# The Mirrorless Future



## RS2021 (Aug 19, 2012)

I was away from the site for a while and I see my profile, comments, and “karma” (good move CR) are all gone. 

I saw the Canon product road map and chuckled a bit. Yes, Canon will put out more of the single reflex systems with hefty prisms, slap-down mirrors that “lock up”….with incremental tweaks to what is essentially last century ideas…to squeeze out profits with what they already have to the very last, wheezing, painful, breath. This is how companies work; this is how Canon will work, as long as they possibly can. 

They will tease; introduce smaller mirrorless “systems”, just to keep a Canon-head like myself from jumping ship to a full frame competitor with less-storied lenses. We complain, we moan, write long comments on blogs for other Canon-heads, but at the end, we are like those vacant-eyed calves they put on the conveyer belt… helplessly, meekly, bleating, we go down the “road map” to become yummy veal for Canon  

But the future is now… some of what Canon does will depend on what the competitors do and what the market demands. I say “some” as one can never underestimate the sheer optimism (naïveté?) of a diehard fan who will hang on tooth and nail even if the platform is being overtaken, not in steps, but in bounds.

I am happy with my Canon gear for now, as with everything, it is a balance; no one is perfect. I am sure Miss America has one tit smaller than the other if you look hard enough  Only a pedantic fool will expect his Canon SLR to bring his beer in high resolution at 90 fps with a DR of 2 million . For the size of the sensor, the resolution, the quality of lenses, and the “I am used to it” factor… Canon is good. They are delivering at a slow, steady, dollar-squeezing pace. 

But to get back to the product road map, some of this will be dictated by the market forces. Full frame mirrorless in a decent form-factor will have to come at a faster pace than I glean from that road map picture CR posted. And I predict it will … it has to.

Because, as with everything, there is an end to even the mindless optimism and naïveté of the diehard fan. Canon is likely to drag it out for another 4 to 5 years… with “almost there” teases to keep you buying… we will have to wait and see.

But here is a sacred promise I make in the presence of other vacant-eyed calves on the conveyer belt… ID-X is my last miorred SLR… I do not plan on buying anymore “intermediate”…incremental flagships.

Enjoy your veal!


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Aug 19, 2012)

Yes Ray 2021. An eloquent and timeless statement applying to all products of the world.

I agree, the SLR is what should be up for slaughter. And it is:
This year we will see Sony, Leica and Hasselblad introduce mirrorless products that outperform the DSLR.
Sony does it because they can. They will offer a FF mirrorless adaptor-camera which accepts just about every body else's lens including Canon, legacy and production. 
Leica does it to save its petty little life.
Hasselblad does it to get get back on top with a 2-up on Leica in a 2xFF (36x48) mirrorless camera.

So sitting on your conveyor belt on the way to your slaughter, if you find yourself sitting on something hard, it is probably a DSLR.


----------



## RS2021 (Aug 19, 2012)

This mirrorless Sony that accepts everything sounds too good to be true... are we talking rumors or something more concrete.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Aug 20, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> This mirrorless Sony that accepts everything sounds too good to be true... are we talking rumors or something more concrete.


It is supposedly a statement made by a Sony official: To offer a FF mirrorless camera body that can accommodate a large range of legacy and production lenses including those made by other manufacturers.
If they do, it might force Canon and Nikon to give up their mirror-boxes earlier than planned. A win-win for the world when it happens.


----------



## AmbientLight (Aug 20, 2012)

I truly wonder why I shoot using the viewfinder most of the time and only on occasion use the 10x magnification in liveview? I don't think removing the mirror and prism arrangement does so many wonders for me. One of the biggest factors here is autofocus speed.

