"Mirrorless" is the future???

Started Feb 16, 2012 | Discussions
Alex Sarbu Veteran Member • Posts: 7,594
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

Doug Bale wrote:

JoeDaBassPlayer wrote:

Those who want to shoot a more traditional camera as well as those shooting longer lenses will want the SLR. For those who shoot on the wider end, game on. I am lookinng forward to having a serious camera that is not attached to my face.

Length of lens is irrelevant The issue is whether the reflex design is the best way of letting photographers see exactly what their lenses are capturing, and clearly it no longer is. It's indisputably superior to even the best parallax-corrected tunnel viewfinder, but it has no advantage whatever over a good electronic one, which has the added advantages of allowing cameras to be lighter, more compact and less expensive.

It has the advantage of direct, optical viewing.

It is the OVF who will show you "exactly what their lenses are capturing", not the EVF. The EVF will only show an approximation of what the final (heavily processed) result could look like.

This holds as true with telephoto lenses as with short ones. It also holds true regardless of how you prefer to hold your camera; the electronic viewfinder is basically a miniature duplicate of the LCD screen — what you see is what you get, whether you're seeing it with the viewfinder up to your face, looking downward at an articulated waist-level screen, or holding the device out at arm's length.

Yes, that's its main advantage as well as its downfall - it's a miniature TV.

However, you don't "see what you get". The colors are off. The brightness is wrong. Not enough DR. Impossible to show the shutter speed effect on the final exposure. Viewfinder lag.

Silence is the final and not least important reason for the growing shift to mirrorless cameras (and it is a growing shift, despite the large numbers of SLRs still being sold; the market for mirrorless, until recently nonexistent, is now substantial). Only this week, I was at a classical concert through most of which the entire audience was distracted by the constant slap-clack of an SLR in the hands of a hick who thought he needed a thousand exposures to be sure of getting a single useful one.

In such occasions, a quiet DSLR is a bliss.

I understand the clinging to the reflex mirror by those who have invested largely in it, or by newcomers who imagine that big cameras look more 'professional'; I belong to a generation that only doubtingly gave up the Speed Graphic for the twin-lens Rollei. But even the die-hards will eventually perceive the obvious.

"Clinging"? It's about using what's best for us.

Alex S

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited +6 more
cedrec Regular Member • Posts: 328
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

Alex Sarbu wrote:

It has the advantage of direct, optical viewing.

It is the OVF who will show you "exactly what their lenses are capturing", not the EVF. The EVF will only show an approximation of what the final (heavily processed) result could look like.

Although that's true, I'd rather see "exactly what my camera is capturing" than what the lens is capturing. It's really nice having the exposure simulation that any EVF or LCD can provide. It takes a lot of guesswork out of all types of shooting, especially manual. OVFs can't do this.

I'm rather lukewarm to OVFs on DSLRs for manual focusing. Unless you replace the focusing screen, you typically can't use them for manual focusing. Even with a split-image focusing screen, they're still not as accurate of tools for manual focusing as a good EVF with focus peaking or image magnification.

The only advantage I personally see for OVFs is that they do not run down the battery. That's a pretty big advantage for a lot of people, but I'd also be curious as to how much more battery power is drained by the shutter + mirror lift actuation of a DSLR than the simple shutter actuation of a mirrorless camera. My eyes just aren't good enough to appreciate any difference between real life and the resolution of a modern EVF.

Alex Sarbu Veteran Member • Posts: 7,594
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

cedrec wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

It has the advantage of direct, optical viewing.

It is the OVF who will show you "exactly what their lenses are capturing", not the EVF. The EVF will only show an approximation of what the final (heavily processed) result could look like.

Although that's true, I'd rather see "exactly what my camera is capturing" than what the lens is capturing. It's really nice having the exposure simulation that any EVF or LCD can provide. It takes a lot of guesswork out of all types of shooting, especially manual. OVFs can't do this.

That's the funny thing - you can't.

Is your EVF color calibrated? What's its DR, is it enough? Do you only shoot JPEG with no off-camera processing whatsoever?

And you have an exposure meter inside the camera... it's not exactly "guesswork"

I'm rather lukewarm to OVFs on DSLRs for manual focusing. Unless you replace the focusing screen, you typically can't use them for manual focusing. Even with a split-image focusing screen, they're still not as accurate of tools for manual focusing as a good EVF with focus peaking or image magnification.

With a good (reflex) OVF you can. Indeed, image magnification is better if you have the time.
I'm not sure about focus peaking, though.

