Mirrorless Cameras: A Primer

By R Butler | Published Dec 15, 2011 |

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.

Until fairly recently the only real options have either been compact cameras which have very small image sensors, or the considerably larger - in both sensor and body dimensions - DSLR design.

That middle ground has finally been filled, with the emergence of 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 immediately 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 Olympus PEN, left), and those which resemble scaled-down DSLRs, like the Panasonic G1 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 (shown above) 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, Samsung's NX, Sony's NEX, Pentax's Q and Nikon's 1 systems have also been introduced, with Fujifilm confirming that it too will join the party in early 2012.

What's to gain?

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. 

The advantage 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 have significant drawbacks in terms of either speed or flexibility.

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.

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.

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).

What are the disadvantages?

There are currently two major disadvantages we've experienced with the Mirrorless cameras we've encountered so far. The first is the inability 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 Mirrorless cameras cannot track moving subjects (specifically those moving towards or away from you) as well as DSLRs, if at all, and so are far less well suited to sports or other action photography. For the average target user of systems like this the most obvious consequence of the slow low-light focus and inability to keep up with movement comes when shooting even moderately active children indoors in anything but perfect light.

The camera makers we've discussed this with admit that offering continuous and tracking AF on Mirrorless is challenging, so we're not expecting a radical improvement in the short term (though Nikon may have found the answer with its 1 System). As a result, if shooting fast-moving subjects is one of your reasons for buying a new camera, then you'll probably be better served with a DSLR, though you'd still have to consider investing in a more expensive lens to get the best results. There is also 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).

The other drawback we've encountered is that the Mirrorless cameras we've tested so far can struggle to focus in low light to a greater degree than most DSLRs do. 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 few mirrorless cameras can 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.

Waiting for focus means the picture is taken a fraction too late. Pre-focusing is the only solution. Most mirrorless cameras 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 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).

The final limitation for Mirrorless systems at present is a distinct lack of native lenses. For many buyers, this is likely to be a moot point - the majority of DSLR buyers don't ever take off the lens that comes with their camera. However, if you are planning to throw yourself into photography, it's worth looking to see how extensive your options are.

As the oldest Mirrorless system, it's no surprise that the Micro Four Thirds lens mount has the most comprehensive range available: stretching from wide-angle zooms through to a selection of telephotos and including a handful of enthusiast-friendly prime lenses. However, this can't yet compete with the vast ranges of DSLRs lenses offered by the camera makers and third-party manufacturers.

Meanwhile the newer Sony E-mount (used by its NEX cameras), currently offers only six lenses, and Samsung has a slightly broader choice for its NX system. This will undoubtedly change and all the Mirrorless manufacturers are being open about the lenses they have planned.

Are there any other options?

Mirrorless cameras aren't the only attempt to bridge the gap between compacts and DSLRs. Sony has, characteristically, created its own solution. Its SLT range offers some of the best features of a DSLR with compact-camera style live view, giving a camera that's capable of fast continuous AF, even when shooting video. You lose the size advantage of the Mirrorless systems, however.

Is the technology ready yet?

Mirrorless cameras have only been on the market for around three years, rather than the 15-or-so years over which 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, despite being able to inherit a lot of know-how from both DSLRs and compact cameras, are still a developing technology. But, even though most of these systems are only just reaching their second or third generation, we've already seen considerable improvements in focus speed and user interfaces designed to make it easier to access their full capabilities.

Even in their relatively unrefined state, unless you need the fast-subject shooting capability of a DSLR, we think the Mirrorless cameras' size, accessibility and (increasingly) 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?'

To further help your decision, we'll be publishing a buyer's guide to the best Mirrorless models in the coming weeks.

20
Flag as inappropriate

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.

Share:
Print view

Comments

Total comments: 144
lapdog99
By lapdog99 (Dec 25, 2011 at 14:40:19 GMT)

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 at 18:20:47 GMT)

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
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Dec 20, 2011 at 21:03:22 GMT)

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?

2 upvotes
SW Anderson
By SW Anderson (Dec 20, 2011 at 06:06:24 GMT)

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 at 02:10:11 GMT)

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 at 18:53:39 GMT)

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!

0 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Dec 19, 2011 at 11:24:43 GMT)

@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 at 23:17:02 GMT)

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 at 18:44:17 GMT)

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 at 23:56:49 GMT)

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 at 03:20:08 GMT)

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 at 15:01:02 GMT)

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 at 21:15:19 GMT)

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 at 14:55:08 GMT)

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".

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 9, 2012 at 01:34:41 GMT)

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
The six
By The six (Dec 18, 2011 at 18:17:27 GMT)

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 at 21:23:49 GMT)

'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 at 23:45:34 GMT)

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 at 21:23:25 GMT)

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 at 17:54:44 GMT)

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 at 17:26:32 GMT)

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 at 06:29:20 GMT)

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 at 06:33:06 GMT)

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 at 13:04:42 GMT)

"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 at 19:45:43 GMT)

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 at 21:54:29 GMT)

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 at 23:16:27 GMT)

'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 at 06:29:49 GMT)

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.

0 upvotes
John Kim
By John Kim (Dec 18, 2011 at 04:36:41 GMT)

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 at 19:54:52 GMT)

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 at 21:35:06 GMT)

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 at 21:56:20 GMT)

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

2 upvotes
Aleo Veuliah
By Aleo Veuliah (Dec 17, 2011 at 01:40:33 GMT)

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 at 20:37:11 GMT)

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.

1 upvote
jeff_006
By jeff_006 (Dec 19, 2011 at 16:54:41 GMT)

" 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 at 22:42:39 GMT)

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
Alexsfo
By Alexsfo (Dec 16, 2011 at 20:38:03 GMT)

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 at 08:52:59 GMT)

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 at 02:34:51 GMT)

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 at 22:18:01 GMT)

LCD is a type of EVF in mirrorless cameras

0 upvotes
zacster
By zacster (Dec 16, 2011 at 19:48:14 GMT)

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 at 19:35:55 GMT)

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 at 22:47:28 GMT)

What?

0 upvotes
onix
By onix (Dec 16, 2011 at 18:43:21 GMT)

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
6 upvotes
migus
By migus (Dec 16, 2011 at 19:29:30 GMT)

count me in

0 upvotes
didida do da do da do da
By didida do da do da do da (Dec 16, 2011 at 19:31:28 GMT)

I would definitely also like having these features.

0 upvotes
GeoNiko
By GeoNiko (Dec 16, 2011 at 21:40:07 GMT)

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

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Dec 20, 2011 at 22:51:38 GMT)

"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 at 17:55:36 GMT)

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 at 17:04:22 GMT)

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 at 17:01:27 GMT)

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 at 09:09:41 GMT)

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 at 15:25:35 GMT)

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 at 15:02:19 GMT)

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 at 22:11:37 GMT)

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 at 14:32:40 GMT)

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 at 13:57:24 GMT)

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 at 13:46:10 GMT)

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 at 17:01:26 GMT)

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 at 18:46:45 GMT)

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 at 19:36:01 GMT)

@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 at 13:30:29 GMT)

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 at 13:12:28 GMT)

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 at 13:20:02 GMT)

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 at 15:34:20 GMT)

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 at 13:01:52 GMT)

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
meland
By meland (Dec 16, 2011 at 12:34:34 GMT)

Useful article but as an aside to the whole mirrorless debate here's a question - why are DSLRs so huge? Given that DSLRs do not need to accommodate a 35mm film or a take up spool why is it not possible to make a full frame DSLR the size of say an Olympus OM1 or Pentax MX/ME (if anyone remembers those)? Even coupled with a fast prime they were reasonably small and were far less obtrusive than today's digital giants.

I'm lucky enough to have an EOS 5DII. I love its full frame sensor quality and the ability to blur out backgrounds with wide apertures but it's no fun to carry around for any length of time. Even with a small fixed 50mm it's still pretty enormous. Many of us that aren't sports photographers don't really need a high number of frames per second let alone many of the features currently stuffed into cameras. But we do want good image and build quality. For walkers, travel, landscape and street photographers surely there must be a market for a small high quality DSLR?

5 upvotes
straylightrun
By straylightrun (Dec 16, 2011 at 12:52:15 GMT)

Because it's a myth that is continuously perpetuated by the camera industry: that bigger = serious/professional/"better".

6 upvotes
meland
By meland (Dec 16, 2011 at 13:25:12 GMT)

You may be right on that. It seems the only alternative may be to sell the house and buy a Leica M9. And keep the DSLR for the occasions when only a DSLR will do.

1 upvote
keepreal
By keepreal (Dec 16, 2011 at 14:05:19 GMT)

Part 1 of 2

Absolutely, I have a D300 and make the same complaint.

On cheaper cameras for people with no particular interest in serious photography, a degree of automation makes sense but any number of scene modes, white balance settings etc is a load of nonsense. Quite evidently, the manufacturers think that instead of proper market research to find out what actually people need and want, build everything in. As I wrote in another comment here, the next thing will be a mode for bum recognition.

IMO the ideal digital would be a DSLR the size of the Olympus OM series and compact lenses, not the elephantine models we get. A nice mirrorless alternative would be about the size of a pre-war Leica with an optical viewfinder of M series quality.

Just before digital manufacturers were not doing well because everybody had a decent enough camera and the market was shrinking. Now we have idiots upgrading from the D300 to the D300s and new models every few months catering to people like that.

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Dec 16, 2011 at 14:05:42 GMT)

Part 2 of 2

My son has a Panasonic DMC-TZ6 which he bought to replace an Olympus C-5060 which he said was too big. Originally I had bought the latter just to see what digital was all about. The former has 10.1 mp whereas the Olympus only has 5.1 in spite of which the results are far superior. I made a 16 x 20 inch print of one his best shots on the Olympus taken in jpeg at 2592 x 1944. Had I shot the same at 4320 x 2868 with my D300 in RAW you would have had to examine the print very closely to see the very slight difference. Most people would not even notice. So what has actually improved that matters in compact cameras since the C-5060 was made and sold?

Are camera buyers interested in cameras and spending money or in photography? Do camera manufacturers aim at the former or the latter?

Is there any doubt as to the answer to that last question? It is all part of the decadence of modern day unbridled capitalism. It did not start and end with the financial sector.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Dec 16, 2011 at 14:49:56 GMT)

Is a T3i "huge"? A GH2 is only a bit smaller.

0 upvotes
meland
By meland (Dec 16, 2011 at 15:11:34 GMT)

Apart from the depth of 80mm which is almost twice as fat, as say, a Pentax ME at 49.5mm the T3i is not too bad. Trouble is that it's not full frame and as an entry level model it doesn't have the build quality that some would like.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
stq66
By stq66 (Dec 16, 2011 at 15:23:04 GMT)

I'm not feeling them huge. Okay, the Nikon D3/Canon 1D Models are on the bigger side, but I didn't want to be my D700 any smaller. I have relatively big hands (but not enormous) and the D3000/D5000 are absolutely too small for me to be able to hold them ergonomically.
I for my part can absolutely not work with the NEX cameras. Especially with longer lenses. There is no balanc in the system and mssing a viewfinder I cannot stressless compose a photograph nor am I able to hold the camera still for shutter times longer than a 250th.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Dec 16, 2011 at 16:11:53 GMT)

Add the motor drive to the OM1 or Pentax MX and see that they is not so small. After using the Pentax 67 w/400mm F4 handheld shooting motorsports back in the film days todays cameras are tiny by comparison.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Sokratis
By Sokratis (Dec 17, 2011 at 08:44:58 GMT)

I am very happy with my Olympus e-420! It is a great, highly customizable, light DSLR. However, as it is cheap, nobody is interested anymore to buy it...

0 upvotes
Cass_Rimportant
By Cass_Rimportant (Dec 17, 2011 at 09:32:34 GMT)

Re: Joe Ogiba. Sure, adding a motor drive makes a small camera larger, but how many people actually do that? I know I would never use a motor drive with my FM2. If I needed a motor drive, I wouldn't have bought a small camera in the first place. Plus DSLRs have no need for anything like a motor drive: there's no film to move. I use a Hasselblad 500 c/m, a Pentax 645n, and a D200, so I know about large cameras, but I've been appreciating the small ones more recently.
I would absolutely love a digital fm2: FF, high quality viewfinder, small size. If the viewfinder was up to FM2 standards I wouldn't even care about autofocus. Well maybe a more modern grip would be nice, but without the overall volume of my D200.

0 upvotes
meland
By meland (Dec 19, 2011 at 13:40:44 GMT)

"I would absolutely love a digital fm2: FF, high quality viewfinder, small size. If the viewfinder was up to FM2 standards I wouldn't even care about autofocus. Well maybe a more modern grip would be nice, but without the overall volume of my D200."

Count me in for one of those!

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Dec 20, 2011 at 23:24:49 GMT)

"I can absolutely not work with the NEX cameras. Especially with longer lenses. There is no balanc in the system and mssing a viewfinder I cannot stressless compose a photograph nor am I able to hold the camera still for shutter times longer than a 250th."

MY TAKE: Yes, indeed. The Sony NEX-series is the ergonomic camera they use in H-E-L-L. Not that the Sony V-series and the other similar gimmick-cams would be any better.

Regarding the colossal weights of today's digital cameras -- I just read on a trustworthy Republican web site that under Obamacare, a photographer will have to have 3 doctors' certificates to show that he/she is able to lift and carry a medium format camera without risking long-term, permanent disability.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
RoelHendrickx
By RoelHendrickx (Dec 16, 2011 at 10:25:20 GMT)

Good article, explaining in a structured way the basics of difference between compacts, SLRs and the growing in-between category.
It is not more than that but certainly not less.
The readers who have been reading this site for years and know about cameras from their own experience, should realize that DPR also tries to cater to a less knowledgeable crowd.

0 upvotes
BG_CX3_DPREVIEW
By BG_CX3_DPREVIEW (Dec 16, 2011 at 09:59:09 GMT)

First really good article,

first really objective one i read here anyhow.

I appreciate you first post an article about this typoe of cams vs dslr, without naming brands and types.

I anxioulsy await your best mirrorless add.:-)

0 upvotes
Aasmund Midttun Godal
By Aasmund Midttun Godal (Dec 16, 2011 at 08:56:15 GMT)

What about lenses?!?

0 upvotes
Michael Uschold
By Michael Uschold (Dec 16, 2011 at 07:11:05 GMT)

Well done. I have been excited by the possibility of a small camera with DSLR quality images for a long time. I nearly wet myself recently when I saw someone on a hike with a NEX 5N. Small and light is important to me since I travel a lot and like to photograph while hiking and backpacking and kayaking etc. I read the reviews with excitement. I am ready to buy one -- except that I have a bunch of Canon lenses - so I will wait for their offering.

One very important thing missing in the article is eye level viewing. One thing I really love about an SLR is the ease and convenience and extreme clarity of thru the lens viewing from eye level. It makes a huge difference. I never feel like Im doing real photography with a compact camera looking at the viewer. I have not seen the eye-level option for the NEX-5N nor have I seen anyone say how good they are compared to a traditional DSLR -- I don't need to know how much better they are than the previous generations - which were crap!

3 upvotes
R Butler
By R Butler (Dec 16, 2011 at 09:34:32 GMT)

It really depends on what you're considering 'the previous generation.'

A 1.44M dot display (800x600 pixels), as in the add-on Olympus or Ricoh finder can be very good and shouldn't be compared to the 200k dot EVFs that tend to turn up in Superzooms. Then there are the Sony 2.4M dot OLED EVFs, which are really impressive.

But it all depends on what you're used to and how you use the finder...

2 upvotes
Nerkdergler
By Nerkdergler (Dec 16, 2011 at 10:19:29 GMT)

It's also worth trying to get over that feeling of "I'm not doing real photography composing with the LCD". Although there are some drawbacks (e.g. viewing in glare) there are some distinct advantages to it, as outlined in the article. As a long-time DSLR user that has started using a GF1, I realise how blinkered I had become - literally! The ability to see what is outside the camera's field of view at the same time as what is in it has changed my composition for the better. There are times when I need the clip-on viewfinder, but these days they are few and far between. When you do something for a living, it's very easy to fall into habits and then come to assume that those habits are the only way of doing things. YMMV, but it's worth challenging yourself every now and then. :)

1 upvote
rurikw
By rurikw (Dec 16, 2011 at 11:06:52 GMT)

The otherwise good article left out one crucial criterion for which milc to buy. One with an articulated screen! I could not recommend any model with a fixed screen to anyone, because I think that is equal to throwing away 90% of the whole advantage with live view. I hardly ever hold my Sony R1 (not a milc but a large sensor fixed lens camera with articulated screen and no mirror) at eye level (where it is more comfortable to use the EVF anyway) but overhead (above the crowd), waist level (most comfortable, medium format LR like) or ground level (the camera on its back on the floor, screen turned up, shooting church roofs). This little hinge makes a huge difference and makes shooting from awkward angles comfortable, eliminates guesswork and/or the need for acrobatics and dirtying your clothes. I find this hugely more useful than the admittedly very lifelike view through the mirror.

0 upvotes
filipe brandao
By filipe brandao (Dec 16, 2011 at 13:08:16 GMT)

Michael, you should consider reading luminous landscape articles and the excellent articles by Sean Reid on reidreviews.com (paid site unfortunately). They take an open-minded approach to the viewfinder subject and offer the analysis that you are looking for.

0 upvotes
rurikw
By rurikw (Dec 16, 2011 at 13:54:46 GMT)

I meant church CEILINGS, sorry about my English.

0 upvotes
AndyGM
By AndyGM (Dec 16, 2011 at 22:56:20 GMT)

Michael, you will not want to use your existing Canon lenses with whatever Mirrorless system Canon come up with (if they ever do). They will likely be too big for a mirrorless body and leave the combination feeling unbalanced.

For Mirrorless with built in viewfinder, I would look at the Panasonic G3 (which also has an articulated screen in case you which to try out a change in composition technique)

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Dec 20, 2011 at 23:32:51 GMT)

"A 1.44M dot display (800x600 pixels)... can be very good and shouldn't be compared to the 200k dot EVFs that tend to turn up in Superzooms. Then there are the Sony 2.4M dot OLED EVFs, which are really impressive."

These days, superzooms come with 1.44MP viewfinders (check into the Fujifilm X-S1 26x zoom range superzoom, for example).

Regarding the Sony OLED EVF in the SLT Alpha 65/77, I find them not at all clearer or indeed better than what Sony has in their a33/a35/a55. A big letdown, as a matter of fact. But it makes great reading in Sony press releases and flashing web sites. And the first video clips out of the Sony a65/a77 are absolutely horrendous. Colors are bad sci-fi like, and of course that huge amount of digi-noise.

0 upvotes
tyb
By tyb (Dec 16, 2011 at 06:08:03 GMT)

What a tease article, I'm so dissapointed! I saw the headline and started reading and reading and only finally get to the end to read that you'll publish your buyers guide in a few weeks. Hello, Christmas is what two weeks away, do you know many people have bought or be buying that compact or mirrorless camera in the next week? How many reviews are already out there on the most recent mirrorless. I used to come here to read about things first, these days come here and read for possible validation, but you guys are so behind the times on lens and this is an example of so late on a body review. Whats up with you guys?

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
R Butler
By R Butler (Dec 16, 2011 at 07:01:06 GMT)

Believe me, we'll be publishing the roundup as soon as we can - and if I can possibly make that before Christmas, I will.

6 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Dec 16, 2011 at 07:18:03 GMT)

Yes I agree with you. DP Review is great for detailed reviews of equipment but the rest you can keep. For serious photographers most of the articles, even the good ones, tell you little more than you already know.

But now, not only do we have articles teaching us proverbially how to suck eggs, we have articles telling us that more are on the way. Just hold your breath and wait a few more weeks.

DP Review is getting ridiculous and far too much into media hype. If it were always sane and serious and said nothing when there was nothing to say, it would be far more pleasurable. As it used to be.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
R Butler
By R Butler (Dec 16, 2011 at 09:39:53 GMT)

I'm sorry you see it that way.

This was intended as an article for people who don't read the site every day and haven't read all the reviews. There are plenty of people who have only recently become aware of Mirrorless cameras and this is to explain the pros and cons to them.

There is also a more advanced summary of the current models on its way, but this article isn't just a trailer for that - it's a standalone article in its own right.

6 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Dec 16, 2011 at 10:47:02 GMT)

No Mr Butler. No offence intended. As such articles go, I think yours is one of the best.

Here are some examples of what I do object to:

Challenge of Challenges 2011 - mostly rubbish pictures, so why bother?

Digital lo-fi photography More like a lo-fi article on a lo-fi subject IMO.

Apple chooses Instagram and Snapseed as Apps of the Year. Who cares and what has this got to do with proper photography?

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
CBestwick
By CBestwick (Dec 16, 2011 at 15:08:01 GMT)

And what exactly is proper photography?

Whatever your opinion might be, you have the choice to read or not to read an article; some of us do actually want to read these articles, which pertain to the basic principles of photography - namely, image making.

All photography is manipulation, whether it's pre or post capture, and I for one applaud the options and democratisation that digital photography affords. Please don't seek censorship!

3 upvotes
HeezDeadJim
By HeezDeadJim (Dec 16, 2011 at 22:33:10 GMT)

@CBestwick: Problem is, favoritism seems afoot. We can choose what articles we read on here, but there are more phones than just the iPhone. Seeing "best app" and "Apple chooses blah" articles when the Nokia N8 and N9 have much better/faster cameras, with no "dedicated" articles around them. Plus the lack of Android topics.

It's not really a "choice" if you only have one choice. Favoritism tends to hinder selections (favoritism=censorship).

Please don't seek censorship!

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
CBestwick
By CBestwick (Dec 17, 2011 at 00:08:40 GMT)

@HeezDeadJim: I read the post by keepreal to be comment on the nature of photography covered by DP Review, rather than criticism regarding brand favouritism. As such, my reply related solely to this issue and it's a little unfair to mis-appropriate my words.

Regarding favouritism and Apple-centrism, I have to say that I haven't found it so. The fact of the matter is that the market itself is heavily weighted in Apple's favour because it is the dominant product; in terms of DP's reviews and news items, and as a non-Apple tablet owning, Android using punter, I find them fairly even-handed within the remit of the current situation. This is a fast maturing market and I don't doubt that coverage will change to reflect this.

0 upvotes
HeezDeadJim
By HeezDeadJim (Dec 17, 2011 at 05:48:36 GMT)

@CBestwick: keepreal doesn't want these articles in DP. I agree that's we have the choice of not reading them if we don't want to read about "another Apple" topic.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are other products out there that DP could be paying attention (reviews, news) to besides the "dominant" Apple product. By your logic (fact: Apple is the dominant product, therefore DP also reflects this), then DP would have a lot more news/reviews on Canon or Nikon since they are the dominant selling cameras. But DP still has plenty of topics on Oly, Panny, Sigma, Samsung, Sony etc.

You're ignoring the signs if you don't see the favoritism. There is an abundance of tablets now (Kindle Fire, Galaxy, Xoom). Where is an article on what tablets are "worthy" of photo viewing (IPS, AMOLED displays, resolution). I welcome these articles that touch the realm of photography (even if some don't consider it so), but I just want diversity. DP isn't showing that with tablets and phones/apps.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Dec 20, 2011 at 23:40:14 GMT)

@ tyb: with Christmas coming up, looks like everyone is rather busy! Happy Holidays, Everyone! :~))

@ CBestwick: "the market itself is heavily weighted in Apple's favour because it is the dominant product."

Funny, I had always thought that Apple products were overpriced garbage. Still believe so, as a matter of fact.

0 upvotes
emircruz
By emircruz (Dec 16, 2011 at 05:38:46 GMT)

Great article! I just want to share my experience. I just moved to an Olympus E-P3 (previously coming from an Olympus DSLR E-510).

It should be pointed out that although there are adapters to your favorite modern AF lenses, some might not AF as well as if it were mounted on a traditional dslr. I'm not sure about the NEX or the NX ranges but M43 uses CDAF which might be an issue if you are using a lens which is optimize for PDAF. Like my ZD 50mm F2. I takes painfully long to AF (something like 1-2 secs in good lighting). The E-P3 has a focus assist lamp though, so it could at least aquire a lock in very dark situations - something that my old e-510 cant.

The EVF is a great addition! With features like an auto zoom in when you MF, it makes it a LOT easier to MF (available in LCD also). I find it impossible to MF using my old E-510. The VF was too small and too dark. I just don't like the fact that the EVF/LCD consumes power.

One thing though.. I miss the big grip.

1 upvote
PenFTGuy
By PenFTGuy (Dec 17, 2011 at 00:34:06 GMT)

I still have my E-510 and use it along with my E-P3. Many times I need the reach of the 70-300mm (140-600) lens on the E-510.

0 upvotes
emircruz
By emircruz (Dec 17, 2011 at 10:27:52 GMT)

Actually I would have the kept the e-510 if it weren't turning itself off. :p Wished Olympos kept the e-5xx/6xx line alive.

0 upvotes
wb2trf
By wb2trf (Dec 16, 2011 at 04:57:10 GMT)

I think this is a pretty fair overview, generally speaking. I take issue however with the degree of disadvantage with shooting young children. I think if someone were reading this and interested in buying a camera to photograph young children they might lean toward a dslr, which I think would be a mistake.

I don't think the AF issues are as bad as you characterize for this subject. Even in poor light I usually have no problem with the Nex and kit zoom. The "child in swing, shot from front" is the extreme. I don't deny that there is some adaptation of photographer to equipment that occurs, but I find that the AF speed issue is not a large one for this class of subject.

You rightly note that dslr's can be intimidating to subjects. For children the strong issue is that you need to stay engaged. Viewfinders are inimical to engagement. Live View on dslrs is dog slow. The mirrorless lets you stay with the child keeping the camera away from your face. This is the biggest issue by far.

3 upvotes
fastlass
By fastlass (Dec 16, 2011 at 14:05:04 GMT)

My guess is that the latest crop of m43s bodies focus quick enough for the market that photographs children, heck most of the best compacts are up to task. Remember that we don't demand every shot be perfectly focused and exposed - just most of them.

I find the engagement less of a problem - the bigger problem is the size and weight of a dSLR, even entry level models. I'll give m43s a size edge, but once you put a zoom on them, for my purposes, the advantage is negated. When photographing your kids, you need a camera you can grab and go with, toss on the couch or drop in a bag, because you're still 75% parent (only 25% photographer).

IF i were buying my 1st system again, in 2011, it would definitely be m43s because they're mostly equal to a 2-4 year old entry level dslr, which is 100% adequate for most needs, IQ/performance wise, and smaller.

0 upvotes
Baba Ganoush
By Baba Ganoush (Dec 16, 2011 at 23:50:02 GMT)

I appreciate your comment about the AF issue when taking pictures of moving objects, since I was wondering how serious the problem is in practice. I'm truly puzzled why there should be any problem at all since the online camera reviews I've read claim that the AF SPEEDs of most mirrorless cameras are almost identical to those of the DSLRs, at least in normal light if not in low light conditions. For example, reviews of the NEX and G series cameras claim those cameras autofocus as fast as the Nikon D7000. But such results are based on controlled studio tests, not on actual photography of moving subjects like children or race cars or basketball games. So it's good to hear from actual users how their mirrorless cameras perform in different situations beyond the confines of studio optical tests. Thanks for posting your impressions. I hope others do the same. It's very useful to the rest of us.

0 upvotes
targa86
By targa86 (Dec 16, 2011 at 04:27:59 GMT)

"telephoto lenses being essentially the same size as those used on DSLRs"

This is a bit misleading. WRT effective focal length the slightly smaller sensor in most Mirrorless camera makes a big difference. Just compare the size of the Nikon 105 f1.8 that I use on my m43 system with a Canon 200mm f2! Of course a 200 mm lens is approximately the same size no matter what system.

0 upvotes
Pangloss
By Pangloss (Dec 16, 2011 at 03:47:33 GMT)

Richard, there are now six E-mount lenses for Sony NEX cameras:
1) 18-55mm kit zoom.
2) 16mm pancake (and two converters, wide angle and fisheye).
3) 18-200mm zoom.
4) 30mm macro.
5) 55-210mm zoom.
6) Tamron 18-200mm zoom.

With two more due RSN: the Zeiss 24mm and a 50mm f/1.8 portrait lens.

2 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (Dec 16, 2011 at 06:36:06 GMT)

Zeiss 24mm is already available in several stores. 50mm f/1.8 is available in Asia (and thus probably ebay too) but not yet in the US.

Another point to keep in mind is that most people who buy entry-level DSLRs don't buy too many lenses anyway. Usually they just use the kit lens that comes with the camera.

DPR readers however are looking for more lenses, especially pancakes. That's what Sony should do next.

0 upvotes
noirdude
By noirdude (Dec 16, 2011 at 03:16:05 GMT)

i use DSLR & film cameras regularly and take either XZ1 or X10 if i want to travel light. the thing i don't like about mirorrless is that i'm still tempted to keep on changing lenses just like when i'm using DSLR/film-cameras :) and still have to struggle when it comes to fast moving subject.. not to mention slow focusing.. might as well stay with DSLR/film cameras.. :)

0 upvotes
powerbook duo
By powerbook duo (Dec 16, 2011 at 02:45:44 GMT)

It is curious that we've always have the technology to make a camera like this from day one of digital camera infancy, yet it is only now that this design is starting to take hold. I have been discussing something like this with friends since around 2000. Is it inertia of the big manufacturers like Nikon and Canon that's prevented the development?

Rangefinder-type mirrorless seems like an accident or an afterthought development that spurs from miniaturization of FourThirds.

Also aren't there also issues with short flange focus distance and sensors.... something to do with light angle and has that now been mitigated by this generation of sensors?

0 upvotes
Michael Uschold
By Michael Uschold (Dec 16, 2011 at 06:58:26 GMT)

Too right. I also have been talking about this for many years. It is about time. I'm waiting to see what Canon comes up with.

1 upvote
likesfilm
By likesfilm (Dec 16, 2011 at 02:19:22 GMT)

My first time here.

As a long -time photographer (decades), it is frustrating to read so often that the weight of a full-size camera is such a frequent disadvantage. I have been fortunate to be able to use cameras of all sizes and weight over the years, both digital and film based. The bulk and weight of the larger cameras has always felt better and more stable in my hands.

Of course there is a valuable place and usage for all sizes of camera, but do the majority of experienced amateurs and pros who read this magazine really believe full-size camera weight is as bad as the reviewers would have you believe?

I don't get it. Is it an age thing?; because I still like viewfinders, too. Is it manufacturer driven, as I might believe? Do the majority of reviewers and writers have enough years behind a lens to really know the advantages of a heavier weight camera. Are we just getting lazy?

Do any of you agree with me? Thank you.

4 upvotes
R Butler
By R Butler (Dec 16, 2011 at 02:25:21 GMT)

I'm purely writing about Mirrorless in this article. What I'm trying to say is that there are some people who prefer lighter cameras, and therefore they might want to consider these cameras. I'm not suggesting that smaller and lighter is always better.

6 upvotes
olympian_dp
By olympian_dp (Dec 16, 2011 at 02:37:10 GMT)

I've had slightly shaky hands all my life. My big DSLR gives me inertial stability. My MIL EP-2 I have to either mount a big lens (4/3 type) or use a monopod to get the same quality of picture as my DSLR. So I agree with you Likesflm!

1 upvote
kjh7
By kjh7 (Dec 16, 2011 at 03:41:52 GMT)

Viewfinders-that's one thing I miss on a lot of cameras. A bright, high resolution vf is much more useful than a high resolution display!

0 upvotes
sean lancaster
By sean lancaster (Dec 16, 2011 at 04:07:06 GMT)

I had a Nikon D70 and the 18-200 VR lens during an outdoor hiking adventure in Canada 2 years ago. It was a nightmare. I didn't want my camera in a bag because I needed it to grab a shot on a moment's notice. I wore the neck strap and carried it but it was hot and my neck got extremely sweaty. I was able to get an awesome shot of a bear that wouldn't have happened if the camera wasn't ready immediately.

I now have a Sony NEX-5N and took it on a hike. HUGE difference. I can't even adequately explain how much better this experience is. The weight of the D70 was clearly a disadvantage for me over what I have now. And, the image quality is noticeably better with the 5N. Granted, the D70 is older technology, but it's also similar in weight to many DSLRs.

4 upvotes
Michael Uschold
By Michael Uschold (Dec 16, 2011 at 07:01:17 GMT)

So you are lucky, you don't have to pain over a tradeoff between weight and other functionality - because weight is not important to you. Weight and size is important to me because I travel a lot and like to do backpacking and on the go photography. 90% of the time a Mirrorless would probably suffice for me -- modulo the one thing that the article missed: I really like eye level view.

0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Dec 16, 2011 at 07:03:26 GMT)

The idea of holding a camera away from your body to peer at a LCD screen on the back obliterated by bright sunlight, compose the image properly, hold the camera steady with your arm or arms unsupported in space is a joke. Ideally, a mirrorless digital camera would be the size of a pre-war Leica, allow interchangeable lenses but have an optical viewfinder as good as an M series model. They don’t.

I am sticking to DSLRs. Last May/June I had an ambitious holiday in the south-west USA visiting some of the best of Utah and Arizona. At times I resented the physical demands lugging about my D300 with three heavy lenses but only while I was on the trip. Once I got home and got to work I was amazed at far more successful shots than I had expected fully justifying what I had to go through to get them.

So I'll do it again contentedly on my next trip and to hell with the weight. The only thing I will feel I have to put up with before I get home and to work on my results will be the wait.

2 upvotes
Bill1969
By Bill1969 (Dec 16, 2011 at 07:33:23 GMT)

Taking fast moving wildlife shots is much easier with DSLR, when i press the camera to my face and balance it with my hands i get the most sturdy hold. This is impossible with mirrorless i think..

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Dec 16, 2011 at 08:00:37 GMT)

Part of it also is that DP Review is now trying to be all things to all people. And just look at all the silly features that almost all digital cameras have. We will soon have a mode for bum recognition and for white balance in complete darkness. Do not feel the quality, just the width.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Gerardjan
By Gerardjan (Dec 16, 2011 at 09:36:19 GMT)

Can't agree more with you "likesfilm !"

0 upvotes
jonquil
By jonquil (Dec 16, 2011 at 10:12:45 GMT)

I think liking viewfinders is an age thing. I'm in my late 40s. In the last few years I've started needing reading glasses and this makes rear screens really awkward.

With my digital SLR's viewfinder I can leave my glasses off, as I'm focussing my eyes for distance viewing. With my digital compact I have to put the glasses on to see the screen, then take them off again to look directly at the subject.

0 upvotes
Nerkdergler
By Nerkdergler (Dec 16, 2011 at 10:58:28 GMT)

Yep. Age and habit, mostly. It's amazing how set in our ways we become, and how much we try to squirm and rationalise our addiction the status quo when it's challenged. The reality is there are pros and cons to most things. As a general rule, if you're seeing only cons you're probably not being particularly objective.

2 upvotes
ShaneTheEE
By ShaneTheEE (Dec 16, 2011 at 17:48:13 GMT)

I'm a NEX owner and I do a fair bit of international travel (11 weeks to Asia and New Zealand so far this year). I don't check bags, so a full size DSLR (or even a superzoom) was simply a non-starter for me.

1 upvote
egarc
By egarc (Dec 16, 2011 at 22:19:19 GMT)

@keepreal
When I'm not holding my 5N at waist level, I push the camera out so the neck strap it tight. It offers quite a bit of stabilization. I agree though that it's not as stable as holding the camera to your eye and elbows down but it's a worthy trade-off in my opinion. I sold my D90 mainly because of size and weight. I take my 5N with me way more than I took the D90.

1 upvote
PenFTGuy
By PenFTGuy (Dec 17, 2011 at 14:25:19 GMT)

I have used cameras from the old Speed Graphic, Linhof field camera, to a Minox. The all time favorite camera that I used was a Hasselblad. That being said:

The reason that professional photographers have assistants is to carry that heavy gear. Holding my Oly E-510 with the 40-150 zoom for over 3 hours, it is heavy. Why over 3 hours? The shows I have to take pictures at start at 8 a.m. and I'm usually still photographing until noon or later.

After years of putting my face to a viewfinder it was hard to use a compact with no viewfinder. Now I'm pretty comfortable with or without a viewfinder. I do have the optical viewfinder for my Oly E-P3. I rarely use it.

One thing about weight. The more a camera weighs the more substantial it feels. It doesn't feel like it is going to break if you accidentally bang it against something.

Time marches on. More kids have compact cameras to use these days as well as cell phones, and smart phones for recording images.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
tomtom50
By tomtom50 (Dec 16, 2011 at 02:02:03 GMT)

The section on mirrorless focus tracking weakness is good, but the Nikon 1 is enough of an exception with its DSLR-level focus tracking that it deserves a special mention.

Also, since the article is aimed a new comers the depth of focus is worth a photo or two. Basically m43 and APS-C will have DSLR-like depth of focus, and the Nikon 1 will be more like a compact.

Some people like shallow depth of focus, others prefer it deep, but the pictures you get will be very different, enough so to make it worth a mention.

0 upvotes
R Butler
By R Butler (Dec 16, 2011 at 02:10:09 GMT)

I'd intended to put in a mention of the Nikons when talking about continuous AF, so I've just added it.

With regards depth-of-field, you can always stop a lens down and push ISO up to get more depth-of-field on a large sensor system, but there's little you can do to gain shallower depth-of-field on a small sensor cameras, so I've talked in terms of large sensor cameras offering greater 'control over depth-of-field.'

1 upvote
frosti7
By frosti7 (Dec 16, 2011 at 01:36:30 GMT)

R Butler,
great piece! i think its both informative and beginner-friendly

I wish you would give more credit to NX system,
"Samsung has only a slightly broader choice for its NX system" - that statement is simply not true,

Samsung has that sony does not:
1.20-50 a collapsible lens (which is a must for compact system)
2.85\1.4 (amazing lens)
3.NX has a choice of 3 pancakes! sony has only one! (the biggest benefit of CSC's are small pancake lens!)

Sony has only basic 1855 zooms, not practical slow 30\3.5 macro,
ultra expensive CZ lens, and NEX most praised lens is 50\1.8 which is extremly banal!

As a M43 shooter - i prefer the NX lens lineup (due to pancakes) you might rightfully disagree, but claiming that NX has "slightly" better lens selection then NEX? its simply not true.

add to this that samsung roadmap is much more crowded then sony's

1 upvote
R Butler
By R Butler (Dec 16, 2011 at 02:15:09 GMT)

Thank you. And I do take your point. I've removed the 'only' to make it clearer that the Samsung range is broader. (It's still a long way short of the Micro Four Thirds range, so I can't really remove the 'slightly').