Given that in current cameras autofocus slows down using liveview autofocus mode, we should not expect that just removing a seemingly old-fashioned mirror and prism arrangement will make autofocus faster, because the camera also has to deliver image information to the viewer. How image data is handled in camera also affects how quickly it can be delivered on screen. I don't consider this a negligible factor. I do have my doubts about mirrorless cameras replacing DSLRs as long as I don't have autofocus at least being as fast as it can be using liveview. If using the viewfinder would slow down autofocus, then that would be different.

A mirrorless design may be able to get faster eventually, but when and at what cost? I fear that there is too much trust in new technology. We will have to wait a while, before anything spectacular might happen in this area.


----------



## meli (Aug 20, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> But here is a sacred promise I make in the presence of other vacant-eyed calves on the conveyer belt… ID-X is my last miorred SLR… I do not plan on buying anymore “intermediate”…incremental flagships.
> 
> Enjoy your veal!



"calf" here, its one thing being optimist about a tech, another being ignorant. 
Suggesting that next gen tier-1 models will replace ovf for evf, meaning that you would be able to -lets say- pan with a 40mp 1D in harsh light is just that, pure ignorance. Ignorance is bliss though so keep entertaining us please!


----------



## Ryan708 (Aug 20, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> What utter tosh!
> 
> Maybe my irony radar is switched off but come on!
> 
> ...



+1 Try using a mirrorless with the sun over your shoulders glaring on that screen. Anyone that has used a viewfinder would miss it. Try having a mirrorless with a large sensor and a 400+mm lens hanging off the pathetic grip, and hand-holding a shot. I'll keep my camera pressed against my face, thank you.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 20, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> What utter tosh!
> 
> Maybe my irony radar is switched off but come on!
> 
> ...



Exactly. The OP has wandered deep into tin-foil hat territory. The conspiracy theories about companies taking advantage of customers get to be a little old. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head to buy a camera. Only in government-controlled economies can manufacturers withhold technology or attempt to dictate what the consumer is allowed to buy. And, as can be seen by the collapse of the Soviet Union and China's de-facto turn to capitalism, it doesn't even work very well in government-controlled economies. 

Okay, someday we all may move to an alternative form factor that improves on the DSLR. But, let's face it, the current state of mirrorless cameras are little more than electrified versions of 19th century view cameras. The major improvement being that the image is right-side up. Given the current state of development, the ergonomics of mirrorless cameras cannot come close to that of SLRs. 

There are reasons why SLRs have been the preferred format of serious photographers for well over 50 years. Just because some technology is declared to be "new" doesn't make it better. DSLRs may eventually be replaced, but that will only happen when something actually better comes along. 

Will mirrorless bodies displace SLRs, or will they be the Instamatics of the 21st century? Right now, I would bet on the latter.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Aug 20, 2012)

It's like the electric car, it's been _almost_ here for 40 years.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Aug 20, 2012)

unfocused said:


> may eventually be replaced, but that will only happen when something actually with better marketing comes along.




There, unfortunately —fixed.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 20, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > may eventually be replaced, but that will only happen when something actually with better marketing comes along.
> ...



I always find it deliciously ironic when photographers complain about marketing. With the possible exception of a few narrow scientific research applications, photography is _nothing_ but marketing. 

Wedding photography: marketing; Sports photography: marketing; Fashion photography: marketing; Nature photography: marketing; Photojournalism: marketing; Art photography: marketing; Portraits: marketing. It's all marketing, all the way down.


----------



## Ryan708 (Aug 20, 2012)

Apple Im sure could sell the shit out of a 5mp mirrorless, 2 FPS, 5EV dynamic range, single f/8 autofocus point, with a NiCad, non-replaceable battery, internal-only memory, and no external buttons. It would probably be quite thin too! Maybe it could even support direct file transfer, to Ipad only of course.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 20, 2012)

Bengt Nyman said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > It is supposedly a statement made by a Sony official: To offer a FF mirrorless camera body that can accommodate a large range of legacy and production lenses including those made by other manufacturers.
> ...


----------



## Bennymiata (Aug 21, 2012)

History has shown us that SLR's will still win out in the end.

Going back through the years has shown that there have always been non-SLR cameras out there that have competed with SLR's, and have been cheaper, but the SLR has always been the camera of choice for serious photographers.
Hasselblad, Leica, Canon, Nikon all made 35mm non SLR cameras, but SLR's are still in production and selling well.
This was true even in the days BEFORE auto focus, and now that auto-focus is such an important feature to have, the mirrorless cameras are still way behind the 8 ball with their poor speed of focussing amongst other things.

Until the EVF's of this world come anywhere near an OVF, and their focussing speed is within the speed of SLR's, mirrorless cameras will only ever be just one step above a P&S camera, and certainly NOT a camera of choice for serious photographers.
Then there is the price issue.
Most of the mirrorless cameras are actually more expensive than the base model SLR's, and this also dooms them to eventual obscurity IMHO.


----------



## Deeohuu (Aug 21, 2012)

unfocused said:


> I always find it deliciously ironic when photographers complain about marketing. With the possible exception of a few narrow scientific research applications, photography is _nothing_ but marketing.
> 
> Wedding photography: marketing; Sports photography: marketing; Fashion photography: marketing; Nature photography: marketing; Photojournalism: marketing; Art photography: marketing; Portraits: marketing. It's all marketing, all the way down.



Agreed. Agreed to the point that a lot of "scientific research" is also marketing. The hype around the Mars Rover panos etc. is largely to justify the expense to the rabble. There may be scientific benefits that result for the mission but someone has to pay for it.


----------



## jrista (Aug 21, 2012)

unfocused said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > What utter tosh!
> ...



+1 Couldn't agree more!

There is still a LOT going for the "addled old DSLR". Personally, having handled quite a few mirrorless options as they come onto the market, I've found not a single one that even comes remotely close to the ergonomics and balance of a DSLR for the kind of photography I do (mostly birds, BIF, wildlife, with some nature macro and landscapes mixed in.) There is NOTHING like a real, optical viewfinder for shooting action...I wouldn't trust that to an EVF for any reason, and there will have to be some stupendously mind blowing improvements to EVF's before I would even consider it. Trying to find, track, focus, and continue tracking subjects with a gigantic live view screen is a worthless endeavor. When it comes to long lenses, the balance and options available for DSLR, particularly with Canon's lens lineup, is unparalleled. You don't end up with any of those ridiculously imbalanced and odd looking conflations like you do with "mirrorless telephotos" (a term which to me seems like a total contradiction in terms!)

The DSLR will reign supreme for serious photographers who value their strengths, such as high quality prismatic viewfinders, low-light AF sensors, and excellent ergonomics...for a very long time. When they introduce a mirrorless in a DSLR-sized body with the same ergonomics, with FPPD-AF that outperforms a dedicated AF sensor, with double the AF points and twice the sensitivity, and an EVF that looks like an optical viewfinder and doesn't fatigue the eye...then I'll _start_ considering mirrorless.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Aug 21, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Surly, you did not think they meant Nikon, Canon, or Pentax.


Surely Sony did or they would not have mentioned Canon by name.
Sigma and Tamron making low cost lens alternatives to the Big Guys is nothing new.


----------



## pdirestajr (Aug 21, 2012)

An issue I have with mirrorless EVF cameras is that I feel more removed from the photography experience. It's hard to explain, but when I look at an EVF or "live view" I feel like I am watching the camera take a photograph.

Not ready to be a spectator.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Aug 21, 2012)

EVF still has a ways to go. I also agree that shooting in live view is a distant and somewhat shaky experience.
I would like to see an optically magnified live view with a slightly protruding eyepiece alá Pro-Video, for solid viewing and camera control. Include exposure preview, composite dynamic range preview and focus highlight.
By the way, just out about Sony:
First new Sony mirrorless FF cameras for 2012 are high end camcorders. NEX-7 alike mirrorless FF cameras in 2013.
Also: Sony announces mirrorless FF image sensor technology with PDAF pixels on the image sensor. Possibly part of a two step process with fast PDAF before final CD microfocus, both on the image sensor.


----------



## distant.star (Aug 21, 2012)

.
Very interesting and insightful comment. I seem to have similar sorts of feelings, although I'm not sure I can really quantify them so well.

On the other hand...if God had meant for man to fly, he would have given us wings!






pdirestajr said:


> An issue I have with mirrorless EVF cameras is that I feel more removed from the photography experience. It's hard to explain, but when I look at an EVF or "live view" I feel like I am watching the camera take a photograph.
> 
> Not ready to be a spectator.


----------



## apw100 (Sep 5, 2012)

The DSLR isn't going anywhere, it's simply better than anything else for certain applications. That being said, compact mirrorless camera's have their place too, especially with smaller prime lenses. If I was Leica, I would be very concerned right now.
A photojournalist or street photographer will appreciate how discreet a mirrorless camera is, allowing them to blend in more with their surroundings than a large body DSLR with an L lense. The compact size also makes it less intimidating to the subject. Try plodding around Port au Prince all day with a 5D MkII and a 24-70L around your neck. Not only do you basically have a sign saying "journalist" around your neck, but it's not very comfortable either. I would have killed to have a Fuji X Pro-1 or similar...
I am really hoping that Canon will release a more "pro" M body soon, or else I may have to consider Sony or Fuji.


----------



## Tcapp (Sep 5, 2012)

I really, really don't get all they hoopla about mirror-less. What exactly is wrong with having a mirror? As a wedding photographer, I don't find the mirror ever gets in the way of me doing my job. Sure, the mirror makes a bit of noise when it moves, but the 5d3 can be pretty quiet when it needs to. 

What benefit would a mirrorless system bring to me? Even if the mirrorless technology was perfect. Even if the af is just as fast as current af systems, why do I need to change things up? Why do I need an EVF? So my battery can drain faster? SO I can use live view all the time, and not be able to stabilize the camera against my face? 

If the sensor is always on, doesn't it heat up? And doesn't it heating up cause more image noise? 

Did I mention the reduced battery life? 

I just don't understand all the hate for the good ol' mirror. As I understand it, mirrorless cameras still have a shutter. Wouldn't a shutter-less camera be more exciting? That is the one component that we always talk about as having a finite life expectancy. And that is the component that limits us to a shutter speed of 1/200 on most cameras when using flash. After the mirror is locked up, its the one making all that noise, and causing a blackout in an EVF. And it is what prevents us from taking stills DURING video recording (without interrupting the video) like you can do on some cell phones now. If there was no physical shutter, wouldn't it maybe be theoretically possible to take multiple exposures from a single exposure just by recording the sensor data multiple times at different points during an exposure? Infinite dynamic range anyone (or at least never a blown highlight)?? 

What does the mirror prevent us from doing? Don't say it limits the FPS cause I'm pretty sure the 1dx has that all figured out. 

Sorry for the rant, but I just feel the desire for EVERYTHING to be mirrorless is ridiculous. Mirrors are awesome cause they can be down when you need them, and LOCK UP for when you don't. 

Feel free to let me know if I've missed the point entirely or if I'm not making any sense. /rant


----------



## apw100 (Sep 5, 2012)

@Tcapp- As a wedding photographer, a mirrorless probably isn't of much use to you. These camera's are designed for street photographers and people who want DSLR image quality without the bulk. It's just another tool, no more, no less.


----------



## Tcapp (Sep 6, 2012)

apw100 said:


> @Tcapp- As a wedding photographer, a mirrorless probably isn't of much use to you. These camera's are designed for street photographers and people who want DSLR image quality without the bulk. It's just another tool, no more, no less.



