The Great Mirrorless Push

jamesm007 · Aug 6, 2017

I have been shooting digital for ten plus years. I really enjoy my dSLR. I Never shot film (I am over 50). I was very excited to hear about mirrorless cameras coming out. I fully understood the cost savings it would bring. However I was greatly disappointed with the first models. They IMO then were profit enhancers. The amount of money to align a dSLR and build its mirrorbox is much greater than a proven LCD screen, only logical. Its why TVs are so cheap now. But the manufacturers are trying to make us think they are more advanced cameras to keep them at a higher profit selling point all IMO.

Don't get me wrong, R&D cost money. But lets say you use an of the shelf EVF, that body has nothing to make it cost anywhere near the price of a dSLR. Just look at the service manual for a dSLR. Its an incredible complex precision instrument compared to a mirrorless camera.

Do I dislike mirrorless. No, go look at my oldest post of them when they had no name. I had high hopes for them.

Coming from a mirrorless camera the Kodak P880, I love it. I never had to take my eyes out of the EVF to control the camera, all data was right there along with my subject. I know there is no comparing the EVF then and now.

But I also loved the clean, bright, very clear and large view from a OVF. If I want I can use the LCD to sort of shoot like an EVF (within limits).

Without a doubt there is a lot of misinformation being passed around. When you see this type of activity the only motivating factor behind it is money.

My Samsung Galaxy S6 has the nicest most accurate screen I have ever seen. It shows the electronics to drive a superb LCD screen can be small. The OVF gets its image from the focus screen plane. I could easily design (not engineer) a moving LCD screen that in a snap covers the focus screen so you now have a EVF if you want. Then push a button and it retracts back to an OVF. No lose of light and other issues. It would not cost that much.

In the end I feel like why do people fight over two camera types. In the USA people see what the pros around the President use. They know what a "PRO" camera should be. Even if wrong. They may not want a small camera. But a camera that feels good in one hand with a decent size (APS) lens. And they may enjoy the OVF. Is there anything wrong with that, no. Perhaps if EVF came down in price they would quickly outsell OVF. But that would make them seem like they are not as good dSLRs. Education is key.

The constant fight has turned me off from reading and writing here as much as I use to, it really has.

--
jamesm007, Pentax K5, K20D
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesm007/
http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z77/jamesm700/

nuke12 · Aug 6, 2017

I agree with a lot of what you say. This mirrorless vs DSLR thing is disturbing but I'm not sure it would make any difference if it didn't exist? It's generally a gear site and people would find something else to argue about. Pick any forum here and there are endless arguments about one mfg's lens selections or camera selections. It's seems people just like to argue on this site.

The really strange thing is, it doesn't matter if it's mirrorless or DSLRs. Neither are winning. The smartphones are winning and the prediction is they will keep winning. When any one camera company decides their camera division is not profitable then either they stop making cameras or the price will climb so it is profitable. In the end, most of us here will suffer in some way.

--
I'm a photo hacker. I use my expensive equipment to destroy anything in front of my camera. This is a special skill that can never be realized by low life photographers. A nurtured skill since the 1970's.

D Cox · Aug 6, 2017

The manufacturing cost is typically about 10% of the retail cost of a product.

nuke12 · Aug 6, 2017

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a mirrorless camera but I can't understand the cost of one?

People like to compare the cost to a DSLR. A DSLR has the pentamirror/pentaprism+motor drive, focusing sensor, light sensor and as I recall, another mirror. I don't understand how a single LCD for the EVF should cost as much as the pieces it's replacing in a DSLR. Generally the camera bodies are also smaller so that should also cost a small bit less.

I've looked at the high end and the low end in both and it seems to me, mirrorless is more expensive or at best, priced about the same.

Lcameron1951 · Aug 6, 2017

Mirrorless will take over when the EVFs mature. Just as digital took many years to overtake film, EVFs will slowly replace OVFs. The reasons they haven't as yet is simple - they're either not good enough for many photographers or can't easily migrate the technology into their existing systems.

johnny_mnemonic · Aug 6, 2017

I will be much more open to evfs when the battery life issue gets resolved. It sucks up battery. Im so used to not having to change a battery for an entire extended day of shooting I just wouldnt want to go back to constantly having to monitor my battery.

I enjoyed the evf of the a7 and several other mirrorless options I tried, but for me I guess it didn't really change anything at all. Pictures looked the same, it just used more battery for me to compose I guess. I know others have legitimate benefits from evfs so I'm not saying they are useless, but for a shooter who started with film cameras with rudimentary spot meters I definitely dont really care about the live read out benefits of evf over ovf... But I definitely care about the negatives at this point. It'll change though I'm sure. But still, I kinda hope it doesn't for awhile. It's not going to change anything for many stills shooters

I will say though- seeing the AF point spread of the sony a99 was remarkable. That truly does change things for autofocus on moving subjects and I think it's a serious benefit to the mirrorless system. Again, doesn't apply to me but I can see it making waves at some point for sports etc

Aaron801 · Aug 6, 2017

... I don't. I use mirrorless gear and am convinced that for me and how I like to photograph that it's the best option. I accept that for other folks something else might be better. To argue one vs the other is really just sport and if you're like me and don't really care about winning that argument, why even concern yourself with it?

Bandman45 · Aug 6, 2017

I'm a former film, dark room SLR guy. My Pentax Spotmatic was my dream camera that I worked nights while in college so I could own it, 1967. Loved that camera (still have it but I don't know why) and finally in the late '90's bought my first point and click digital. Eventually owned the Nikon D70s, D7100, Sony a6300 and now D7500. I think mirrorless has a wonderful future but for this old dog I still prefer DSLR, lens selection and battery life pushed me back to DSLR. It's all good and I still enjoy looking at my old slides but I sure enjoy, even more, todays opportunities.

Aaron801 · Aug 6, 2017

Bandman45 said:
I'm a former film, dark room SLR guy. My Pentax Spotmatic was my dream camera that I worked nights while in college so I could own it, 1967. Loved that camera (still have it but I don't know why) and finally in the late '90's bought my first point and click digital. Eventually owned the Nikon D70s, D7100, Sony a6300 and now D7500. I think mirrorless has a wonderful future but for this old dog I still prefer DSLR, lens selection and battery life pushed me back to DSLR. It's all good and I still enjoy looking at my old slides but I sure enjoy, even more, todays opportunities.

I came up shooting film as well... on SLR type gear. For digital though I went mirrorless... go figure. It's nice to have choices.

yardcoyote · Aug 6, 2017

I use both, enjoy both, and "support" neither.

(the yardcoyote: Pentax and Fuji, phone cameras and toy cameras. )

Philnw2 · Aug 6, 2017

jamesm007 said:
I have been shooting digital for ten plus years. I really enjoy my dSLR. I Never shot film (I am over 50). I was very excited to hear about mirrorless cameras coming out. I fully understood the cost savings it would bring. However I was greatly disappointed with the first models. They IMO then were profit enhancers. The amount of money to align a dSLR and build its mirrorbox is much greater than a proven LCD screen, only logical. Its why TVs are so cheap now. But the manufacturers are trying to make us think they are more advanced cameras to keep them at a higher profit selling point all IMO.

Don't get me wrong, R&D cost money. But lets say you use an of the shelf EVF, that body has nothing to make it cost anywhere near the price of a dSLR. Just look at the service manual for a dSLR. Its an incredible complex precision instrument compared to a mirrorless camera.

Do I dislike mirrorless. No, go look at my oldest post of them when they had no name. I had high hopes for them.

Coming from a mirrorless camera the Kodak P880, I love it. I never had to take my eyes out of the EVF to control the camera, all data was right there along with my subject. I know there is no comparing the EVF then and now.

But I also loved the clean, bright, very clear and large view from a OVF. If I want I can use the LCD to sort of shoot like an EVF (within limits).

Without a doubt there is a lot of misinformation being passed around. When you see this type of activity the only motivating factor behind it is money.

My Samsung Galaxy S6 has the nicest most accurate screen I have ever seen. It shows the electronics to drive a superb LCD screen can be small. The OVF gets its image from the focus screen plane. I could easily design (not engineer) a moving LCD screen that in a snap covers the focus screen so you now have a EVF if you want. Then push a button and it retracts back to an OVF. No lose of light and other issues. It would not cost that much.

In the end I feel like why do people fight over two camera types. In the USA people see what the pros around the President use. They know what a "PRO" camera should be. Even if wrong. They may not want a small camera. But a camera that feels good in one hand with a decent size (APS) lens. And they may enjoy the OVF. Is there anything wrong with that, no. Perhaps if EVF came down in price they would quickly outsell OVF. But that would make them seem like they are not as good dSLRs. Education is key.

The constant fight has turned me off from reading and writing here as much as I use to, it really has.

bjn70 · Aug 6, 2017

jamesm007 said:
But I also loved the clean, bright, very clear and large view from a OVF. If I want I can use the LCD to sort of shoot like an EVF (within limits).

This is hard to understand- I started photography a long time ago and used rangefinder cameras, view cameras, TLR cameras and SLR cameras. Once I used my first SLR I would not give it up and go back to an inferior viewfinder, including current EVF. I've used one of the best EVF on the market today and found the viewfinder to be very low resolution compared to a good DSLR OVF. But I guess if people are mostly used to using a cellphone then an EVF is acceptable to them. (I hate using my cellphone as a camera.)

jamesm007 said:
I could easily design (not engineer) a moving LCD screen that in a snap covers the focus screen so you now have a EVF if you want. Then push a button and it retracts back to an OVF. No lose of light and other issues. It would not cost that much.

What isn't discussed in these arguments is that at least Canon and Nikon DSLRs ALREADY HAVE an LCD combined with the focusing screen. Just add the electronics and software and you could have both together at the same time. Nikon has a patent on some kind of combined technology and there were rumors that it would be in an upcoming model.

I agree with your reasoning that mirrorless cameras should be cheaper but maybe the way the market is going they don't have to be, so the manufacturers just rake in more profit.

We argue about different types of cameras here but the people here are such a small part of the market that we don't matter to the manufacturers. We just argue for the sake of arguing.

SpinOne · Aug 6, 2017

You spend 2/3 of your post blasting mirrorless, based on misinformation about mirrorless.

Then you say no one should fight about the topic, and fighting about it has turned you off DPR?

Are you for real?

LabDummy · Aug 6, 2017

johnny_mnemonic said:
I will be much more open to evfs when the battery life issue gets resolved. It sucks up battery. Im so used to not having to change a battery for an entire extended day of shooting I just wouldnt want to go back to constantly having to monitor my battery.

I enjoyed the evf of the a7 and several other mirrorless options I tried, but for me I guess it didn't really change anything at all. Pictures looked the same, it just used more battery for me to compose I guess. I know others have legitimate benefits from evfs so I'm not saying they are useless, but for a shooter who started with film cameras with rudimentary spot meters I definitely dont really care about the live read out benefits of evf over ovf... But I definitely care about the negatives at this point. It'll change though I'm sure. But still, I kinda hope it doesn't for awhile. It's not going to change anything for many stills shooters

I will say though- seeing the AF point spread of the sony a99 was remarkable. That truly does change things for autofocus on moving subjects and I think it's a serious benefit to the mirrorless system. Again, doesn't apply to me but I can see it making waves at some point for sports etc

Agree. I used to shoot a lot of professional video cameras, all with EVFs. The first accessory we would buy was a larger, external EVF so we could actually see what we were doing.

Tom_N · Aug 6, 2017

jamesm007 said:
The amount of money to align a dSLR and build its mirrorbox is much greater than a proven LCD screen, only logical. Its why TVs are so cheap now.

1. CRT-based TVs did not have mirrors. They had large vacuum tubes. These CRTs were much heavier than LCD panels. A 20" CRT might weigh the same as a 40" LCD, and a 36" Triniton might weigh well over 200 pounds. I don't recall seeing any consumer CRT sets larger than 40", whereas it's not hard to find 100" LCD ones. (Just as well for the aching backs of the poor sods who would have had to deliver the 100" CRTs. Can you imagine the implosion that might result from dropping a 100" set?)

2. CRT-based and LCD-based TVs both benefited from advances in miniaturization. But since LCD-based TVs (mostly) came later, they benefited more.

3. The market for DSLRs and MILCs is probably at least an order of magnitude smaller than the market for TVs. Someone who walks into a big-box store looking for a cheap HDTV may walk out with a 32" – 40" set (they're practically giving those sets away), but someone looking for a cheap camera will probably walk out with a compact. That is, if they don't skip dedicated cameras in favor of the one in their smartphone.

drj3 · Aug 6, 2017

bjn70 said:
bjn70 said:

But I also loved the clean, bright, very clear and large view from a OVF. If I want I can use the LCD to sort of shoot like an EVF (within limits).

Click to expand...

This is hard to understand- I started photography a long time ago and used rangefinder cameras, view cameras, TLR cameras and SLR cameras. Once I used my first SLR I would not give it up and go back to an inferior viewfinder, including current EVF. I've used one of the best EVF on the market today and found the viewfinder to be very low resolution compared to a good DSLR OVF. But I guess if people are mostly used to using a cellphone then an EVF is acceptable to them. (I hate using my cellphone as a camera.)

bjn70 said:

I could easily design (not engineer) a moving LCD screen that in a snap covers the focus screen so you now have a EVF if you want. Then push a button and it retracts back to an OVF. No lose of light and other issues. It would not cost that much.

Click to expand...

What isn't discussed in these arguments is that at least Canon and Nikon DSLRs ALREADY HAVE an LCD combined with the focusing screen. Just add the electronics and software and you could have both together at the same time. Nikon has a patent on some kind of combined technology and there were rumors that it would be in an upcoming model.

I agree with your reasoning that mirrorless cameras should be cheaper but maybe the way the market is going they don't have to be, so the manufacturers just rake in more profit.

Why are most camera companies not making money on the camera business if the "just rake in more profit." Canon and Nikon (to a lesser degree) are making a profit. I am not sure that any other companies are making a profit on their camera divisions.

bjn70 said:
We argue about different types of cameras here but the people here are such a small part of the market that we don't matter to the manufacturers. We just argue for the sake of arguing.

Acrill · Aug 6, 2017

jamesm007 said:
In the USA people see what the pros around the President use. They know what a "PRO" camera should be. Even if wrong. They may not want a small camera.

Pete Souza took plenty of photos of Obama with his Fuji X100S. Its small, Its mirrorless.

If you don't like arguments about two types of digital cameras, then don't start threads putting forth your own half-baked argument.

DVT80111 · Aug 6, 2017

As Moore law advances, the image sensor will have more transistors, so it is getting faster and smarter ( example face/eye and soon people recognition). But none of these advantages can be used with the mirror blocking the path.

IR1234 · Aug 6, 2017

DVT80111 said:
As Moore law advances, the image sensor will have more transistors, so it is getting faster and smarter ( example face/eye and soon people recognition). But none of these advantages can be used with the mirror blocking the path.

You might want to look at your Canons and figure out where the AF sensor is and how light gets to it.

PhotoFactor · Aug 6, 2017

It's human nature to justify one's choices. Similar past examples are:

- Mac vs. PC

- ios vs. Android

- Command line versus mouse/icons

- VHS vs. Betamax

- Film vs. digital

- Vinyl vs. CD

It might be cheaper to build the hardware if there is less of a "precision instrument", but do you know how much more sophisticated software development costs? Plus the technologies are newer instead of being produced for 20 years or more.

IMHO your assumptions about this all being about money are highly presumptuous.

The Great Mirrorless Push

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts