# Why the obsession with mirrorless, rather than features?



## joe_r (Oct 15, 2015)

I have a question that's been bugging me for a while - why is there such an obsession with the mirror in a DSLR?

One thing I see is that lots of people seem to conflate the mirror with the features/technology of the camera. I don't know of anything outside of an EVF that couldn't be done whether a camera has a mirror or not. Using live view, you could get focus peaking and any other features you'd get in a mirrorless camera, and with ML, you do get some of this already. And yet, whenever Sony, Fuji, etc. release a new camera, there is always the question of when Canon is going to release a pro-level mirrorless camera, rather than incorporate the new features, which I see as the more important question.

Am I missing something?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 15, 2015)

First of all, why do you think there is an obsession with mirrorless?

There are proponents of mirrorless of various levels of passion just like with any other emerging technology. 

And the more passionate tend to post more often on the Internets Tubes. But number or frequency of postings by a select group should not be interpreted as any widespread obsession. 

There are Canon customers who would like Canon to make a new mirrorless system; but then there are Canon customers who want many things that Canon may or may not be able to make a business case for. 

In my opinion, it is not that big of a deal. Some like mirrorless, some don't. Just like everything else in the photography world.


----------



## Djaaf (Oct 15, 2015)

I think that, for most people, using "mirrorless" instead of specific features is just a shortcut. 
If what you want is reduced weight and size and an EVF, you probably "need" a mirrorless to get both. 
(Well, weight and size can be compensated somewhat with DSLR, see the SL1 and 6D for example, but you're still quite far from the Sony A6000 or A7 (even though the A7 serie is getting bigger all the time.. )).

And let's be honest, it's easier to say "I want a mirrorless" than "I want a camera with recuced size and weight compared to the traditionnal offering and with levels, focus peaking, ability to change the grid on the fly, ability to see the shot directly in the viewfinder and high gain directly in the viewfinder". 

I don't think there's much more to it than that. 
You also may have a small population that just want a mirrorless because they like the idea or think it's the future... So, the feature they want... is a mirrorless camera. 

Djaaf.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 15, 2015)

Interestingly, Canon has an asset to dominate the mirrorless market: Dual Pixel AF has the ability to replace the focus sensor in DSLR with advantages in accuracy and reliability. But for this to become reality, it takes an electronic viewfinder, which is good enough to replace the optical viewfinder.

Small size and weight are not unanimous. I could buy a camera mirrorles (in the near future) if it has the same size and battery life than current DSLR.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 15, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> ...the more passionate tend to post more often on the Internets Tubes. But number or frequency of postings by a select group should not be interpreted as any widespread obsession...





Djaaf said:


> ...a small population that just want a mirrorless because they like the idea or think it's the future... So, the feature they want... is a mirrorless camera...



I think those quotes sum it up.

I agree, most people don't really care. I know I don't. As long as it has the same functionality as an SLR, it don't care what technology is used. I think you mostly get a debate (arguments) because many people feel that electronic viewfinders still have a long way to go to beat the elegant simplicity of light rays being bounced through a viewfinder by a mirror. 

My "position" is that when the technology is perfected AND when it becomes cheaper to produce an electronic view finder over an optical view finder, then companies will move to mirrorless. When that happens, most users won't know or care because the image will look the same in the viewfinder and there will be no lag time. I also suspect that the cameras may not look all that much different. (Does the Fuji XT-1 look much different than a DSLR?)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 15, 2015)

I'm hardly obsessed with mirrorless, but I am old enough to remember the days when the switch from range finders to SLR's began. My first 35mm camera was a Argus C3 rangefinder, and it was simple and reliable. My first SLR was a fixed lens no name camera with a leaf shutter. I quickly changed it for a Canon FT QL, because I wanted interchangeable lenses.

The selling point for SLR's was being able to see more closely what your image framing actually was. Rangefinders were very inaccurate at depicting image framing at close distances. 

The disadvantage of SLR's was the image blackout when pressing the shutter, and the decrease in reliability due to the increased complexity of the moving mirror, not to mention the vibration caused by the mirror motion. The SLR won out, and most of the big 35mm SLR makers stopped selling rangefinders.

Now, a mirrorless digital camera promises to eliminate the moving mirror and vibration issues. Unfortunately, its not perfect either. Accurate and fast autofocus for FF bodies is still difficult but rapidly getting better, the EVF technology still cannot handle fast moving subjects, so they are making their way into the camera market for portraits and landscape, but for fast moving subjects, they are not accepted very well.

