# New mirror mechanisms - how is this a good thing?



## bob s (Feb 13, 2015)

Perhaps someone can tell me why the new mirror servo mechanism with at least 11 moving parts (that I can count) is considered a selling point. Less vibration? Then on top of that Canon has added a shutter delay to minimize vibration. What is Canon doing with all of this? I see this hype as only bringing to bare that there remains a fundamental design trad-off with the new cameras. Its a negative selling point if you ask me. Is having a mirror so important to sell cameras when a mirror-less camera avoids all these vibration issues?


----------



## K (Feb 13, 2015)

bob s said:


> Perhaps someone can tell me why the new mirror servo mechanism with at least 11 moving parts (that I can count) is considered a selling point. Less vibration? Then on top of that Canon has added a shutter delay to minimize vibration. What is Canon doing with all of this? I see this hype as only bringing to bare that there remains a fundamental design trad-off with the new cameras. Its a negative selling point if you ask me. Is having a mirror so important to sell cameras when a mirror-less camera avoids all these vibration issues?




Until mirrorless cameras can focus as well and as fast - the mirror is here to stay. Also, electronic view finders are a long way from optical view finders. That is why.

*I don't see how improving a currently needed technology to improve image quality is a negative selling point. To make the most of the high megapixel resolution - requires the least possible vibration.* Logically, the best would be no mirror and an electronic shutter - which is the elimination of moving parts entirely. However, until those two technologies can equal the advantages of DSLR, going mirrorless is a compromise. Too much is being given up at this point. If mirrorless was a solution right now - Pros and enthusiasts would be dumping DSLR en mass.

The future is mirrorless though. Viewfinders, shutters and AF has to improve before they take over.

I think the "death of the dslr" hype from a few years back was very premature. DSLR will be around for at least another 5-7 years. I would say solid decade before the mirrorless cameras begin seriously challenging. They won't be adopted in big switches. Slowly, as backup cameras to Pro DSLRs then as main cameras as more lenses are made.

You'll know when mirrorless is ready to be king. It will be when you start seeing massive development and releases of serious professional lenses for mirrorless.

Most people are fixated on bodies. But a camera is a SYSTEM. Lens availability is often more important that the body itself.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 13, 2015)

Hasselblad also has a shutter delay you can program in ms after the mirror flips up. It's noticeable in a huge mirror like MF but on a 35mm system with that many MPx, it will definitely not hurt.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 13, 2015)

bob s said:


> Perhaps someone can tell me why the new mirror servo mechanism with at least 11 moving parts (that I can count) is considered a selling point. Less vibration? Then on top of that Canon has added a shutter delay to minimize vibration. What is Canon doing with all of this? I see this hype as only bringing to bare that there remains a fundamental design trad-off with the new cameras. Its a negative selling point if you ask me. Is having a mirror so important to sell cameras when a mirror-less camera avoids all these vibration issues?



Are you talking about the new 5Ds series camera? We have to assume that you are talking about the new cameras. DSLR's have mirrors, and, while they are not perfect, their performance level is well above any mirrorless FF cameras at this time.

One of the issues with mirrors is that they move very fast, and stop very fast with that high shock being imparted to the camera body. With a high MP body, this creates enough vibration so that actually getting all that extra resolution is difficult. That is the case with the Nikon bodies, testers have to take extreme measures to get the resolution the camera is capable of, most photographers never achieve it. 

The new mirror mechanism in the 7D MK II and the 5Ds is needed in order to have any chance of getting the high resolution while shooting without mirror lockup.

I'd also like to see a mirrorless camera in a 5D MK III body with the high performance and get rid of that banging mirror, but as long as there is one, a better design is welcome. Since the high acceleration is part of the failure rate of mirror assemblies, the reliability compromise of having additional parts is likely more than offset by reduction of the extreme shock.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 13, 2015)

bob s said:


> Is having a mirror so important to sell cameras when a mirror-less camera avoids all these vibration issues?



Is being mirror-less so important to sell cameras when one with a mirror avoids all these power consumption issues ?


