what is the different between dslr and mirrorless?

[peterharvey]

I brought the monsters out of you guys. And in the end I still didn't get the answer I was looking for.

Is there any difference in image quality between mirrored dslr and mirrorless? Because I think I'm getting a mirrorless camera but I want to know if there anything I could miss from dslr.

There is no difference in image quality.

The difference is in viewfinder preference & size & weight, grip size, balance, range of lenses, and range of accessories etc.

 

[jackandthebeancurd]

Just the answer I'm looking for. So the presence of mirror mostly affect the form factor and user experience, while image quality affected mostly by sensor size and quality. Got it. Thanks!

 

[tko]

Meanwhile, the SLR mirror mechanism increases the flange distance between the lens & the sensor such that mathematically, the dSLR's lens becomes both longer & wider in diameter, hence heavier, for the same focal length & aperture.

I have never been convinced of the truth of this statement. This is a popular internet myth, and could be true for some lenses, but not others. In practice, mirrorlesses lenses to date are heavier, maybe bulkier, and appear to cost more for equivalent performance, although to be fair, the "cost more" issue is probably because they don't make as many.

This is difficult to show, because to date most mirrorless have had smaller sensors, which use smaller lenses with less capability. Canon or Nikon have many full frame lenses, which again, are obviously larger due to higher performance. It's not simple A/B comparison. Most of the size and weight savings for mirrorless comes from smaller lenses with less light gathering capability

Theoretically, equal capability lenses for all system should be about the same cost, weight, and size.

What this means to the buyer is that if you don't NEED SLR performance, mirrorless is indeed smaller, but if you hunger after blurred backgrounds and low light performance, mirrorless and SLRs are pretty close to the same size. SLRs have a better selection of large lenses, mirrorless has a better selection of smaller lenses.

It's a lot like choosing a tablet, laptop, or desktop computer. Different sizes, different performance. Get the system that suits you.

 

[scorrpio]

Meanwhile, the SLR mirror mechanism increases the flange distance between the lens & the sensor such that mathematically, the dSLR's lens becomes both longer & wider in diameter, hence heavier, for the same focal length & aperture.

I have never been convinced of the truth of this statement. This is a popular internet myth, and could be true for some lenses, but not others. In practice, mirrorlesses lenses to date are heavier, maybe bulkier, and appear to cost more for equivalent performance, although to be fair, the "cost more" issue is probably because they don't make as many.

Lens (for same sensor size) can be rather compact when focal length is close to flange distance, and when aperture is not too wide. Just look at EF 40mm f/2.8, while for EF-M, the pancake is 22mm.

Panasonic might offer 14-42 pancake for its MFT, but it's a 3.5-5.6 lens. The Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 and Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 are quite bulky and heavy.

 

[tedolf]

I brought the monsters out of you guys. And in the end I still didn't get the answer I was looking for.

Is there any difference in image quality between mirrored dslr and mirrorless?

No difference in image quality.

They use the exact same sensors as DSLRs and can use the exact same lenses.

Because I think I'm getting a mirrorless camera but I want to know if there anything I could miss from dslr.

Yes, as I said-really good tracking auto focus.

Mirroless still isn't quite as good as DSLR in that.

Tedolph

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

Please, you only need one tilt shift lens.

TEdolph

Perhaps. But not everyone agrees. I ran into a photographer today. He primarily shoots a Canon full frame body. I took a look in his camera bag, and he had what he claimed was he standard four lens kit:

• Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens
• Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II Tilt-Shift Lens
• Canon TS-E 45mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift Lens
• Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift Lens

While I certainly agree that this is an unusual set of lenses, he was quite happy with his selection.

Thus, at least for some people, there is a desire to have more than one Tilt-Shift lens.

 

[tedolf]

...

Please, you only need one tilt shift lens.

TEdolph

Perhaps. But not everyone agrees. I ran into a photographer today. He primarily shoots a Canon full frame body. I took a look in his camera bag, and he had what he claimed was he standard four lens kit:

• Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens
• Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II Tilt-Shift Lens
• Canon TS-E 45mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift Lens
• Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift Lens

While I certainly agree that this is an unusual set of lenses, he was quite happy with his selection.

I am sorry to say that I don't believe you.

I believe that your above story is fabricated.

It is a little too convenient and a little too improbable.

Thus, at least for some people, there is a desire to have more than one Tilt-Shift lens.

Please provide the photographers name and contact information so that we can verify your account.

Tedolph

 

[Michael Fryd]

Meanwhile, the SLR mirror mechanism increases the flange distance between the lens & the sensor such that mathematically, the dSLR's lens becomes both longer & wider in diameter, hence heavier, for the same focal length & aperture.

I have never been convinced of the truth of this statement. This is a popular internet myth, and could be true for some lenses, but not others. In practice, mirrorlesses lenses to date are heavier, maybe bulkier, and appear to cost more for equivalent performance, although to be fair, the "cost more" issue is probably because they don't make as many.

...

 

[baloo_buc]

Mirrorless are still in infancy (after more than 5 years) but they made some big steps forwards. While their AF speed is still light years from dSLR now they are in the same part of the galaxy not on the opposite side.

For a given sensor size the IQ will be almost identical regardless of the system. The issue comes with the lenses (here the most developed system uses a smaller sensor).

 

[FingerPainter]

Just the answer I'm looking for. So the presence of mirror mostly affect the form factor and user experience, while image quality affected mostly by sensor size and quality. Got it. Thanks!

I'm going to disagree with those that assert that image quality is the same between dSLRs and MILCs.

Image quality is more then the product of sensor characteristics. It depends also upon autofocus systems, metering, lens attributes, processors and technique, among many factors. It is more or less true that there should be no inherent difference in image quality due to sensors between dSLRs and MILCs, nor due to metering or processors. Areas where there can be a difference in image quality between MLCs and dSLRS include autofocus systems, lens attributes and technique.

MILCs use on-sensor contrast detect autofocus systems. These tend to be slower but more accurate than the phase detect autofocus systems dSLRs use with their mirrors. MILCs currently are more likely to miss focus on moving targets than dSLRs. MILCs will tend to focus more accurately on stationary targets. The current difference in performance wrt moving targets seems to be more significant than the difference wrt stationary targets.

The optical viewfinder in dSLRs presents a truer colour and higher resolution view of the composition, with no lag. The EVF in MILCs can present a more representative view of how the photograph to be taken will look. EVFs lag. EVFs can overlay more information on the image, rather than around it. EVFs tend to black out as the picture is being taken for longer than OVFs, except at slow shutter speeds. The net result is that it is harder for a photographer to track rapidly moving subjects with an EVF, but easier for photographers to visualize the final product of an immobile scene with an EVF.

Mirrorless systems currently have few specialty lenses, like long telephotos, macros, tilt-shift, and defocus control lenses. If you need one of these to get the shot, you might have to shoot a dSLR. Mirrorless camera lenses tend to cost more for equivalent performance, due to differences in market size and market penetration. Wide-angle lenses for mirrorless can be a bit smaller than equivalent lenses for dSLRs. Even excluding specialty lenses, dSLRs have a wider and deeper range of lenses available (more focal lengths and focal length ranges, and more variation for a given length/range).

Mirrorless systems tend to be smaller and lighter when using normal or wide-angle lenses. This means they can be more easily transported to a site. The larger and heavier dSLR is often easier to hold because of the bigger grip, and having more inertia to overcome reduces camera shake. OTOH, prolonged handholding of a heavier cameras can increase cameras shake due to muscle fatigue. Composing handheld from the LCD screen on either mirrorless or dSLR tends to increase camera shake due to a less stable hold. DSLR's larger bodies have more room for external controls. Larger bodies without EVFs tend to have significantly longer battery life.

One last thing to consider is that the size of the sensor has a significant effect on image quality. The comparisons above hold true between MILCs and dSLRs of identical sensor size. There are relatively few full frame mirrorless cameras, lots of mirrorless cameras smaller than APS-C and no current dSLRs smaller than APS-C. In general, all current dSLRS and any current mirrorless cameras larger than micro four thirds will have superior still image quality due to sensor characteristics, compared to current micro four thirds mirrorless cameras. In general, current FF cameras will have better IQ than current APS-C cameras. An exception to this size equivalency is that the best current FF dSLRs seem to be better than the few currently available FF MILCs in most still image applications.

The takeaway should be that image quality is not the same between dSLRs and mirrorless. Sometimes one is better and sometime the other.

 

[tedolf]

Just the answer I'm looking for. So the presence of mirror mostly affect the form factor and user experience, while image quality affected mostly by sensor size and quality. Got it. Thanks!

I'm going to disagree with those that assert that image quality is the same between dSLRs and MILCs.

Image quality is more then the product of sensor characteristics. It depends also upon autofocus systems, metering, lens attributes, processors and technique, among many factors. It is more or less true that there should be no inherent difference in image quality due to sensors between dSLRs and MILCs, nor due to metering or processors. Areas where there can be a difference in image quality between MLCs and dSLRS include autofocus systems, lens attributes and technique.

MILCs use on-sensor contrast detect autofocus systems.

Olympus EM-1, Fuji XT-1, XE-2, Sony A6000 and others have hybrid sensors which include both phase detection and contrast detection sensors on the imaging sensor itself. Canon is developing a similar system for its FF DSLRs.

These tend to be slower but more accurate than the phase detect autofocus systems dSLRs use with their mirrors.

See above

MILCs currently are more likely to miss focus on moving targets than dSLRs. MILCs will tend to focus more accurately on stationary targets.

See above.

The current difference in performance wrt moving targets seems to be more significant than the difference wrt stationary targets.

You forgot to mention that by placing the phase/contrast detection sensors on the imaging plane, MILCs do not have "front focus" or "back focus" error as can DSLRs which have the phase detection sensors somewhere else. Thus, MILCs focusing is demonstrably more accurate than DSLR focusing. This is well known.

Finally, MILC contrast detection focusing is faster than DLSR PDAF focusing on static objects, in addition to being more accurate.

The optical viewfinder in dSLRs presents a truer colour and higher resolution view of the composition,

Except that what you see in a DSLR optical viewfinder is not what you get like in a LCD/EVF system.

with no lag.

The newest MILCs have EVF lags in the one-thousandth of a second range. Far faster than your trigger finger reflex. The reality still is that you have to anticipate the shot and fire your finger ahead of the decisive moment. Even mechanical film SLR's had a measurable trigger delay.

The EVF in MILCs can present a more representative view of how the photograph to be taken will look. EVFs lag. EVFs can overlay more information on the image, rather than around it. EVFs tend to black out as the picture is being taken for longer than OVFs, except at slow shutter speeds. The net result is that it is harder for a photographer to track rapidly moving subjects with an EVF, but easier for photographers to visualize the final product of an immobile scene with an EVF.

Mirrorless systems currently have few specialty lenses, like long telephotos, macros, tilt-shift, and defocus control lenses.

Come on, the u4/3 has over 100 lenses including the adaptable 4/3 lenses.

If you need one of these to get the shot, you might have to shoot a dSLR. Mirrorless camera lenses tend to cost more for equivalent performance, due to differences in market size and market penetration. Wide-angle lenses for mirrorless can be a bit smaller than equivalent lenses for dSLRs. Even excluding specialty lenses, dSLRs have a wider and deeper range of lenses available (more focal lengths and focal length ranges, and more variation for a given length/range).

Mirrorless systems tend to be smaller and lighter when using normal or wide-angle lenses. This means they can be more easily transported to a site. The larger and heavier dSLR is often easier to hold because of the bigger grip, and having more inertia to overcome reduces camera shake. OTOH, prolonged handholding of a heavier cameras can increase cameras shake due to muscle fatigue. Composing handheld from the LCD screen on either mirrorless or dSLR tends to increase camera shake due to a less stable hold. DSLR's larger bodies have more room for external controls. Larger bodies without EVFs tend to have significantly longer battery life.

One last thing to consider is that the size of the sensor has a significant effect on image quality.

There is no difference between DSLR sensor size and MILC sensor size. They use the same sensors.

The comparisons above hold true between MILCs and dSLRs of identical sensor size. There are relatively few full frame mirrorless cameras, lots of mirrorless cameras smaller than APS-C and no current dSLRs smaller than APS-C. In general, all current dSLRS and any current mirrorless cameras larger than micro four thirds will have superior still image quality due to sensor characteristics, compared to current micro four thirds mirrorless cameras. In general, current FF cameras will have better IQ than current APS-C cameras. An exception to this size equivalency is that the best current FF dSLRs seem to be better than the few currently available FF MILCs in most still image applications.

The takeaway should be that image quality is not the same between dSLRs and mirrorless. Sometimes one is better and sometime the other.

TEdolph

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

Please, you only need one tilt shift lens.

TEdolph

Perhaps. But not everyone agrees. I ran into a photographer today. He primarily shoots a Canon full frame body. I took a look in his camera bag, and he had what he claimed was he standard four lens kit:

• Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens
• Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II Tilt-Shift Lens
• Canon TS-E 45mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift Lens
• Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift Lens

While I certainly agree that this is an unusual set of lenses, he was quite happy with his selection.

I am sorry to say that I don't believe you.

I believe that your above story is fabricated.

It is a little too convenient and a little too improbable.

Thus, at least for some people, there is a desire to have more than one Tilt-Shift lens.

Please provide the photographers name and contact information so that we can verify your account.

Tedolph

Improbable things happen all the time. Sometimes we call them coincidence.

Flip a coin four times in a row, and there are 16 possible outcomes, each equally likely. Go flip that coin, and report back on whatever sequence you get. May I then say I doubt your word as the sequence you reported was unlikely (only a 1 in 16 chance).

I admit I was surprised at the bagful of tilt-shift lenses. To be honest, had the camera bag contained a more typical assortment, I would not have posted about it.

The fact is that the story is true. Feel free to disbelieve whatever you like.

 

[tedolf]

...

Please, you only need one tilt shift lens.

TEdolph

Perhaps. But not everyone agrees. I ran into a photographer today. He primarily shoots a Canon full frame body. I took a look in his camera bag, and he had what he claimed was he standard four lens kit:

• Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens
• Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II Tilt-Shift Lens
• Canon TS-E 45mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift Lens
• Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift Lens

While I certainly agree that this is an unusual set of lenses, he was quite happy with his selection.

I am sorry to say that I don't believe you.

I believe that your above story is fabricated.

It is a little too convenient and a little too improbable.

Thus, at least for some people, there is a desire to have more than one Tilt-Shift lens.

Please provide the photographers name and contact information so that we can verify your account.

Tedolph

Improbable things happen all the time. Sometimes we call them coincidence.

Flip a coin four times in a row, and there are 16 possible outcomes, each equally likely. Go flip that coin, and report back on whatever sequence you get. May I then say I doubt your word as the sequence you reported was unlikely (only a 1 in 16 chance).

I admit I was surprised at the bagful of tilt-shift lenses. To be honest, had the camera bag contained a more typical assortment, I would not have posted about it.

The fact is that the story is true. Feel free to disbelieve whatever you like.

Thank you.

Tedolph

 

[FingerPainter]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Just the answer I'm looking for. So the presence of mirror mostly affect the form factor and user experience, while image quality affected mostly by sensor size and quality. Got it. Thanks!

I'm going to disagree with those that assert that image quality is the same between dSLRs and MILCs.

Image quality is more then the product of sensor characteristics. It depends also upon autofocus systems, metering, lens attributes, processors and technique, among many factors. It is more or less true that there should be no inherent difference in image quality due to sensors between dSLRs and MILCs, nor due to metering or processors. Areas where there can be a difference in image quality between MLCs and dSLRS include autofocus systems, lens attributes and technique.

MILCs use on-sensor contrast detect autofocus systems.

Olympus EM-1, Fuji XT-1, XE-2, Sony A6000 and others have hybrid sensors which include both phase detection and contrast detection sensors on the imaging sensor itself. Canon is developing a similar system for its FF DSLRs.

While true, this doesn't contradict what I said. A small proportion of current mirrorless cameras use a hybrid sensor as does a small proportion of Canon dSLRs. Neither is typical of mirrorless or dSLRs as a whole. And what I said was that CD is slower, and more accurate - which is true. Is there a mirrorless cameras which doesn't use CD in its autofocus system?

These tend to be slower but more accurate than the phase detect autofocus systems dSLRs use with their mirrors.

See above

Yes, those with PD/CD hybrid sensors seem to tend to be faster than those with CD only.

MILCs currently are more likely to miss focus on moving targets than dSLRs. MILCs will tend to focus more accurately on stationary targets.

See above.

Despite what you wrote above, my statement is still true. MILCS miss focus on moving targets more often than dSLRs.

The current difference in performance wrt moving targets seems to be more significant than the difference wrt stationary targets.

You forgot to mention that by placing the phase/contrast detection sensors on the imaging plane, MILCs do not have "front focus" or "back focus" error as can DSLRs which have the phase detection sensors somewhere else. Thus, MILCs focusing is demonstrably more accurate than DSLR focusing. This is well known.

I didn't forget to mention it. I twice mentioned that CD was more accurate than PD. I just didn't bother explaining the mechanism for the accuracy.

Finally, MILC contrast detection focusing is faster than DLSR PDAF focusing on static objects, in addition to being more accurate.

Only under ideal conditions. I remember when Fuji came out with the claim of having the fastest autofocus. Overall, and over a range of typical shooting situations, dSLRs were still faster.

The optical viewfinder in dSLRs presents a truer colour and higher resolution view of the composition,

Except that what you see in a DSLR optical viewfinder is not what you get like in a LCD/EVF system.

Right - it incorporates the inaccuracies that will be in your image.

with no lag.

The newest MILCs have EVF lags in the one-thousandth of a second range. Far faster than your trigger finger reflex. The reality still is that you have to anticipate the shot and fire your finger ahead of the decisive moment. Even mechanical film SLR's had a measurable trigger delay.

Lag faster than reaction time can still impair correct tracking by the photographer.

The EVF in MILCs can present a more representative view of how the photograph to be taken will look. EVFs lag. EVFs can overlay more information on the image, rather than around it. EVFs tend to black out as the picture is being taken for longer than OVFs, except at slow shutter speeds. The net result is that it is harder for a photographer to track rapidly moving subjects with an EVF, but easier for photographers to visualize the final product of an immobile scene with an EVF.

Mirrorless systems currently have few specialty lenses, like long telephotos, macros, tilt-shift, and defocus control lenses.

Come on, the u4/3 has over 100 lenses including the adaptable 4/3 lenses.

How many lenses does u4/3 have with FF equivalency to 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8, 80-400mm f/3.5-5.6, 200-400mm f/4, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, 600mm f/4, 800mm f/5.6; 40mm, 60mm , 85mm, 105mm and 200mm macro; 17mm, 24mm, 45mm and 90mm tilt/shift, and 105mm and 135mm DC? That's 19 non-duplicate special purpose lenses. 2? 3?

If you need one of these to get the shot, you might have to shoot a dSLR. Mirrorless camera lenses tend to cost more for equivalent performance, due to differences in market size and market penetration. Wide-angle lenses for mirrorless can be a bit smaller than equivalent lenses for dSLRs. Even excluding specialty lenses, dSLRs have a wider and deeper range of lenses available (more focal lengths and focal length ranges, and more variation for a given length/range).

Mirrorless systems tend to be smaller and lighter when using normal or wide-angle lenses. This means they can be more easily transported to a site. The larger and heavier dSLR is often easier to hold because of the bigger grip, and having more inertia to overcome reduces camera shake. OTOH, prolonged handholding of a heavier cameras can increase cameras shake due to muscle fatigue. Composing handheld from the LCD screen on either mirrorless or dSLR tends to increase camera shake due to a less stable hold. DSLR's larger bodies have more room for external controls. Larger bodies without EVFs tend to have significantly longer battery life.

One last thing to consider is that the size of the sensor has a significant effect on image quality.

There is no difference between DSLR sensor size and MILC sensor size. They use the same sensors.

Excuse me. I said in the very next sentence, (you can read it below) that the above comparisons hold when MILCs and dSLRs have the same sensor size. So, yes, they can have the same sensor size. The fact is however, that the average size of a MILC sensor is smaller than the average size of a dSLR sensor. No current dSLRs have sensors smaller than APS-C. A very signficant proportion of MILCs have sensors smaller than APS-C, not just MFT but even smaller than that. Very few MILCs have FF sensors. Those MILCs which have a smaller sensor than APS-C (and that's many of them) will have lower image quality due to sensor size than any current dSLR. And that's just MILCs. OP asked about mirrorless in general. Well over 90% of current mirrorless cameras have sensors smaller than any current dSLR.

The comparisons above hold true between MILCs and dSLRs of identical sensor size. There are relatively few full frame mirrorless cameras, lots of mirrorless cameras smaller than APS-C and no current dSLRs smaller than APS-C. In general, all current dSLRS and any current mirrorless cameras larger than micro four thirds will have superior still image quality due to sensor characteristics, compared to current micro four thirds mirrorless cameras. In general, current FF cameras will have better IQ than current APS-C cameras. An exception to this size equivalency is that the best current FF dSLRs seem to be better than the few currently available FF MILCs in most still image applications.

The takeaway should be that image quality is not the same between dSLRs and mirrorless. Sometimes one is better and sometime the other.

TEdolph