So, I'm interested in anything with the potential to improve photography by doing away with the vibration inducing mechanical moving parts, including a need for a moving mirror or fast moving shutter that must open and close for each image. Electronics is also potentially more reliable than mechanical parts, but that relies very much on the design and on the part quality.

I'm not fooled by size reductions, because lenses do not get smaller due to mirrorless, so the overall size and weight do not reduce by much.


----------



## dcm (Oct 15, 2015)

Mirror or not doesn't matter much to most of us, but for some it does. Some people use it as a wedge issue to drive a point/discussions, but one is not inherently better/worse than the other - its what's around it that matters. 

I don't really care since I've shot digital with both over the years (G, S, M, and D bodies). In my film days I used TLR, SLR, and P&S cameras, depending on the situation. Today I split my time between M3 and 6D - soon a 5D? or 1D? (waiting for the announcements). Mirror just doesn't factor into the decision about which one to use.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 1, 2015)

joe_r said:


> I have a question that's been bugging me for a while - why is there such an obsession with the mirror in a DSLR?


I think there isn't obsession at all. Just Canon is not incorporating the latest technology in their models. Why? It may have different answers but I only want to go mirrorless for travel light with good quality glasses to capture beautifu memories, that's all.
I found myself with a heavy load while carrying my DSRL and lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> ...I only want to go mirrorless for travel light with good quality glasses to capture beautifu memories, that's all.
> I found myself with a heavy load while carrying my DSRL and lenses.



Of course, there's the EOS M line – my entire M kit (body, 3 lenses and flash) is a similar load to my dSLR and standard zoom, which delivers image quality on par with the vast majority of dSLRs out there. Perhaps you need FF to capture beautiful memories...in that case, the body will be lighter but the quality glasses will not, and you'll be carrying a heavy load of MILC and lenses.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 1, 2015)

I agree with the OP. Perhaps I am missing something, but the only advantage I see to mirrorless is the ability to make a smaller, lighter camera. Yet, whenever people bring up size and weight, even those who want mirrorless say that those factors are not the main reason. What am I missing. Size and weight seem the only advantage. (And that is the only reason I tried mirrorless. I definitely think that is a big advantage, but so far, aside from the Olympus OM series. the EVFs of the cameras I have tried have been a major drawback.) You can get overlays on an OVF to get you the same features, so what is it exactly that those who desire the end of the "mirrorslappers" see as the major advantage in a mirrorless?


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 1, 2015)

joe_r said:


> why is there such an obsession with the mirror in a DSLR?



Dropping the mirror will (eventually) allow a number of feature advantages. Some have already been mentioned in the thread, but here's my list:


smaller/lighter body (doesn't help with lenses yet)
focus peaking
liveview exposure adjustment (you can see what the sensor sees, potentially leading to more spot-on exposures)
zero shutter noise
For top-end models, allows the option to use a three-sensor design to replace the Bayer array, like high-end video cameras (this will add a lot of cost)
Higher FPS (no need to move a mirror out of the way)

Current major drawbacks are:


Low-light EVF and focus
Battery life
EVF lag (although many report that this is very nearly there)

When these shortcomings are resolved, we'll all move to mirrorless with hardly a squeak. I've given up predicting when that will happen.


----------



## brad-man (Nov 1, 2015)

When they get the EVF right, I'm all in. The ability to see the image thru the viewfinder exactly the same way the sensor will record it is of great value to me. Also eliminating the lubricants required for the shutter and the mirror box mechanisms can only be a positive move for reliability, as well as the ability of the camera to survive extremes in temperature as well as shocks (impact resistance). There really is no down side.


----------



## TeT (Nov 1, 2015)

I am in it for a much smaller size. Will not give up FF capabilities or speed to get it...


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 1, 2015)

Probably more interst than obsession.

Shooting off the LCDis not a bad thing. I think of many reasons it could be a benefit in the future.

IMO mirrors are a holdover from the non-digital days. It's a dinosaur that hasn't meet it's time yet.
We might be fans of the conventional view finder and mirror because were set in our way. But change will eventually come and it will be at a slow pace.

It will be a while. Problems will have to be solved like overheating, AF efficiency and speed and other. Plus once it arrives they will have to convert the masses who love dinosaurs.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 1, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Probably more interst than obsession.
> 
> Shooting off the LCDis not a bad thing. I think of many reasons it could be a benefit in the future.
> 
> ...


+1
Canon moves slowly. Some interpret that as resistant to change, others as "make sure it works before you sell it"... Once the bugs are out and the overall performance of mirror less exceeds mirrored cameras, you can expect the switch....

I expect that one day, the 5D? and 1D? will be released as mirror less....


----------



## unfocused (Nov 1, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> ...Once the bugs are out and the overall performance of mirror less exceeds mirrored cameras, you can expect the switch....
> 
> I expect that one day, the 5D? and 1D? will be released as mirror less....



I agree. When and if mirror less technology can do the job better and cheaper, it will become the standard. 

I say "if" because I do have a few minor doubts. My father was an engineer (I'm not even close) and always followed the design philosophy that if a simple solution was available, it was preferable to a difficult solution.

There is much to be said for the elegant simplicity of mirrors (they don't need any power, they work at the speed of light and they are 100% reliable). That's a pretty high bar for an electronic viewfinder to surpass.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 1, 2015)

unfocused said:


> My father was an engineer (I'm not even close) and always followed the design philosophy that if a simple solution was available, it was preferable to a difficult solution.
> 
> There is much to be said for the elegant simplicity of mirrors (they don't need any power, they work at the speed of light and they are 100% reliable). That's a pretty high bar for an electronic viewfinder to surpass.



But mirrors are not at all simple, they've just had the benefit of decades of refinement. Some examples: lubricant splatter, vibration, relatively slow operation (12fps on expensive models, vs. 120 fps on p&s). Even now (I read this somewhere, don't recall where, please correct if I'm wrong) mirror design is undergoing change from spring-driven mechanism to electromagnetic, to allow for higher fps. It's a question of evolutionary refinement, not inherent simplicity. It's at least as simple, inherently, to preview using the same mechanism as image capture (sensor).


----------



## jrista (Nov 1, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Probably more interst than obsession.
> ...



This is a bit of a misnomer. Canon cannot directly benefit from other companies such as Sony "working out the bugs" and then suddenly switch without having any problems. The things that currently limit mirrorless cameras and the things companies that sell mirrorless cameras are fixing and resolving are the same things Canon is going to have to deal with if and when they finally decide to take the plunge. However, because they have delayed, they aren't going to be ahead of the curve...they will be behind it. 

Unless Canon is cranking away on some unknown technology in a box somewhere, hiding it from the world, not even filing any patents on it, it seems doubtful Canon will just race out the gate on a mirrorless winner that trounces all the competition. DPAF is their SOLE mirrorless-benefitting technology at the moment (one which they hardly even use for mirrorless...or have they even used it at all??)...and there are several companies (Sony does NOT appear to be one of them) out there now working on the same thing (and some of the patents filed over the last year seem technologically superior to Canon's approach.) Canon will not hold this theoretically superior technological advantage with DPAF for long, especially if they refuse to implement it broadly in the cameras that can best benefit from it.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 1, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> So, I'm interested in anything with the potential to improve photography by doing away with the vibration inducing mechanical moving parts, including a need for a moving mirror or fast moving shutter that must open and close for each image. Electronics is also potentially more reliable than mechanical parts, but that relies very much on the design and on the part quality.



That's basically the whole story for me too.
Forget "mirrorless", we need to start a "shutterless" campaign. The durability of camera with no moving parts is basically limited by the shutter button... er, firing button? Trigger? Sheesh we're going to have to re-name all sorts of things for a solid state camera.

I like that, Solid State Camera, but you can't include the lens unless you're using a pinhole.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2015)

jrista said:


> Unless Canon is cranking away on some unknown technology in a box somewhere, hiding it from the world, not even filing any patents on it, it seems doubtful Canon will just race out the gate on a mirrorless winner that trounces all the competition.



And yet...Canon first release rapidly became the #2 best-selling MILC in the largest global market for that segment, trouncing all but one model from one manufacturer. So it may be that your doubts are misplaced (unless, of course, you're going to judge 'trouncing' by your personal standards, DxO's Biaesd Scores, or some other totally subjective set of criteria).


----------



## nineyards (Nov 1, 2015)

To me, the weight of a DSLR is a comfort, it seems to add stability and balance
When I first picked up a 1DX, that's what immediately struck me
Without even looking into the viewfinder or delving into the impressive specs, I had found the weight and heft of the camera to be one of it's more desirable "features"
A 5Ds or 5Dsr is on the horizon and I am thinking I'll be adding a grip just for that reason
So if the world does indeed go sans mirror, I may just end up buying some lead fishing weights to tape to the bottom of my fancy new mirrorless


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 1, 2015)

joe_r said:


> I have a question that's been bugging me for a while - why is there such an obsession with the mirror in a DSLR?



For me, mirrorless cameras are the only possible known and currently available, working technology to get
* smaller, lighter cameras than DSLR
* smaller, lighter lenses for my most frequently used focal lengths (24mm to 100 mm)
* 100% vibration-free cameras
* 100% noise free cameras
* less expensive, 100% solid state electronic cameras

I do not need more than 5 or 6 fps and i have no need for focal lengths beyond 200mm - so for me mirrorless cameras will do everything a DSLR can do and then a lot more in a significantly smaller and (eventually) cheaper package. I've not switched to Sony yet for a number of reasons - both product and maker related shortcomings. I'd definitely buy a Canon FF mirrorless camera as capable, not bigger, not more expensive than A7 II. Especially Canon (Raw) colors, Canon user interface (with touchscreen) and Canon glass (without need for thirdparty metabones adapter) have kept me in their camp until now. However, while i did buy the 5D3 ... and am rather happy with it. But ... I shoot 80% of the time with my EOS M, simply because i am not willing to lug around the 5D3 plus f/2.8 zooms. So it was definitely the last DSLR i've bought. Next up will be mirrorless, preferably FF but if Canon comes up with a fantastic, small and reasonably priced EOS M4 i might settle on APS-C and EF-M lenses and call it a day.


----------



## lw (Nov 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> And yet...Canon first release rapidly became the #2 best-selling MILC in the largest global market for that segment, trouncing all but one model from one manufacturer. So it may be that your doubts are misplaced (unless, of course, you're going to judge 'trouncing' by your personal standards, DxO's Biaesd Scores, or some other totally subjective set of criteria).



It depends what is meant by trounced. Jrisra may have been referring to quality rather than quantity.

The worlds best selling cameras are not the best cameras....


----------



## rs (Nov 1, 2015)

jrista said:


> This is a bit of a misnomer. Canon cannot directly benefit from other companies such as Sony "working out the bugs" and then suddenly switch without having any problems. The things that currently limit mirrorless cameras and the things companies that sell mirrorless cameras are fixing and resolving are the same things Canon is going to have to deal with if and when they finally decide to take the plunge. However, because they have delayed, they aren't going to be ahead of the curve...they will be behind it.
> 
> Unless Canon is cranking away on some unknown technology in a box somewhere, hiding it from the world, not even filing any patents on it, it seems doubtful Canon will just race out the gate on a mirrorless winner that trounces all the competition. DPAF is their SOLE mirrorless-benefitting technology at the moment (one which they hardly even use for mirrorless...or have they even used it at all??)...and there are several companies (Sony does NOT appear to be one of them) out there now working on the same thing (and some of the patents filed over the last year seem technologically superior to Canon's approach.) Canon will not hold this theoretically superior technological advantage with DPAF for long, especially if they refuse to implement it broadly in the cameras that can best benefit from it.



I'd dispute that. Take a much more complex product to make, such as a car. Even though much of the underlying technology may have patents surrounding it, there is nothing to stop anyone new to the scene learning from the best and produce a vehicle which jumps right in on a level playing field, or in some cases and from some angles, surpass the competition.

Tesla Motors launched the Model S when the company was just 9 years old. If Tesla Motors were formed back in 1769 when Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot launched his steam powered tricycle, the Model S would not have existed in 1778. It is built on all the accumulated progress made by all the manufacturers and developers over the years. And they came out of no-where and arguably surpassed the best.

Canon have very deep pockets. What technical reason stops Canon from overtaking those who are perceived as the mirrorless leaders when/if they see the time is right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2015)

lw said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > And yet...Canon first release rapidly became the #2 best-selling MILC in the largest global market for that segment, trouncing all but one model from one manufacturer. So it may be that your doubts are misplaced (unless, of course, you're going to judge 'trouncing' by your personal standards, DxO's Biaesd Scores, or some other totally subjective set of criteria).
> ...



Likeky he was, like most people he focuses on his own personal needs and standards (for example, he has stated that Canon sensors deliver, "...poor, sub-par, unacceptable image quality,"). The problem is that there's no objective definition of 'best' as everyone's criteria are different. But it is reasonable to state that a top selling model/brand best meets the needs/wants of the majority of buyers...and sales numbers are objective. If Canon dSLR sensors truly delivered what most people considered to be poor IQ, they would clearly not have remained the #1 brand for over a decade. So clearly, I cannot choose the wine quality standards in front of jrista.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 1, 2015)

dak723 said:


> I agree with the OP. Perhaps I am missing something, but the only advantage I see to mirrorless is the ability to make a smaller, lighter camera. Yet, whenever people bring up size and weight, even those who want mirrorless say that those factors are not the main reason.



Here's my running list of the better future mirrorless could offer that have nothing to do with size:

1) You can shoot through the viewfinder without mirror slap without need to resort to MLU or LiveView.

2) Focus peaking in the EVF is a super handy tool for shooting with manual focus lenses at large apertures.

3) The EVF can show you more than basic LCD indicators -- drop in a realtime histo (if so inclined) or whatever other heads-up information you'd like to see. Some folks prefer a spartan VF, while others want the fighter cockpit blasting information all over the screen. Unlike an OVF, you can dial that in to your preference.

4) Removing the mirror box allows the flange to sensor distance to be dramatically reduced. Though we think of that principally in mirrorless rigs getting _thinner_ front to back, that's not all that does for us. Reducing that flange distance allows you to use adaptors to use other manufacturer's lenses. That is massive if you have lots of glass from older systems and don't need razor fast AF.

5) An EVF can have its brightness turned up in dark environments. They can't see in the dark, but they _can_ bail you out in environments that OVFs on SLRs can struggle with (nighttime shooting, dark events like concerts, etc.).

6) There are less mechanical things to wear out or fail in a mirrorless rig than an SLR, so mirrorless should be more mechanically reliable than an SLR. (This is somewhat contentious, because there are some 'mechanical-stuff-is-more-reliable' rebuttals the SLR camp could make. So, yes, a mirror box's effectiveness can wear down, but a more 'driven by wire' mirrorless system could (I suppose) could have more _electronic_ avenues to fail. _You can't short out an OVF, right?_) 

7) I'm not well read on this, but I thought I read that going mirrorless has a lower (or no?) AFMA hassle level -- so dialing in lenses in mirrorless is less of a burden.

8 ) Mirrorless can pull off some comically fast shutter speeds if you have the need & have the light. I believe Fuji (and maybe some others?) have a rig that shoots 1/32,000s, which SLRs simply cannot muster.

This is not an exhaustive list, but these are the more mentioned upsides I've read about.

Keep in mind that I prefer SLRs and will continue to do so until mirrorless technology eliminates the critical 'pain points' for how I shoot -- lag, responsiveness, burst rate with AF/AE, etc. I have a 5D3 and my next primary rig will undoubtedly be another SLR, but perhaps _after that_ I'd consider giving FF mirrorless my money.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 1, 2015)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


And yet they have the EOS-M, proof that they are working on Mirrorless......


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Unless Canon is cranking away on some unknown technology in a box somewhere, hiding it from the world, not even filing any patents on it, it seems doubtful Canon will just race out the gate on a mirrorless winner that trounces all the competition.
> ...



+1. Canon has a mad level of excellence at getting their s--- to work well consistently. 

Will their first FF mirrorless offering have the highest resolution, most responsive EVF? No.
Will it have the fastest AF? Hell no.
Will it have the best sensor? [Giggle.] Oh, you were serious. Next question.

But what it _will_ have is the basic guts of a solid working rig: excellent ergonomics, solid build quality, menus that don't make you want to kill someone with a hammer, and an assload of lenses, flashes, accessories you know and love will work with it on day one.

It will be under-spec'd feature by feature against Sony, but it will still sell very, very well. And it will have a far, far, far less likelihood of letting you down with a knuckleheaded technical miss like the Nikon D600 debacle, Sony light leaks, Sony compressed RAW, etc. based on its very good quality track-record.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 1, 2015)

It is great that there are so many choices out there.

When talking about smaller and lighter remember one thing: A heavier system will give less vibration or movement during operation.

I realize that that is exactly the argument made against DSLRs by the mirrorless fans.

However, heavier also means less shake and movement caused by the camera holder. Someone is going to ask me why I know that. Because it works that way with hand guns. 

The great whites weighing so much is a good thing. A really good thing.

A real lightweight gun is subject to heavier kick and movement during operation and also more movement in the hands of the shooter compared to the same round fired from a heavier handgun.

While a camera has far, far less internal movement than a handgun, you are still pulling a trigger (shutter button), and still having to hold steady to get the shot. That's why we use tripods and monopods or sand bags... same thing in the gun world. Both hobbies use the word shooting.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 1, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It is great that there are so many choices out there.
> 
> When talking about smaller and lighter remember one thing: A heavier system will give less vibration or movement during operation.
> 
> ...



Sony A7 II, A7r II and A7s II all have built-in IS on the sensor. It works very well. I've shot some night shots @ 1/10 hand-held. Getting sharp images is not that difficult with primes, wide open end.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 1, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> When talking about smaller and lighter remember one thing: A heavier system will give less vibration or movement during operation.



That's what IS is for. Also, you can add ballast to stabilize a light body.


----------



## RGF (Nov 1, 2015)

brad-man said:


> When they get the EVF right, I'm all in. The ability to see the image thru the viewfinder exactly the same way the sensor will record it is of great value to me. Also eliminating the lubricants required for the shutter and the mirror box mechanisms can only be a positive move for reliability, as well as the ability of the camera to survive extremes in temperature as well as shocks (impact resistance). There really is no down side.



No down side. Try only works when the camera is on - requires batteries.
Try is lower resolution than an OVF.
Try has lower DR than your eye.

There are downsides as well as upsides. Each person needs to decide for themselves if the trade offs are worth it.


----------



## brad-man (Nov 1, 2015)

RGF said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > When they get the EVF right, I'm all in. The ability to see the image thru the viewfinder exactly the same way the sensor will record it is of great value to me. Also eliminating the lubricants required for the shutter and the mirror box mechanisms can only be a positive move for reliability, as well as the ability of the camera to survive extremes in temperature as well as shocks (impact resistance). There really is no down side.
> ...



As the first line in my response said, "When they get the EVF right..."


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 1, 2015)

brad-man said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



I've never understood why people even think they need high dynamic range through the viewfinder. Unless you have two cameras strapped to your face while you're walking around, you saw whatever it is you're taking a picture of before you looked into the camera.
The only place where viewfinder refresh rate really matters is action, it's well established that a professional sports shooter is probably not going to be using one of these for a while, but the question that actually matters is what's good enough for the consumer?
I think we're well past that point.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 2, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > When talking about smaller and lighter remember one thing: A heavier system will give less vibration or movement during operation.
> ...



Agree on IS, but Canon is unlikely to pursue IBIS with their FF mirrorless offering and not all lenses offer IS. Also, you can only add ballast to bodies that allow such. *See picture* -- there is no defense for that ergonomically.

My vote for FF mirrorless is to concede that:

1) People will want to use anything in the EF portfolio on it

2) Physics is physics

1 + 2 = big/heavy lenses will exist in this FF system. So we need a grip chunky enough to comfortably hold a 70-200 f/2.8 lens -- native or adapted (they'll both be about the same size and weight). Anything longer than 200mm would need a vertical grip added.

That doesn't mean it needs to be a huge grip like a 5D. A 70D-sized grip might be fine, but I don't think it will be small and SL1-like.

- A


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 2, 2015)

jrista said:


> This is a bit of a misnomer. Canon cannot directly benefit from other companies such as Sony "working out the bugs" and then suddenly switch without having any problems. The things that currently limit mirrorless cameras and the things companies that sell mirrorless cameras are fixing and resolving are the same things Canon is going to have to deal with if and when they finally decide to take the plunge. However, because they have delayed, they aren't going to be ahead of the curve...they will be behind it.




You realize that every shot taken in live view is shot mirror less.
The research is taking place right in front of us.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 2, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



The EOS-M would be a fantastic body design to use with supertelophoto lenses, and quite frankly I want something smaller.
Last year I got rid of my 5D2 with battery grip because it weighs more than the 400f5.6 itself and adds almost exactly two pounds to the setup compared to using the 1100D (I was using AA batteries), and if you're hiking with it all day, well, I ditched the 5D.

A large body with a battery grip works great with a pancake lens, I took that setup through Disneyland with no problems, on rollercoasters, splash mountain and everything. It slips in and out of my backpack like a P&S because it's only large in one dimension (maybe that's an exaggeration, but it works). Give it a long lens however and all of a sudden it's one of the most cumbersome things you could ask a person to hold. It's like walking around carrying a bread mixer.
With the 1100D I can strap the lens to my body and hike comfortably, the 5D is basically impossible to make work in that setup. Even just holding it by my side I'm constantly bumping into it with my leg. I'm constantly bumping into the 1100D too, but it's small enough it's not incredibly annoying.
Ideally, what I really want, is a body that will fit with the lens inside a bottle holder. Those are extremely common, designed to be readily accessible and they're basically made to hold something the same size and weight as a large lens.
Whether the lens is in your hand or in your pack, I want a camera body as small as possible.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 2, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> You realize that every shot taken in live view is shot mirror less.
> The research is taking place right in front of us.



I spent three days last week doing technical photography in VERY cramped quarters, all shot in live view, focus and exposure was perfect on every shot... Live View works quite well! For about half of the shots I really could have used a tilt/swivel screen.... and for the second two days I brought in my 60D from home so I could.... Some of the pictures were shot with a P/S camera because the DSLR would not fit in! (to be fair, an EOS-M with a pancake lens would fit, but nothing bigger) Professional photography takes many forms and not all of it takes place in a comfortable well lit studio.

For some people, even with it's current shortfalls, mirrorless is long overdue. We do not all have the same requirements so although it might not fit person A's requirements yet, don't deny person B the proper tool for their job....


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 2, 2015)

brad-man said:


> When they get the EVF right, I'm all in. The ability to see the image thru the viewfinder exactly the same way the sensor will record it is of great value to me. Also eliminating the lubricants required for the shutter and the mirror box mechanisms can only be a positive move for reliability, as well as the ability of the camera to survive extremes in temperature as well as shocks (impact resistance). There really is no down side.



NO DOWN SIDE??

I don't think so.....

If I am stranded on a deserted island I can take apart my 60D, remove the mirror, and use it to signal passing ships...... Good luck trying that with a mirrorless camera.....


----------



## brad-man (Nov 2, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > When they get the EVF right, I'm all in. The ability to see the image thru the viewfinder exactly the same way the sensor will record it is of great value to me. Also eliminating the lubricants required for the shutter and the mirror box mechanisms can only be a positive move for reliability, as well as the ability of the camera to survive extremes in temperature as well as shocks (impact resistance). There really is no down side.
> ...



You're not fooling anyone. You want to keep the mirror so you can play with your cat in case your laser pointer craps out...


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 2, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > It is great that there are so many choices out there.
> ...



I'm sure it does, but that was not my point.  Heavier still means less movement when pressing the shutter button or when shooting in a strong wind, etc. While IS can compensate for some bad technique, some technique is so bad that a lighter setup can only be detrimental.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 2, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Not to mention lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 2, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Ideally, what I really want, is a body that will fit with the lens inside a bottle holder. Those are extremely common, designed to be readily accessible and they're basically made to hold something the same size and weight as a large lens.
> Whether the lens is in your hand or in your pack, I want a camera body as small as possible.



You can absolutely make an FF mirrorless platform that is small. No problem.

You just need to:


Give up f/2.8 zooms and only sell f/4 zooms
Give up on f/1.4 primes and only sell f/2 or f/2.8 primes
Give up on anything over, say, 150mm -- it will be too difficult to control without a monopod or other stabilizer.

This is how A7 started (see bullets above). But once the nicer primes and adapted Canon L lenses came in, the platform got bigger and heavier for many reasons, but the need to counterweight those bigger lenses was part of that evolution.

So, yes, you can make a fairly tiny FF mirrorless system. But *Canon offering the EF adaptor effectively annihilates that opportunity* -- people will bolt all sorts of heavy EF glass on it, and unless it has a substantial grip on the body, folks will ask for that grip. That's that. Might as well launch with a stout body built for the EF stable of lenses.

I happen to want a small platform myself (as I don't shoot long focal lengths or use heavy pickle jar f/1.4 primes), but I don't think we are going to get it. I think if you want small, go EOS-M, if you want comprehensive, go FF mirrorless.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 2, 2015)

Let's keep things in perspective. SOME people will use large/heavy lenses SOME times ... But not everybody, not all the time. Only a tiny minority of (Canon) camera owners are solely or mostly photographing birds in flight with long telelenses. Majority of all images are taken at FOV somewhere between 24mm and 135 mm (FF equivalent).Most of the time, mirrorless gear will be very small and light. Yes, a few photographic situations will call for larger gear. No problem. It is easy to make small/light cameras heavier and larger. But it's not possible to chop off parts of large gear and still keep it functional.