----------



## dak723 (Feb 13, 2015)

If Canon had released a high MP camera without addressing the vibration issues then it would have been more or less a gimmick, in my opinion. The supposed higher resolution would only be realized under the best circumstances and using a tripod. The fact that they felt the need to introduce various new methods to reduce mirror vibration means that they are taking high MP seriously. Time will tell if it hype, or if these improvements give the photographer the best chance to utilize the resolution gains.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 13, 2015)

I shoot my landscapes on tripod with mirror lock-up, otherwise known as "Live View" in Canon-land. 6D, 20 MP. It wouldn't make much difference if I had a 30 sec exposure or a 1/1000 sec exposure, but at the 1/15 to 1 sec range I figure mirror lockup could make a lot of difference.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 14, 2015)

bob s said:


> Is having a mirror so important to sell cameras when a mirror-less camera avoids all these vibration issues?



EVFs are so bad that I'd probably give up shooting if I had to use one.


----------



## zim (Feb 14, 2015)

Thought I read in one of the early reviews that the new design is a limiting factor for fps in the new 5Ds ?
If so I hope it's not in the 5 div


----------



## Aglet (Feb 14, 2015)

cam-driven reciprocating masses can be driven a little more efficiently (quicker, less power needed) and with more acceleration control than a system that's driving against a spring-return.
That means less vibration to wreck image sharpness and a mirror acceleration pulse that is probably more compatible with the OIS system than the smack-whack and vibrate conventional mirror drive systems used until now.
If they do it well, it's a good thing.

For a good comparison, check out Ducati's desmodromic valve train versus conventional cam-return-spring engine design.
You can really push those desmo's!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 14, 2015)

zim said:


> Thought I read in one of the early reviews that the new design is a limiting factor for fps in the new 5Ds ?
> If so I hope it's not in the 5 div



Since it was first used in the 7D MK II, I'd give that review a pretty low grade.


----------



## TAF (Feb 14, 2015)

K said:


> You'll know when mirrorless is ready to be king. It will be when you start seeing massive development and releases of serious professional lenses for mirrorless.



They're called "EF", have an "L" and a red strip, and you can buy them now.

It is this fixation on smaller that is holding mirrorless back. A professional is not going to buy an EOS-M sized camera; they buy the 1 series, or the 5 series then add a grip. That reality should be a clue about the size and handling requirements of professional photographers.

Canon as a company seems to have no corporate memory. A pellicle mirror would eliminate the moving mass entirely, and Canon made and sold them 40 years ago. Surely they could reintroduce them, and perhaps improve them as well.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Feb 14, 2015)

Reduction of the mirror's vibration is a huge deal. The difference using live view is very noticeable in most situations. Mirror/shutter delay is also a big step for improving quality for landscape work. The biggest advantage will some for wildlife photographers using long lenses where the slightest mirror induced vibration kills the fine detail in an animals coat or the feather detail in birds. Even though the 5Ds/SR was designed for landscape and portrait photographers, I think the nature photographers will be the big winners. We need a good side by side shootout video with a Nikon D800 to see how effective the anti-vibration is.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 14, 2015)

TAF said:


> Canon as a company seems to have no corporate memory. A pellicle mirror would eliminate the moving mass entirely, and Canon made and sold them 40 years ago. Surely they could reintroduce them, and perhaps improve them as well.



Whose memory is failing 

Canon has made several Pellical mirror cameras over the years. Some were limited editions, but two or three models were mass produced. None of them caught on.

First came the Pellix, then the Pellix QL, then the limited production F1-HS, then the EOS RT, and finally the EOS 1N RS. I think that they remember the failures very well.

Refresh your memory.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1956-1965/1965_prx.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1956-1965

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1956-1965/1965_prx.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1956-1965

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1976-1985/1984_nf1-hsmd.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1976-1985

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1986-1990/1989_eosrt.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1986-1990

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1991-1995/1995_eos-1n-rs.html


----------



## RGF (Feb 14, 2015)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Reduction of the mirror's vibration is a huge deal. The difference using live view is very noticeable in most situations. Mirror/shutter delay is also a big step for improving quality for landscape work. The biggest advantage will some for wildlife photographers using long lenses where the slightest mirror induced vibration kills the fine detail in an animals coat or the feather detail in birds. Even though the 5Ds/SR was designed for landscape and portrait photographers, I think the nature photographers will be the big winners. We need a good side by side shootout video with a Nikon D800 to see how effective the anti-vibration is.



how about an electronic mirror. so you can turn on and off the reflective surface. Not sure if it would be possible, ...


