If you add a mirror to a mirrorless camera, does that make it a DSLR?

You know, like this:

Rokinon 500mm f/6.3 mirror lens. I don't remember exactly, but I think it cost about $300 to $350 new.

Having thus solved the biggest shortcoming of a mirrorless camera, namely the lack of a mirror, I wasted spent an afternoon at a nearby park trying to demonstrate the awesome power of my newly mirrored M5.

A grey heron spent half an hour patiently modeling for me. Here he was finally starting to get bored.

Directly above the previous heron was this nesting lady. They are probably a pair.

Just for your laughs, an unprocessed RAW of a particularly bad file I ended up with. I'm not sure what happened here. It was a cloudy day, so it cannot be a flare caused by an offscreen Sun.

Mirrorless cameras are said to be poor at tracking motion, but once you add a mirror, no problem!

In all seriousness, I'm sure you can get better results out of a nice bridge camera like a Sony R10.  The contrast leave a bit...I mean quite a bit to be desired, to say nothing of the resolution, the lack of IS bites, and having to manually focus against birds at 800mm equivalent feels so antiquarian.

But still, it was so much fun.

But still, it was so much fun.

Quote of the day!

quiquae wrote:

You know, like this:

no it makes it a DSL      ...you need to put a spring on the mirror to make it a reflexe

Rokinon 500mm f/6.3 mirror lens. I don't remember exactly, but I think it cost about $300 to $350 new.

Having thus solved the biggest shortcoming of a mirrorless camera, namely the lack of a mirror, I wasted spent an afternoon at a nearby park trying to demonstrate the awesome power of my newly mirrored M5.

A grey heron spent half an hour patiently modeling for me. Here he was finally starting to get bored.

Directly above the previous heron was this nesting lady. They are probably a pair.

Just for your laughs, an unprocessed RAW of a particularly bad file I ended up with. I'm not sure what happened here. It was a cloudy day, so it cannot be a flare caused by an offscreen Sun.

Mirrorless cameras are said to be poor at tracking motion, but once you add a mirror, no problem!

In all seriousness, I'm sure you can get better results out of a nice bridge camera like a Sony R10. The contrast leave a bit...I mean quite a bit to be desired, to say nothing of the resolution, the lack of IS bites, and having to manually focus against birds at 800mm equivalent feels so antiquarian.

But still, it was so much fun.

If putting tape over the Canon logo on let's say the Canon EOS M5 and replacing it with a Nikon logo - does it now become a Nikon camera?  Just sayin'..... 

davev8 wrote:

quiquae wrote:

You know

no it makes it a DSL ...you need to put a spring on the mirror to make it a reflexe

Actually those mirror ‘cats’ have also been long known as reflex lenses! So it’s back to DSLR again!!!

And coincidentally Canon just recently filed a patent for a 400 f/5.6 reflex!

If it’s then mounted on a Canon 70D, would the two mirrors then create an infinite refection?

R2

quiquae wrote:

You know, like this:

That definitely looks like a fun and interesting combination to use!

R2D2 wrote:

davev8 wrote:

quiquae wrote:

You know

no it makes it a DSL ...you need to put a spring on the mirror to make it a reflexe

Actually those mirror ‘cats’ have also been long known as reflex lenses! So it’s back to DSLR again!!!

And coincidentally Canon just recently filed a patent for a 400 f/5.6 reflex!

If it’s then mounted on a Canon 70D, would the two mirrors then create an infinite refection?

R2

good one

noneoftheabove wrote:

But still, it was so much fun.

Quote of the day!

Same here. I do take pictures mostly for fun, not for resolution.

You left a smile on my face ! Great post - thanks !