Why Thom is wrong...

Started Sep 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
PK24X36NOW Senior Member • Posts: 1,968
Re: Why Thom is wrong...

MichaelKJ wrote:

PK24X36NOW wrote:

Thom (and all of the mirrorless cheerleaders here) are wrong because the mirror provides something no mirrorless camera can EVER provide - a real time, lag free, eyestrain inducing flicker free view through the taking lens that consumes NO battery power. This unique aspect of the SLR/dSLR makes it a superior photography instrument that will not be bettered by the best electronic viewfinder in the world.

Why would I want an eyestrain inducingview?

That's "eye strain inducing flicker FREE view..." I know it's a lot of words to keep together in your head.

Thom noted that power consumption is the EVFs main disadvantage, so you can't claim he is wrong about that.

No, but the overall conclusion that "eveything's going mirrorless" is wrong, in no small part because of that. There is no compelling reason to stop using mirrors, because they offer advantages that can't be overcome by technology.

EVFs are improving at a very rapid rate. Flicker is becoming a non-issue and lag time soon be a fraction of the time interval from when your decide to shoot and when you depress the shutter (that lag will always exist).

Flicker is never a non-issue. You either have flicker (and thus eye strain related to it) or not. An OVF does not flicker, and therefore does not strain your eyes. An EVF does, and therefore does strain your eyes. The severity may be reduced, but it cannot be eliminated. The lag will also always be present, since no EVF flickers as fast as the speed of light, which is the only constraint in an OVF providing a real time view.

As others have noted, EVFs offer things that OVFs will never provide. Thus, while EVFs will continue to improve in the areas in which they trail OVFs, OVFs will remain what they are.

OVFs can provide some of the EVF "things" via overlays, if anyone really feels a desparate need for them. OVFs also provide things that EVFs will never provide, like zero battery drain, real time, lag free viewing through the taking lens.

Flange distance? Not only a non-issue, but actually beneficial given the angles of incoming light caused by short flange distances, coupled with the nature of digital sensors.

Size/weight are only arguments because you're comparing smaller sensor cameras with larger sensor cameras for the most part, and becasue you're not comparing cameras with equal image capabilities (i.e., including DOF control). If they make a FF MILC, the lenses will be just as big as for FF dSLRs, and the FF MILC + lens will be an awkward, front-heavy combination when you have a small, thin camera body.

Leica M9 is a FF MILC.

Yup, a rangefinder with a longest lens of 135mm. Hardly worth discussion.

What makes you think Canon and Nikon won't eventually release FF mirrorless cameras that take their current FF lenses and are similar in size and weight to their current DSLRs?

Possible, but unless dSLRs lose massive amounts of market share to mirrorless, why bother? It's obviously not happening, because dSLR users aren't longing for crappy screens to replace their OVF.

Sony will soon release a FF NEX and they won't be the last company to do so.

They might be, after you see how small the sales numbers are!

Personally, I don't think professional cameras need to be as large and heavy as they are to accommodate FF lenses, so I think we will see something closer in size to the SLRs of the past.

A small reduction in size would be OK. Big reductions would make things awkward, however, since AF lenses have bulked things up quite a bit compared with the manual focus lenses of yesteryear. Small body with big lens = ergonomic nightmare.

If you're willing to sacrifice the ability to isolate subjects from background, are willing to sacrifice (high ISO and overall) image quality, are willing to sacrifice tracking autofocus for moving subjects, are willing to sacrifice battery life, and are willing to suffer with akward ergonomics/poor controls because the camera bodies are too small to allow enough room for extensive on-camera controls (or because the controls are so small they can't be easily used), then mirrorless cameras may seem like a good "alternative," but when those limitations are taken into account, they provide no compelling reason to move away from dSLRs. Quite the reverse, in fact.

The future is mirrorless, regardless of sensor size. Users will pick the format(s) that best meet their needs.

Not necessarily. When the disadvantages of a supposedly irresistable change number as many or more than the supposed advantages, the "future" tends to end up looking like the past. There is a market for mirrorless, but it is by no means a "better mousetrap" that will displace dSLRs.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow