"MIRRORLESS" should NOT be in the description

There's NO REASON to name a new technology by what's missing from it.

The new name should be indicative of what it is. Not what it isn't.

These are digital interchangeable lens cameras. However you want to work that together, I don't care.

D-ILC maybe? And I'd argue we don't even need the D at this point.

But I think it's silly to name a new technology by referencing the old one, no matter how old and established. It's be like calling flat screen TVs "tubeless flat panel TVs".

Serioulsy have we not beat this d&% subject to death!!

itchhh said:

Serioulsy have we not beat this d&% subject to death!!

Click to expand...

No! This one will run and run! Let's go for it!

Agree, "Mirrorless" is definitely a no-no.

And while we are at it, "Single Lens" is a dud. How many cameras have anything other than a single lens, for goodness sake? Is that going to change? No.

And "Digital" certainly is of debatable merit, now.

So what DOES need to be mentioned about this new class of cameras? Their 'essence', as it were...?

• Interchangeable lenses
• Electric viewing

... and not much else, I think
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

A product should not be called for what isn't and he is the first person (afaik) to mention this bringing some light to all this quasi non-sense poll.
Eduardo

I just noticed there is a thread from 7 days ago that mentioned this before. This thread reached 150 already.

Edymagno said:

A product should not be called for what isn't and he is the first person (afaik) to mention this bringing some light to all this quasi non-sense poll.
Eduardo

Click to expand...

splendic said:

There's NO REASON to name a new technology by what's missing from it.

Click to expand...

Well, unless that helps you differentiate it from another category with which it has much in common, except that one aspect.

jesbe said:

The new name should be indicative of what it is. Not what it isn't.

These are digital interchangeable lens cameras. However you want to work that together, I don't care.

Click to expand...

And so are DSLRs, so that doesn't work.

Dorus

"There's NO REASON to name a new technology by what's missing from it."

Dead right. 'Mirrorless' as a description is as redundant as 'Horseless' is to Motor Cars or 'Bagless' to modern vacuum cleaners - you don't define something by what it DOESN'T possess or doesn't do.
'EVIL' is a complete non-starter, nobody is going to use it, just forget it!
"Hybrid" doesn't work either - EVERYTHING is a hybrid of something or other!

Unfortunately, 'ILC' is no more specific to the "mirrorless" group than it is to the SLR group or Medium Format cameras and can hardly represent the new species therefore. And very obviously these cameras are not Reflex, so that has to go too.

You could then argue as to whether these gadgets are Compact or Micro - I think the vast majority of users would agree they slot far more accurately into the former term than the latter.

A protracted discussion in British forums in recent months pretty much concluded that 'CSC' was the acronym sufficiently non-specific and sufficiently non-error-prone to be used, and indeed if you pick up a UK magazine now you will find 'CSC' generally has taken over in the language. The rest of the world seems to be dragging its heels in adopting a name, so it would be great if the USA would make up its mind and allow us CSC users the benefit of an identity.

Argue the toss if you will, but these cameras are as Mirrorless as I am tail-less or gill-less. CSC or "Compact System Camera", out of all the suggestions, is the only term broad enough yet rounded enough to make sense. Go with it!

JohnHoppy said:

Dead right. 'Mirrorless' as a description is as redundant as 'Horseless' is to Motor Cars or 'Bagless' to modern vacuum cleaners - you don't define something by what it DOESN'T possess or doesn't do.

Click to expand...

Except that all cars were originally called 'horseless carriages' and, checking amazon just now, half of the vacuums there have 'bagless' in the description.

Sure, logically things should not be defined by what they lack.

But the fact that the question itself says 'mirrorless' and we all know what it means implies that the discussion is over. We call them mirrorless.

A camera is dark box with a lens on it. For almost its entire history the name of the camera has been the viewing system. Most cameras have been view cameras because the photographer sees the image directly on a ground glass for framing and focusing purposes. When the image is not seen directly it is a reflex camera because it uses a secondary system for viewing and focusing. We got rangefinders(RF), twin lens reflex(TLR), single lens reflex(SL, and digital single lens reflex(DSLR). The last was temporary and a mistake because it integrated the digital into the nomenclature and no longer provides information because virtually all cameras now use digital sensors.

Oh, and there were many SLRs with fixed lenses. Look up Voigtlander Bessamatic for example. The new thing was the interchangeable lens SLR or IC SLR. IC was dropped when fixed lens examples disappeared.

D is no longer needed. C was never needed. We still are talking about a single lens reflex because it is not a TLR and it is still a through the lens system. It just has an electronic viewing system instead of an optical one.

What we have been needing is a way to distinguish cameras that have an electronic primary view system whether EVF, LCD or future system from cameras that have a primary mirror/optical viewing sytem. We have an electronic display SLR or EDSLR. Simple.

arsee said:

JohnHoppy wrote:

But the fact that the question itself says 'mirrorless' and we all know what it means implies that the discussion is over. We call them mirrorless.

Click to expand...

By far and away the greater number of the world's digital cameras are mirrorless, and have been since the first examples of digital cameras first hit the mass market. Nevertheless, we don't call them "mirrorless". do we? Counting my kid's, we have seven digital cameras in our house. None of them have ever been referred to as mirrorless.

Mirrorless as a description is anachronistic right from first use, and will only get more so as time goes by....

.................... like, say, by the end of the week after next!!
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

win39 said:

What we have been needing is a way to distinguish cameras that have an electronic primary view system whether EVF, LCD or future system from cameras that have a primary mirror/optical viewing sytem. We have an electronic display SLR or EDSLR. Simple.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that "reflex" was short for "reflex mirror", so we really don't want that in the name. If this is wrong someone needs to jump on wikipedia and put in their 2c

I got the perfect one:

OCD : Optically Challenged Device.

It is politically correct, and same acronym (with a different translation) is also attributable to those who can't leave 'mirrorless' well enough alone.

i couldn't agree more "MIRRORLESS" should NOT be in the description, is a motorbike 2wheelless.

i think "compact" is a bit iffy as well. there is no rule stating nikon cant make an elephant sized one.
the rule is the light goes directly to the sensor and nothing more.

"DLS direct light sensor " Obviously this could encompass point and shoots. but they are basically souped up p&s cameras.

not to be confused with DFS a discount sofa producer.

actually my idea is poor. back to square one.

But that precludes the delightful name of "Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Format", or MILF.

Oh, well... if you really want to drop the "Mirrorless", how about "Small-Sensor, Electronic-Viewfinder Camera", or SSEVC?

K.

I disagree: You can either define something by what it is, or by distinguishing it from what was there before.

If you want to define by what it is: It's a (compact) digital system camera. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you want to define by distinguishing it from what was before: (similar to the distinction between SLR and TLR): You emphasize the differences.

Above, you can find SLRs, but there is no reflex, no mirror anymore. Hence: Mirrorless. An SLR would become an SLM.

To distinguish from the group of cameras below (the compact cameras, which, by definition, are also single-lens and mirrorless), you can emphasize on the changeable lenses.

Now just shuffle the letters around and you get to "MILC" - the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. Clearly distinguished from the groups of cameras bordering it on both sides.

I don't think "MILC" is a nice acronym, but it defines well what it is.

--
Georg
-

Minolta 9000, 9xi, 5D, Sony A700. 17-35mm f2.8-4, 50mm f1.4, 24-105mm, 70-300mm G, 100-300mm APO, 500mm f8 Reflex. Metz 45CL-4 digital, Sony HVL-42

I agree and disagree with you. I understand your point about it makes no sense to name something after something it doesn't have (if you do then the naming possibilities are endless!)

But, if people expect something to have a certain feature, then it's characterized by that feature, and you can define the product by including that feature or excluding it. Like "cordless" phones, or "wireless" mouse, etc. So "mirrorless" cameras make sense, however, it might not be technically sound to name them "mirrorless". People might call them mirrorless but I doubt the companies will call them mirrorless. Just like the technical name for a wireless mouse is a laser mouse, and nobody calls cellphones cordless phones anymore!

001FJ said:

... I doubt the companies will call them mirrorless. ...

Click to expand...

http://www.google.com/search?complete=0&nfpr=1&tbo=1&prmdo=1&filter=0&q=site%3Apanasonic.com+mirrorless

http://www.google.com/search?complete=0&nfpr=1&tbo=1&prmdo=1&filter=0&q=site%3Aolympus-europa.com+mirrorless

-- omr

001FJ said:

Just like the technical name for a wireless mouse is a laser mouse, and nobody calls cellphones cordless phones anymore!

Click to expand...

FYI: a wireless mouse refers to a mouse that not wired to the computer while a laser mouse uses a laser instead of a ball to track motion ... two different beasts.. Cordless phones are home phones that are not physically connected (wired) to the base in the home, while cellphones are portable phones that communicate through cell towers ... again, two different beasts.

kessler said:

001FJ said:

Just like the technical name for a wireless mouse is a laser mouse, and nobody calls cellphones cordless phones anymore!

Click to expand...

FYI: a wireless mouse refers to a mouse that not wired to the computer while a laser mouse uses a laser instead of a ball to track motion ... two different beasts.. Cordless phones are home phones that are not physically connected (wired) to the base in the home, while cellphones are portable phones that communicate through cell towers ... again, two different beasts.

Click to expand...

Here's my 2p. A wireless is now a radio.
--

Given up on the whole "regain my original ID". Seems DPR don't give a flying fucher

SchorschB said:

Above, you can find SLRs, but there is no reflex, no mirror anymore. Hence: Mirrorless. An SLR would become an SLM.

Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't.

"Single Lens" only ever described what kind of reflex it was. If it isn't a reflex, then obviously we don't need Single Lens qualifier anymore. Single Lens becomes redundant and confusing, and only returns to validity when somebody invents one of these cameras with a different number of lenses to one.
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"