Just plain 'Mirrorless'.

[billzilla2000]

No mirror = mirrorless. There's too many other variables. Not all cameras in this segment lack an optic viewfinder, not all have interchangeable lenses.

Just go with the one thing they all have in common - no mirror.

Of course, there's also a couple of different body styles, here, but that's another argument and besides, if you're talking about a GH2, it doesn't take much to say it's a 'DSLR style' body or that an E-PL1 has a 'compact style' body.

 

[Xoom]

Right, and they use to call automobiles the horseless carriage at one point.

 

[Teru Kage]

The problem with "mirrorless" is that it encompasses any camera that doesn't use a mirror (film rangefinders, compact DCs (i.e. Ixus), prosumer small sensor DCs (i.e. Canon G-series).

And there are 3 things that these cameras all share in common:
1) No mirror
2) Interchangeable lenses
3) Large sensors (i.e. comparable to APS-C)

Cameras like the Sigma DP2 and the Fujifilm X100 that have large sensors but fixed lenses should be grouped into a separate category.

No mirror = mirrorless. There's too many other variables. Not all cameras in this segment lack an optic viewfinder, not all have interchangeable lenses.

Just go with the one thing they all have in common - no mirror.

--
Photography - It's not what you look at that matters; it's what you see.

Galleries: http://www.photo.net/photos/teru
http://www.fotop.net/teruphoto

 

[billzilla2000]

The problem with "mirrorless" is that it encompasses any camera that doesn't use a mirror (film rangefinders, compact DCs (i.e. Ixus), prosumer small sensor DCs (i.e. Canon G-series).

But we already call small sensor mirrorless cameras 'compacts' because they're smaller than m43/NEX/NX/X100/X1... We don't have to call 'mirrorless' even though they are, and -- film? Who's going to assume film at this point?

Thing is, most camera geeks already know what 'mirrorless' means. A bigger-than-compact larger sensor camera that likely has interchangeable lenses but not always (X100, X1, whatever else comes up that's fixed).

Cameras like the Sigma DP2 and the Fujifilm X100 that have large sensors but fixed lenses should be grouped into a separate category.

But technically, they're mirrorless and have big sensors, so we can just say they're fixed lens mirrorless. We don't have to have an acronym for everything, FYI.

OK so if we must acronymize, let it be MILC and MFLC.

Of course, we could throw caution to the wind and just call them 'cameras'.

 

[Roland Karlsson]

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

 

[Tom Caldwell]

No mirror = mirrorless. There's too many other variables. Not all cameras in this segment lack an optic viewfinder, not all have interchangeable lenses.

Just go with the one thing they all have in common - no mirror.

Of course, there's also a couple of different body styles, here, but that's another argument and besides, if you're talking about a GH2, it doesn't take much to say it's a 'DSLR style' body or that an E-PL1 has a 'compact style' body.

Yes but you don't call a class of camera by what it has not got.

--
Tom Caldwell
I am always trying ...

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Right, and they use to call automobiles the horseless carriage at one point.

Didn't catch on long term

--
Tom Caldwell
I am always trying ...

 

[snake_b]

"Non-Reflex Camera"

Makes it easy to tag as "NRC"

 

[snake_b]

Even when one of the strengths is what it doesn't have?

No mirror = mirrorless. There's too many other variables. Not all cameras in this segment lack an optic viewfinder, not all have interchangeable lenses.

Just go with the one thing they all have in common - no mirror.

Of course, there's also a couple of different body styles, here, but that's another argument and besides, if you're talking about a GH2, it doesn't take much to say it's a 'DSLR style' body or that an E-PL1 has a 'compact style' body.

Yes but you don't call a class of camera by what it has not got.

--
Tom Caldwell
I am always trying ...

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Even when one of the strengths is what it doesn't have?

If the norm was that cameras almost always had mirrors then "mirrorless" would work. Maybe a "lensless" camera would be OK if such a thing was made. Or even "filmless" for digital. No - I think "mirrorless" is too general.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

 

[snake_b]

That's why the industry should name the format and stop asking the consumers. It's because the consumers are too stupid to understand what's going on ^^^