Mirrorless vs DSLR

Started Nov 9, 2013 | Discussions
Chris De Schepper Senior Member • Posts: 1,290
Re: The same tiresome hype of mirrorless

PerL wrote:

as1mov wrote:

http://photographylife.com/mirrorless-vs-dslr

What is your opinion?

EVFs are inferior in the same way a big screen TV is inferior to a window - you can't improve on reality.

There are no cost savings benefitting the consumer - just check prices of mirror less.

There is no reliability issue with mirror boxes worth mentioning - I have cameras that are 30+ years that works fine. Most problem with old cameras are failure of electronics.

The space savings are small if you compare the sensor size. A 200 mm lens is the same size on a DSLR and mirror less.

nice comparison, well said

panos_m Senior Member • Posts: 1,450
Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR

as1mov wrote:

http://photographylife.com/mirrorless-vs-dslr

What is your opinion?

I am sure that Stalker prefers an OVF. So my opinion is go for a DSLR.

-- hide signature --

Panagiotis

Erik Magnuson Forum Pro • Posts: 12,247
And phone camera and web cameras

Greg Lovern wrote:

That would have to include P&S cameras.

And phone cameras.  Ever since CIPA started breaking out the numbers in 2003, DSLRs have been more than 1% of cameras sold per year (17% last year).  And all digital cameras sold before 2003 are only ~55 million, i.e. less than 1 year of modern sales.

-- hide signature --

Erik

Kali108 Regular Member • Posts: 420
Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR
2

as1mov wrote:

http://photographylife.com/mirrorless-vs-dslr

What is your opinion?

Two different animals.  For what I predominantly shoot, I'm finding a lot of advantages with mirrorless.  Subject reactions, etc, etc.  Due to mirrorless, the amount of shooting I do has skyrocketed.  Yet, I still have my D800 for that 20% of the time when it's the better tool.  I think mirrorless is in its infancy and I will not be surprised if I sell my dslr kit within 2-3 years.

Chris G Hughes Regular Member • Posts: 391
Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR

These things always seem to boil down to the same thing: different tools for different jobs. DSLRS might be analogized to claw hammers and mirrorless to ball-peen. Both do about 90% of the same things, but the 10% of differentiation is critical when it counts. Doesn't make one better or worse in an objective sense, just different.

Now, the issue happens when each photographer's subjective needs enter the picture. Perception of a platform are colored by individual context. We all know this, but we tend to ignore it and fight anyway.

Ultimately the best we can do is compare actual quantifiable qualities of the various platforms such as lens quality and availability, depth of field characteristics of the sensor size, ISO performance, pixel density available, hardware configuration etc. etc. etc. with our individual needs as photographers. Again, we know this.

So, the bottom line is that it's utterly impossible to say "this platform is better than that platform" in any definitive or objective way.

 Chris G Hughes's gear list:Chris G Hughes's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Nikon D300 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R +5 more
lolopasstrail Regular Member • Posts: 283
Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR

John Motts wrote:

Leica don't have electronic viewfinders, neither do they have mirrors.

If they have a coupled rangefinder, they have mirrors.

SuvoMitra Contributing Member • Posts: 850
Re: Not fully compatible - check facts

Continuous AF has been possible with he FT-1 since the firmware update earlier this year.

-- hide signature --
Greg Lovern Senior Member • Posts: 1,583
Re: Not fully compatible - check facts

SuvoMitra wrote:

Continuous AF has been possible with he FT-1 since the firmware update earlier this year.

Thanks for the correction.

What about not being able to use any focus point other than the center one?

Greg

-- hide signature --

Brand loyalty is a character flaw.

SuvoMitra Contributing Member • Posts: 850
Re: Not fully compatible - check facts

Yes, that limitation remains even after the new FW.

I've used/owned many Canon and Nikon SLR's, and mFT and Fuji x, but have to say the 1 series technology points to the future. For two reasons. First, AF tracking is really strong (when there's light for it, it's better than lower SLR), and second, EVF refresh rate is high, which, if it can be developed further, would be something to reckon with. Of course, all this is with a small sensor, but its output is already better than big sensor fans believe, and it has it's own advantages.

-- hide signature --
SuvoMitra Contributing Member • Posts: 850
Re: I use both

Yes, more people should try a Nikon 1 with the 18.5 mm to get a sense of what's coming. I don't know which sensor size will bcome standard, but the c-af, frame-rate and EVF refresh rate in the 1 series give the best sense of the future out of all the mirrorless offerings so far.

-- hide signature --
Pi lover
Pi lover Senior Member • Posts: 1,301
Re: DSLRs with Hybrid OVF/EVF Viewfinders

Greg Lovern wrote:

Fujifilm already has some interesting hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinders in their X-Pro1 and X100.

I've been spoilt.  I like having adjustable LCD screen that tilts up and down and turns around combined with an EVF that tilts as well.  Diopter adjustment on the viewfinder for those with less than 20/20 vision.  The resolution on the EVF is very good.  The LCD is a touch screen and good resolution as well.  The LCD is a much more accurate live view than I have on the D90 (which is definitely older tech now).  When I change ISO/ speed/ aperature/ whatever it is reflected in what is shown on the screen.  The changes are also reflected in the viewfinder.

People are getting hung up on an OVF/ EVF.  The mirrorless is a fraction of the size of the DSLR which makes it more convienient to carry.  That single fact will be a major factor for most people to go partially mirrorless (many will have a DSLR as a second camera) at least at some point.

Look at Kodak for an example of what happens to companies if they don't make good choices.  I'd be supporting both groups as well as I could if I was a camera company (no brand mentioned).

Grant.

Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 18,482
Re: Some differences and the appeal of mirrorless...

MoreorLess wrote:

I'd argue the reality of the mirrorless market is that its key growth area is aiming between the DSLR and the compact. Basically offering a larger sensor but with the useability of a compact, I.E. no viewfinder, fewer controls.

I'd disagree.  I think that mirrorless has floundered in large part because that's what manufacturers have been offering until recently.  Only so many p&s'ers want to "upgrade" to a bigger p&s.  Most look at Canon Rebels and Nikon D3200s for $550 with a viewfinder and get that a DSLR is a "serious" camera, and wonder why they'd want a $550 point & shoot with a lens sticking out of it.  More cameras like the Panasonic G series and Sony A3000 are needed, at least in the US, for mirrorless to make inroads.  (I think Sony got too cheap with the A3000 which is selling for under $400 with a lens, but has reportedly terrible LCD and EVF).

- Dennis

-- hide signature --
SuvoMitra Contributing Member • Posts: 850
Re: Some differences and the appeal of mirrorless...

I think you're right on this, although I'm looking at it from Europe where mirrorless is arguably more established than in the US. Mirrorless will only become a stable and growing segment by getting DSLR users to buy in (whether to replace or complement DSLRs), not by getting the (ex) P&S-only crowd to upgrade. The latter are mostly all lost to phone cameras already. For this to be possible, mirrorless needs to offer significantly smaller size/weight, fully featured focusing (i.e., including good tracking, at least in reasonable light), and "good enough" IQ (there can be different sensor sizes to cater to different levels of "good enough" criteria). This would still leave the issue of losing the optical VF. Significantly higher EVF refresh rate will mitigate that to a large extent for many shooting situations (resolution is quite high in some of the newer ones already).

kayaker353 Senior Member • Posts: 1,004
What about AFT?

My biggest problem with DSLR's is tuning the lens to the camera.  It takes time and effort to be confident that is tuned optimally, especially with zoom lenses.  I have read (rightly or wrongly) that EVF cameras do not have this problem.  This is my strongest interest in EVF.

 kayaker353's gear list:kayaker353's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR
MoreorLess Veteran Member • Posts: 4,576
Re: Some differences and the appeal of mirrorless...

