# The Last, Best Hope For A Digital Camera Rebound Is Failing



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2013)

http://www.businessinsider.com/mirrorless-camera-sales-disappoint-2013-12

Sad stuff


----------



## Slyham (Dec 31, 2013)

Smartphones are a disruptive technology when it comes to photography. We haven't seen the end of the disruption, but there will always be a need for cameras to do things that smartphones can't.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 31, 2013)

the problem with this article I think is that it really describes the fall of the middle - which is going on in more than just the camera world. The middle class is shrinking, middle markets are shrinking --- so it makes sense, the P&S market is also shrinking...mirrorless needs to find an identity to survive - mirrorless is currently its own niche though. the way I see it there are 2 schools of thought with mirrorless:

One being that this will be the superior tech for all forms of photography - the other:

Mirrorless will sneak in and grab the middle because of it's smaller size.

I do believe that option 2 is really bound to fail because as every article I read says - Connectivity trumps IQ with the mass market. Pro's and enthusiasts will be on the other side. Pros and enthusiasts also won't be as ready to ditch their investment in glass. So for mirrorless to take hold it almost has to follow a similar model to sony's FF mirrorless bodies ---with the exception being that they REALLY need to find a way to create a native EF mount for lenses --- if all the amazing glass we have now available --- repeat --- EF mount!!!!... no silly adaptors --- Of course there's issues with EVF and battery drain and other stuff to deal with ---but --- for most working pros and invested enthusiasts having to ditch all your old lenses for new mirrorless ones, while also going through the hoops with those new lenses (IE redesigning optics and findingt he right combinations that make the most sense). Nope, that will make mirrorless DOA if you ask me. Sony was on the right track because with tat adaptor you can use both canon and nikon lenses ---canon and nikon have to find a way though to make one that uses their own already present lenses. If they can do that, then the game is on. If Canikon doesn't jump on board though, then it's DOA because pro's and enthusiasts are too invested in these systems ---- and with a failing market, where is all that R&D money to redesign everything coming from?


----------



## distant.star (Dec 31, 2013)

.
Thanks. This provides some good background into why Canon USA is not embracing the EOS M.


----------



## Woody (Dec 31, 2013)

I've said this many times before about other products: if they do not take off in the USA, they are bound to fail. The mirrorless segment has been struggling to grab a foothold in the US market for years, so it's totally *******. Eventually, the only manufacturer of the niche mirrorless market may just be Sony.


----------



## dgatwood (Jan 1, 2014)

Well, it would be possible for mirrorless cameras to take off even with the current (EF-M) lens mount, but it would require being able to get a much, much wider range of EF-M lenses than the three (at last count) that are currently available. IMO, as long as most EF-M camera users have to use the adapter with full-size lenses (along with the corresponding IQ loss), I would expect the EF-M cameras to continue to be largely stillborn except as cheap backup bodies.

Of course, if Canon really wants EF-M cameras to be more popular, there's one easy way: offer lens crossgrades, in which they take an existing EF or EF-S lens and change the mount to a solidly built EF-M mount so that it doesn't require an adapter, and also sell the EF-M variants as an additional SKU. (Ideally, they should also provide a crossgrade service, at least for the non-EF-S lenses, to turn those EF-M variants back into EF lenses for when EF-M users decide to upgrade to full-frame cameras.)

Such a crossgrade service would require almost zero additional engineering (it would just require replacing a few body pieces) and would jump-start the EF-M platform to some degree, as current EF-S camera users would see a viable upgrade path for their existing gear. Such a scheme might eventually allow EF-M to cannibalize the EF-S camera body market.


----------



## tolusina (Jan 1, 2014)

Article contradicts itself.
In the second paragraph it says.........


> .....since mobile phones that take high-quality photos ate into the compact camera business.....


Then, the next paragraph says..........


> ....buyers put connectivity above picture quality......


 
So, according to this article, does Reuters contend phone cams take high quality photos or not?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 1, 2014)

Mirrorless Camera sales have been tanking all year, and there will be manufacturers who get absorbed into other companies. The issue is the number of new lens systems that require a big investment, as well as the realization that the tiny camera body still requires big lenses. Buyers just do not want to invest in a tiny body with large and expensive lenses.

I'd buy a Mirrorless version of a FF body that took EF lenses, just to avoid the mirror and its issues. Unfortunately, FF autofocus is still not up to the high standard set by DSLR's. If the 70D were wildly successful, a FF Mirrorless from Canon would be more likely.


----------



## dick ranez (Jan 1, 2014)

Nonsense - it would be too labor intensive to modify the lenses and would probably cost more than buying the correct mount. If Canon really wants to "get behind the M" it would have to considerably lower the cost - now
being done by fire sales of current inventory - or significantly improve the functionality and capabilities. Mirrorless systems vendors all have dual quality level lenses as a cost containment strategy - except maybe Samsung which seems all "consumer" grade and Leica which hardly rates consideration at its astronomical price levels - which degrade the entire systems brand as a serious photographic tool. The novelty factor has had time to wear thin and the general economic malaise has curtailed discretionary spending which might go towards a 
"new toy".


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 1, 2014)

Mirrorless world domination is for certain. Resistance is futile. Connected, Excellent Mirrorless cameras very soon will offer better functionality than any mirror-slapper at significantly lower cost (= at somewhat lower prices for buyers and considerably higher margins for makers).

The conversion is just taking a bit longer, because makers wanted to dump their old tech stuff without connectivity (wifi, 4g) onto the markets first and have refused - until the very receent sony a7/r - to offer really worthehile mirrorless camera systems for enthusiasts use. Since virtually every picture taker who values iq has one or more perfectly functional dslrs already, it takes much more to win them over than half-assed consumer crap like an eos-m, a sony nex or a samsung nx with painfully limited photographic and ergonomic functionality. 

market saturation + economic crisis + very conservative customer base = difficult environment for "entry level" new technology. This will change rapidly as soon asmore highly specced MILC cameras and systems will be available at very attractive pricepoints. 

999 usd/€ for a fully capable ff body (say with 70d level of performance and nikon d7100 sensor quality and full connectivity wifi+4g+social networks + professional networks) will come. And usd/€ 1999 hi res ff milc will not only be available from sony (a7r) but with 5d IV functionality (af, 30+mp sensor, performance and 8 fps) from canon. The more people hild off buying either mirror-slappers or low-spec half-assed milcs like eos-m, the sooner we will get really good milc systems. Of course with a full range of smaller and better native, short-flange lenses. And of course with fully functional easy adapters for our existing glass if we dont mind its size or if some lenses (super-teles) cannot be made significantly smaller for the time being until new technology like DO or whatever also take care of that.


----------



## rs (Jan 1, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> IMO, as long as most EF-M camera users have to use the adapter with full-size lenses (along with the corresponding IQ loss), I would expect the EF-M cameras to continue to be largely stillborn except as cheap backup bodies.


Just how bad is the EF-EOS M adapter? There's zero optics in it, the electrical contacts work perfectly as far as I know, and I'm guessing that as a relatively expensive adapter made by a good brand, the alignment between the two mounts is pretty good.

Surely a lens such as the EF-S 55-250 STM would perform just as well on the EOS M as it does on an identically sensored rebel?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 1, 2014)

Woody said:


> I've said this many times before about other products: if they do not take off in the USA, they are bound to fail. The mirrorless segment has been struggling to grab a foothold in the US market for years, so it's totally *******.



Currently "mirrorless" might be getting a bad name, but that's a marketing failure as its introduced in the low end market and fails to deliver almost all of the potential advantages when coupled with clever software and a fast processor.

Of course any self-respecting dslr shooter will shy away from a cheap evf and horrible af, but this will change once you've got focus peaking in the vf which will make mirrorless sell like hotcakes to the "f1.2 thin dof" portrait crowd.


----------



## dgatwood (Jan 1, 2014)

dick ranez said:


> Nonsense - it would be too labor intensive to modify the lenses and would probably cost more than buying the correct mount.



Assuming that was in response to me, you're missing my whole point. Canon has only three lenses in the correct mount: an 11–22mm zoom, an 18–55mm zoom, and a 22mm prime. That's it. So you *can't buy long lenses in the correct mount* for mirrorless Canon cameras, and long lenses are where the weight of the lens causes the most sagging, and thus where I'd expect the maximum amount of IQ loss from the adapter.

It also doesn't help that the focus ranges they offer in EF-M are harder to work with than what is available in the EF-S and EF worlds, either. There's nothing with as long a range as the 15–85 (crop) or 24–105 (FF), and there's nothing as wide as the 10–22, period. Worse, the primary zoom lens is equivalent to about 29–88, and most people would probably find that to not be wide enough, resulting in a much higher rate of lens changes compared with EF or EF-S, where 24/15 is the starting point for most of the popular zooms.

BTW, the effort to convert a lens should be pretty negligible. For lighter lenses, they could probably do it just by making their existing adapter slightly longer, removing the metal lens mount (four screws, typically) and putting the modified adapter in its place. For heavier lenses, they would probably need to replace the top part of the body with a larger piece of metal in order to prevent excessive sagging. However, IIRC, that enclosure piece is usually easy to remove without fully disassembling the lens, making this also a trivial modification.

For the electrical connections, they could either clip the contact block from the current adapter tube to the contact block on the lens or they could build a blank circuit board to put in place of the existing lens board, with the appropriate connectors for the various ribbon cables on one side and extension ribbon cables on the other side to connect up to the lens's original circuit board, then mount the original circuit board at the top of the extension piece, though that would require slightly different versions of the mount adapter, depending on where the circuit board's screw holes are, so that would be a more appropriate choice only for the longer lenses, where you have to build a custom body piece anyway.

Either way, we're talking about maybe an afternoon's worth of engineering effort per lens, and about a 5 minute modification with fairly inexpensive-to-manufacture parts. Heck, a third party could even do this; it's that straightforward.


----------



## dgatwood (Jan 1, 2014)

rs said:


> Just how bad is the EF-EOS M adapter? There's zero optics in it, the electrical contacts work perfectly as far as I know, and I'm guessing that as a relatively expensive adapter made by a good brand, the alignment between the two mounts is pretty good.



The problem is that every extra lens mount adds to the alignment inaccuracy—two mounts are quite obviously twice as bad as one.  And an alignment error of as little as a tenth the width of a human hair can cause a visible difference in focusing accuracy from one side of the frame to another, particularly if you're using a fast lens.

Here's an article on the subject:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> So you *can't buy long lenses in the correct mount* for mirrorless Canon cameras, and long lenses are where the weight of the lens causes the most sagging, and thus the maximum amount of IQ loss from the adapter.



Sagging? I don't understand. Are you saying that if you mounted, for example, a 70-200/2.8L IS II or a 100-400L via the adapter onto an EOS M, that you'd hold the body in both hands when shooting? That seems like a pretty unlikely thing, for most people. I would think most of us would support the lens by the lens, meaning it wouldn't matter if the lens was a 70-200, 85L, or a 600/4, the weight on the adapter would be the same - the weight of the EOS M. The only time I can see it making a difference is with a short but heavy lens lacking a tripod collar (85L, for example) when using it on a tripod, meaning you'd need to use the adapter's tripod foot. 

I'm curious - has the effect this 'sagging' on IQ been documented somewhere, and if so, can you provide a link? I've used the M + adapter + 85L II on a tripod, mounted via the adapter's foot, and I didn't notice anything manifestly obvious.


----------



## dgatwood (Jan 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm curious - has the effect this 'sagging' on IQ been documented somewhere, and if so, can you provide a link? I've used the M + adapter + 85L II on a tripod, mounted via the adapter's foot, and I didn't notice anything manifestly obvious.



See the link I provided in the other post. The whole article is about lens adapters and their effect on IQ.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious - has the effect this 'sagging' on IQ been documented somewhere, and if so, can you provide a link? I've used the M + adapter + 85L II on a tripod, mounted via the adapter's foot, and I didn't notice anything manifestly obvious.
> ...



Thanks for the link. I don't see the connection to lens weight and 'sagging', though.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 1, 2014)

Lens adapters can cause issues. The lens mount on a camera is tested and even shimmed to a extreme tolerance. Add a cheap Chinese made lens adapter, and its pot luck.

Up until the Earthquake, Nikon kept the manufacturing of lens mounts in house so they could control tolerances. They finally picked a outside contractor when their production was shut down due to lack of lens mounts. Those sub 1/10,000 tolerance parts are extremely difficult to make and to measure.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 2, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Well, it would be possible for mirrorless cameras to take off even with the current (EF-M) lens mount, but it would require being able to get a much, much wider range of EF-M lenses than the three (at last count) that are currently available. IMO, as long as most EF-M camera users have to use the adapter with full-size lenses (along with the corresponding IQ loss), I would expect the EF-M cameras to continue to be largely stillborn except as cheap backup bodies.
> 
> Of course, if Canon really wants EF-M cameras to be more popular, there's one easy way: offer lens crossgrades, in which they take an existing EF or EF-S lens and change the mount to a solidly built EF-M mount so that it doesn't require an adapter, and also sell the EF-M variants as an additional SKU. (Ideally, they should also provide a crossgrade service, at least for the non-EF-S lenses, to turn those EF-M variants back into EF lenses for when EF-M users decide to upgrade to full-frame cameras.)
> 
> Such a crossgrade service would require almost zero additional engineering (it would just require replacing a few body pieces) and would jump-start the EF-M platform to some degree, as current EF-S camera users would see a viable upgrade path for their existing gear. Such a scheme might eventually allow EF-M to cannibalize the EF-S camera body market.



This is where this idea goes see ya --- if the economy was booming and disposable money was plentiful then yeah, lets dump a ton into building a new thing!!! But, money isn't growing on that many trees.

The simplest way to have mirrorless take hold here is -- forget about designing crossgrade mounts...forget about adaptors - a native mount for EF lenses!!!

Why do I say this --- well because the general public does not want anything with interchangeable lenses--- whats the current consumer mantra - 1 device, connectivety with social networks. An in camera crop to make a blurry image is better in the eyes of most than having to carry more than 1 device...much less extra lenses. 

See above, this is why i feel like mirrorless has to ditch this idea of being smaller than DSLR's - make them the same size and form factor, make them use the current stock of EF lenses, then you've got a user base that does care about IQ, a user base that is more likely to take their images home to post process rather than upload to facebook then forget the image is on the memory card.

If the lenses are the same for each system then all the R&D can go towards designing a better body - as opposed to redesigning optics - it's a win for manufacturers and and consumers.

But, if the trend of trying to make mirrorless fill this gap between the SLR and cell phones, and the emphasis is on small and light...then it's DOA --- unless Canon and nikon are changing gears and making cell phones....

Edit -- As to EF-s Lenses ---this is where the whole mirrorless concept needs to figure out it's identity! Isw it the glorified P&S's canon and nikon and most of the others have released? Or will it follow a similar model to what Sony just released with their FF bodies? Again, what is the identity of mirrorless -- is it a niche fad midlevel attempt to tempt those that favor their cell phones or is it going to be a serious system that pros and enthusiasts will not only see as viable, but want and or shall I go as far as saying - need?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Mirrorless world domination is for certain. Resistance is futile. Connected, Excellent Mirrorless cameras very soon will offer better functionality than any mirror-slapper at significantly lower cost (= at somewhat lower prices for buyers and considerably higher margins for makers).
> 
> The conversion is just taking a bit longer, because makers wanted to dump their old tech stuff without connectivity (wifi, 4g) onto the markets first and have refused - until the very receent sony a7/r - to offer really worthehile mirrorless camera systems for enthusiasts use. Since virtually every picture taker who values iq has one or more perfectly functional dslrs already, it takes much more to win them over than half-assed consumer crap like an eos-m, a sony nex or a samsung nx with painfully limited photographic and ergonomic functionality.
> 
> ...



Disagree, see above post.


----------



## dgatwood (Jan 2, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> The simplest way to have mirrorless take hold here is -- forget about designing crossgrade mounts...forget about adaptors - a native mount for EF lenses!!!



But why would someone choose that over a DSLR? The only real advantage I see to mirrorless is the short flange distance, which makes it possible to build wider non-retrofocus wide-angle lenses. I mean, I guess you could achieve that to some degree by making lenses that stick way out beyond the flange a la the EF-S 10–22, but some lenses, like the 22mm pancake, would probably be impossible with a larger flange distance (or, more precisely, would not be pancake lenses anymore).


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 3, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > The simplest way to have mirrorless take hold here is -- forget about designing crossgrade mounts...forget about adaptors - a native mount for EF lenses!!!
> ...



therein lies the problem - the selling points for mirrorless really just aren't there, yet. To use the only analogy I can really think of...home entertainment - releasing a component to an existing system, yeah, no biggie...if its better you buy it. But - we're not talking one component, we're talking about an entire system. bodies and lenses - that's a big shift not only for the consumer but the manufacturers too. 

To put it another way ---what has a better chance of success - release of a new FF mirrorless body that uses currently made lenses by design? One that anyone currently using the system can purchase with no additional needs? Or, a system that has less options of glass and needs to have special glass?

Seriously, raise your hands here --- if Canon were to release a Mirrorless FF body, same form factor as the 5 series, that used Ef lenses, regardless of spec's, raise your hands if you'd be thinking about owning one? Spec it out 6dish and price it at $1900, who's raising your hands? Hell, that could be a fun backup camera.

Or:

FF Mirrorless, small, lighter, but only a handful of lenses to choose from? (or an adaptor to use Ef lenses which to me just seems real real awkward, and would also cost you some IQ or Aperture or AF capabilities/accuracy?)


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 3, 2014)

The article is obviously just click bait.

I'm hoping Canon just makes a third mount type that takes both EF lenses and allows lenses that sink 10-20mm into the body. You could have a 20mm pancake that only sticks out of the body far enough to have a switch and a focus ring.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 3, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > The simplest way to have mirrorless take hold here is -- forget about designing crossgrade mounts...forget about adaptors - a native mount for EF lenses!!!
> ...


The big advantage for mirrorless is the removal of the mirror. It degrades IQ by banging up and down and vibrating the whole Camera, it increases the cost. Its a rube Goldberg contraption.
Find a way to make the mirror go away without losing performance, and you can eliminate vibration, sensor cleaning, and greatly improve reliability. I suspect that there are other improvements that are subtle, but every little bit adds up.
A smaller camera is a benefit only for a few, it tends to be unbalanced with a big lens, and lenses do not get smaller just because a body is mirrorless.
Canon has tried twice, and failed both times to sell SLR's with Pellicle mirrors (No moving parts), so they are going to be reluctant to stick their neck out until its a sure thing.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 3, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Find a way to make the mirror go away without losing performance, and you can eliminate vibration, sensor cleaning, and greatly improve reliability. I suspect that there are other improvements that are subtle, but every little bit adds up.



This is true, but also "just" a deficiency view - the potential of mirrorless is the combination with potential innovations, not just fixing old-school film slr design problems.

Today's dslrs are really awkward if you think about it, you've got an expensive, high-res sensor that is blind 99% of the time while you need to add a secondary complex af module just for this very reason, Canon has got it right in theory with the dual pixel af approach. Coupled with a fast cpu you can get a really "smart" af at the fraction of the cost for the 1dx face detection attempt... plus rgb metering for the rest of us 



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon has tried twice, and failed both times to sell SLR's with Pellicle mirrors (No moving parts), so they are going to be reluctant to stick their neck out until its a sure thing.



There surely were problems with these designs, but at least on a personal level I wouldn't call it failure - I absolute adored my eos RT, you could actually *see* what you're shooting as there's no blackout and the shutter lag was incredibly low.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 3, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it would be possible for mirrorless cameras to take off even with the current (EF-M) lens mount, but it would require being able to get a much, much wider range of EF-M lenses than the three (at last count) that are currently available. IMO, as long as most EF-M camera users have to use the adapter with full-size lenses (along with the corresponding IQ loss), I would expect the EF-M cameras to continue to be largely stillborn except as cheap backup bodies.
> ...


Yes, I agree that not everyone wants a little camera mirrorless, it seems toy. I like DSLR but could buy a mirrorless that have full compatibility with EF and EF-S lenses. Why mirrorless has to fit in your pocket? Not in my pocket.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 3, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Is it the glorified P&S's canon and nikon and most of the others have released? Or will it follow a similar model to what Sony just released with their FF bodies? Again, what is the identity of mirrorless -- is it a niche fad mid-level attempt to tempt those that favor their cell phones or is it going to be a serious system that pros and enthusiasts will not only see as viable, but want and or shall I go as far as saying - need?



Some people won't like the answer, but here it is:

Professional-level mirror-less cameras have been around since at least the 1930s. For decades, only one manufacturer – Leica – has kept mirror-less alive and then only as a niche market product. Really, nothing of substance has changed. The cameras use electronic sensors instead of film, but all the other relative advantages or disadvantages of the rangefinder versus SLR form factors remain the same. 

While a vastly improved electronic viewfinder might make mirror-less more competitive, it would still have huge hurdles to overcome. The mirror-less form factor is great as a light weight street camera, but it offers no advantage for many other applications, such as studio and portrait work. It may even be a disadvantage when using telephotos beyond about 135mm (Notice Leica doesn't even produce any longish telephotos).

So, given that, why should Nikon and Canon rush to produce a professional-level mirror-less camera? Far wiser to let Sony risk their resources on testing the market. If the technology improves and if Sony's sales figures show a true demand, Nikon and Canon can easily enter and very quickly dominate the market. There simply is no good business reason for them to risk their resources on an untested market. Better to let someone else take the risk.

But, I seriously doubt that Nikon and Canon are watching Sony nearly as closely as they are watching Fuji. Looking at the Fuji Pro series, it would be easy to make a case that the future of mirror-less is in the APS-C format, rather than full frame. It offers high image quality while retaining more of the size advantages that mirror-less can offer. 

Over at Photorumors, they just published some sales numbers for Japan. For those who dream of a full-frame anything, they are quite eye-opening. Full frame mirror-less constitutes just .5% (that's 1/2 of 1 percent) of the total sales in Japan and in DSLRs, full-frame is just 8.7% of the sales. In short, it is "a small, small world after all" despite the skewed perspective one gets on this and other forums. 

Mirror-less may someday displace DSLRs, but only when the technology proves superior, which is far from the case today. If it does eventually happen, it is likely to be a gradual, almost seamless transition, not some jarring "game changing" occurrence.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 3, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Seriously, raise your hands here --- if Canon were to release a Mirrorless FF body, same form factor as the 5 series, that used Ef lenses, regardless of spec's, raise your hands if you'd be thinking about owning one? Spec it out 6dish and price it at $1900, who's raising your hands? Hell, that could be a fun backup camera.
> 
> Or:
> 
> FF Mirrorless, small, lighter, but only a handful of lenses to choose from? (or an adaptor to use Ef lenses which to me just seems real real awkward, and would also cost you some IQ or Aperture or AF capabilities/accuracy?)



I would buy one without any hesitation if were realized as well as, say, the Olympus OM-Ds. The advantages of mirrorless strike me as significant. Not only is there no mirror flapping around causing vibrations, there's none of the focus inaccuracy induced by the complicated system required in a dslr - the need to adjust lenses to a camera body should be obsolete because you're focusing from the sensor: if the image looks in focus via the EVF then it is in focus (unless it's a crappy AF system such as used by Fuji, which often seems to think you should have focused on something else instead). EVF's have the advantage of letting you see the effect of adjustments on exposure etc. as you make them while looking through the viewfinder and make manual focus easy again (especially nice if you like to fool around with "legacy" lenses; the simple adapters involved there work just fine). What's more - and this is a huge advantage when avoiding focus-recomposing - the focus points can be almost edge-to-edge. These are the main reasons why I like mirrorless, and they have nothing to do with size/weight. I would love to be able to use my Canon lenses properly on such a camera, especially if, like Olympus, they were to throw in comparably good IBIS. 

I like having an OM-D for when I don't want to lug heavy stuff around too. But the main reason M43 systems are small/light isn't because the bodies are; it's because the lenses can be, thanks to the smaller sensor. Unless you use it solely as a back-up and/or are one of the (presumably tiny) class of people who expect to use them on tripods, I see little point in a small camera body if the lenses are big, even if it's technically possible to attach them with flawlessly unobtrusive adapters; the results are ergonomically absurd (as far as I'm concerned, at any rate). That, and the lack of IBIS, are the main reasons why I've not bought one of the Sony A7s.

I had hoped that the next generation of Sony Alphas would be mirrorless, but it seems they'll keep using the same technology they've put in their modified dslrs, with their inferior low light performance (at least if the Sony rumor sites are to be believed). And if Sony won't do it, it's hard to imagine Canon stepping up.


----------



## pharp (Jan 3, 2014)

I picked up an OM-D w/ 75-300 (supplement to Canon gear) - wonderful little, weatherproof kit for nature work. I am pleased with the EVF, especially for MF. The MF assist is wonderful and being able to switch from AF-MF using Fn button is excellent. It's not 'pocketable', but it is relatively small. MILC will take hold when mfr make enthusiast/pro cameras. Olympus evidently figured that out. The P&S crowd don't care about IL. I don't even have to think about taking the OM out, compared to a roughly equiv. 7D w/100-400. I'd buy a Canon high grade APS-C version (M w/EVF) if they made one, but ...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/11639183193/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/11108716325/#


----------



## zlatko (Jan 3, 2014)

unfocused said:


> While a vastly improved electronic viewfinder might make mirror-less more competitive, it would still have huge hurdles to overcome. The mirror-less form factor is great as a light weight street camera, but it offers no advantage for many other applications, such as studio and portrait work. It may even be a disadvantage when using telephotos beyond about 135mm (Notice Leica doesn't even produce any longish telephotos).



I think that full-frame will continue to dominate studio & portrait. However, mirrorless offers some nice advantages for photographers who are on their feet covering events all day. The Leica limitation of 135mm relates to the rangefinder mechanism and won't be a disadvantage for new mirrorless cameras like the OM-D. Panasonic offers a 35-100/2.8 (70-200 equiv.) and Olympus will soon offer a 40-150/2.8 (80-300 equiv.). These telephoto zooms are much more compact & lightweight than their full-frame alternatives, while still offering nice depth of field control. The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 in particular weighs a small fraction of what a typical 70-200 weighs (13 ounces vs. 3 pounds). Likewise the Olympus 75/1.8 weighs a fraction of a what full-frame equivalent would weigh. I think the reduced size & weight will be a selling point for photographers who are tired of carrying around big telephoto zooms, especially now that the OM-D has improved autofocus.


----------



## tron (Jan 3, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The big advantage for mirrorless is the removal of the mirror. It degrades IQ by banging up and down and vibrating the whole Camera,* it increases the cost*.


In the mirror absence EVFs are becoming a necessity. As far as I know they are not perfect and they cost a lot (the good ones).


Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Find a way to make the mirror go away without losing performance, and* you can eliminate* vibration, *sensor cleaning*, and greatly improve reliability


Eliminate sensor cleaning to a camera that has no mirror to protect the sensor during lens changes?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 3, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Is it the glorified P&S's canon and nikon and most of the others have released? Or will it follow a similar model to what Sony just released with their FF bodies? Again, what is the identity of mirrorless -- is it a niche fad mid-level attempt to tempt those that favor their cell phones or is it going to be a serious system that pros and enthusiasts will not only see as viable, but want and or shall I go as far as saying - need?
> ...



Couldn't agree more on all points.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 3, 2014)

zlatko said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > While a vastly improved electronic viewfinder might make mirror-less more competitive, it would still have huge hurdles to overcome. The mirror-less form factor is great as a light weight street camera, but it offers no advantage for many other applications, such as studio and portrait work. It may even be a disadvantage when using telephotos beyond about 135mm (Notice Leica doesn't even produce any longish telephotos).
> ...



I agree. The real advantage of mirror-less comes in weight and size savings.

But that weight and size advantage is contingent upon a smaller sensor. It also requires a new set of lenses. There is still a lot of inertia to overcome before the market settles on an ideal compact-sized sensor. 

In any case, none of that will satisfy those who insist that Canon absolutely must produce a full-frame mirror-less camera. Which really was my point -- to debunk the idea that we are going to see either Canon or Nikon rushing into the mirror-less market with a full-frame offering anytime in the near future.


----------



## pharp (Jan 3, 2014)

unfocused said:


> The real advantage of mirror-less comes in weight and size savings.


 & MF assist like in the Olympus or focus peaking in the Sony, easier to use in low light, less vibration, higher fps, potentially more reliable .....



 unfocused said:


> But that weight and size advantage is contingent upon a smaller sensor.


more contingent on back plane distance - just compare the size and weight of 4/3 lens vs same focal length m4/3 lens or Leica FF lens vs mirrored FF lens.

I can't help but feel that the biggest downside, in many peoples minds, to MILC is that their investment in glass would be obsolete without adapter.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 3, 2014)

i had mirrorless cameras in the past.... i am eager to buy one again? not really.

why?

they are to big to be pocketable.
even the tiny GM1 is to big with a lens attached.

i love my DSLR and im not switching to a smaller sensor.
35mm is great, always was.
spending money on yet another camera systems? nah!
the camera has to earn me money.. im not a lens or camera "collector" like so many here. 

what i need beside my DSLR (and medium format camera) is a small POCKETABLE camera.
m43, nex etc. can not offer me that.


----------



## pharp (Jan 3, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> i had mirrorless cameras in the past.... i am eager to buy one again? not really.
> 
> why?
> 
> ...



All emotion, no salient technical arguments. More tired "not pocketable", not useable with current equipment, blah, blah, blah arguments.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 3, 2014)

pharp said:


> I can't help but feel that the biggest downside, in many peoples minds, to MILC is that their investment in glass would be obsolete without adapter.



That is one of the issues. But I think the real issue for most people that are hesitant (and people that have tried them) is overall usability. 

Let's be real here. AF still blows (speed and consistency) on every mirrorless offering in the market relative to a DSLR. The only piece of tech in existence currently is Canon's dual pixel tech which can potentially be used to provide something that can bring mirrorless AF up to par (or perhaps beyond a DSLR). 

Yes, there are great manual aids that various companies provide in their mirrorless offerings. But the average user is the one that companies need to pursuade as they are the largest percentage of consumers and most of them don't want to have to manually focus. Also, focus peaking isn't all that great when it comes to super fast lenses and getting consistent critical focus. Split prism and/or zoom PIP is okay, but still not very fast or usable for all situations.

The second issue would be energy consumption. Battery life sucks on mirrorless cameras. Yes, all of them. I try to use the OVF and just deal with parallax as much as possible on my x100s and it is still not getting great battery life. Although I can deal with it, I still don't like having extra batteries in my pockets when I'm running out the door with the family in a hurry. So unless there are some earth-shattering developments in battery tech in the near future, this will be a major issue for the average user with any mirrorless camera.

Then comes the lens issue for me. lol. That being said, if the two problems I mentioned above were somehow rectified by some miracle, I would have no qualms about dumping my glass and going all in on a mirrorless system.


----------



## pharp (Jan 3, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > I can't help but feel that the biggest downside, in many peoples minds, to MILC is that their investment in glass would be obsolete without adapter.
> ...



Agreed, but I get the impression that many wouldn't go for it regardless, or at least without kicking and screaming. Change is inevitable, just ask people with Betamax's. The only question in my mind is who comes out with the first really compelling system. The Sony A7 is a good start - the market, not rumor sites will ultimately determine. Unfortunately, it's the underdogs that are the innovators in the camera industry today. Maybe Nikon will step up.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 3, 2014)

pharp said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > pharp said:
> ...



The most innovative development in photo tech I have seen as of late is dual pixel tech due to all of it's potential applications. But it has been somewhat of an underrated development in the public eye as the other applications for it have yet to be explored. 

IMO people are looking at the term "innovation" with regard to camera tech completely wrong these days. People lack the perspective to realize that a company shouldn't be deemed as not being innovative simply because they are not developing things in the fashion one segment of the consumer base wants them to. Everyone has their own wish list, Canon is innovative regardless of whether they have been working on one specific thing that a specific segment of the consumer base is wishing for.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 3, 2014)

To take the issue of actual innovation vs perception one step further, imagine if Canon integrated the dual pixel tech into a mirror less body and also developed a new battery tech that made their offering better than the rest of the market in those two areas. You would still have people in here saying they are not innovative since neither one of those two things provides more DR or more megapixels. Conversely, that would be cause for a consumer like myself to order one immediately.


----------



## pharp (Jan 3, 2014)

Innovation is the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, inarticulated needs, or existing market needs. 

By that definition, more DR or mp is not innovation, nor is dual pixel AF if you only put it into old style bodies. Real innovation is a tablet vs a desktop. Revolution vs evolution. I'm sure someone has a really innovative design available, but I'm not expecting it from Canon. Real innovation has nothing to do with catering to a particular consumer segment. The camera industry could use a Steve Jobs.

By all accounts, camera sales, in all segments are flat, or in decline. MILC are not really all that innovative per se, but it's a start in the right direction. The status quo is a recipe for extinction.


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 3, 2014)

Slyham said:


> Smartphones are a disruptive technology when it comes to photography. We haven't seen the end of the disruption, but there will always be a need for cameras to do things that smartphones can't.


 +1


----------



## mkabi (Jan 3, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Over at Photorumors, they just published some sales numbers for Japan. For those who dream of a full-frame anything, they are quite eye-opening. Full frame mirror-less constitutes just .5% (that's 1/2 of 1 percent) of the total sales in Japan and in DSLRs, full-frame is just 8.7% of the sales. In short, it is "a small, small world after all" despite the skewed perspective one gets on this and other forums.