The only advantage I personally see for OVFs is that they do not run down the battery. That's a pretty big advantage for a lot of people, but I'd also be curious as to how much more battery power is drained by the shutter + mirror lift actuation of a DSLR than the simple shutter actuation of a mirrorless camera. My eyes just aren't good enough to appreciate any difference between real life and the resolution of a modern EVF.

This is one advantage, yes. No power when composing, and very little for the actual exposure. Is there any EVF camera which can easily go past 1000 exposures on a single charge?

I have to change my glasses, but I also can't see a significant difference in resolution between a good EVF and an APS-C OVF. FF, though, it's another matter (medium format, even more so).

However, viewing static subjects with a static camera is one thing; put some motion and you'll see the difference.

Alex S

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited +6 more
cedrec Regular Member • Posts: 328
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

Alex Sarbu wrote:

cedrec wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

It has the advantage of direct, optical viewing.

It is the OVF who will show you "exactly what their lenses are capturing", not the EVF. The EVF will only show an approximation of what the final (heavily processed) result could look like.

Although that's true, I'd rather see "exactly what my camera is capturing" than what the lens is capturing. It's really nice having the exposure simulation that any EVF or LCD can provide. It takes a lot of guesswork out of all types of shooting, especially manual. OVFs can't do this.

That's the funny thing - you can't.

Is your EVF color calibrated? What's its DR, is it enough? Do you only shoot JPEG with no off-camera processing whatsoever?

And you have an exposure meter inside the camera... it's not exactly "guesswork"

I gotcha Alex ;). I don't think you're fully getting me. In my mind, trained by years of seeing the world clearly only through glasses, and then side-tracked for several years playing with digital point-and-shoots, the viewfinder is there primarily to compose the shot, secondarily check the focus, and tertiarily to preview the exposure. I trust my camera with a lot of the other stuff, and my skills in post to touch-up the rest.

We're not shooting onto film here. What's being captured by the sensor in a preview can be consistently displayed on an LCD, in real time. Whether the LCD is calibrated or not is a legitimate concern, but IMO a moot one. With an EVF you might be misled by a mis-calibrated screen (I think you're exaggerating by how much, but that doesn't matter), but with an OVF, you aren't even getting that feedback. It's all about how you use it. You can shoot with an OVF or an EVF and still rely on the camera's metering. The only difference that matters to me is when you see the exposure preview, and I like seeing it before I take the shot.

I bet there are very few digital photographers on this board shooting manually for real--with a spot meter and the zone system--because there isn't a real need for it with digital instant feedback.

I'm rather lukewarm to OVFs on DSLRs for manual focusing. Unless you replace the focusing screen, you typically can't use them for manual focusing. Even with a split-image focusing screen, they're still not as accurate of tools for manual focusing as a good EVF with focus peaking or image magnification.

With a good (reflex) OVF you can. Indeed, image magnification is better if you have the time.

I couldn't manually focus my 5D2 through the OVF without replacing the focusing screen, and even with a split-image screen I have to admit that it's inferior to the focus-assist features that an EVF can provide. I thought that the 5D2 was supposedly a good camera, so I'm not sure how "good" we have to go to find one that has a useable focusing screen right out of the box...maybe I'm looking at the wrong brands?

The only advantage I personally see for OVFs is that they do not run down the battery. That's a pretty big advantage for a lot of people, but I'd also be curious as to how much more battery power is drained by the shutter + mirror lift actuation of a DSLR than the simple shutter actuation of a mirrorless camera. My eyes just aren't good enough to appreciate any difference between real life and the resolution of a modern EVF.

This is one advantage, yes. No power when composing, and very little for the actual exposure. Is there any EVF camera which can easily go past 1000 exposures on a single charge?

I would wager the answer is no. Not without a very, very large battery. On the other hand, DSLRs do tend to have physically larger batteries than mirrorless cameras of all kinds, so how much more efficient are they really? The battery of my 5D2 is 25-30% larger than the NEX battery. How much of the size difference translates to extra capacity, however, is beyond my expertise.

However, viewing static subjects with a static camera is one thing; put some motion and you'll see the difference.

Fair enough. In the end, it still comes down to whether that difference (and the many other trade-offs in image quality, like high ISO noise and low shutter speed lag) really matter to you in taking pictures. For my three expectations of a VF, as stated above, the trade-off is perfectly acceptable, but that's just me.

JoeDaBassPlayer Veteran Member • Posts: 3,591
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

cedrec wrote:

Fair enough. In the end, it still comes down to whether that difference (and the many other trade-offs in image quality, like high ISO noise and low shutter speed lag) really matter to you in taking pictures. For my three expectations of a VF, as stated above, the trade-off is perfectly acceptable, but that's just me.

From what I am seeing, the newer live view onl cameras are doing more than acceptable in terms of IQ and basic operations. The Focus peaking on Sony. Ricoh and now Pentax looks to be the wave of the future in manual focusing. The first of the Pentax -Marc Newson K 01 cameras are hitting the streets and it looks to be a well crafted and high quality camera. The lack of an OVF may be a deterrent for some but it could be a great camera for those interested in a more creative use of WA to short tele, and for video creation.
--
Variance is Evil!

Yargo Regular Member • Posts: 483
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)
1

Can't believe this argument is still going on .

This is a photography forum , so it's a pretty safe bet that 99.9% of membesr have a camera .
Guess what , they chose the camera to suit their needs .
Be happy with the camera you have .
No camera system is perfect , they are all a compromise .

No camera is "the future" , as people have different requirements from their camera , Anyone posting different is suffering cognitive dissonance/bias .

The proof of all the above ?
EVF has been around for years
OVF has been around for years

If anyone in this thread purports to know the future of cameras , ask them for next weeks lottery , they have as much chance there too .

A peeing contest , is a peeing contest , and winning one of those makes you talented with urine .

cedrec Regular Member • Posts: 328
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

Inoooorite? What's with these people discussing cameras when the answer is so obvious? Um, what was that answer again? Something about peace and harmony and not arguing about hobbies you are passionate about? It went right over my head.

BTW, spaces go after the punctuation. Not before it. Putting spaces before periods, commas, exclamation marks, question marks, and other punctuation is improper. It distracts from what you're saying because it makes you look uneducated. Please take note of it.

Alex Sarbu Veteran Member • Posts: 7,594
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

cedrec wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

cedrec wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

It has the advantage of direct, optical viewing.

It is the OVF who will show you "exactly what their lenses are capturing", not the EVF. The EVF will only show an approximation of what the final (heavily processed) result could look like.

Although that's true, I'd rather see "exactly what my camera is capturing" than what the lens is capturing. It's really nice having the exposure simulation that any EVF or LCD can provide. It takes a lot of guesswork out of all types of shooting, especially manual. OVFs can't do this.

That's the funny thing - you can't.

Is your EVF color calibrated? What's its DR, is it enough? Do you only shoot JPEG with no off-camera processing whatsoever?

And you have an exposure meter inside the camera... it's not exactly "guesswork"

I gotcha Alex ;). I don't think you're fully getting me. In my mind, trained by years of seeing the world clearly only through glasses, and then side-tracked for several years playing with digital point-and-shoots, the viewfinder is there primarily to compose the shot, secondarily check the focus, and tertiarily to preview the exposure. I trust my camera with a lot of the other stuff, and my skills in post to touch-up the rest.

Please explain how you can see "exactly what your camera is capturing" with a non-calibrated, low-ish DR EVF when you're shooting RAW and intend to do some post-processing. The WYSIWYG capabilities of the current EVFs are IMO overstated.
By the way, for a tertiary function you're talking quite a lot about metering.

We're not shooting onto film here. What's being captured by the sensor in a preview can be consistently displayed on an LCD, in real time. Whether the LCD is calibrated or not is a legitimate concern, but IMO a moot one. With an EVF you might be misled by a mis-calibrated screen (I think you're exaggerating by how much, but that doesn't matter), but with an OVF, you aren't even getting that feedback. It's all about how you use it. You can shoot with an OVF or an EVF and still rely on the camera's metering. The only difference that matters to me is when you see the exposure preview, and I like seeing it before I take the shot.

And how well does it work? The LCD on my K-5 is useless for checking the exposure, without the histogram.

After a while, one should find the metering system quite predictable; I don't need to check the exposure before every frame. If anything, I can underexpose a little bit to be sure highlights are preserved; the camera can easily cope with that.

I bet there are very few digital photographers on this board shooting manually for real--with a spot meter and the zone system--because there isn't a real need for it with digital instant feedback.

There isn't a real need for it also with in-camera exposure metering systems.

I'm rather lukewarm to OVFs on DSLRs for manual focusing. Unless you replace the focusing screen, you typically can't use them for manual focusing. Even with a split-image focusing screen, they're still not as accurate of tools for manual focusing as a good EVF with focus peaking or image magnification.

With a good (reflex) OVF you can. Indeed, image magnification is better if you have the time.

I couldn't manually focus my 5D2 through the OVF without replacing the focusing screen, and even with a split-image screen I have to admit that it's inferior to the focus-assist features that an EVF can provide. I thought that the 5D2 was supposedly a good camera, so I'm not sure how "good" we have to go to find one that has a useable focusing screen right out of the box...maybe I'm looking at the wrong brands?

With decent vision (or good glasses) one should be fine, with a high quality FF OVF. Some can do it even with APS-C ones.
But if it doesn't work for you...

The only advantage I personally see for OVFs is that they do not run down the battery. That's a pretty big advantage for a lot of people, but I'd also be curious as to how much more battery power is drained by the shutter + mirror lift actuation of a DSLR than the simple shutter actuation of a mirrorless camera. My eyes just aren't good enough to appreciate any difference between real life and the resolution of a modern EVF.

This is one advantage, yes. No power when composing, and very little for the actual exposure. Is there any EVF camera which can easily go past 1000 exposures on a single charge?

I would wager the answer is no. Not without a very, very large battery. On the other hand, DSLRs do tend to have physically larger batteries than mirrorless cameras of all kinds, so how much more efficient are they really? The battery of my 5D2 is 25-30% larger than the NEX battery. How much of the size difference translates to extra capacity, however, is beyond my expertise.

Well, the Pentax K-01 and the K-5 uses the same 1860mAh battery. 540 vs. 980 images (CIPA, without flash). Spend too much time composing/focusing/whatever and you'll cut quite a lot from those 540 frames.

However, viewing static subjects with a static camera is one thing; put some motion and you'll see the difference.

Fair enough. In the end, it still comes down to whether that difference (and the many other trade-offs in image quality, like high ISO noise and low shutter speed lag) really matter to you in taking pictures. For my three expectations of a VF, as stated above, the trade-off is perfectly acceptable, but that's just me.

Of course. I never said one shouldn't use EVFs; however they do have limitations which can make OVFs preferable. And because of this, OVFs won't die so easily.
It's good to have a choice

Alex S

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited +6 more
Yargo Regular Member • Posts: 483
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

Well a nex battery is about 1080 mAhr , so it is a good bit lower capacity .

cedrec Regular Member • Posts: 328
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Please explain how you can see "exactly what your camera is capturing" with a non-calibrated, low-ish DR EVF when you're shooting RAW and intend to do some post-processing. The WYSIWYG capabilities of the current EVFs are IMO overstated.

Hmm, I'd rather ask you how an EVF limits shooting in RAW, as I honestly can't see how it would. Don't think that this is an argument here. I state what I think I know and try to make a case for it, and if people correct me, I learn from them. You've stumped me, so please elaborate.

I'm also curious how you can speak so confidently about the calibration of every EVF in production, but I won't go there right now.

Alex Sarbu Veteran Member • Posts: 7,594
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

cedrec wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Please explain how you can see "exactly what your camera is capturing" with a non-calibrated, low-ish DR EVF when you're shooting RAW and intend to do some post-processing. The WYSIWYG capabilities of the current EVFs are IMO overstated.

Hmm, I'd rather ask you how an EVF limits shooting in RAW, as I honestly can't see how it would. Don't think that this is an argument here. I state what I think I know and try to make a case for it, and if people correct me, I learn from them. You've stumped me, so please elaborate.

That's easy: all the processing you'll do on your computer (and you can decide what to do only then) won't show in the EVF. It's actually What You See Is What You May Get... Approximately
And what if the DR exceeds what the EVF can show?

Some people would rather not use a viewing device that dramatically restricts what you see to an approximation of a possible end-result.

I'm also curious how you can speak so confidently about the calibration of every EVF in production, but I won't go there right now.

Do you use a calibrated monitor, for post-processing? If so, why having lower standards for the so-called WYSIWYG EVF?

By the way, the back LCD on my K-5 can be color calibrated. I don't see why it couldn't be done for an EVF as well.

Alex S

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited +6 more
Alex Sarbu Veteran Member • Posts: 7,594
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

Yargo wrote:

Well a nex battery is about 1080 mAhr , so it is a good bit lower capacity .

And that's exactly why I compared the K-5 with the K-01.

Alex S

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited +6 more
cedrec Regular Member • Posts: 328
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

From the way you describe it, it almost sounds like someone could take a perfect picture with perfect colors if they were using a perfectly calibrated EVF. That is not the case for me, whether I use an OVF or an EVF. I always have to post-process to some extent if I want my photos to look their best. But why would this even be an issue? With digital cameras, there is no such thing as "what you see is what you get," definitely not looking through an OVF. Not when you have things like adjustable white balance and high ISO noise that doesn't show up in an OVF; nor with the flexibility RAW files offer in post, which kind of negates what you see altogether.

Alex Sarbu Veteran Member • Posts: 7,594
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

cedrec wrote:

From the way you describe it, it almost sounds like someone could take a perfect picture with perfect colors if they were using a perfectly calibrated EVF. That is not the case for me, whether I use an OVF or an EVF. I always have to post-process to some extent if I want my photos to look their best.

That's exactly my point.

But why would this even be an issue?

It's not an issue. What I'm saying is that you don't really need a WYSIWYG viewfinder, and you won't get one anyway.

This - EVF being WYSIWYG - was pushed as a big advantage over OVFs, by EVF fans. I'd rather say it's a matter of preference, seeing the electronic approximation or the direct, unprocessed OVF view. I strongly prefer the latter, btw. as I see no need to evaluate all the processing parameters for each exposure. My camera is not as unpredictable, you know?

With digital cameras, there is no such thing as "what you see is what you get," definitely not looking through an OVF. Not when you have things like adjustable white balance and high ISO noise that doesn't show up in an OVF; nor with the flexibility RAW files offer in post, which kind of negates what you see altogether.

Not when looking through an EVF, either.

Speaking about noise - that's one of the things the EVF is unable to reproduce with any degree of accuracy. That's because the exposure time for each individual frame (during Live View) is very limited (to maintain a decent frame rate); this means that in low light LV ISO can be significantly higher than the effective (exposure) ISO.

Alex S

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited +6 more
Yargo Regular Member • Posts: 483
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

cedrec wrote:

Inoooorite? What's with these people discussing cameras when the answer is so obvious? Um, what was that answer again? Something about peace and harmony and not arguing about hobbies you are passionate about? It went right over my head.

BTW, spaces go after the punctuation. Not before it. Putting spaces before periods, commas, exclamation marks, question marks, and other punctuation is improper. It distracts from what you're saying because it makes you look uneducated. Please take note of it.

Hahahaha little man .

Oh passion is to be found in the pursuit of the art , not within the technology .

Hahaha little man hahahaha , cheered me up

PK24X36NOW Senior Member • Posts: 1,877
Re: "Mirrorless" is the future???

Voff wrote:

BobYIL wrote:

CIPA did not release any forecast on the sales of the "mirrorless" cameras in this 18.3 million however the following chart by DPReview indicates the general trend in several markets in the period between October 2011 to December 2011. One can easily note how the sales of "non-reflex" interchangeable-lens cameras are eating into the share of total sales of SLRs in all markets.

They are not. DSLR sales continue to increase.

A fact that seems to be repeatedly ignored, and that doesn't seem to sink into certain thick skulls.

cedrec Regular Member • Posts: 328
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

Yargo wrote:

cedrec wrote:

Inoooorite? What's with these people discussing cameras when the answer is so obvious? Um, what was that answer again? Something about peace and harmony and not arguing about hobbies you are passionate about? It went right over my head.

BTW, spaces go after the punctuation. Not before it. Putting spaces before periods, commas, exclamation marks, question marks, and other punctuation is improper. It distracts from what you're saying because it makes you look uneducated. Please take note of it.

Hahahaha little man .

Oh passion is to be found in the pursuit of the art , not within the technology .

Hahaha little man hahahaha , cheered me up

If trying to help you function in the grown-up world makes me "little," what does laughing at good-intentioned advice make you? Try to think before answering this time.

Barry Fitzgerald Forum Pro • Posts: 29,888
Re: "Mirrorless" is the future???

Photography is all about the "past"
So I've no problems ignoring mirror less

Yargo Regular Member • Posts: 483
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

cedrec wrote:

Yargo wrote:

cedrec wrote:

Inoooorite? What's with these people discussing cameras when the answer is so obvious? Um, what was that answer again? Something about peace and harmony and not arguing about hobbies you are passionate about? It went right over my head.

BTW, spaces go after the punctuation. Not before it. Putting spaces before periods, commas, exclamation marks, question marks, and other punctuation is improper. It distracts from what you're saying because it makes you look uneducated. Please take note of it.

Hahahaha little man .

Oh passion is to be found in the pursuit of the art , not within the technology .

Hahaha little man hahahaha , cheered me up

If trying to help you function in the grown-up world makes me "little," what does laughing at good-intentioned advice make you? Try to think before answering this time.

No , you were trolling .

cedrec Regular Member • Posts: 328
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

Yargo wrote:

cedrec wrote:

Yargo wrote:

cedrec wrote:

implying you actually don't know why there's a reply form on this website

implying you somehow never learned punctuation

implying you are not upset about being corrected

implying i care, since i'm obviously just replying to a troll

implying you are not still mad at me

Cool story, bro.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads