Why mirrorless?

bjn70 said:

Why mirrorless?

I think the main reason is to be different.

Click to expand...

That is pure speculation, which is unlikely to be correct.

bjn70 said:

When I bought my first camera I knew that Canon and Nikon made the best cameras but for some reason I didn't think I was ready for the absolute best so I bought a Canon. But a few years later I decided I was ready so I sold that camera and bought a Nikon. A few years ago I wanted a good TV so I bought a Sony. I didn't consider trying to buy a Canon or Nikon TV because I knew that Sony made a better TV. Just like I didn't consider buying a Sony camera because I knew that Canon and Nikon made better cameras.

Click to expand...

News flash, Olympus has been a camera company, camera lenses since 1936, cameras since 1940.

bjn70 said:

I bought my camera from a camera company, my TV from a TV company, my computer from a computer company, my car from a car company, and so on.

Click to expand...

This is silly reasoning. Is Tesla a a car company? It's market cap has surpassed BMW and just slightly behind GM. Tesla sold its first roadster in 2008.

bjn70 said:

But some people don't want to be part of the crowd, they want to be different. So they look for something to buy other than Canon and Nikon. I see this happening in all kinds of other product categories.

Click to expand...

Times change. What used to be the best isn't always still the best. Change has a habit of leaving old companies in the dust bins on history if they are unable to adapt.

Because being able to take a single shot, with an optimal exposure, regardless of lighting conditions, is a lot more fun than shoot, check exposure, adjust exposure comp, shoot, check exposure...etc.

bjn70 said:

bjn70 said:

Are you implying that EVF is not "in real life"?

Click to expand...

Some people like to watch the TV, some people prefer to look out the window. One is a lot more real than the other.

Click to expand...

When we take a picture, the goal is to produce an end result that we want it to be.

I suppose how the image would look like under the combined effect of our setting should be of our ultimate concern. Before live view be invented, ovf is our obvious choice. But when live view be widely available, this troubles me a lot on why we would still prefer to see the actual shooting environment through an ovf. Would it be easier and more efficient to move our eye away from ovf and take a look at what in front of us?

Unfortunately, a good live view (must be displayed on evf/LCD) requires the right hardware and software. When it was first introduced decades ago the poor quality display panels and insufficient processing power, together with a primitive CDAF system (associated with live view shooting) could only produce low resolution, a better than nothing simulated image far from real life/real time, poor response, laggy refresh rate, slow and hunting AF... making it be something for low end cameras only.

Technology improvement making today's evf (of course brand varies) not only no longer much difference from ovf, but provides 100% view even for entry models, might produce sharper image than ovf, bright enough to operate in the dark, real time change in lighting condition according to the setting, not to mention tons of live view associated features like magnification of focus point, highlight and shadow alert, real time histogram that are only possible on computer generation image... If your recent experience on live view might be difference, you might have not try the right models. Live view is not the same for every brand.

Because of the characteristic of live view (evf/LCD) based shooting of mirrorless, it change the traditional blind shooting (trial and error base) to a "see to adjust" system. We no longer have to bet on how clever our system can be (which can be fooled by complicated lighting condition). As long as we can tell what is dark/bright and how to read the real time information, we can adjust setting precisely according to the visual guide to something we want it to be. It changes shooter/gear relationship and would also be a short cut for beginner to learn how to use a camera.

bjn70 said:

Why mirrorless?

I think the main reason is to be different.

Click to expand...

Pfft.... Who cares?

I use a mirrorless camera in certain situations because it's the best tool for the job, not because of an Apple Computer ad campaign.

The evf image is electronic image of something that has already happened. It was recorded by the sensor, converted into data by the processor and converted to a signal that is sent to the viewfinder to produce an image of what it thought the scene looked like so you can see what the camera thought the sensor saw.

Bob A L said:

The evf image is electronic image of something that has already happened. It was recorded by the sensor, converted into data by the processor and converted to a signal that is sent to the viewfinder to produce an image of what it thought the scene looked like so you can see what the camera thought the sensor saw.

Click to expand...

An Olympus EM1 with fw 2.0 has a 16ms refresh. Your brain can't differentiate 20ms lag. TV scan rates of 60hz is 16msec or 50hz at 20msec. Have you ever seen individual lines on a TV?

The bigger concern is shutter lag. A Nikon D300 was around 50ms. A Canon 1Dx mark ii has a 36ms shutter lag. An EM1 ii has a shutter lag of 32ms.

bjn70 said:

bjn70 said:

Are you implying that EVF is not "in real life"?

Click to expand...

Some people like to watch the TV, some people prefer to look out the window. One is a lot more real than the other.

Click to expand...

Let me explain your mistake. OVF is not like looking out a window. If that is your reason for wanting OVF, you made a mistake.

Do you know what is a camera obscura? Look it up. That is what an OVF is. You are looking at a screen. The parameters and limitations of the screen set limits to how realistic is the projected image (not 'real life' view, no way). Reality looks very different to the 2D screen projection that an OVF allows you to see.

One of the big advances that an OVF always offered over a rangefinder was that it allows you to see a much closer representation of the captured image than a rangefinder can. Well, the EVF takes that direction of progress and raises it to a whole new level over the OVF. The OVF offers a relatively crude representation of what the captured image will look like. What is the sensor going to do with the framing, the exposure settings and the ISO settings that you are using? I can show you approx. framing, but as for the rest, no idea, says the OVF. But the EVF, while not perfect, gives us a hugely improved idea of how the captured image will look. That's real progress.

Seriously, who cares? You should be using what works best for YOU. Does it matter if you are getting the shots you want, be it with a DSLR or a mirrorless camera?

Each have their advantages AND disadvantages. Knowing what you NEED goes a long way to choosing the correct gear. Indeed, you may find out you need both. I use both and love both.

Bob A L said:

The evf image is electronic image of something that has already happened. It was recorded by the sensor, converted into data by the processor and converted to a signal that is sent to the viewfinder to produce an image of what it thought the scene looked like so you can see what the camera thought the sensor saw.

Click to expand...

...all in real time, or at the very least it happens so quickly that it might as well be real time. You act as if it happened yesterday, hahaha. I shoot both OVF and EVF, and for me they are basically both as real time as I would ever expect. And when zero-black-out EVFs (such as with the Sony A9's EVF) become more common, that experience will seem more real-time and more connected to the scene than current EVFs and OVFs are able to offer, because viewfinder black-out disconnects you from a scene, and you literally are not able to see the exact moment that you are capturing. I think most decent EVFs will some day offer this capability. But OVFs never will, unless you're talking about a semi translucent pellicle mirror.

bjn70 said:

Why mirrorless?

I think the main reason is to be different.

When I bought my first camera I knew that Canon and Nikon made the best cameras but for some reason I didn't think I was ready for the absolute best so I bought a Canon. But a few years later I decided I was ready so I sold that camera and bought a Nikon. A few years ago I wanted a good TV so I bought a Sony. I didn't consider trying to buy a Canon or Nikon TV because I knew that Sony made a better TV. Just like I didn't consider buying a Sony camera because I knew that Canon and Nikon made better cameras.

I bought my camera from a camera company, my TV from a TV company, my computer from a computer company, my car from a car company, and so on.

But some people don't want to be part of the crowd, they want to be different. So they look for something to buy other than Canon and Nikon. I see this happening in all kinds of other product categories.

Click to expand...

Haha, that is the most incredibly inane, idiotic reasoning I've ever heard.

I bought my Sony A6000 because it could offered me a lot of things that comparably-priced Canon DSLRs couldn't. (I'm a Canon DSLR user, by the way). I bought my A6000 for about $500. It has 11 fps, near edge-to-edge frame AF point coverage, face detection AF lock-on and tracking, a viewfinder that gave me real-time exposure feedback, a viewfinder that allowed me to put a histogram inside the viewfinder for better exposure, a viewfinder that allowed me to switch it to black-and-white viewing mode which I find really helps me with better composition (it allows me to see the world more abstractly, so I can concentrate on lines, patterns, and shapes, without distraction from colors), etc., all in a package that was a lot smaller and more compact than a DSLR, which resulted in me carrying and using it far more than I did with my DSLRs. This had nothing with your idiotic reason of being "different." The real reason is because the Sony offered more things that I wanted and found valuable. And frankly, I find my Sony takes better pictures than my Canon.

Rather than saying that Sony is a "TV company", maybe you should say that Sony is an "image sensor company" because they own 50% of the worldwide image sensor market. They supply more sensors to more cameras and smartphones than any other company in the world, by a wide margin. They are the dominant force in camera image sensors. And we obviously know that image sensor technology is at the heart of every camera. So I think it's a good idea buying from Sony because they obviously are at the forefront of image sensor technology.

new boyz said:

ability to adapt legacy lenses.

Click to expand...

And current Canon, Leica and Sigma lenses. In a year or two, probably current Nikon lenses too.

Most dSLRs on the market are humongous, big, bulky, oversized, oversized grips, not anything like the way SLR cameras used to be.

The mirrorless I got is not much difference in size to the SLR I used for 20 years:



The film camera is on the left!

I admit the first time I held the camera it did feel small because I was ruined by bulky dSLRs, but soon after it felt like "home", and whenever I pick up my old dSLR I immediately put it back down.

Bob A L said:

The evf image is electronic image of something that has already happened. It was recorded by the sensor, converted into data by the processor and converted to a signal that is sent to the viewfinder to produce an image of what it thought the scene looked like so you can see what the camera thought the sensor saw.

Click to expand...

Every thing you see has already happened.

T3 said:

Bob A L said:

The evf image is electronic image of something that has already happened. It was recorded by the sensor, converted into data by the processor and converted to a signal that is sent to the viewfinder to produce an image of what it thought the scene looked like so you can see what the camera thought the sensor saw.

Click to expand...

...all in real time, or at the very least it happens so quickly that it might as well be real time. You act as if it happened yesterday, hahaha. I shoot both OVF and EVF, and for me they are basically both as real time as I would ever expect. And when zero-black-out EVFs (such as with the Sony A9's EVF) become more common, that experience will seem more real-time and more connected to the scene than current EVFs and OVFs are able to offer, because viewfinder black-out disconnects you from a scene, and you literally are not able to see the exact moment that you are capturing.

Click to expand...

More like the exact fraction of a second that you are capturing, depending on frame rate. Hopefully you dont blink your eye, you may miss even more. With cameras in the A9s price class, thats likely to be 1/10 of a second people are missing.

This is a perfect example of a problem OVF users were completely unaware they were having over the years until ML advocates insisted that they were. In 40 years of shooting, I have yet to hear an OVF shooter have that on their list of complaints. Kind of like the need for completely silent shutters because OVF users have apparantly been causing people at press conferences severe hearing loss all these years. Seems the new ideal there will be some sorts of weirdly silent blinking of flashes.

The A9 seems to be the flagship for what ML tech is capable of. No doubt the technology will bleed down to cheaper models over time. In the meantime, it is more of an experiment for what might be possible, but until it bleeds down to cameras one third the price, it doesnt really positively effect most people yet. We shall see when people get these previously unrequired but now mandatory benefits in the $1500 bodies.

T3 said:

I think most decent EVFs will some day offer this capability. But OVFs never will, unless you're talking about a semi translucent pellicle mirror.

Click to expand...

waboo said:

Does mirrorless produce a better result?

Click to expand...

No because the main difference between a mirror-less and a non-mirror-less camera, particularity a DSLR, is that the slapping mirror mechanism has been removed. Now does this make for a better results, image wise, if thats what you're asking then its a very minuscule yes, only because the moving mirror, in regards to long exposures, can produce some vibration. But that vibration is unnoticeable in the final image when all is said in done. All over benefits, with the exception of a shorter flange distance, could if the DSLR camera manufactures choose too, can be incorporated into a DSLR. Honestly, the tech for mirror-less is old yet still young and it still has a ways to mature, especially in regards to battery life and the increase in size that was once touted as a benefit but now as started to become null

Midwest said:

nofumble said:

the B&W display shows tiny little icon that I can't read without glass. In the Mirrorless, all of that info is inside the EVF, much more convenience.

Click to expand...

Even my several-year-old Canon 7D has a lot of info in the viewfinder. The top LCD is just for convenience.

Click to expand...

then these basic shooting parameters and modes and in modern day these might be a bit too primitive when comparing to evf of mirrorless.

On top of all these sort of shooting information:

• In terms of exposure, Highlight/shadow blinkies, lighting condition across the frame + on screen histogram etc all would be changed according to the setting.
• For manual focus there is focus peaking and focus point magnification.
• Also the instant playback after each shot on evf for an customizable period of time (from no auto playback, 1 sec ... to display the image until shutter be half pressed to cancel).

For Panasonic cameras and certain Olympus cameras, they can relate evf and LCD to provide the touch Pad AF (eye on evf and thumb on LCD to select AF point)...

--
Albert

A "normal" FF DSLR on the left and a mirrorless MFT (rangefinder styled) on the right. Both with 24-120mm f4(ish) lenses attached.





--
The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
- Rayna Butler

GodSpeaks said:

GodSpeaks wrote: A "normal" FF DSLR on the left and a mirrorless MFT (rangefinder styled) on the right. Both with 24-120mm f4(ish) lenses attached.

Click to expand...

Yes, the camera with the dramatically larger sensor has a larger body and lens. That's no surprise.

waboo said:

Does mirrorless produce a better result?

Click to expand...

Yes. Wait, no. Wait, maybe. Wait, Is a 4x5 mirrorless?

DSLRs don't have to be large, and not all mirrorless cameras are particularly small.