+1.
If you're not good with math, for every 100 people thats not even a single person, more like half a person.
For every 1000 person, its 5 people...
For every 10,000 peeps, its 50... so on and so forth.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 3, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Let's be real here. AF still blows (speed and consistency) on every mirrorless offering in the market relative to a DSLR. The only piece of tech in existence currently is Canon's dual pixel tech which can potentially be used to provide something that can bring mirrorless AF up to par (or perhaps beyond a DSLR).
> 
> Yes, there are great manual aids that various companies provide in their mirrorless offerings. But the average user is the one that companies need to pursuade as they are the largest percentage of consumers and most of them don't want to have to manually focus. Also, focus peaking isn't all that great when it comes to super fast lenses and getting consistent critical focus. Split prism and/or zoom PIP is okay, but still not very fast or usable for all situations.
> 
> ...



I quite agree about battery life (though they're small and it's easy to get back-ups; besides, I suspect that those of us who frequently take more than 400 photos a day are a rather small minority...) and focus assist (in my experience, used by itself it's the opposite, though it can be somewhat helpful when used in conjunction with zooming through an EVF), but unless by focus speed you're referring to tracking action (something I don't do and thus can't comment) I don't agree about focus speed and accuracy, at least with M43 cameras (esp. those I know best, OM-Ds; with most of the lenses I own focus is as close to instantaneous as makes no difference, and I'm pretty sure the accuracy rate is higher than I get from my dslrs (though as they're Canons that's very high anyway). As for focus on fast moving things, there are plenty of demonstrations online of how that has changed with the newest OM-D; evidently it's not quite as good as the best Canons for that, but given how fast the technology seems to be developing it may catch up. (Fujis, on the other hand, seem to be both slow and shockingly inaccurate, unless the new xe-2, which allegedly has fixed the former, has fixed the latter as well.)

All that said, I wouldn't be surprised if none of that has anything to do with why hardly anyone in the US or Europe wants to buy mirrorless cameras. It may be more a matter of biases, prejudices, clueless salespeople, the vagaries of buying stuff online if you don't know anything much about the topic etc.


----------



## pharp (Jan 3, 2014)

mkabi said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Over at Photorumors, they just published some sales numbers for Japan. For those who dream of a full-frame anything, they are quite eye-opening. Full frame mirror-less constitutes just .5% (that's 1/2 of 1 percent) of the total sales in Japan and in DSLRs, full-frame is just 8.7% of the sales. In short, it is "a small, small world after all" despite the skewed perspective one gets on this and other forums.
> ...



In Japan, the Canon M was the 2nd best selling MILC camera! On the other hand FF systems are expensive at a time when there are fewer and fewer pros, many, who from what I've read get less and less of their income from actually selling photos (more from classes, lectures, tours, etc). Price matters, so I'd expect FF cameras to become a real niche market unless they do more to appeal to enthusiast - smaller, cheaper... 

The Sony A7 came too late to make a difference in sales - still won't be HUGE, but even flat would be better than decline.


----------



## mkabi (Jan 4, 2014)

pharp said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



What was the 1st best? And, what percentage of the DSLR market did it hold? Just asking out of curiosity, if you know...


----------



## pharp (Jan 4, 2014)

mkabi said:


> What was the 1st best? And, what percentage of the DSLR market did it hold? Just asking out of curiosity, if you know...



http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-eos-m-second-sold-mirrorless-camera-japan-2013/

also interesting

http://www.canonwatch.com/mirrorless-camera-sales-growing-asia-eu-usa/


----------



## pharp (Jan 4, 2014)

http://www.globalspec.com/ImageRepository/LearnMore/20125/videoCamerae9aa991c73ce4859841f87f18e31c52f.png

I've wondered, with Canon's emphasis on video, that they haven't made an EF/EF-S mount MILC that looks something like the above. I suppose many sports/wildlife shooters might like a shoulder mount type camera.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 4, 2014)

My view is that for the largest part of the camera market, changing lens is not desirable, may be even not acceptable. Therefore, mirroless cameras on offer right now appear, in my view at least, to at best target potential buyers of entry level dslrs. That segment probably is the largest potential market, but I don't see mirrorless camers as appealing to a broader consumer base but more as sharing the entry level market with dslrs.

However, I do believe that mirrorless may be more economical for mass production and more reliable since they eliminate mechanical and auxiliary systems. I then think that as stated before by another poster, they are going to become the norm. Not because they are better or allow for smaller cameras, but because they allow for less expensive manufacturing, more sharing of components between modelsand potentially fewer manufacturing problems and warranty claims. Higer profit margins will make mirrorless the norm.

As an additional side note, rangefinders like the Leica's only have short focal lengths available because their viewfinder is not seeing through the lens and would not have sufficient magnification for proper framing and focusing. This becomes irrelevent for evf mirrorless. Note that evf can also eliminate parallax problems for close focusing and macro work.


----------



## Bennymiata (Jan 4, 2014)

There's one very important thing that you are all missing here.
The fact is that a "good" mirror less camera (omd, g7 etc) are far more expensive than a dslr with equivalent iq and the dslr probably focuses faster, and more importantly for some, the dslr looks more serious while mirror less cameras look like toys.
For a lot of people who are willing to spend $1,000 or more on a camera, they want people to know they are serious.
It's just snobbery, I know, but snobbery is an important marketing tool?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 4, 2014)

unfocused said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



i agree...but disagree, but then again agree...lol...i don't think mirrorless --mind you --- in its current form will prevail because ---weight and size advantage is not really an advantage when coupled with---whole new system/ new lenses or awkward adapters to EF lenses. 

Is uncle bob going to buy a mirrorless camera or is he just going to go to the wedding and take pics with his ipad...not even the iphone, the ipad????

uncle bob wants to share those photos on facebook immediately! He will complain if the venue doesn't have wifi!!!! 

LOL...that's extreme, but, there are a lot of uncle bobs out there. and weight and size only matter to uncle bob. 

right now it's cell phones vs everything else. Like it or not, that's whats happening. Size and weight will only matter to those looking to just have it in their pocket, which mirrorless can't do unless it has a cell phone style fixed internal lens. 

Can it fit in aunt janes purse along with her cell phone. Does aunt jane have a computer to process images? will she even take the images off the memory card? 

That's why i think mirrorless has to ditch that market if it wants to be taken seriously. Screw size and weight. Unit the system. Make it EF compatible. Design it so it can happen. Then it's just a new body...level the playing field. 

I know people say there is this and that advantage to mirrorless...but as it see it it's all theory. Mirror slapping degrade IQ????? Lets look on all the marvelous mirrorflapping photography from the last 50+ years. 

To DESERVE a new system, new lenses, new components, etc... it must be truly revolutionary, and thats not only with the sensor its with the optics...the lenses. How do these new lenses DOMINATE current 35mm options? They don't. Why, because digital adopted film specs. And the past 2 decades have been spent developing optics for 35mm format. 

Why waste time creating a new system? Why fight all that inertia? If it can be done via adapters it can be done in the camera body...the A7 proves that. If it's any good...put it up against the current dslr offerings on the same playing field and see what happens.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 4, 2014)

Bennymiata said:


> There's one very important thing that you are all missing here.
> The fact is that a "good" mirror less camera (omd, g7 etc) are far more expensive than a dslr with equivalent iq and the dslr probably focuses faster, and more importantly for some, the dslr looks more serious while mirror less cameras look like toys.
> For a lot of people who are willing to spend $1,000 or more on a camera, they want people to know they are serious.
> It's just snobbery, I know, but snobbery is an important marketing tool?


I fully agree. If I want to be recognized as a professional in the events where I'm shooting, it not makes sense to use a small camera and lenses. Mirrorless may have some advantages over Rebel Sl1, but the price is no advantage. So if the mirrorless cameras evolve in the future, I'll buy a model with DSLR size, which has full compatibility with EF and EF-S lenses without adapter. I will not want a camera that seems toy.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 4, 2014)

9VIII said:


> [...]
> 
> I'm hoping Canon just makes a third mount type that takes both EF lenses and allows lenses that sink 10-20mm into the body. You could have a 20mm pancake that only sticks out of the body far enough to have a switch and a focus ring.



Excellent point ... and would be consistent with a "minimized equipment for maximized purpuses concept". The larger flange distance of the original EF mount would help for a better grip, a larger battery and a ring dialer (like Powershot S95 ...-models). It wouldn't be as compact as a EOS M with the 2.0 22mm but has it's advantages for really good wide angles (and standard lenses).
And if they use an "EF mount" with smaller flange distance and a 10mm extension tube as standard part ... we would be open to use the whole world of FF lenses via adaptors.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 4, 2014)

The current mirrorless form factor is not aimed at professionals but as many suggested before, nothing precludes a pro mirrorless body. I would not be surprised if things were to go that way when focusing speed issues are solved.

As a response to Bennymiata, I am pretty sure that higher prices of current quality mirrorless do not result from higher cost for manufacturers but from higher margins in a niche market.

I still think that mirrorless are not opening new markets and that this is their main problem. They just split markets apart and end up competing with both compacts and dslrs while combining weaknesses from both worlds (edit- without improving on their strengths...).


----------



## pharp (Jan 4, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> I still think that mirrorless are not opening new markets and that this is their main problem. They just split markets apart and end up competing with both compacts and dslrs while combining weaknesses from both worlds (edit- without improving on their strengths...).



*EXACTLY* - thats why we need more choices, new configurations, ergonomics. We've gone as far as we can with the current DSLR - simply making it mirrorless isn't really a huge step forward - good start though, really good. Bottom line, get rid of the stone age mirror/prism (they don't improve IQ) makes it possible to have almost any shape or form and hence open up new markets - even for pros. Nobody knew they needed a tablet before it came out - now they're everywhere. 

Having one camera shape for all photographers makes no sense. I could see a landscape body (6" retina display), a wildlife body (elongate shoulder mount), a general purpose body - all with the same EF/EF-S mount. The possibilties are endless. People need a good reason to upgrade - selling the same old stuff with incremental improvements isn't going to cut it anymore.

It appears that the US/EU share of the camera market is in decline and at the same time Asia is embracing mirrorless, so there is a chance we'll get different cameras that will catch on here.



IMG_0001 said:


> while combining weaknesses from both worlds (edit- without improving on their strengths...).



simply not true - no mirror vibration is an improvement


----------



## tcmatthews (Jan 4, 2014)

First the analyst who wrote the article is clearly an idiot. Or at least a person that does not have a very good understanding of the photo industry. So here is my arm chair analysis of the situation. I am not a pro-photographer or financial analyst. I would also like to apologies for the length of the post.

Mirror-less was never the last best hope for a Digital Camera Rebound. And any financial analyst who though it was is clearly an idiot. The truth is that the camera industry has always been a Niche market. It became a much larger market with the invention of mass market Digital P&S. Manly because this greatly reduced the price of development of the pictures. 

With the rise of smart phones the vast majority of the P&S market is dead. Replaced by Smart phone. This has lead to a drastic fall in camera sales and challenges to the camera industry. But inversely there are more photographers than ever. (If you expand photographer to anyone taking a photo.)

There will always be a market for something better than a smart phone. But that market is much smaller that it was before the rise of good smart phones. 

Where the analyst truly fails is in its understanding of the industry and where mirror less fits in. So where do mirror less fit? They are relatively small and compact. Work best with moderately fast prime lens less than 200mm. This is perfect for a travel camera, backup, or even pro use within its limitations. They are in fact a modern day replacement for a rangefinder camera but with the benefit of seeing what you are taking a picture of through a electronic view of the picture you're about to take. I do not see mirror less as a type of camera diapering any time soon. It is likely to expand to include DSLR shape cameras in the future.

So what is the future of the camera industry likely to look like. This is my estimation of the camera segments. 

Normal smart phone - vast majority of the public
Camera oriented smart phone - aspiring photographers and people who want something better
Advanced P&S - super zooms consumer oriented soccer moms and bird watchers
Advanced P&S - high end fixed lens cameras niche 
Compact Mirror less Interchangeable Lens Cameras (ILC - Enthusiasts and some pros
DSLR shaped ILC - majority of pros and some advanced amateurs
Pro DSLR - Niche sports, wildlife photographers, and very wealthy enthusiasts they are likely to have hybrid OVF-Digital Viewfinders in they future.

Everything after the Super zoom P&S will be a Niche market but OVF is likely to disappear in normal DSLR eventually but EVF have a long way to go. 

I actually think that the analyst is correct in one point there will be some casualties in the camera industry. But this is not because of the failure of the Mirror less to gain ground but do to the shock of a major segment of the current industry being replaced by phones. 
So lets look at the camera manufactures.

Canon - strongest in the SLR space and the Dual pixel tech means that it could perform well in a mirror less format. They will defiantly survive just on video and sports alone. 
Nikon - currently second in SLR space it is in the worst strategic position it will need restructuring and could actually fail. May end up being a niche player in the future camera industry. They for years outsourced they P&S so that should be easy to kill off.
Sony - will survive manly because of its sensor development will likely be come dominate in the compact ICL market. They will make cameras as long as it makes strategic sense.
Olympus - may be absorbed into Sony or be a subsidiary given their current agreements and Sony current investment.
Fujifilm - niche player may stay a niche camera maker or become a pro compact ICL hard to say. But, they will not fail because of lack of innovation or technical reasons.
Panasonic - may not survive as a company much less a camera maker. It has turned a corner but is not out of the woods yet.

All of the rest are already niche player in the camera market and are likely to say that way unless they fail to find a market. I do not expect all of them to survive. But which ones will fail is equally difficult. Leica proves that the camera industry is one that can support niche makers for a long time. But the real question is how much do conglomerate electronics companies choose to make cameras for a niche market. It could be that companies drop cameras to make there core business stronger. 

Note I did not mention Samsung because I think they make cameras because they can. I do not know if profit is really there motive. I do not think they will stop just because they fail to make money. They are likely to keep making cameras for a market presence.


----------



## Ruined (Jan 4, 2014)

Perhaps also it might be due to Americans liking the "go big or go home" approach.

Not meaning big in size, but we like things that truly excel in some category - and also bring a good value to the table.

Here is where mirrorless fails entirely, given the above statements:

- Is mirrorless the best in quality? Nope, DSLR is.
- Is mirrorless the most compact? Nope, a smartphone camera is.
- Is mirrorless the best standalone camera value? Nope, a point & shoot is.

So where does mirrorless fit in? Where does it truly excel above all? The problem is, it does not. It is through-and-through a compromise camera. It compromises quality for portability, but still is less portable and more expensive than many other options available. Hence the USA fail.


----------



## tcmatthews (Jan 4, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Perhaps also it might be due to Americans liking the "go big or go home" approach.
> 
> Not meaning big in size, but we like things that truly excel in some category - and also bring a good value to the table.
> 
> ...



Yes it is a compromise but there is something to be said for smaller than a DSLR and better image quality than the rest in a more compact form factor. There is also something to be said for being able to pack an OMD with a complete set of lenses covering an equivalent 16-600mm 35mm focal length in the same space as a Canon 5D III, 24-70mm and a 70-200mm f 2.8 lens. (I have a manager that has done just that when camping.) Which can really add up if you are already carrying a good deal of non photo gear. 

Basically proving horses for courses. Mirror less cameras are a tool that can make sense in many cases. That is why they will be around for a long time. I will not be getting rid of my DSLR any time soon. But I get much more use out of my Nex 6.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 4, 2014)

Ruined said:


> So where does mirrorless fit in? Where does it truly excel above all? The problem is, it does not. It is through-and-through a compromise camera. It compromises quality for portability, but still is less portable and more expensive than many other options available.



Ignoring any prejudice towards our informed friends across the pond, your statement is valid, and that's why the whole Canon mirrorless marketing squad deserves to get fired - they ignore every rule in the book about introducing a new technology and make people confuse apples and oranges.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a big market for a good compromise camera, but afaik this is not how you market something like this (please correct me if I'm wrong here).


----------



## pharp (Jan 4, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > So where does mirrorless fit in? Where does it truly excel above all? The problem is, it does not. It is through-and-through a compromise camera. It compromises quality for portability, but still is less portable and more expensive than many other options available.
> ...



Mirrorless cameras *DO NOT* compromise quality for portability - mirrors don't improve IQ - period. The current OVF DSLR are also a compromise - only difference, we are used to those compromises, hence Mirror lock up ability. Metabones supposedly sells many, many NEX-EF adapters, so obviously, there is a market for a quality MILC that takes EF lenses. 

I would love to see Canon take something like a 70D [keep the 70D] and make it mirrorless with state of the art EVF, all else the same, and see how it goes.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 4, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Perhaps also it might be due to Americans liking the "go big or go home" approach.
> 
> Not meaning big in size, but we like things that truly excel in some category - and also bring a good value to the table.
> 
> ...



If by "quality" you mean "image quality", your answer to your first question is false: the new FF Sonys are at least as good as FF dslrs in image quality, the same is true of APS-C mirrorless cameras and their dslr equivalents (fans of the Fuji x cameras tend to think they're better, especially in terms of noise), while the gap between M43 and APS-C has become negligible. What's more, the technology of mirrorless cameras, in the better ones, makes it easier to take good photos with both AF and manual lenses.

Your answer to your second question is true. It's impossible to answer your third question without knowing what "value" means. It's subjective. If you're really nit-picky about image quality, point and shoots are bad value, regardless of price.

The reason why camera sales are falling is likely that most people aren't demanding about image quality (just as they aren't re audio quality - cf the prevalence of ipods + crappy earphones); and if all you're doing is posting photos on facebook etc., a smartphone is good enough anyway. Toss in the answer to your second question and....


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 4, 2014)

pharp said:


> Mirrorless cameras DO NOT compromise quality for portability - mirrors don't improve IQ - period.



Well, mirrors definitely improve the iq of the optical viewfinder vs. a cheap evf :->


----------



## pharp (Jan 4, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorless cameras DO NOT compromise quality for portability - mirrors don't improve IQ - period.
> ...



It's becoming a moot point - videographers who use DSLRs, don't use the OVF anyway, they get loupes - using the 5D or 7D essentially as a MILC camera. I use a loupe for macro work in live view. If they got rid of the mirror box altogether, they could make a better form factor. Seeing that Canon is emphasizing video and has the dual pixel AF - we may yet get something like that.

I would love a sensibly designed camera with a 3" *eye level *EVF - could be done. It really makes no sense to have a tiny eye level EVF and a large one on the back - one large eye level one should be fine. We're stuck in the DSLR mindset.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jan 4, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> IMO, as long as most EF-M camera users have to use the adapter with full-size lenses (along with the corresponding IQ loss), I would expect the EF-M cameras to continue to be largely stillborn except as cheap backup bodies.



I own three Eos-M cameras, my wife has one, and many of my friends now own one. I am not aware of any loss of IQ when I strap any of my Canon lenses to the EOS-M. Quite the opposite when I strap an 24mm 1.4 or 35 1.4 on it. My 85mm 1.4 or 1.2 are great on the little guy. I have improved my hand hold of the Eos-M so I can shoot at a fairly low shutter speed than I could when I first got the camera. However the 18-55 and the 22 are both great lenses and fit the majority of needs that I use this camera for. Which is mostly candids of people indoors and sometimes in cramped indoor spaces. I know the focusing is slower but it seems just as accurate as I point to focus and shoot in one easy motion.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 4, 2014)

pharp said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



Mirror's may not imporve IQ, but, there is a hell of a lot of amazing photography out there that shows that a mirror doesn't do much harm either, except in some extreme circumstances, but hey, as you point out - that's what locking the mirror up is for, and live view.

Then there's the EVF - and until that tech catches up no one can really make an argument that EVF is better - the tech has to improve a lot more. But even if we were to say that current EVF is on the same level as OVF - look at the battery life of the A7's...you get maybe 300 per battery. 

I stand by my original theory here, that mirrorless has no identity right now. It's living in a limbo area, straddling the market of cell phone's and P&S's. That's why I see it as bound to fail. Cell phone shooters won't switch, they want one device to rule them all. And the average P&S user won't want to deal with interchangeable lenses - no matter how small they are. And for those that want the IQ, well, we have our slr's already! It's a proven system with decades of R&D. I don't think I'm far off in saying that most slr users would add or at least consider adding a mirrorless body to the bag if it fit the system we're currently using.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 4, 2014)

pharp said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > pharp said:
> ...



shooting with a long lens, holding thew cam in front of you looking at the live view panel is not the most stable way to shoot!!!! That's why it's designed that way, by holding the camera to your eye you have the perfect balance to get a steady shot. Your elbows basically form a tripod...

Notice too...most video folks also use some kind of harness or a monopod to steady the camera. 

So, from a still shooters perspective, it makes perfect sense to have that tiny OVF or EVF. Video has different needs...


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 4, 2014)

I think it is safe to say that current SLRs ergonomics are mainly designed with still shooters in mind. Reqirements for video are different but Ial design. If you want a don't see much virtue to making video optimised SLRs around a still camera initial design. It would seem better to just start from scratch and ditch the mirror box...

As for mirrorless still cameras, I think that a lot of effort went in making them as comfortable and efficient a tool as possible. It seems more likely to go the evolutionary way for a while rather than the revolutionary way. Remember that there is a lot of inertia in pros that slows their move to new techs...


----------



## pharp (Jan 4, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I stand by my original theory here, that mirrorless has no identity right now. It's living in a limbo area, straddling the market of cell phone's and P&S's. That's why I see it as bound to fail. Cell phone shooters won't switch, they want one device to rule them all. And the average P&S user won't want to deal with interchangeable lenses - no matter how small they are. And for those that want the IQ, well, we have our slr's already! It's a proven system with decades of R&D. I don't think I'm far off in saying that most slr users would add or at least consider adding a mirrorless body to the bag if it fit the system we're currently using.



I disagree with almost all of this. The future of photography is higher end gear, cameras like those made by Fuji X, Sony NEX, A7, etc - not P&S or phones. The mirror / prism hasn't changed in any real sense from it's origin, no R&D needed. Yes, the DSLR w/OVF works fine (so did steam engines), capable of great work, but they will become obsolete - when? don't know. Many of the interesting tech advancements, starting with live view have been working to get us away from the OVF, e.g. remote LCD monitors, tethers to computers, control from iPhones, etc. If we learn anything from the history of tech advancement - mechanical devices will (almost always) be replaced by electronic ones. Just a question of time.

SLR cameras have gone from being 99% mechanical devices (film) to maybe 90+% electronic (digital) without this much hand wringing or consternation - digital just got good enough, so we changed. It's this last step, changing from OVF with (often) excellent focusing screens to EVFs (at a time when OVFs and focusing screens are getting worse IMO) is causing so much heartache. Change can be difficult, but it is inevitable. I do agree that the change will no doubt be gradual - people will get the mirrorless 5De to go with their regular DSLR, but will eventually leave that at home. Not unlike the change from film to digital - their will be a tipping point that will seem like overnight.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 4, 2014)

All of this can be summed up by saying that it's a question of long-term versus near-term.

In the near term, for high-end users there is nothing better than a DSLR. In the long-term, there very likely will be. When the technology reaches that point, there will be a transition to a mirror-less system, just as there was a transition to digital. 

The biggest obstacle to overcome is the viewfinder. Most photographers have no intention of ever giving up the eye-level viewfinder, so to succeed, a mirror-less camera must have a electronic viewfinder that improves upon the optical viewfinders we have today. That's a tall order. The optical viewfinder works at the speed of light, has no electronics and simply reflects light. As such, it's cheap to construct and cheaper still to maintain. (Yes, the original engineering was complex, but after 70 years or more, it's pretty well been perfected).

The tipping point will come when an electronic viewfinder is cheaper to produce and works better. How long that will take is anyone's guess, but I'd be surprised if we see it widely available within the next 3-5 years. 

But, I think there is a larger point here that is being overlooked, and that is that for the mass consumer, the digital camera may be dead. I went to the Grand Canyon about three years ago and aside from the enthusiasts with their DSLRs the typical visitor was armed with a point and shoot. I went again this fall, and the majority of former point and shoot users were using smart phones or iPads. (Yes, several people were carrying around their iPads and taking pictures with them). 

I frankly don't see and don't know anyone under age 30 who takes pictures with a camera. That's the market that is dead and I doubt if it will ever be revived.


----------



## pharp (Jan 4, 2014)

unfocused said:


> All of this can be summed up by saying that it's a question of long-term versus near-term.
> 
> In the near term, for high-end users there is nothing better than a DSLR. In the long-term, there very likely will be. When the technology reaches that point, there will be a transition to a mirror-less system, just as there was a transition to digital.
> 
> ...



The eye level EVF doesn't have to be better in every respect than the current OVF, just better in some and good enough overall - that seems to be the pattern with new tech acceptance. For me, the OM-D met that level, as a second camera. Not better overall, but some aspects are clearly nicer. 3-5 years for pro models? Sounds plausible. It's coming though.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 4, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorless cameras DO NOT compromise quality for portability - mirrors don't improve IQ - period.
> ...



I just don't get it. I've heard this excuse a dozen times now, and still there is no rational, logical explanation for why a person would think that looking at the subject through the OVF would improve the image captured by the sensor. They are completely unrelated.
Is there lag? Yes, but normal shutter lag is already an order of magnitude worse. Are you looking at a JPEG preview that changes colours? Yes, so use some binoculars to find the subject first, as seems to be standard practice for many, since you're not lifting a 10lb camera to your face all the time.
From what I've been reading many of the best wildlife photos are edited to death anyway.



Chuck Alaimo said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Did you read the post? The example given is sticking a super large and comfy eye-piece on the back of the camera, not holding it out in front of you.
There are definitely much better places to put the viewfinder than top-center on the camera, another reason to like the Fuji bodies is that the viewfinder is off to the side so I wouldn't be mashing my face into the body all the time. I have to wonder if they couldn't make an SLR with the viewfinder on the side instead of the top.

I've come to appreciate the OVF a lot more as time goes by, and that it doesn't take power is great, but all the lame excuses about fictitious problems with the EVF aren't going to help anyone.


----------



## dgatwood (Jan 5, 2014)

9VIII said:


> I just don't get it. I've heard this excuse a dozen times now, and still there is no rational, logical explanation for why a person would think that looking at the subject through the OVF would improve the image captured by the sensor.



I think the comment was about the clarity of the viewfinder itself, not the clarity of the shots themselves. That said, there are two ways in which your viewfinder choice can affect the latter:

1. If you are manually focusing, you can generally do so more quickly with an OVF, so you are more less likely to miss the shot you're taking.
2. You're not blinded in one eye from staring into an EVF, so you're less likely to miss noticing the next shot.


----------



## pharp (Jan 5, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't get it. I've heard this excuse a dozen times now, and still there is no rational, logical explanation for why a person would think that looking at the subject through the OVF would improve the image captured by the sensor.
> ...



more misinformation - have you actually used a camera with an EVF? Blinded in one eye - really? thats hilarious.


----------



## Ruined (Jan 5, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps also it might be due to Americans liking the "go big or go home" approach.
> ...



Image quality has a lot more to do than just with the sensor quality. You don't just magically have an image appear on the sensor, you have to get it there first. And, even the FF Sonys are again a compromise in this area. The EVF is a compromise, the AF system is a compromise, the body is too small to comfortably support larger fast zoom glass - making the only comfortable zoom lenses to use once again smaller compromise lenses. Most of the native glass available is a compromise and those using an adapter for superior Canon glass have to use an adapter that slows autofocus to 2 seconds - another compromise, not to mention the potential IQ loss from the adapter itself.

So, while the sensor on the FF Sonys is not a compromise, virtually every other area of the camera required to get the image is. Hence, the overall image quality *is* compromised.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 5, 2014)

Bennymiata said:


> There's one very important thing that you are all missing here.
> The fact is that a "good" mirror less camera (omd, g7 etc) are far more expensive than a dslr with equivalent iq and the dslr probably focuses faster, and more importantly for some, the dslr looks more serious while mirror less cameras look like toys.
> For a lot of people who are willing to spend $1,000 or more on a camera, they want people to know they are serious.
> It's just snobbery, I know, but snobbery is an important marketing tool?


 
Why is it snobbery to pay less for a better camera? The logic escapes me.


----------



## JEL (Jan 5, 2014)

AlanF said:


> http://www.businessinsider.com/mirrorless-camera-sales-disappoint-2013-12
> 
> Sad stuff



All is relative. Not everybody will shed any tears of sorrow if this mirror-less nonsense goes away 

Mirror-less IS inferior technology. I've tried it! (and regreted it)

No mirror to protect the sensor when changing lenses is an open invitation to dust and ruined pictures (and that's what users of these cameras WILL get)

Mirror-less is not something anybody who is serious about their photography will ever choose.
Don't fall for the media-hype that mirror-less (WITH interchangeable lenses) is the future. Mirror-less belongs ONLY in cameras with ONE SINGLE FIXED lens!

Smart photographers know this. Move on. Drop that mirror-less nonsense and focus on quality-improvements instead.

If you are obsessed with mirror-less: get a cell-phone!

If you are obsessed with quality (DURABLE quality): do NOT get a mirror-less.

It's really that simple 
The only ones crying about mirror-less not selling are those who were stupid enough to buy stocks and shares in Sony.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 5, 2014)

Ruined said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



For me, the core of the issue is exactly that....compromise. Across the board in their current iterations, there are compromises to be made when using a mirrorless body. I have no doubt that the possibilities are endless and the potential is great. There are plenty of innovative things that have been packed into these cameras. But the facts remain regarding the compromises. That is the reason many of us would consider buying one or have already bought one....but still have our "other" main rig.


----------



## mkabi (Jan 5, 2014)

pharp said:


> I disagree with almost all of this. The future of photography is higher end gear, cameras like those made by Fuji X, Sony NEX, A7, etc - not P&S or phones.



@ pharp - Bros., the *future of photography* may be *higher end gear* but what makes you think that Fuji X, Sony NEX, A7, etc. is so much high end versus P&S or cell phones?

@ everyone else.... Here is whats happening. The pro. won't even touch these guys with a 10 yard stick (not that I talk for all professionals), people everywhere else are using cell phones and P&S. Few people will look at these pros and will buy a DSLR - thinking that they can emulate a pro. and most will always start with a lower end model like a Rebel. And, depending on how much they will get into photography, most are happy as long as its better than a P&S or cell phone. Filter that and they will invest in FF. Filter that and you will see people talking about IQ... its a small playing field... it doesn't make it better that a MILC looks like a toy camera versus a probody.

Go ask your wife, brother, sister, parents.... friends that are not into photography... ask them about IQ and compare pictures and bodies.... they don't give a crap... they might even think you're nuts. Problem is... Canon and every other company is not just targeting you, but also your wife, brother, sister, parents and the people that are not into photography.


----------



## boggy4062 (Jan 5, 2014)

JEL said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.businessinsider.com/mirrorless-camera-sales-disappoint-2013-12
> ...



I am sorry, but you seem to be one of the people who got his DSLR religion, and is not willing to look forward. Windows vs Apple, Windows vs OS/2 Windows vs Linux, iOS vs Android, Android vs Windows 8,.... so many "religious" wars, and yet folks continue to use most of the products. 

There are MANY professionals who already dumped D800 5DIII and other "big boy" toys. The fact is that Fuji and Olympus and Sony are ahead of the game of looking towards the future.
If you look at quality of fujifilm x-yyyy series, they produce amazing pictures. So do latest toys from Olympus and Sony. A7 and A7r is the v 1.o of the line, but so was iPhone way back.

I met plenty of parents who drag heavy DSLR with huge lenses to take pictures of their little ones. Dedicated cameras will NEVER go away, unless a new breakthrough product emerges just for this reason. I will try to sell my DSLRs to one of them, who doesn't know any better. 

Mirror-less cameras are light, provide great picture quality and improve in AF area. What else does one need.


----------



## boggy4062 (Jan 5, 2014)

mkabi said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree with almost all of this. The future of photography is higher end gear, cameras like those made by Fuji X, Sony NEX, A7, etc - not P&S or phones.
> ...



Sony Rx10 is a fantastic video camera and professional WILL touch them the same way as they do GoPro action cameras. These products are cheap and good enough for many of their work.

I found another wedding photographer who dumped her Canon 5DIII for Olympus OMD-E5 and OMD-E1. For her pixel peeping is not important. Making money and not getting injured in the process by caring heavy camera, is the top priority. 

As far as families and friends not giving crap.

Only family members that haven't seen any good pictures from any of their friends. However those who HAVE seen great pictures (like mine ...lol ) immediately ask one basic question "what camera should I buy?". They know that their iPhone or Android phone are NOT going to give them what they really want, since they already tried them. They've seem me switching from Canon 7D to Sony NEx-5n and the results where not worse, as they (and I) can tell. 
KNOWING the basics of photography is more important than what camera we have. Of course equipment does matter, but skills ARE the main ingredient of a good photo. 
Just saying.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 5, 2014)

boggy4062 said:


> I am sorry, but you seem to be one of the people who got his DSLR religion, and is not willing to look forward. Windows vs Apple, Windows vs OS/2 Windows vs Linux, iOS vs Android, Android vs Windows 8,.... so many "religious" wars, and yet folks continue to use most of the products.
> 
> There are MANY professionals who already dumped D800 5DIII and other "big boy" toys. The fact is that Fuji and Olympus and Sony are ahead of the game of looking towards the future.
> If you look at quality of fujifilm x-yyyy series, they produce amazing pictures. So do latest toys from Olympus and Sony. A7 and A7r is the v 1.o of the line, but so was iPhone way back.
> ...



To answer your question:
Longer battery life
Faster/accurate AF
Developed ecosystem
Ergonomics with large lenses

OR

be even smaller to truly be small enough for me to care how small it is....which it will never be unless there is some breakthrough in physics that allows lenses to be smaller and have the same specs.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 5, 2014)

mkabi said:


> Go ask your wife, brother, sister, parents.... friends that are not into photography... ask them about IQ and compare pictures and bodies.... they don't give a crap... they might even think you're nuts. Problem is... Canon and every other company is not just targeting you, but also your wife, brother, sister, parents and the people that are not into photography.



It depends on what culture you're from. Around the people I grew up with it's more just a cost/benefit equation. If you can start a good conversation about one thing being significantly better than another they'll probably buy it. I'm fairly certain you'll find an SLR in every household among my relatives, and many of my friends as well.
If people didn't care about image quality I don't think this industry would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
I'm still betting that once full frame sensors punch through the $1,000 barrier you'll see a significant boost in the amount of interest surrounding big cameras (regardless of viewfinder type).


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 5, 2014)

JEL said:


> No mirror to protect the sensor when changing lenses is an open invitation to dust and ruined pictures (and that's what users of these cameras WILL get)



FWIW the mirror doesn't protect the sensor against dust. The shutter on a DSLR however usually is closed when you change lenses, so that helps perhaps. Still, despite the shutter, dust that gets inside the camera can eventually find its way to the sensor. I wouldn't want to use the shutter as a protective screen anyway, because it is very delicate. Best be careful with lens changes no matter what


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 5, 2014)

Simple truth: the OVF is a passive device that has tied camera progress for years. This has been supported by Canikon being the benchmark of photography and by their being uninterested in developing EVFs.

That said, the EVF is a dynamic, active device that gives plenty of advantages. Magnification, exposure preview, peaking, zebras, etc are only some of them. More than that, an EVF can be extensively developed and improved over time, OVFs not quite. OVFs are the past, EVFs are the future, and we are now in a transition zone.

If any of the nay-sayers in this thread had actually tried the EVF in the a7 or OMD, probably they would have a different opinion.


----------



## SwampYankee (Jan 5, 2014)

Try taking this with your iPhone.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 5, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Simple truth: the OVF is a passive device that has tied camera progress for years. This has been supported by Canikon being the benchmark of photography and by their being uninterested in developing EVFs.
> 
> That said, the EVF is a dynamic, active device that gives plenty of advantages. Magnification, exposure preview, peaking, zebras, etc are only some of them. More than that, an EVF can be extensively developed and improved over time, OVFs not quite. OVFs are the past, EVFs are the future, and we are now in a transition zone.
> 
> If any of the nay-sayers in this thread had actually tried the EVF in the a7 or OMD, probably they would have a different opinion.



Yeah, now if they can only reduce the battery drain. EVFs can match OVFs but they are currently a lot more expensive than the OVFs. That problem will be solved as the technology is developed and matured. The power consumption is another issue. Battery technology is based on basic chemistry and there aren't any technologies that are better than Li-ion (cost, power capacity, etc.) and right now, people are not willing to give up the 700+ shots with a DSLR (OVF) for 200 shots with an EVF.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 5, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Yeah, now if they can only reduce the battery drain. ... The power consumption is another issue. Battery technology is based on basic chemistry and there aren't any technologies that are better than Li-ion (cost, power capacity, etc.) and right now, people are not willing to give up the 700+ shots with a DSLR (OVF) for 200 shots with an EVF.



The source of the battery-life problem is the misguided insistence that mirrorless cameras be small in size, which obviously dictates a small battery as well.


----------



## mkabi (Jan 5, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> Try taking this with your iPhone.



Out of curiosity, what did you use to take that picture?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 5, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, now if they can only reduce the battery drain. ... The power consumption is another issue. Battery technology is based on basic chemistry and there aren't any technologies that are better than Li-ion (cost, power capacity, etc.) and right now, people are not willing to give up the 700+ shots with a DSLR (OVF) for 200 shots with an EVF.
> ...



Even if the batteries were as large as that in the 5DIII, the number of shots per battery will still be much fewer. The EVF does not work without power. That is the nice thing about OVF. You can set up a lot of shots without using any power until you need to press the button. On a good day, I can get 800+ using PDAF. Using LV heavily, maybe 300, and if I had to use an EVF/LV for rough framing etc, it'd be even less.


----------



## zim (Jan 5, 2014)

mkabi said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > Try taking this with your iPhone.
> ...



A 5D3 I'll bet ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 5, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> If any of the nay-sayers in this thread had actually tried the EVF in the a7 or OMD, probably they would have a different opinion.


I'm a yay-sayer when it comes to the potential of mirrorless, but I have to admit I am atm very attached to an old-school optical viewfinder that draws no power and shows me what I see with my bare eye without feeling like in a sci-fi movie.

Every time I pick up a new Sony gadget (there's ample opportunity in Berlin in the Sony Center) and look through the current evf generation I jump a little and think "Yuck! Gimme my ovf back"... so I agree with dpreview's assessment, see http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/5



> _For its part, the EVF is a means to an end - much as I prefer an optical viewfinder, knowing that the α7 is going to capture an impressive image in a smaller package than the average full frame digital SLR makes the EVF a necessary evil worth tolerating._


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 5, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Did you read the post? The example given is sticking a super large and comfy eye-piece on the back of the camera, not holding it out in front of you.
> There are definitely much better places to put the viewfinder than top-center on the camera, another reason to like the Fuji bodies is that the viewfinder is off to the side so I wouldn't be mashing my face into the body all the time. I have to wonder if they couldn't make an SLR with the viewfinder on the side instead of the top.
> 
> I've come to appreciate the OVF a lot more as time goes by, and that it doesn't take power is great, but all the lame excuses about fictitious problems with the EVF aren't going to help anyone.



Sorry, misread that --- i guess my brain read 3" EVF and couldn't comprehend why at eye level you'd need something so large...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2014)

JEL said:


> No mirror to protect the sensor when changing lenses is an open invitation to dust and ruined pictures (and that's what users of these cameras WILL get)



It's a mirror, not a _magic_ mirror. When you change lens, dust gets in whether there's a mirror there or not. Sure, if there's a mirror that dust doesn't settle directly on the sensor...but the dust doesn't evaporate when the lens is put back on. It's in the mirror box, then you start taking pictures, the mirror flipping up and down each time, moving that dust around inside the mirror box...and guess what? It gets on the sensor anyway. 



boggy4062 said:


> Mirror-less cameras are light, provide great picture quality and improve in AF area. What else does one need.



Picture quality correlates with sensor size - bigger is better. Pancake lenses notwithstanding, full frame sensors need big lenses. A 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 zoom on a mirrorless body renders the light weight of the body moot. 

Mirrorless AF is improving, but true phase AF with a dedicated sensor is still superior, especially for tracking movement. 

What else does one need? How about an electronic viewfinder approaching the quality of optical. We're not there yet. Decent battery life would be nice, too.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 5, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> boggy4062 said:
> 
> 
> > I am sorry, but you seem to be one of the people who got his DSLR religion, and is not willing to look forward. Windows vs Apple, Windows vs OS/2 Windows vs Linux, iOS vs Android, Android vs Windows 8,.... so many "religious" wars, and yet folks continue to use most of the products.
> ...



+100


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mirrorless AF is improving, but true phase AF with a dedicated sensor is still superior, especially for tracking movement.
> 
> What else does one need? How about an electronic viewfinder approaching the quality of optical. We're not there yet. Decent battery life would be nice, too.



Sony A7/R has proven how small a mirrorless camera with a top notch FF sensor can be built. 

There are no technical reasons precluding an AF-system better than 1D X, battery charge for 500+ shots and even higher res EVF with no perceptible lag (or blackout) ... any time soon. It will come. It will sell. Very well.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 5, 2014)

boggy4062 said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > pharp said:
> ...



EVF only makes no difference for video, because all you have is EVF for video, so of course video people would not care about the mirror, the mirror is a compromise for them because a dedicated cine series camera is expensive!

that last part i take issue with though, cause it does seem to be one of those things you see and here all the time -- you shoot an event, take some great shots and do some great PP on those shots...and there's always one person that says...that's amazing, you must have a really nice camera.

when this happens I really hope I encounterthem in a scnerio they specialize in...if they are a cook, you know, it's not that they know how to make a mean dish with skill...you must have a real good oven.

this is why I harp on the identity of mirrorless. The only thing stopping that tech from becoming serious is itself --- just like P&S and entry level slr's, the main consumer base will be shooting in P mode, pop up flash on auto, everything on auto. PP will be in camera filters and that thing better have built in wifi so i can post the shots to fb immediately!!!! This is the crowd we all have to deal with when thinking about the overall future of camera tech! 

This crowd has become a cell phone crowd because:

cell phone camera have gotten better, easy to use, 1 device that can take the shot, edit and upload on the spot
the advantages of P&S are lost to these folks because lets face it, there isn't much that's really good about modern P&S's
simplicity wins the race here, 99% of what we talk about here is lost to the bulk of the market for cameras

That leaves the rest of us that do care, which is a small segment of the market. Of course, we make up for our #'s in profit margin because most of us have several thousand $$$ worth of gear.

Which brings me right back to the og theory that if mirrorless has to be a new system all of it's own - that means those of us invested in current tech have to sell it all off to upgrade to the new tech ---and right now the benefits to doing so just aren't there. For a full system switch, there had better be some real tangible differences and at this stage they just aren't there. I look at the new sony's and other than the sensor itself (and yup, it's pretty much the same sensor that's in the d800), there's really nothing there that's ground breaking (for a mirrorless system it is, cause its the first FF mirrorless) - stack the specs vs a 5d3 or a d800 or a d610 or a 6d and there isn't much that the sony can do that the slr can't - in fact the slr can and is doing things the sony can't ---and we aren't talking nuts and bolts ---we're talking about being capped at 300 shots per battery charge because so much of the thing is electric....even if the sony at 24 stops of DR, that won't matter as the sony is in the bag dead while my 6d is trucking away at 2000 shots on the same battery ---and yeah, that battery will still be good the next day (as long as i'm not using live view or wifi!) 

all that said though --- if a mirrorless body could be made that fits in the existing system, then it doesn't have to be a revolutionary groundbreaking product to sell. You make 1 purchase in a body just like every other time a new body comes out. To me, that's the difference maker. That's why the sony intrigues me, with an adapter of course you can use nikon or canon glass. It's a great move, but also I think it's sony's way of saying we don't know if we really want to invest in this whole new system thing so lets see what happens... with that said though - if all it takes is that silly adapter to convert it, it should be easy enough to design slr like mirrorless bodies which use the current system of lenses. 

To bring this full circle - Even if the future is mirrorless and it does mean a whole new system down the line - for it to gain momentum and acceptance it needs to be something that can be taken seriously --- not just marketed to the I shoot on P mode and auto everything crowd. that means making some moves to intrigue the size and weight don't matter to me crowd --- that's your pros and invested enthusiasts. Afterall, it's the photos taken by pros and enthusiasts that make the average joe want nicer cameras, right?????


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 5, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > If any of the nay-sayers in this thread had actually tried the EVF in the a7 or OMD, probably they would have a different opinion.
> ...



I insist that you try it 

I played with the a7 for a week and I swear, of all things, the lack of OVF didn't bother me at all. Now, the size of the VF did, but that's another story


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Sony A7/R has proven how small a mirrorless camera with a top notch FF sensor can be built.
> Better AF



Yes, they're small. Does that make the lenses needed to cover a full frame image circle a
significantly smaller or lighter?

Yes, the a7/a7R *need* better AF than they've got - particularly the a7R.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 5, 2014)

I would be much more intrigued if Sony decided to develop a body where they took size out of the equation, added hybrid ovf/evf, and worked in partnership with someone like conurus at metabones to get adapted glass focussing close to native spec. 

If compactness were not a consideration, battery size could be increased. 
Hybrid vf similar to Fuji would allow people to almost have their cake and eat it too (while saving some battery life)
Conurus has already adapted zeiss glass to canon bodies very successfully with re to AF speeds and have a three distance in-lens AFMA capability. I don't see why this would not also be possible for sony. 

Those few things alone would completely change my tune.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 5, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> I insist that you try it  I played with the a7 for a week and I swear, of all things, the lack of OVF didn't bother me at all. Now, the size of the VF did, but that's another story



I'm positive that using the thing for a week is way different than just for a couple of minutes in an expo - so I can only tell about my first impression with evfs... but dpreview had more time and still came to the same conclusion, that's why I quoted them. But alas, in a decade we're all in for it anyway ;-)


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 5, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > I insist that you try it  I played with the a7 for a week and I swear, of all things, the lack of OVF didn't bother me at all. Now, the size of the VF did, but that's another story
> ...



I manage ok with the EVF on my NEX. If you hold the camera still, it's almost like an OVF, very impressive. But when you move the camera, or there are moving objects in front of the lens, it becomes apparent that the refresh rate for the EVF doesn't quite keep up. This is why for sports and wildlife especially, I believe the OVF is hard to beat.


----------



## pharp (Jan 5, 2014)

mirrorless 5D 

http://www.canonwatch.com/not-again-mirrorless-canon-5d-markii-becomes-mirrorless/


----------



## pharp (Jan 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, they're small. Does that make the lenses needed to cover a full frame image circle a
> significantly smaller or lighter?



No, but so what? Small size isn't (shouldn't be) the main point. Though they can be made smaller, especially MF ones.



neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, the a7/a7R *need* better AF than they've got - particularly the a7R.



Depends on what you shoot. Plenty adequate for most things, from what I've seen in the store.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 5, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> But when you move the camera, or there are moving objects in front of the lens, it becomes apparent that the refresh rate for the EVF doesn't quite keep up. This is why for sports and wildlife especially, I believe the OVF is hard to beat.



They'll never "beat" it because from what I remember from my physics classes, it's hard to outrun photons at 300.000 km/s :-> ... I wonder what the current and "acceptable" lag for an evf is, I'm sure the manufacturers already have an idea how long they'll keep ovfs around for action shooting.


----------



## pharp (Jan 5, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > But when you move the camera, or there are moving objects in front of the lens, it becomes apparent that the refresh rate for the EVF doesn't quite keep up. This is why for sports and wildlife especially, I believe the OVF is hard to beat.
> ...



Sure, won't beat it, but if we assume that action photographers shoot at high fps - is the flapping mirror really so much better than the more fluid EVF, even with lag? If you learn to use it, I suspect there is no practical difference in terms of keepers. I can also see that it might be possible to develop better continuous AF tracking (dual pixel?) without the interruption of the mirror. Sports videographers manage. Time will tell.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > But when you move the camera, or there are moving objects in front of the lens, it becomes apparent that the refresh rate for the EVF doesn't quite keep up. This is why for sports and wildlife especially, I believe the OVF is hard to beat.
> ...



But that light bounces around in the mirror box on top of your DSLR and takes so long to cover the extra distance


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 5, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



The a7's are miles ahead 



Marsu42 said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > But when you move the camera, or there are moving objects in front of the lens, it becomes apparent that the refresh rate for the EVF doesn't quite keep up. This is why for sports and wildlife especially, I believe the OVF is hard to beat.
> ...



If you can watch an action movie on your LCD screen, that typically has a 2-8ms response time and 60-100 Hz refresh rate, you can probably also take pictures


----------



## SwampYankee (Jan 5, 2014)

mkabi said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > Try taking this with your iPhone.
> ...



5DIII 24-105 @ 105 might have been 125 sec @ f4 ISO was pretty high maybe 6400


----------



## mkabi (Jan 5, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > SwampYankee said:
> ...



Thats what I thought, given your gear list.
But the discussion is not whether or not DSLRs are better than iphones, cell phones or P&S.
The current discussion is if there is a future for Mirrorless Cameras like the Eos-M, NEX, A7, etc.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 6, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Did you read the post? The example given is sticking a super large and comfy eye-piece on the back of the camera, not holding it out in front of you.
> ...



No problem.
I just couldn't let a response like that stand without clarification.

Chances are the EVF and OVF will occupy the same marked for quite some time to come. For 99% of subjects they're going to perform nearly the same, especially once you have a transmissive LCD on top of your OVF. In the long term I think whether a person chooses one or the other will be determined by the surrounding features more than the type of viewfinder itself.


----------



## TAF (Jan 6, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...




I believe the future lies along a different path entirely. I think you give the camera designers of 65 years ago too much credit vis-a-vis the notion that their goal was stability. I don't believe that was the case - I seem to recall reading that their motivation was to avoid the parallax that all rangefinder cameras suffer from.

If you've ever used a Rollei TLR, you would probably agree that they are far more stable (with the neck strap taut and the camera cradled in your hands at waist level) than a SLR held to your face. So perhaps the future is...a digital version of the Rollei 3003 (or Hasselblad 500).

Put a 3-4" retina like display on the top, a full frame sensor (with dual pixel AF) inside, and an EF mount on the front, and you've got a design that would be easy to hold stably, can be used over your head in crowds (like the classic TLR can), and if you really want to use it at eye level, a pentaprism like assembly could attach to the top or back (it could be an EVF or a mirror on the top, on the back it would need to be an EVF). The connector for that optional EVF could feed external monitors (perfect for studio work). External grips could be anything you want.

Most interestingly, the lens mount could be interchangeable. Why not an EF mount, a Nikon mount, a Leica mount, or any other mount you can think of. The flange distance changes as required - the mount that holds the lens mount is the constant - and could contain all the needed electronic connections for any AF lens (or not bother for manual focus).

The basic design could be made by ANY camera manufacturer - in fact, I would almost expect SIGMA (with their Foveon tech) to make such a thing and try to steal some of the business from the other companies.

That's a body I would buy.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 6, 2014)

TAF said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > pharp said:
> ...


One of the things I like about touchscreen interfaces and WiFi is that we are no longer bound by having the viewfinder attached to the camera.... It can be a phone or a tablet 30 feet away.


----------



## SwampYankee (Jan 6, 2014)

mkabi said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



I know but the larger point I feel is that photography is falling into 2 groups. Smart phone photography and a shrinking group of advanced amateurs and hobbyists. (Not discussing Pros here) and I think I am OK with that. Phones take really good pictures now if the light is not too challenging. Point and shoots are on the way out. The real change here is the folks that used to buy a good DSLR and kit lens and use it for vacation, special occasions or that new baby. That segment may be on the way out for good


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> The real change here is the folks that used to buy a good DSLR and kit lens and use it for vacation, special occasions or that new baby. That segment may be on the way out for good



Babies become toddlers then small children. Toddlers and kids run...fast and erratically. How well can current smartphones keep up? My superzoom P&S did fine when our first child was a baby. Once she started walking, I got tired of missing 'the moment' due to slow AF and long shutter lag, and that's when I bought my first dSLR.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 6, 2014)

At this time, BH is selling Nikon 1 J1 with 10-30mm for $ 199. It seems that Canon is not the only one who has trouble selling mirrorless outside Japan.


----------



## pharp (Jan 6, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> At this time, BH is selling Nikon 1 J1 with 10-30mm for $ 199. It seems that Canon is not the only one who has trouble selling mirrorless outside Japan.



Not a MILC issue, they couldn't sell that dog in Japan. That whole series was poorly conceived, I'll be amazed if it's still around in 3 years.


----------



## Zv (Jan 6, 2014)

I think small mirrorless bodies with wifi have potential for travelers. When you're traveling having something relatively small is a big help. If your camera fits in your pocket or a space in your backpack you're more likely to use it. I'm finding DSLRs very cumbersome on holiday. Also, when taking pics of yourself at famous locations and taking group pics with you also in the shot wifi is a blessing. (No more selfie stick!) 

So, a camera that is smaller than a dslr and has wifi plus option to change lenses maybe. I think Canon are heading in the right direction with the EOS M2. Shame Canon US don't seem to think so. 

If you remove compact P&S and you remove MILC then all you would have is smartphones and DSLRs. There needs to be something in between. What would replace it? That lens with sensor thing Sony made that attaches to your smartphone? Hmmm, I can't see MILC market dying just yet. 

Anyone who's used an EOS M can testify to this - they're just plain fun to use! Can't wait for the future of these things, with faster AF and better IQ. Still early days for the M in my opinion.


----------



## JEL (Jan 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, if there's a mirror that dust doesn't settle directly on the sensor.



Exactly. And that's a great protection to have that you just won't get with a mirror-less.






boggy4062 said:


> I am sorry, but you seem to be one of the people who got his DSLR religion, and is not willing to look forward. Windows vs Apple, Windows vs OS/2 Windows vs Linux, iOS vs Android, Android vs Windows 8,.... so many "religious" wars, and yet folks continue to use most of the products.
> 
> There are MANY professionals who already dumped D800 5DIII and other "big boy" toys. The fact is that Fuji and Olympus and Sony are ahead of the game of looking towards the future.



I don't believe I belong to any DSLR-religion. I've used both mirror-less and DSLR (and even film  )

I don't bash mirror-less for any other reason than it's a poor technology when coupled with an interchangable lens design.






boggy4062 said:


> Mirror-less cameras are light, provide great picture quality and improve in AF area. What else does one need.



You should obviously use whatever satisfy you 

I'm just telling you what _I've_ experienced with the various technologies. I recommend against mirror-less only because I have no good experiences with them.






mrsfotografie said:


> FWIW the mirror doesn't protect the sensor against dust. The shutter on a DSLR however usually is closed when you change lenses, so that helps perhaps. Still, despite the shutter, dust that gets inside the camera can eventually find its way to the sensor. I wouldn't want to use the shutter as a protective screen anyway, because it is very delicate. Best be careful with lens changes no matter what



Being considerate when changing lenses is obviously good advice 
But the mirror does indeed protect the sensor from being directly exposed to the elements.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 6, 2014)

JEL said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, if there's a mirror that dust doesn't settle directly on the sensor.
> ...



Why's that - what prevents a manufacturer to introduce a sensor protection that shields the sensor on demand when changing lenses? I'm sure they'll come up with something if it proves to be a problem in real life.

Imho this is hardy a reason for mirrored cameras in general, as an analogy: the first dslr models didn't have sensor auto-cleaning, that could have been used to dump digital altogether and stay with film...


----------



## Roo (Jan 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > The real change here is the folks that used to buy a good DSLR and kit lens and use it for vacation, special occasions or that new baby. That segment may be on the way out for good
> ...



Strange that I've had 3 work colleagues switch to dslr in the last 3 weeks because they're dissatisfied with smartphones and point and shoot images. One has been been posting amateur product shots from his phone on collectable sneaker websites but wanted something that isolated the subject better. The second was doing something similar and the last one wanted something for travelling. All were presented with options from high end p&s, mirrorless and dslr that suited their budgets. When they went to stores to check them out they ended up with dslr's because they didn't like the evf nor the shutter lag amongst other things. And all chose Canon despite being given other options - 2 x 600d and 1 x 1100d.


----------



## pharp (Jan 6, 2014)

JEL said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, if there's a mirror that dust doesn't settle directly on the sensor.
> ...


The dust argument just holds no water in real terms. See also http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17657.0

MILC have been around for long enough that if this was really an issue, we'd have heard about it - it's not. The mirror is just more surface area to collect dust that can be spread around. I have both kinds - my DSLR is worse. That is one gripe I haven't heard about the EOS-M. I'm not even certain that changing lenses is the biggest source of dust - normal lens breathing may be worse (e.g. 100-400). I also see many complaints about dust in the viewfinder of DSLRs - I don't recall ever seeing such on MILCs.

It's more important when people vote with their wallet and MILC sales still beat FF DSLRs. Additionally, Metabones sells many Sony to Canon adapters @ $400 a pop! There is demand and the more higher end models we get, the more they'll sell.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

JEL said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, if there's a mirror that dust doesn't settle directly on the sensor.
> ...



Sure, it protects from direct exposure to the elements - like, if you are changing a lens in a hail storm or by the side of a gravel road with trucks racing past (and if you're doing that, you're just being foolish). Dust is not 'direct'. Think about it - if you dust a shelf, do you need to re-dust it two minutes later? No. But two days later, you may need to dust again. Dust isn't water or small rocks, it floats around and takes time to settle onto a surface. When you change lenses on any camera, the dust doens't _immediately_ drop onto every flat, exposed surface. Air enters the body and there's dust suspended in that air. Some of it will eventually settle onto the sensor, some onto other surfaces inside the body. In a dSLR, it's likely even be worse than in a mirrorless - every time you take a shot the mirror flips up then down, and that causes settled dust to be resuspended in the air inside the mirror box, meaning more chances for it to re-settle on the sensor. 

But if you want to go on believing you've got a magic mirror in your camera that protects your sensor, that's fine. Don't ever check your sensor for dust, though, or you'll be in for disappointment. 

FWIW, my 1D X collects a lot more sensor dust than my EOS M.



pharp said:


> It's more important when people vote with their wallet and MILC sales still beat FF DSLRs.



People are voting with their wallets - and MILC sales are no where near beating dSLR sales. In fact, MILC sales lost more ground in 2013 than dSLR sales. (Not sure why you're comparing MILC specifically to FF dSLRS - that makes no sense.)


----------



## pharp (Jan 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > It's more important when people vote with their wallet and MILC sales still beat FF DSLRs.
> ...



My point was that even though MILCs aren't selling great right now, in terms of numbers and revenue, they're still ahead of FF cameras and probably always will and nobody is talking about the doom of FF DSLRs (even when they morph into FF MILCs ). The problems with MILCs is that the big players have misread the market - only fairly serious photographers care about ILCs. The one bright spot for Olympus has been there OM-Ds, not the little 'pocketable' m43 cameras. Evidently, thats what they plan on concentrating on - smart move. Small size is certainly nice for some occasions (why I bought an OM-D), but it isn't EVERYTHING (why I still have my 7D). I haven't seen any sales figures on the SL-1, but that seems to me to be just another blunder - Yes, they can make a really small DSLR - so what?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

pharp said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > pharp said:
> ...



Ok, that makes sense. Thanks!

On Amazon right now, the SL1 is at number 6 in their sales ranking, higher than the current larger Rebel, the T5i (the T3i and T3 are #1 and #2, presumably because they're much cheaper).


----------



## pharp (Jan 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> On Amazon right now, the SL1 is at number 6 in their sales ranking, higher than the current larger Rebel, the T5i (the T3i and T3 are #1 and #2, presumably because they're much cheaper).



They did of course really improve the SL1 recently - they made it in *WHITE*!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

pharp said:


> They did of course really improve the SL1 recently - they made it in *WHITE*!!



Yeah, but they don't sell it in the US...


----------



## pharp (Jan 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > They did of course really improve the SL1 recently - they made it in *WHITE*!!
> ...



Makes sense, probably afraid it would cannabalize sales of the 5D III. Of course, they get it right more often than not, but some of their moves ... just makes me shake my head. I do sometimes wonder why we haven't seen some sort of user cleanable static dust attracting strip - many variants out there, they don't use (hardly) any power.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jan 6, 2014)

AlanF said:


> http://www.businessinsider.com/mirrorless-camera-sales-disappoint-2013-12
> 
> Sad stuff



I have the Sony A7R, the NEX7, NEX6 and some m43 in addition to my D800E, 6D and 5D2.

Honestly, I thought I would be able to replace all of my cameras with just 2 cameras the 6D + the A7R when I bought the A7R last Oct, but I quickly found the Sony really unacceptable for most of types of shootings.

While I think mirroless is the future (no doubt about it) and I love the EVF of the A7R(very clear and easy to MF), everything else about the camera is just lousy or even shitty, and I think Sony cannot do it right, Sony just makes some noise but it won't execute it right.

The sensor is great at base ISO , but even at ISO400 it is very noisy(even compared to my D800e,which I wanted to sell when I got the Sony), it has very highly compressed lossy RAW with some silly 7 bit cording. Due to its lossy RAW compression, the A7R obviously has a stop or so less DR than the D800E from ISO 200 and on , and its mid gray tonal range is worse than that of the D800E.
The A7R is a moire monster , really even at ISO50 it looks quite noisy in the shadow due to its excessive amount of luminance moire.

I tested it a lot , a lot more than I initially thought I would since I did not like it from the very first day I got it, but I was telling to myself " it is great , no worry, you just need to get used to it, then you will love it".
I never loved it , it was a really frustrating camera to shoot with, it produces stunning landscape, city scape ,etc when used with the FE35mm f2.8 ZA or 55mm f1.8ZA, but simply there are too many issues with mount adapters and third party lenses.

I think the most serious issue of this so-called FF mirrorless camera is it is actually not a FF camera when used with third party or old lenses due to its very narrow mount diameter design and special microlens placement.

If you shoot it regularly in real dark night on a solid tripod , maybe 30 sec or longer exposure , you know how bad its vignetting characteristics can be. I initially thought it was the lens but almost all lenses I have used on it produced monsterous amount of vignetting even at f8. Usually in day time photos processed with LR or ACR , you might not see it , but shoot long exposure at night (astro or similar), you'd be shocked how bad it actually is(it is really bad).

The E mount design of narrow mount diameter with extremely short flange back does not fully utilize FF sensor, and always requires special microlens design on the sensor and the lenses that take advantage of the special microlens design.
Thus, no mount adapters work fine on that body.

The second biggest issue with it is it is super slow , everything about the A7R is very slow.
I bought it to shoot street , general everyday life as well as serious studio shots with adapted TSE lenses and Zeiss ZF primes, but my original plans did not work at all.

It is too slow for street , the AF is really lousy , very slow , very inaccurate, always hunts , hunts , hunts when the light level gets a bit lower than ideal.

Formatting card is slow , takes 8secs to format a card , start-up time is slow , takes full 2 secs or so to start up.
General operation speed is slow , switch still to video takes full 4 secs or so.

The A7R really needed electronic first curtain shutter used in the normal 7.
The 36.3 sensor used in the A7R is an old design and does not accept electronic first curtain shutter design , and it is creeping noisy.
The shutter vibration issue is very real , even on a solid tripod it blurs away some details.
The video mode is useless due to heavy compression.

The lens line is not as good as that of the other FF FX systems, it is not a smaller cheaper Leica or ideal Leica replacement, it has too many issues with Leica M glass and real life practicality as a street camera.

The native FE zooms are just too huge for it , the 70-200mm f4 G SSM is a bit bigger than my Nikon AF-S70-200mm f4GEDVR and much heavier than my Canon EF70-200mm f4LISUSM, and of course , a lot slower to AF.

So while on paper , the A7R looks like an ideal camera for many , it is just plain useless camera for most of apps and to me it is the most frustrating camera ever , I really want to love it and it takes stunning images at base ISO and its EVF is just perfect for serious MF work, it is well made and feels great in my hands.
But as a whole it does not work for me or for most of people, I think.

I think Sony should not have released it in this rush, it is literally still in beta stage camera.

I am sad but have to let it go, and wait for some one more serious to follow this path, or Sony finally wakes up to make it right..

But I think Sony can't do system camera or anything requires systematic development.

I think Samsung or Fuji may do it right, but I think what I have been looking for is a FF version of the GH3.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 6, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.businessinsider.com/mirrorless-camera-sales-disappoint-2013-12
> ...


I'm not a big fan of mirrorless full frame cameras, but I wish Sony had some success to force Canon to offer something similar (and better). But I am disappointed with the flaws that you pointed out, and I wonder if it would be better to face the problem of distance between lens mount and sensor. I think the small flange distance worked right around the time of the film, but causes problems for digital sensors, even with special microlenses. Today I would not buy a mirrorless, but in the future I might do if canon produces a camera with full compatibility of EF and EF-S lenses. For this the body would have a factor similar to the current SLR shape. In my head, if anyone wants a mirrorless that fits in your pocket, so you must have APS-C sensor. On the other hand, if either one full frame, then it must have an ergonomic favoring use large and heavy lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> In my head, if anyone wants a mirrorless that fits in your pocket, so you must have APS-C sensor. On the other hand, if either one full frame, then it must have an ergonomic favoring use large and heavy lenses.



+1

IMO, that makes 'full frame mirrorless' a solution in search of a problem, instead of the other way around.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 6, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> I think Sony should not have released it in this rush, it is literally still in beta stage camera.



Thanks for the report, any Canon enthusiast will read it with great relief - though some of the problems seem to be a7r-specific and don't occur on the vanilla a7?

It seems Sony is doing the exact opposite of Canon, the latter endlessly recycling and "trickling down" technology. However if pressed to chose I'd take the safe bet, that's why I bought the 6d... my experience with Canon so far is that it's not very innovative & bordering on boring, but it does have a very high "it just works" experience.

Last not least, the more electronics is stuffed into an item, the more premature releases we'll see because supposedly flaws can be fixed later on once the customers discover them :-\


----------



## mkabi (Jan 6, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.businessinsider.com/mirrorless-camera-sales-disappoint-2013-12
> ...



Bwahahahahaha... I'm sorry dude... I'm not laughing at you... I'm just laughing at the people praising the a7r.
So, you're argument now should be... IQ isn't everything, especially if everything else is f-ing it up.

Anyone else willing to share their A7R experience?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > In my head, if anyone wants a mirrorless that fits in your pocket, so you must have APS-C sensor. On the other hand, if either one full frame, then it must have an ergonomic favoring use large and heavy lenses.
> ...



There is mirrorless, and there is "fits in a pocket" mirrorless. "Fits in a pocket" and FF lenses (with the exception of a pancake lens) are contradictory and not very likely to happen, even with an insane amount of work with diffractive optics....

I have no problems with the concept of a FF mirrorless camera the size of a 5D. To go any smaller you would have to design a whole new series of lenses and you would save an inch of depth at most.... not worth it when you consider the size of FF lenses.. and what happens to IQ when you start bending the light more sharply?

I think Canon will make FF mirrorless cameras, but only when EVF's become vastly superior to an OVF. There will have to be a drastic advantage to get people to change... we tend to be conservative and stuck in our ways and a slight improvement will not lure enough of us away from our OVF.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 7, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...


It seems that we are reaching a consensus on the absurdity of wanting a mirrorles that is full frame and while it is small and lightweight. The small distance between lens and sensor still causes problems at the edges of the sensor, even using special microlenses. In the current technological level, it is perfectly plausible a mirrorless camera compatible with EF lenses, with full frame dual pixel AF sensor with 40 megapixel. Could be a great camera for studio and landscape, with OLED viewfinder with large area and a articulate LCD screen of 5 inches. Similar to current hasselblad body would allow a high capacity battery and optimum heat dissipation. It would be intended for people who do not need the speed of 1DX, and not wanting a small body with A7r.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 7, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> It seems that we are reaching a consensus on the absurdity of wanting a mirrorles that is full frame and while it is small and lightweight.



no way. 

I still want a "Sony A7R killer" from Canon. Small & light with a few native pancake fixed-focal lenses, when I want to go small and light. Extremely powerful and responsive with an excellent user interface. Simple, but fully functional, no compromise in AF-speed adapter with Arca-swiss grooved tripod socket for all EF-lenses. AF speed, AF-spread, fps, responsiveness and full photographic control even better than 1D X ... thanks to fully articulated touchscreen and brilliant EVF. WiFI, NFC, GPS and RT radio wireless flash controller all built-in. Battery charge 500+ shots. Absolutely silent and vibration-free fully electronic shutter. No more mechanically moving components whatsoever inside. A "solid state" digital camera in a robust, IP67-sealed hi-grade Carbon fiber outer shell and a strong steel chassis underneath. 

In essence: 1D X = large old-style mechanical hard disk drive (HDD). 
What I want is very simple: a modern, sweet little high-performance SSD. 

Price? Like a Sony A7R ... around 2k, since all the expensive to manufacture, assemble, adjust and quality-assure mirror-slapping crap and chunky prism are not needed any longer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I still want a "Sony A7R killer" from Canon.



If someone steals a 5¢ gumball from the supermarket, do they call in the SWAT team to take him out? For Canon to develop a "Sony A7R killer," the a7R would have to be popular enough (in terms of actual sales, not forum fanboi posts) to be worth 'killing'. 

Oh, and just in case it wasn't clear, the a7R is the 5¢ gumball in this analogy.


----------



## mkabi (Jan 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I still want a "Sony A7R killer" from Canon.
> ...



@Neuroanatomist, do you have the same problems as MLfan3 with the EOS M?
I mean, obvioiusly I'm comparing his A7R to your EOS M, and they may be apples to oranges, but really.... Canon may already have a A7R killer... just saying.

In fact, if I'm not wrong, Sony themselves may have an A7R killer, it is called the NEX 7?


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 7, 2014)

mkabi said:


> I mean, obvioiusly I'm comparing his A7R to your EOS M, and they may be apples to oranges, but really.... Canon may already have a A7R killer... just saying.
> In fact, if I'm not wrong, Sony themselves may have an A7R killer, it is called the NEX 7?



no ... on all counts. Everything mirrorless except the Sony A7/R is just a 5c gumball game. 


EOS-M has no viewfinder, no built-in flash, no 135 sensor. It has just sold due to 5c gumball firesale price 
Sony NEX-7 is too large for a crop sensor and has a god-awful, unusable NEX user-interface. 
mFT and 1" all have too small a sensor for still too large body and lenses 
EOS-M2 has small enough body, but not even the Japanese got a compact "folding-design" kitzoom for it 
Nikon brings such a compact folding-design DX 18-55 VR II kit zoom, without having a matching mirrorless body
call it funny or just plain stupid. 

Not funny: Sony A7/R unfortunately is not good enough ... I am really grateful for the user reviews here! Saves me having to purchase one and find out myself. 
sigh. :-\

So I correct my previous post. I want a "Sony A8R killer" from Canon. Whatever it's called, make it good, make it 36x24 sensored and make it free of moving parts.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 7, 2014)

mkabi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I don't think one needs to look any further than the A7R to find an A7R killer as it appears to be doing a sufficient job of killing itself based on what some have said


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 7, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > I mean, obvioiusly I'm comparing his A7R to your EOS M, and they may be apples to oranges, but really.... Canon may already have a A7R killer... just saying.
> ...



Well, because nothing is perfect I got the Nex-6 as the best possible compromise. It's better than the Nex-7 from an ergonomics point of view and quite compact too with the collapsible 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OSS. The controls are easy to use, but I agree the menu could use a lot of improvement (I miss the Canon interface a lot on this camera).


----------



## mkabi (Jan 7, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > I mean, obvioiusly I'm comparing his A7R to your EOS M, and they may be apples to oranges, but really.... Canon may already have a A7R killer... just saying.
> ...



Bros... buddy... pal... I'm not trying to be insulting.... I'm not picking a fight with you or anyone else on this forum. I see this forum and any forum as a place for discussion, a place to mutually learn... not to just push my ideas and stick with it. Its not a dictatorship.

Nonetheless, I don't know if you're actually listening to yourself when you're writing these posts.
But you're one of the few people who think that MILC is the future... yet you've just put down (as in insulted) all the existing MILCs out there... including your coveted A7R.

If there is a future for MILC, then there has to be a present for MILC, which there is... but if MILCs aren't doing so well, in terms of sales... because of the lack of this or that... then there is no future for MILCs.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 7, 2014)

Technology doesn't have to be superior to have a future (e.g. VHS). Obviously someone has to be doing something right or the MILC market never would have come as far as we see it today. There will always be ups and downs, but I think the market is plenty big enough for many types of camera to co-exist.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 7, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Technology doesn't have to be superior to have a future (e.g. VHS). Obviously someone has to be doing something right or the MILC market never would have come as far as we see it today. There will always be ups and downs, but I think the market is plenty big enough for many types of camera to co-exist.



I agree with you in that tech doesn't necessarily have to be superior to have a future. However, the tech does need to be easily adoptable across a large mass of consumers. VHS was not necessarily the best tech, but many companies were on board and made it the standard. It was also not something that required you to further expend copious amounts of cash to play. That differs from mirrorless cameras in that any of the new systems requires a huge investment in cash and commitment to using them.

Furthermore, people forget that at the end of the day, the goal is to make pictures. It doesn't matter how good any particular feature/s of a camera is tech-wise if the end result isn't very easy/or is a pain to get to. 

This is why I appreciated the 5D3 for what it was. Sure, I wished it had a better sensor. But that same thing could be said for a lot of things as it is quite a slippery slope to go down. People often knock the 5D3 for so many things when they are picking it apart. However, it is by far the most intuitive/easy to use tool I have ever owned when used in every application I needed it for to make images exactly as I envisioned them. There is something to be said about that now that I have used many different systems over the years.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 7, 2014)

mkabi said:


> ... yet you've just put down (as in insulted) all the existing MILCs out there...



oO buddy ... I feel so bad now. Having insulted all existing mirrorless cameras must be a terrible and despicable crime. Not to mention my repeated insults hurled at big fat old and ugly mirrorslapping DSLRs. oO ... I am guilty indeed.

In order to minimize the damage I urge you all to go and spend your hard-earned or not so hard-earned money on insufficient mirrorless consumer crap and on antiquated last century tech mechanical mirrorslapping beasts ... Yes, go and buy buy buy, fill the coffers of those incredibly brave and innovative camera companies. Splurge on half- and quarter-sized sensors, on viewfinder- and clueless consumer devices, on mirrored and submirrored professional devices, don't hesitate, buy, buy buy, spend spend spend ...since i will have to chastise myself and withhold from indulging in the pleasures of this world's cameras ... I will have to wait and watch .. Until redemption day finally arrives and i am given my prize, my treasure ... The holy grail ...only to the faithful few ... a wonderfully perfect, small light and incredibly compezent camera without any moving mechanical parts ... Truly digital ... Capturing photons and converting them into electrons directly, without detour ... No smoke, no mirrors. 
ROFL
;-)


----------



## mkabi (Jan 7, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > ... yet you've just put down (as in insulted) all the existing MILCs out there...
> ...



Have you watched 'Back to the Future'?
If not, I urge you to watch it and complain to Toyota of its antiquated technology or better yet... go to Toyotarumors.com and complain there.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 7, 2014)

.
Wow!

So many words.

I think there are more words here than there are mirrorless cameras in the world.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 8, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> Wow!
> So many words.
> I think there are more words here than there are mirrorless cameras in the world.


It seems that there are people with hatred of the old and good mirror.  If relying on my opinion, there may be interesting mirrorless cameras for specific uses, such as photo studio and landscape. But I honestly do not see a future where mirrorless will do better, what 1DX does today. : Ironically, Canon has the most revolutionary technology to mirrorless (dual pixel AF) and not yet built any mirrorless camera with this asset. ???


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 8, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > ... yet you've just put down (as in insulted) all the existing MILCs out there...
> ...


wow man, i read your posts and wonder...what are you smoking and can i get some of that??? You make a mirrorless camera sound like it was invented in fairy land with magic pixie dust and delivered by doves on pillows of satin....LOL...

the funny thing is I really don't think anyone here is truely against mirrorless tech. most of us die hard slr posters here have said again and again that once there is a viable body we'll use it. The part you just don't seem to get though is that not enough people are smoking what your smokin!!! There is no perfect tool, with the exception of maybe things like the wheel, and a hammer...

You just can't put the cart before the horse. Is it feasible that over the next few decades sensors may be made that can produce the same or better IQ and resolution but be much smaller? Of course that can happen, at the expense of a whole butt ton of R&D money. Is it worth it to put that kind of $$$ into that? Is the benefit really there? 

why redesign the wheel? I keep saying it and saying it and I know there are others on the same page with me here - why is there the insistence on tying mirrorless tech to smaller size factor? I think the research on the market for this is done, sales data shows this ---the desire just isn't there. For most consumers - those that want smaller size also want a smaller price. This whole segment of the consumer base isn't even buying cameras now because they have their cell phones!!! the rest are enthusiast's hobbyists and pros. People who would buy new products if you take the risk factor away - risk factor of investing in a system that IS struggling to get a foothold.

So why redesign the wheel. Just use the current form factor and lens mount. Problem mostly solved. Think about it, your dream comes to reality much quicker if all the R&D can go to improving AF, the EVF, and battery life - instead of just trying to make things smaller and lighter


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 8, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...


+1, except I'm not sure that I would describe a hammer as a perfect tool  Like cameras, there is a lot of variety... I've go a 4oz hammer, 8oz hammer, 16oz hammer, framing hammer, small and large ball-pein hammer, drywall hammer, roofing hammer, dead-blow hammer, assorted mallets (hammer made of wood), short-handle 2 lb sledge, and my personal favourite, the 8 pound sledge hammer....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I've got a 4oz hammer...



Which would be great for cracking open nuts, but lousy at demolishing a brick wall.



Don Haines said:


> I've got a 4oz hammer...and my personal favourite, the 8 pound sledge hammer....



Which would be lousy for cracking open nuts, but great at demolishing a brick wall.

I'm still trying to figure out the optimal use for the current full frame mirrorless offerings…


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I've got a 4oz hammer...
> ...


 Cracking open nuts?


----------



## TAF (Jan 8, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...




Which could certainly be an option (built in or extra...probably extra knowing Canon).


----------



## TAF (Jan 8, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> It seems that we are reaching a consensus on the absurdity of wanting a mirrorles that is full frame and while it is small and lightweight. The small distance between lens and sensor still causes problems at the edges of the sensor, even using special microlenses. In the current technological level, it is perfectly plausible a mirrorless camera compatible with EF lenses, with full frame dual pixel AF sensor with 40 megapixel. Could be a great camera for studio and landscape, with OLED viewfinder with large area and a articulate LCD screen of 5 inches. Similar to current hasselblad body would allow a high capacity battery and optimum heat dissipation. It would be intended for people who do not need the speed of 1DX, and not wanting a small body with A7r.



See reply #110. And now that Canon has announced the VIXIA Mini X, it becomes clear that at least SOMEONE at Canon is willing the thing beyond the form factor of the SLR.

Perhaps we will see the "Canon 3003" (or would that be the Canon 500?) in the not too distance future.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 8, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



not sure they'd be good for that...lol


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Maybe. But I have a 1D X for that!


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 8, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> It seems that there are people with hatred of the old and good mirror.  If relying on my opinion, there may be interesting mirrorless cameras for specific uses, such as photo studio and landscape. But I honestly do not see a future where mirrorless will do better, what 1DX does today. : Ironically, Canon has the most revolutionary technology to mirrorless (dual pixel AF) and not yet built any mirrorless camera with this asset. ???



I have no hatred against the "good old" mirror. It has served me as well as it has served most of us here ... for many years up to now. When the world was still mechanical and analogue, mirror plus prism were the best possible way *to let photographers see the world exactly as the their cameras were seeing it*. No more "parallax problems" as with any rangefinder or two-eyed camera ... it works with any lens of any focal length from ultra-wide-angle to super-tele. The moving mirror also allowed cameras to measure ambient light levels "Through the lens" (TTL) and adding "auto-exposure" later on. 

The advantage over rangefinders was so large, that over time (1960s & 1970s) the overwhelming majority of photographers anywhere on earth was willing to accept the increase in size of the cameras to provide the space for mirrorbox and prism. In the long history of pohotography and cameras, it was the first time ever, that larger boxes succeeded smaller ones. Up to then, it had alsways been the other way round: smaller, lighter, faster gear that could be used in many more places and in many more situations than the larger gear before. Maybe some compromise in image quality [smaller format imaging surface], but always huge advantages in the ability to actually GET shots: speed, handling, less bulk, less weight. That's why Oscar Barnacks invention and the small & light rangefinders were so successful. All of a sudden photographers could easily leave their studios and roam the streets, capture images "in situ" at all sorts of events from weddings to inaugurations to olympic games and any sort of sports competition.

*Size does matter! * 

Thanks to digital imaging we now have the possibility to take things back on track: making phtographic devices smaller again, ending the "SLR detour". Combining everything that has made SLRs so successful [TTL, "seeing the framing as it will be captured"] with the superior portability and flexibility of small rangefinder cameras along with very compact lenses for the focal range used to capture probably more than 90% of all stills pictures [24mm to 100mm]. And "seeing the image as it will be recorded" ... in real time. [EVF with no discernible lag or blackout between shots].

In addition we can finally jettison all mechanical, moving parts inside a camera, allowing for much faster, more responsive, absolutely vibration-free and totally silent cameras. They stay perfectly calibrated and deliver crisp images in all sorts of environments and ambient temperatures and can be much better protected against dust and liquids (all it takes is a hi-grade, optically neutral protective piece of glass directly behind the lens mount) and against shocks / G-forces (any cheap USB-stick survives a drop from 5 feet onto concrete floor). 

Basically we are talking about exactly the same advantages solid state "disks" (SSD) have over hard drive disks (HDD). And why and how quickly much smaller "solid state" memory has been replacing larger storage media that involves mechanics and moving parts. USB-sticks, flash cards vs. CDs, DVDs ... same thing. 

*Size matters. Speed matters. Convenience matters. And ... price matters. 
*
Luckily, "Solid State Cameras" are much cheaper to build (even with today's tech) since they can be assembled fully automated by fairly simple robots and/or by a much smaller, fairly unskilled and cheaper workforce than DSLRs. Far less hassle than aligning tiny mechanical components. Far easier to control quality. No lubrication oil splattering around inside an opto-mechanical precision device. No mis-alignment of mirror or sub-mirror assembly possible. No mis-alignment of AF-sensor and sensor focal plane possible. No mis-alignment of matte-screen and/or viewfinder prism possible. Image will always be captured by sensor "as seen on screen" [EVF and large screen on back]. 

Full, unfettered "video capability", no obstacles in the lightpath. Not that I personally would care for video. But camera makers seem to care about it all day long. ;-)

Yes, there are still a few challenges to be met and problems to be solved. But really nothing too difficult. AF-speed ... solely dependent on processing power and smart algorithms ... the latter can be implemented via firmware upgrade. Battery charge ... with clever design 500+ shots would be possible today in a still very compact body size with ergonomic grip and more battery charge, as better battery tech gets available. Still better EVFs ... no problem, they are coming fast and almost for free as a byproduct of ever improving smartphone technology. 

So all that's needed is Canon (and Nikon) moving ahead rather than holding back. I do not want to buy another old-tech, soon obsolete mechanical beast. I want my solid state camera, and I want it soon.


----------



## weixing (Jan 8, 2014)

Hi,


AvTvM said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that there are people with hatred of the old and good mirror.  If relying on my opinion, there may be interesting mirrorless cameras for specific uses, such as photo studio and landscape. But I honestly do not see a future where mirrorless will do better, what 1DX does today. : Ironically, Canon has the most revolutionary technology to mirrorless (dual pixel AF) and not yet built any mirrorless camera with this asset. ???
> ...


 Err... "solid state camera"?? Already exist and it's meet 95% of your requirement... you have it, I have it and a lot of people have it, it's call "Camera Phone".... it's better than what you describe... it's can browse internet, send/received email, read documents and communicate wirelessly, but I think only the cheapest "Camera Phone" is the only true "solid state camera" with no moving parts... the higher end model got zoom (require moving parts) and IS (require moving parts).

Have a nice day.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 8, 2014)

weixing said:


> Err... "solid state camera"?? Already exist and it's meet 95% of your requirement... you have it, I have it and a lot of people have it, it's call "Camera Phone".... it's better than what you describe... it's can browse internet, send/received email, read documents and communicate wirelessly, but I think only the cheapest "Camera Phone" is the only true "solid state camera" with no moving parts... the higher end model got zoom (require moving parts) and IS (require moving parts).
> 
> Have a nice day.



hehe. you are right. And I was not specific enough. 

So, could you please point me to a Camera Phone with 36x24mm imaging sensor and associated image quality plus a mount to attach various lenses with focal lengths ranging from 8mm to 800mm? 

Thanks, and have a nice day too.


----------



## weixing (Jan 8, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Err... "solid state camera"?? Already exist and it's meet 95% of your requirement... you have it, I have it and a lot of people have it, it's call "Camera Phone".... it's better than what you describe... it's can browse internet, send/received email, read documents and communicate wirelessly, but I think only the cheapest "Camera Phone" is the only true "solid state camera" with no moving parts... the higher end model got zoom (require moving parts) and IS (require moving parts).
> ...


Hi,
The most difficult part is to design a lens with no moving parts to go with your no moving parts camera.

Wish you luck in finding one in the near future.

Happy New Year to all.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 8, 2014)

weixing said:


> The most difficult part is to design a lens with no moving parts to go with your no moving parts camera.
> Wish you luck in finding one in the near future.



For a start, I'd be happy with a FF-sensored camera body with no moving mechanical parts inside. 

Lenses are a different story, but I definitely see fully electronic aperture coming. Some sort of LCD, if there is one that with (close to) 100% transmission. At any opening always perfectly round, never again stuck aperture blades. Smaller and lighter. 

Yes, focus group will have to move mechanically - linear along optical axis, BUT only until new concepts (e.g. lightfield imaging) are available and "up to spec". 

Same for in-lens IS ... elements will have to move ... UNTIL new concepts are available and up to spec (e.g. lightfield imaging). 

However, even today I'd love to get "AF-only" lenses. No focus ring, no focus gear and no "distance window". Smaller & lighter. Easier to seal. And cheaper for a given optical quality. I never touch manual focus. If my 7D can't autofocus, it's too dark or too little contrast for me to see anything meaningful either. However, the latter may change with use of an EVF. 

I am convinced we will have "solid state imaging" ... some day. Unfortunately I am not sure if it's going to be in my lifetime though, given how un-innovative, conservative and slow-moving current imaging gear makers are.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 8, 2014)

As much as I hate to support AvTvM's confrontational approach, his reasoning is basically correct: there are no *inherent *disadvantages to mirrorless vs. reflex. All the of the complaints I've heard about mirrorless so far are engineering problems, to be worked out over the next few years.

Just as the mechanical (even electric) typewriter was the intermediate technology between handwriting and word processing, so the SLR is the intermediate tech preceding mirrorless. Early word processors had lots of problems, but they were worked out to the point where most people no longer use typewriters, except possibly for mailing labels or envelopes.

BTW, I'm sure a few of you will write in and celebrate the fact that you still use a vintage WWII-era mechanical typewriter that saw action in Europe. I'll wish you folks a good day, and you can go back to sipping your two-cents plain.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 8, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> As much as I hate to support AvTvM's confrontational approach, his reasoning is basically correct: there are no *inherent *disadvantages to mirrorless vs. reflex. All the of the complaints I've heard about mirrorless so far are engineering problems, to be worked out over the next few years.
> 
> Just as the mechanical (even electric) typewriter was the intermediate technology between handwriting and word processing, so the SLR is the intermediate tech preceding mirrorless. Early word processors had lots of problems, but they were worked out to the point where most people no longer use typewriters, except possibly for mailing labels or envelopes.
> BTW, I'm sure a few of you will write in and celebrate the fact that you still use a vintage WWII-era mechanical typewriter that saw action in Europe. I'll wish you folks a good day, and you can go back to sipping your two-cents plain.


So far, what caused the effect "_this is not for me_" was the obligation to be small and lightweight mirrorless. If I want a camera to fit in my pocket, it would be something like G15, and would not have interchangeable lenses. In the future, I could buy a camera that offers EVERYTHING that current SLR, but no mirror. Considering current mirrorless models, I see no advantages over the old mirror. However, I say to Canon: Surprise me, I can buy.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 8, 2014)

To me, small & light has major attraction. It is very easy to make a small camera bigger, if & when needed or wanted. Just add a vertical/battery grip, or a whole "rig" of any size. 
As an non professional and for my photographic interests i prefer to have only one camera, one set of batteries, chargers, memory cards and lenses. I realize that a working pro will likely need multiple sets of equipment to handle various specilized tasks in the best and most efficient manner.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 8, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> As much as I hate to support AvTvM's confrontational approach, his reasoning is basically correct: there are no *inherent *disadvantages to mirrorless vs. reflex. All the of the complaints I've heard about mirrorless so far are engineering problems, to be worked out over the next few years...



I've warned you before. This kind of logical, well-reasoned approach has no place on the internet!

Seriously though, I've been amused at this ongoing debate over nothing. Does anyone really disagree that mirrorless technology has great potential? Does anyone really disagree that the technology hasn't yet achieved that potential? Does anybody really care if their camera has a mirror or not, so long as it doesn't affect usability?

When Canon releases their 7D EV or 5D EV, if I'm still alive and wanting an upgrade, I'll make the transition. But, it's not like I'm going to hold my breath and refuse to buy any camera in the meantime.

Ironically, though, almost none of this discussion has anything to do with the original post, which was all about how the *present* generation of mirrorless cameras is not going to reverse the collapse of the point and shoot market. 

Frankly, it's kind of an uninformed premise anyway. Point and shoots are dead because the public has found a "good enough" technology that is more convenient to use (although I really wonder what could possibly be convenient about hauling around an iPad on vacation...yet I see it happening more and more). High-end mirrorless cameras were never going to replace inexpensive point and shoots and I doubt if the manufacturers thought they would.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 8, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Does anybody really care if their camera has a mirror or not, so long as it doesn't affect usability?



With this approach, you'll fail in marketing big time  ... a mirrless dslr has a digital gadget character, while a real, heavy-duty dslr that puts weight and size in your hand & justifies people putting endless amounts of $$$ into these. Furthermore we've been shooting slr for decades including the trenches in 'nam, we got good shots in these days back then young man, the old guard certainly won't be pushed aside without a fight


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 8, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> To me, small & light has major attraction. It is very easy to make a small camera bigger, if & when needed or wanted. Just add a vertical/battery grip, or a whole "rig" of any size.
> As an non professional and for my photographic interests i prefer to have only one camera, one set of batteries, chargers, memory cards and lenses. I realize that a working pro will likely need multiple sets of equipment to handle various specilized tasks in the best and most efficient manner.



Small and light does have a major attraction. But the problem is that some people have talked about these small and light cameras as though they will be killing off the SLR. To reiterate what others have said, I don't think anyone minds the thought of transitioning to a mirrorless camera. It just needs to do everything they need it to do and in an efficient way. The current crop of mirrorless cameras all fail to deliver on that. Many of us believe that that is a problem which is inherent in trying to keep them small. 

Once the companies get out of that mindset of mirrorless = small and start developing them as no compromises for size type devices, they will surely garner more interest.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 8, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there are still a few challenges to be met and problems to be solved. But really nothing too difficult. AF-speed ... solely dependent on processing power and smart algorithms ... the latter can be implemented via firmware upgrade. Battery charge ... with clever design 500+ shots would be possible today in a still very compact body size with ergonomic grip and more battery charge, as better battery tech gets available. Still better EVFs ... no problem, they are coming fast and almost for free as a byproduct of ever improving smartphone technology.
> ...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 8, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> As much as I hate to support AvTvM's confrontational approach, his reasoning is basically correct: there are no *inherent *disadvantages to mirrorless vs. reflex. All the of the complaints I've heard about mirrorless so far are engineering problems, to be worked out over the next few years.
> 
> Just as the mechanical (even electric) typewriter was the intermediate technology between handwriting and word processing, so the SLR is the intermediate tech preceding mirrorless. Early word processors had lots of problems, but they were worked out to the point where most people no longer use typewriters, except possibly for mailing labels or envelopes.
> 
> BTW, I'm sure a few of you will write in and celebrate the fact that you still use a vintage WWII-era mechanical typewriter that saw action in Europe. I'll wish you folks a good day, and you can go back to sipping your two-cents plain.



biggest problem is that this is a 2 way street - there are no *inherent *disadvantages *or advantages* to mirrorless vs. reflex. Right now, it really does feel like a wash, a compromise - trading the versatility of an slr for the gimmick of new tech. And that's all mirrorless is now, a gimmick, a toy camera for those that want a little more than a cell phone but not willing to learn enough about photography to invest in a trusted system. 

what about ergonomics? I always get asked to take peoples pictures for people on their phones or cameras at events. I generally say ok fine, but, it never feels right. When i use my cell phone, it doesn't feel right. I have a 6d as well as a 5d3 with grip, and the 6d is really as small as i would ever want to go. I want the height of the body to be close to the width of my hand, and I want room for my fingers to sit, and I want all those control buttons to be within striking distance ---and not be so small that it's hard to hit them quickly. 

I'll say it again, why redesign the wheel??? There are so many amazing lenses that are made for slr mount bodies. Why put resources into redesigning these amazing lenses to be smaller when you could just take that out of the equation and focus on making a better, more viable mirrorless body?


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 8, 2014)

Mirrorless has major inherent advantages over slr.
Vibrationfree operation possible
Extremely high fps possible
Silent operation possible
Significantly smaller & lighter possible 
Short flange distance possible

"Possible" meaning it may or may not be implemented in a specific camera model. And people may or may not like it. But it will never be possible in any slr camera.

Soon we will get EVFs with eye control focus and all the information and communication functionality of google glass. Some of us might like it, many others not. To those who like, it is an advantage over what is possible in a slr.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Mirrorless has major inherent advantages over slr.
> Vibrationfree operation possible
> Extremely high fps possible
> Silent operation possible
> ...



FWIW, most of those are 'possible' with a fixed/pellicle mirror. 

RE the bigger = better ergonomics vs. smaller/lighter = better debate, if the interverse pundits are correct and reflex mirrors disappear, that will be a non issue. There won't be just one mirrorless body type/size, any more than there's one dSLR body size/type today. Compare the 1D X to the SL1.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > The most difficult part is to design a lens with no moving parts to go with your no moving parts camera.
> ...



I use manual focus so much that I normally wouldn't dream of getting an "AF Only" lens. But now that I think about it, STM lenses are already halfway there. Manual focus could just be done with the press of a button and your main dial, or on a touchscreen, and if it made the lens cheaper and more reliable I guess there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## weixing (Jan 9, 2014)

Hi,
IMHO, the major obstacle for mirrorless camera is AF speed in all lighting condition especially AF on moving objects. 

Dual Pixel AF is one major step forward and once they are able to achieve reliable AF speed in all lighting condition, I think more mirrorless camera will be out in the market. Other minor obstacles such as battery life, heat, EVF lag & etc will be solve with faster and lower power electronics component.

I think may be in the next 10 years (remember all camcorder are already mirrorless camera), mirrorless camera will be more common, but still a long way to become "solid state camera" since I'm not sure how to make a lens that have no moving parts. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 9, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> biggest problem is that this is a 2 way street - there are no *inherent *disadvantages *or advantages* to mirrorless vs. reflex.



Here's my list of advantages, which has some overlap with AvTvM. Essentially, it's all the advantages of mirror, plus the advantages of LiveView. I'm assuming EVF here.


The mirror mechanism is a design constraint and a potential point of failure. Leaving it out could simplify design and construction, possibly making it more reliable and less expensive.
You see what the sensor sees, so you know that what goes in the image file is what you saw in the EVF
Histogram, blinkies, plus all the features of Magic Lantern: zebras, focus peaking, etc.
Select AF point(s) anywhere in the frame
If eye control is possible, then it could be used not only for controlling the point of focus, but also to turn on/off blinkies, zebras, focus peaking, histogram. You could set up your shot without taking eye from eyecup.
As Neuro said, this is also possible with a pellicle mirror. Also, I differ from AvTvM in that I'd like to keep my primary camera at the size it is (60D), and keep using my EF lenses. Small is not essential for me.



> And that's all mirrorless is now, a gimmick, a toy camera for those that want a little more than a cell phone but not willing to learn enough about photography to invest in a trusted system.



That seems harsh and disparaging to all those who use LiveView. A lot really good landscape photographers have publicly stated that they use LiveView. 



> what about ergonomics?


There will be a variety here, no need to worry about all mirrorless cameras being the size of the M. Besides, even if it is, someone will make a "grip" for it that will make the ergonomics whatever the market wants.



> I'll say it again, why redesign the wheel???


Iron-rimmed conestoga wheels gave way to solid rubber, which gave way to pneumatic tires, which gave way to spinners, which will give way to personal aircraft. Each tech lives its life, then is left behind for something better.



> There are so many amazing lenses that are made for slr mount bodies. Why put resources into redesigning these amazing lenses to be smaller when you could just take that out of the equation and focus on making a better, more viable mirrorless body?



Again, no reason there can't be an EF-mount mirrorless.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 9, 2014)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> IMHO, the major obstacle for mirrorless camera is AF speed in all lighting condition especially AF on moving objects.



Yes, that's one. The other I've heard is from a low-light bird photographer in a previous thread who said that current EVF's are too noisy to be useful for that purpose. These are certainly important engineering problems to be overcome before SLRs can be completely replaced by mirrorless.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 9, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> > And that's all mirrorless is now, a gimmick, a toy camera for those that want a little more than a cell phone but not willing to learn enough about photography to invest in a trusted system.
> 
> 
> 
> That seems harsh and disparaging to all those who use LiveView. A lot really good landscape photographers have publicly stated that they use LiveView.



to clarify - there is a huge difference between using live view for landscape shots, on a tripod, to gain criticlal focus and using live view to take a snap shot at an event. I was speaking of the latter. Hell, I use live view for landscapes, and nightscapes, and for using big ND filters. What I was referring to were those that get handed a dslr and hold it one foot in front of them and stare at the LCD screen and ask where's the power button? "no, you look through here." where??? this...it's the viewfinder... Basically, the people that want to use every camera like their cell phone. When i think of what kind of customer smaller and lighter is going to be selling points for, this is the kind of customer that pops to my mind - and when I look at the current mirrorless offerings - I don't see much that breaks from the kind of user I just described...

Though it may not sound like it, I want mirrorless to succeed. I don't want it to be a gimmick



Orangutan said:


> Again, no reason there can't be an EF-mount mirrorless.



I guess it boils down to how canikon is making their decisions...both seem to be taking the pragmatic approach of making a fun trendy for now mirrorless camera's. So maybe it's time fort he size and weight don't matter crowd to speak up and let the big 2 know that this is something we'd buy if it were offered...


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 9, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Though it may not sound like it, I want mirrorless to succeed. I don't want it to be a gimmick



I agree, but I think it will be both. Right now, mirrorless (P&S and MILC) are good enough for consumer use. I think the enthusiast/pro lines (currently DSLRs) will not be moved fully to mirrorless until it's damned good and ready, and that's fine by me. I only assert that it will happen, I just don't know when. That's why I was intrigued by a recent rumor that the next 1-series might have a hybrid OVF/EVF: I think that would be a great transitional tool, if it can be made reliable and useful.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 9, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



Try using an SX-50 in poor light and you will hate EVF.... try the latest from Olympus and you realize its not so bad.... A lot depends on which camera you are using..

Personal opinion is that they are close, but not there yet. I expect to see really good EVF's in a few years. I also like the idea of being able to use touchscreen interfaces on phones or tablets to control the camera... no more lying in the wet grass and mud


----------



## Rocky (Jan 9, 2014)

Canon already has a Mirrorless and DSLR in one body. It is the 70D. Lock up the mirror and use live view. You will have a camera that will NOT have the mirror vibration. It is a faster, better ergonomic version of EOS M and use ALL the EF and EF-S lenses. What more can we ask for? Of cause, It will also function like a NORMAL DSLR.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 9, 2014)

Rocky said:


> Canon already has a Mirrorless and DSLR in one body. It is the 70D. Lock up the mirror and use live view.



Sure, but who would want to do that except for video and tripod? The main attraction of mirrorless is an (hopefully good) evf that has a slr usability and can harness the potential of the sensor seeing the scene all the time - meaning at least smart rgb metering, zebras, focus peaking. Can the 70d do that? No - it's just a traditional dslr with a less crappy live view af than before.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 20, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> ... Can the 70d do that? No - it's just a traditional dslr with a less crappy live view af than before.



Hear that, Canon? It's the sound of the foundation cracking; of torches being lighted and pitchforks sharpened. The end is nigh! Repent, and embrace mirrorless. [cue deranged laugh]


----------