Dennis wrote:

MoreorLess wrote:

I'd argue the reality of the mirrorless market is that its key growth area is aiming between the DSLR and the compact. Basically offering a larger sensor but with the useability of a compact, I.E. no viewfinder, fewer controls.

I'd disagree. I think that mirrorless has floundered in large part because that's what manufacturers have been offering until recently. Only so many p&s'ers want to "upgrade" to a bigger p&s. Most look at Canon Rebels and Nikon D3200s for $550 with a viewfinder and get that a DSLR is a "serious" camera, and wonder why they'd want a $550 point & shoot with a lens sticking out of it. More cameras like the Panasonic G series and Sony A3000 are needed, at least in the US, for mirrorless to make inroads. (I think Sony got too cheap with the A3000 which is selling for under $400 with a lens, but has reportedly terrible LCD and EVF).

- Dennis

As far as I can make out the A3000 has been a massive flop in the US, certainly its way way down in amazon's sales chart.

The problem is as you say to sell at that price its a really crappy camera compared to entry level DSLR's. Unlike the ultra small bodies that camera simply has nothing to offer but a low price for low quality, I could pay slightly more and get a D3100.

anotherMike Veteran Member • Posts: 9,161
Re: The same tiresome hype of mirrorless

Well said. I absolutely hate EVF - don't matter how good it is, they aren't the same as looking through glass, particularly for seeing peak action and other timing-based things. So there's not really any mirrorless out there that would fit my work better than a DSLR. Perhaps if they made a DTLR, but that's about it...

-m

PK24X36NOW Senior Member • Posts: 1,932
Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR

John Motts wrote:

PK24X36NOW wrote:

as1mov wrote:

http://photographylife.com/mirrorless-vs-dslr

What is your opinion?

My opinion is that the linked article is a steaming pile of manure.

His "disadvantage" list for DSLRs is a joke, basically consisting of size/weight/"bulk" "issues," which aren't "issues" at all.

You're obviously massively clever, but unfortunately incapable of seeing beyond your own self.

Size and weight may not be an issue for you, but it most certainly is an issue for some users. When you do this for a living, have a damaged right shoulder and carry 4kg of camera gear all day long, then size and weight is most certainly an issue. It's not an issue for everyone, but it is for some.

Look again, John - I said "many" users, not "all," or even "most." Sure there are people who have physical limitations in terms of the size/weight of equipment they can bear to carry. By the same token, there are probably others who have large hands and/or thick fingers that would have a great deal of trouble handling a very small camera body. There are also many who simply prefer a larger camera, limitations of any sort notwithstanding. Better we all have a choice of equipment we're happy with; the article in question presumes that DSLRs by their nature are "too big and heavy" - as in, for everyone - and lists this as a "disadvantage." It is that attitude that made me raise my comment regarding size/weight.

There are other issues such as noise, which isn't a problem for most, but a lack of noise is most certainly an advantage for some.

Ah, but again, noise isn't necessarily an issue related to DLSRs. Pentax is known for very quiet shutters, for example, in their DSLRs. Meanwhile, the new Sony A7/A7r from all accounts has a shutter sound just shy of the crack of a pistol firing, so I wouldn't necessarily associate "noise" as an attribute of a type of camera so much as an attribute of a particular camera.

And by the way, since when did all mirrorless cameras have EVFs?.

Didn't recall saying they did, but then the alternatives are what - rangefinders, which don't allow but an estimate of what you're pointing at (with no precision focal length adjustment), or a screen, point & shoot style, and useless in bright sunlight? I hope you're not about to trumpet those as "advantages" compared to the through-the-taking-lens view of a DSLR.

Joseph Senior Member • Posts: 1,167
The compilement each other

One can't replace the other and they compilement each other, at least in my bag.

I don't know why both "camps" are at odds with each other on fora when folks can take advantage with both. They are just tools.

 Joseph's gear list:Joseph's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D70 Nikon D1X Sony Alpha NEX-7 Nikon D800 +50 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads