2011)

I mostly agree. Too often discussions focus on "pocketability," and some people, like the manufacturers, seem obsessed with making the mirrorless cameras as small as possible. For me, there's an optimum size that isn't just "as small as possible," and I don't have particularly large hands. My X100 and GF1 are towards the low end of this optimal size, and I found the Nex-3 too small, although I liked the grip style. I really like how the Nex-7 looks for ergonomics though: nice grip and decent size, although I've never actually held one.

0 upvotes
WhyNot
By WhyNot (Dec 17, 2011)

Yeah... Remembering the recent reviews of the NEX-7 were the reason I added that sentence about revolutionizing the user interface. From what I see and read it appears that Sony got the ergonomics right and maybe have found an acceptable LCD interface as well. Unfortunately, for me, there are other features of the NEX system that keep me away.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Dec 16, 2011)

In brief:

P&S: with a small sensor and deep focus guarantees a sharp shot in good light. Models that offer background defocus imitate narrow DOF well enough for casual shots. A finicky person could do the same, with greater finesse, when editing. If light is low, you achieve well enough with an S100, LX5, or even a WX9. Plus, they fit in a pocket and you have a choice of focal lengths from 25mm to over 125mm with a single lens. Cost: under $500 or even under $200.

Mirrorless: larger sensor and narrower DOF. You may get better low light results, but always run the risk of bad focus, especially when tracking. Won't fit in pocket. Lenses pricey, and you may lose AF or stabilization by using legacy lenses. Share many of the size, weight, and sensor dust problems of DSLRs. All-in cost, with two lenses, apt to exceed that of a T3i or D3100. some EVFs are good, but never like a good OVF. Expect to pay $1,500 before you have a complet "kit".

DSLR or SLT: OK, but big & heavy.

1 upvote
DanCart
By DanCart (Dec 17, 2011)

Yeah the real deal breaker for mirrorless cameras could be the pricey lenses, since mirrorless cameras have only been around for less than a decade there is less diversity in the choice of lenses you can use. Another thing is there is hardly any aftermarket for used lenses since they are fairly new so users of such cameras are limited (for now at least) to expensive lenses whereas SLR`s have the advantage of so many lenses (including discontinued ones), some even decades old which can be had for bargains and a bigger aftermarket for used lenses.

0 upvotes
bigdaddave
By bigdaddave (Dec 16, 2011)

I don't think it's hard. Just give me a Fuji X100 with a standard zoom.

It's the viewfinder most photographers miss most.

5 upvotes
BalasmicVinegar
By BalasmicVinegar (Dec 16, 2011)

Having just purchased an IXUS 220, I'd say that this camera is the ideal size. I have an EOS 50D plus an 15-85mm lens and battery grip. The whole thing weighs almost 2KG. The IXUS weighs < 150g and fits in a trouser pocket without causing embarrassment.

I was considering the S100 or G12 but I know that if I had purchased one of them then Canon would have joined the mirror less 4:3 brigade or I'd be constantly wishing I'd brought my 50D along instead. The sensor on the IXUS 220 is I believe almost the same as on the S100. It's also about half the price.

When digital cameras started to appear I wondered why manufacturers continued with the SLR body shape. After all, it is only this shape, with the lens in the middle because the 35mm cassette unspooled from one side and spooled up on the other. A mechanical shutter also seems strange as well because the sensor could be made to 'record' electronically rather than remain live all the time. I think eventually they will disappear.

0 upvotes
thygocanberra
By thygocanberra (Dec 16, 2011)

I absolutely agree with the comments meland made - why are dSLRs so big, and along with that, why are the viewfinders so crap in the entry level (anda bove models) in comparison to film cameras - and yes I have a Pentax ME Super which does have a SUPER viewfinder.

1 upvote
MP Burke
By MP Burke (Dec 16, 2011)

You describe my experience. One of the reasons I bought a mirrorless camera with an EVF is that I don't like the viewfinders I have seen on APS-C slrs. Having used 35mm film slrs for many years I found the viewfinders in most dslrs rather small.
The fact is that the APS-C format is less than half the size of the 35mm format: thus the mirror is smaller and the prism is smaller, that is the physical reality.
Both mirrorless cameras and SLTs can provide an EVF which is bigger than the OVF of an APS-C slr. I particularly like the ability to magnify the live view image as well as view the images and menus through the dioptre corrected viewfinder.
Improvements of EVFs and focussing systems should, and hopefully will, be made, in order to make mirrorless systems better competitors to slrs in respect of the viewing experience and focus tracking.

0 upvotes
onix
By onix (Dec 16, 2011)

Just an educated guess w/o doing research - I think the viewfinder image sensor is a cheap and fast one vs. the one that is actually used to click the actual shot. The mirror switches between the two, whereas in regular film SLR, the mirror switched between imaging to your eye and to the film.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Dec 16, 2011)

@onix: A DSLR with optical viewfinder (OVF) works just like a film SLR, except there's a sensor in place of the film. There is no separate viewfinder sensor in an OVF. There is a separate sensor for the phase-detect autofocus system, but that has nothing to do with the viewfinder. An EVF, like the ones in mirrorless cameras and SLTs, gets its image from the main sensor, so there's no separate sensor for the viewfinder in them either.

2 upvotes
Dayd3
By Dayd3 (Dec 16, 2011)

Very nice article. Thank you.

I replaced my dSLR cameras recently with two E-PL1 cameras and am more than happy.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 16, 2011)

I tried an Olympus E-PL1 recently, after a week I stopped. At 1st I thought it was great, small & light it was but it was a REAL camera (unlike an iPhone) & I got some good landscape results out of it. But when I tried taking photos of our kids many of the shots were blurry in scenarios where I never got that with my d-SLRs, apparently because of the "lens wobble" the original Olympus 14-42 was known to do at times. Even at 1/100 second they'd be blurry & it wasn't subject movement, just last week I took a portrait at 1/25 sec with my d-SLR & it was tack-sharp. I guess I'm not ready for it, or it's not ready for me.

I think the problem with mirrorless is many of the models, esp the Nikon 1 series, cater too much to soccer moms vs enthusiasts wanting a "digital Nikon SP." Something like the Sony NEX-7 or the Panasonic GX-1 is the right idea, give us more of that & I may try it again. And yes, make them FAST--that's ONE thing the Nikon 1 has apparently gotten right.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
iudex
By iudex (Dec 16, 2011)

Speed of focus when taking pics of children, this was the main reason I bought a DSLR, although liked the CSC like Samsung NX. I also miss the compact size of a CSC (however with pancake only), but the speed is more important to me than weight (and with my 140g prime I had nothing to complain about).

1 upvote
shademaster
By shademaster (Dec 16, 2011)

My NX100 is my first non P&S. I have yet to get a decent photo of my son when he's moving around and I've been practicing since August. TONS of really nice shots with shallow DOF when he's SITTING down. I tried my friend's A55 and it was able to acquire all the time when the NX100 couldn't. I did do my homework and knew the tradeoffs, but I can't help but feeling a little regret.

Maybe GF3 would be better for kids with the faster AF? Maybe NX200 would be fast enough. Either way, I find myself looking for deals on entry level DSLRs this holiday shopping season... and Richard's comments on mirrorless+kids have reinforced this tendency.

0 upvotes
hkb11001
By hkb11001 (Dec 16, 2011)

The two major reasons I am abandoning this type of camera (after using one for two years) are the following (i.e. two major disadvangtages for me):
1. Very hard to see live view in bright light (I just read in the NEX-7 reveiw, that this was even an issue with the viewfinder; i.e. viewing a image under bright light).
2. The effects of graduated ND filters was too difficult to discern on the live view. I wouldn't have predicted this. Part of the problem may have also been that I was using these filters primarily in mainly bright light. And yes, this might be mitigated with a newer model with better screen.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 181
12