----------



## Hannes (Feb 14, 2015)

RGF said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > Reduction of the mirror's vibration is a huge deal. The difference using live view is very noticeable in most situations. Mirror/shutter delay is also a big step for improving quality for landscape work. The biggest advantage will some for wildlife photographers using long lenses where the slightest mirror induced vibration kills the fine detail in an animals coat or the feather detail in birds. Even though the 5Ds/SR was designed for landscape and portrait photographers, I think the nature photographers will be the big winners. We need a good side by side shootout video with a Nikon D800 to see how effective the anti-vibration is.
> ...



I'm pretty sure canon already has the patent for the technology


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 14, 2015)

TAF said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > You'll know when mirrorless is ready to be king. It will be when you start seeing massive development and releases of serious professional lenses for mirrorless.
> ...



Pellicle mirrors cost you light, create internal reflections, are fragile, and prevent you from cleaning your sensor.


----------



## Goldingd (Feb 14, 2015)

First off, yes any improvement in reducing mirror vibration is desired with each new camera. 

Second off, Bad EVF in mirrorless? Folks, while this is true when comparing an optical finder in a good DSLR to all but one Mirrorless, have you had a Fuji X-T1 in your hand? Go and visit a camera shop and look thru one. That SLR like bump on the top is to make room for a larger EVF, and it is marvelous.

Third, yes the mirrorless crowd is into lighter, smaller, to a fault. 

My two bits, Canon, pay attention to Fuji. Drop that current toy mirrorless camera, and come out with a full size mirrorless. Say a Canon 5d body, EF lens mount, same flange distance (no need for new lenses) Bigger or more battery, an EVF better than the Fuji, mirrorless, dual CF slots, touch screen, wifi, oh, and a real no anti aliasing filter, not some odd canceling filter filter.

And as long as I am dreamin, TIFf instead of JPEG


----------



## Machaon (Feb 14, 2015)

bob s said:


> Less vibration?



Yes.



bob s said:


> Then on top of that Canon has added a shutter delay to minimize vibration. What is Canon doing with all of this?



As you wrote, "less vibration" during image capture.



bob s said:


> Is having a mirror so important to sell cameras when a mirror-less camera avoids all these vibration issues?



Save the very few with electronic shutters, many mirrorless cameras have a thumping great mechanical shutter that still causes vibration, some far louder & energetic than DSLRs.

Technologies that might make mirrorless cameras the vibration free, autofocus masters of high resolution photography are yet to mature and converge.

Someday not too far off, there will be a 50 MP Full Frame mirrorless camera with global (electronic) shutter and minimal vibration issues over the operation cycle. Until that day, high resolution DSLR will be as good as it gets.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Feb 14, 2015)

There good and not so good mirrorless as there are DSLR as there are P&S and really 1 size doesn't fit all. Not even in DSLR land. Good and not so good physical shutters.

I do agree w/ the point on pros needing some physical real estate as do many other types of shooters. There are also those who don't need all that real estate.

My beef is that the mirror has been around a long, long time and it is about time to do away w/ it for most circumstances. 

I would really like to see the physical shutter tossed as well. I am not the techie I would need to be to provide meaningful manufacturing guidance, I am just an enthusiast that would love to see something of another branch in development away from mechanicals. I think would be really cool (as someone else posted) if the 5d4 was mirrorless, an ultra low read noise, electronic global shutter and only 18 mp, oh giggle and snort I would fly to the factory and hijack the truck to get one. 

Perhaps I am an example of modern expectation.... camera that can't automagically take a panorama - that is so 6 months ago.

I am not too interested in the 5Ds/r (really depends on my bonus check) than as Kayaker has suggested, getting the most out of the gear I have at locations that are interesting


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Feb 14, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1956-1965/1965_prx.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1956-1965
> 
> http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1956-1965/1965_prx.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1956-1965
> 
> ...




Thanks for those interesting links, Mt. Spokane! I was completely unaware of those cameras. Now I have some historical research to do.


----------



## Frodo (Feb 14, 2015)

Aglet said:


> For a good comparison, check out Ducati's desmodromic valve train versus conventional cam-return-spring engine design.
> You can really push those desmo's!



I love it when my passions coincide!
A bit off topic, but the cam valve closing of desmo heads is not so much for increased RPM, as many fours will rev way higher than a desmo twin. It is to allow a faster valve closing rate to fully optimise the valve timing as Ducati is pushing valve overlap.
So yes, a good parallel Aglet, in terms of a cam minimising vibration.
However, I'm not convinced with the desmo technology in Ducatis. Maintenance is a nightmare and so I went from a Ducati to an Aprilia (another Italian) where I can do most of the maintenance myself. 

Mirror maintenance is not the issue in cameras that getting valve clearances right in bikes is. It is entirely reasonable to expect that the reduced vibration of the mirror will improve reliability of the more complex mechanism. And having a mirror fall out during a shoot with the original 5D I can speak from experience!

But to come back to the topic. In another thread there was discussion about sensor vs lens to maximise resolution. Vibration (and subject movement) is also critical in these high MP cameras.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 14, 2015)

*Effectiveness???*

An interesting comparison would be the 70D vs 7D-II vs 5Ds for example. The 70D presumably does not have the mirror dampening system, while the 7D-II and 5Ds do. Would be interesting to see any differences around the hand-holding rule of thumb as all these cameras have about the same pixel pitch... The 5Ds and 7D-II have about the same body size/weight, while the 70D and the 7D-II have about the same mirror size/weight.


----------



## zim (Feb 14, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Thought I read in one of the early reviews that the new design is a limiting factor for fps in the new 5Ds ?
> ...



Indeed. I also remember now that it was the reasoning for crop frame not having higher fps but I believe that's not true as crop is taking full fat MP's and binning to reduce file size?

Regards


----------



## risc32 (Feb 14, 2015)

Aglet said:


> For a good comparison, check out Ducati's desmodromic valve train versus conventional cam-return-spring engine design.
> You can really push those desmo's!



yeah, but those springs return that energy on the other side of the cam lobe. desmo is really just a marketing thing, but this talk of dslr mirrors had my mind thinking of bikes and engines also. 

Camera makers have been touting mirror slap control systems forever. That's not saying they are nothing, or aren't needed.


----------



## Redder (Feb 15, 2015)

Thanks to Canon for making improvements on mirror (and shutter) mechanisms to reduce vibration and noise.
I have use the original 5D, then the mark 2 and now the mark 3, for each generation of 5D from the original to the mark 3 there were 'small' but significant improvements in these areas. 

My full frame Sony A7 mirrorless has similar vibration level and noise level compare to my 5D mark 3, although the A7 is do without a moving mirror.

If I were to pick between an optical and a electronic viewfinder TODAY I definitely will go with an optical one. It is there no matter if the camera is turned on or not, use no power, with as much definition there is and there is no time lag while turning the camera on. 

Many years ago I have owned a EOS-RT with a fixed mirror it was ok with film but I am not sure it is a good idea for a extra high definition sensor like the 5Ds. By taking away a few moving parts now you have a piece of glass between the lens and the sensor and overtime when it is soiled it is almost impossible to clean yourself.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 15, 2015)

Ducati's desmo was the best parallel I could think of in the consumer world that some people would be familiar with.
Sure, it's got it's drawbacks and limitations and conventional valve trains can be pushed to very high speeds.

But doing something similar for a camera mirror is a pretty good idea, as long as it doesn't accumulate any wear and start to slop around.
The extra space taken by the extra cam hardware is partly compensated by the removal of a large return spring and damping items. Cam profiles can be designed to keep acceleration forces within optical stabilizers' best performance frequencies and this should be more consistent over temperature than passive stabilizers.
I think there are more positives to this than negatives and kudos to Canon for giving this a try. It's likely the last big improvement in mirror-slappin' we'll see before ML & EVF tech overtake more of the market moving into upscale, mainstream products.

Fuji's XT1 has a very good EVF system and their recent firmware update allows, I think, full silent, no vibration electronic shutter to 1/32,000 altho I don't think it's a global type shutter. If we can get global shutter working at this speed on large sensors that'll be another plus for EVIL/MILC systems.
Hmmm.. I'd better install that firmware update and make sure that it works as well as I think.


----------



## TAF (Feb 15, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > Canon as a company seems to have no corporate memory. A pellicle mirror would eliminate the moving mass entirely, and Canon made and sold them 40 years ago. Surely they could reintroduce them, and perhaps improve them as well.
> ...




Thank you for those links. They make my point for me...Canon clearly has done it (more than 50 years ago, my bad to think it was only 40), it was popular (quoting form the first link - "it was a popular camera."), and having used the later RT, I can state that it worked very well, thank you.

With modern fabrication technology, the limitations of that tech could be eliminated.

Although a high quality EVF might be a cheaper option these days.


----------