That's part of the reason, why mirrorless cameras will totally displace mirrorslappers within a very short timeframe. Just like CDs finished off vinyl within only 3 years. Yes there are still vinyl records and CDs made and bought. But only by very few die-hards. Same thing is happening to mirrorslappers right now. Won't cry for them. Bury those söapper clunkers and be done with it.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 2, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Let's keep things in perspective. *SOME people will use large/heavy lenses SOME times ... But not everybody, not all the time. Only a tiny minority of (Canon) camera owners are solely or mostly photographing birds in flight with long telelenses. Majority of all images are taken at FOV somewhere between 24mm and 135 mm* (FF equivalent).Most of the time, mirrorless gear will be very small and light. Yes, a few photographic situations will call for larger gear. No problem. It is easy to make small/light cameras heavier and larger. But it's not possible to chop off parts of large gear and still keep it functional.



This is the pipe dream I also subscribe to. I want a system built around size and I don't need longer FLs, but that isn't what's going to happen, IMHO.

Take a 70-200 f/2.8 -- that's a staple professional lens for a jillion uses. It's not a specialist sports/birding tool. That lens weighs nearly 4 pounds with ring and hood, and it will get bolted on to Canon's future FF mirrorless platform -- no question about that. That needs to be gripped/handled balanced somehow, and it's not an exotic need. 

Canon _could_ put out a svelte little FF mirrorless system, but what pro will migrate away from being able to do everything to a system where _it's not practical/ergonomic to continue to do everything_? So I believe that making a dainty/skinny body rewards enthusiasts but will frustrate many pros. I would argue that system will not pay itself off over time because pros will stick with their SLRs instead.

- A


----------



## brad-man (Nov 2, 2015)

Let's not dismiss the possibility that DO and alloys will be refined and become more economical and allow for smaller and lighter lenses at all FLs. Physics is physics, but it can be messed with. When there's money to be made, folks can get pretty clever...


----------



## sdsr (Nov 3, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> You can absolutely make an FF mirrorless platform that is small. No problem.
> 
> You just need to:
> 
> ...



That's what people tend to think, and I used to as well, but I wonder just how true it is, at least if you're prepared to learn to use your lens-supporting hand as the main weight-bearer - which it surely is anyway whenever you're using a heavy lens. On my a7 bodies I don't use anything as heavy as a 70-200 2.8 (but I don't with a dslr either), but I do use e.g. the EF 200 2.8, Rokinon 135 f2 and Helios 40-2, all of which are fairly heavy (at least by mirrorless standards), without a grip or other added support (e.g. monopod, tripod), and don't find the experience any more difficult ergonomically than when they're attached to a dslr. (In every other respect they're easier to use on an a7, thanks to IBIS, the focusing and exposure advantages of EVFs, etc.)

(And if you're willing to go mf and vintage, the lenses you can attach to a mirrorless camera can be smaller than their modern equivalents - some 50mm f1.4 lenses are tiny; the FD equivalents of the 1.2 L lenses are smaller and lighter; and so on. But please don't - their prices have been going up enough since the mirrorless thing took off as it is....)


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 3, 2015)

using a 70-200/2.8 Ii on a EOS M 1/2/3 is only difficult because there is no built-in viewfinder and one has to hold the small camera plus heavy lens *at arms length* to frame the image. "Compact camera salute". 

With a built-in EVF and EOS M3 body+grip size use of a 70-200/2.8 would be be no big issue (for me).


----------



## jrista (Nov 3, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Proof that they are piddling half-heartedly with mirrorless, at best, and that really has nothing to do with solving key technological issues to make mirrorless head-to-head competitive against top of the line DSLRs. If Canon was serious about Mirrorless, they would take it, and their biggest mirrorless competitor, head on and deliver a highly compelling product. They have been through generations now, and it still hasn't gained a foothold in what is potentially one of the largest markets for it. 

Canon has put the bare bones minimal effort possible into their mirrorless offerings so far (which, I guess, is their M.O. really.) That isn't going to get them over the technological hurdles very fast, and it will leave their mirrorless offerings trailing both the competition, and their own DSLR options, for a long time. Canon's SOLE compelling mirrorless technology is DPAF, and I don't think it's been put in an actual mirrorless camera yet! By the time they finally get around to doing that, someone else will have the same kind of technology, and will likely already have it in a commercial product. 

I'm sure Canon will do fine whenever they get around to doing anything (how could they not, with the kind if undying fanbase they have?), but they nor their products deliver much to excite me these days. It's just endless small evolutions on previous technology, and the one thing I really want still hasn't been delivered. But, that's just me, apparently. I'm biding my time for a 5D IV...it'll be the only Canon camera I buy for years once it comes out, assuming I don't find something else capable of driving my 600mm lens at full speed before it finally gets here.


----------