2 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Dec 16, 2011 at 12:09:22 GMT)

I share your opinion. CSC makes sense especially with pancakes and if a CS camera does not have a choice of reasonable pancakes (the most commom focal range like 35 or 50 mm eq.), it looses it´s attractivity.

0 upvotes
jj74e
By jj74e (Dec 16, 2011 at 01:17:01 GMT)

I feel this article is a bit late for most people on DPR. I'm sure some new members/guests will benefit from this, but I feel like the majority of us on here- enthusiasts/professionals- already are aware of the info presented here. Well written though.

0 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Dec 16, 2011 at 01:23:52 GMT)

to be honest it's not really aimed at the DPR faithful, but we get millions of visitors a month, and many of them are new to the whole thing.

3 upvotes
Mike Ronesia
By Mike Ronesia (Dec 16, 2011 at 01:54:14 GMT)

There are new people coming to this site every day that use a P&S and this info will be a big help to them. I used P&S cameras and always came here to see what was the latest and greatest with no intention of buying a DSLR. When my Oly 8080 died I waited for the GF1 to come out after reading about it here. I think this will be a great reference for lots of people in the P&S world. I do feel they understated the lens range of M4/3's. No there are not hundreds but they have almost every thing covered and I'm now in love with fast primes.

0 upvotes
DaveJC
By DaveJC (Dec 16, 2011 at 02:11:22 GMT)

Actually, this is a very good synopsis of these cameras and the difference from them to DSLRs. I am always trying to explain these cameras to newbies and now I can point them to this article. The real attraction is light, and small. Thanks

0 upvotes
Michael Uschold
By Michael Uschold (Dec 16, 2011 at 07:03:44 GMT)

I disagree. I have been tracking this quite closely, reading many of the reviews and articles here and elsewhere. I did find it a helpful summary putting it all in one place. I learned a few things I did not know. Though, I'm sure there are some who fall into your camp and did not learn much.

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Dec 16, 2011 at 14:26:44 GMT)

I find no problem with the article, but the idea of an article NOT aimed at the DPreview faithful--I disagree with that approach. I agree with {jj74e}, most of us are enthusiasts etc, so I say do more articles from THAT point of view. Soccer moms & dads have plenty of sites tailored for them, enthusiasts need their sites, & I regard this as one.

0 upvotes
PIngp0NGMW
By PIngp0NGMW (Dec 16, 2011 at 00:30:10 GMT)

As the owner of a complete DSLR system (Pentax) I have begun to watch the mirrorless market very closely as an alternative or back up body to carrying my DSLR around. Going out to a function or just out and about, a DSLR with a bag, strap, and spare lens (or not) is a weight burden and very obtrusive. More often than not, I'd rather leave the kit at home. With the variety of mirrorless cameras on the market right now it's become a real question to me if I sell my whole DSLR kit and move to a new system or just buy a system camera with a fast aperture lens to carry around.

3 upvotes
keepreal
By keepreal (Dec 16, 2011 at 07:33:06 GMT)

I felt exactly the same dilemma with a Nikon D300 and three heavy zoom lenses. I looked into mirrorless very carefully but was not happy with the compromises - too many of them and too much money for not exactly what I wanted.

So, in the end, I added a Nikon D5000 with its lightweight but good quality 18-55mmm VR. This was easily the best price/performance alternative on the market in cheaper DSLRs, even looking at other makes than Nikon. It may be large and heavy compared to a mirrorless but it is light and compact compared with what I already had. And few compromises too.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Dec 16, 2011 at 12:05:16 GMT)

If you come to the decision to sell your kit, let me know. ;-)
I also own a Pentax DSLR, but I am in a phase of buying lenses. However I also faced situations where I did not want to carry the SLR and missed a picture. That is why I regret selling my Samsung EX1, which was perfect for street photo or situations when DSLR was too striking. Maybe after having completed my DSLR kit I will sell it all and come back to something small. Before doing that I need to spend some money, so that I have bigger loss when selling it. ;-)

0 upvotes
kjh7
By kjh7 (Dec 15, 2011 at 23:53:13 GMT)

I "upgraded" to an Olympus E-PL2 from a Nikon D40. I love my Olympus! My Nikon was just too heavy(though the lightest DSLR), so I rarely put it in my bag and missed a lot of pic opportunities. Now, I can take my PL2 with me all the time. The image quality is excellent, it's light, and it has some really cool features. I am so glad I bought a mirrorless camera. I highly recommend them!

2 upvotes
smafdy
By smafdy (Dec 15, 2011 at 23:44:48 GMT)

To me, the greatest benefit of these cameras (Micro Four Thirds, at least, and then only in aperture priority or manual), is their ability to accept a wide variety of legacy lenses.

There are some sweet deals on very high quality legacy glass by any number of manufacturers available on the used market.

Being that these lenses are manual focus when used with Micro Four Thirds cams, the lack of autofocus precision and speed lacking in the cameras really isn’t an issue.

If you really want to get close to photography, get some old lenses and the appropriate adaptors. If nothing else using them will force you to shoot with more consideration (something auto-everything has taught us, or at least encourages us, not to do).

2 upvotes
Solarcoaster
By Solarcoaster (Dec 15, 2011 at 23:28:51 GMT)

Also it is somewhat misleading to say there are only five lenses. There are two more that have been announced by Sony that figure to ship pretty soon, also there are two or three manual focus e-mount prime lenses from SLRMagic.

1 upvote
Total comments: 144