Sure, I understand that. That is a very very small niche. But what the OP is talking about is totally doing away with the current DSLR design and having everything be mirrorless. No more mirrors in anything. I don't see the point in that. He said that the 1dx is the last mirrored camera he will ever buy. Unless he is specifically an undercover street photographer, it doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 6, 2012)

@apw100


> If I was Leica, I would be very concerned right now.



Leica have their niche users, and though I am not one, they have seen off many challenges in the past (I covet a contax G2, logically, operationally, technologically and dare I say optically a better camera, where are contax now?) voigtlander, Minolta CLE (miles ahead of Leica at the time), EPSON RD-1, compact form high quality compact cameras like the Nikon and Canon rangefinders, British Reids, and still folk flock to the red dot.

I kind of hanker after a Panasonic L-1, which can be bought for peanuts. The same camera with a red dot has held its value.

Leica M are lovely objects to behold, and handle, but give me a SLR form anyday. For the folk who 'get' rangefinders nothing else will do, and it seems for many, the appeal of the Leica brand cannot be bettered.

Surprised not to have seen a Panasonic GF-1 or GX-1 rebranded, and sold for 2x the money with a leica M adaptor.

Still not a fan personally, but the brand endures.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 6, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> I really, really don't get all they hoopla about mirror-less. What exactly is wrong with having a mirror? As a wedding photographer, I don't find the mirror ever gets in the way of me doing my job. Sure, the mirror makes a bit of noise when it moves, but the 5d3 can be pretty quiet when it needs to.
> 
> What benefit would a mirrorless system bring to me? Even if the mirrorless technology was perfect. Even if the af is just as fast as current af systems, why do I need to change things up? Why do I need an EVF? So my battery can drain faster? SO I can use live view all the time, and not be able to stabilize the camera against my face?
> 
> ...


Very good reason. Totally agreed. 
"Street shooter needs mirroless To be discreed" it seems to be a misleading statement. When you are 6 or 10 feet from your subject, it will get noticed regardless what camera you are holding to your eye. Sticking the camera out to look at the LCD screen is even worst. A real street shooter should be someone "shooting from the hip". So whether it is an SLR or a small P & S will not be noticed. As with a SLR will make you look like a tourist in foreign country, this is an even more misleading statement. In a foreign country, the way that you dress, your skin color will make you standout without a camera. A mirrorless will not fix the about two situation.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 6, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> @apw100
> 
> 
> > If I was Leica, I would be very concerned right now.
> ...


With the price of 1Dx , The M9 does not sound so expensive anymore. Lens rental did a 50mm shoot out test. The M9 witht f1.4 beats everyone. This is a "professional mirrorless" with an optical view finder.


----------



## zim (Sep 6, 2012)

Just curious, what happened to the original post ‘What utter tosh!’ by paul13walnut5 ?


----------



## DianeK (Sep 6, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> An issue I have with mirrorless EVF cameras is that I feel more removed from the photography experience. It's hard to explain, but when I look at an EVF or "live view" I feel like I am watching the camera take a photograph.
> 
> Not ready to be a spectator.



Funny you should say that, that is the exact same feeling I get too.
Diane


----------



## distant.star (Sep 6, 2012)

.
For the folks who are trying to define "street photography" by type of camera, the real world gives the lie to your assumptions.

Street photography should be defined only by the product -- either a picture is street photography, or it is not.

Good street photography images come from every conceivable type, size and quality of camera. I've seen good work from point & shoot cameras. I've seen good work from medium format cameras. Hell, there's even one person on this forum who does it with a 600mm lens on a Canon DSLR. It's simply a matter of style and taste.

People who lean toward street photography use as many different types of cameras as exist. There is no useful argument to be made that a mirrorless is or is not for street photographers.


----------



## And-Rew (Sep 6, 2012)

Interesting discussion, with the usual amount of one side of the coin or other comments.

I'm gonna garner the wrath of just about all on this site by speaking heresy - 

I speak of the Fuji X-Pro 1. 

Yes, I've invested in this little pocket marvel - and what a joy it is to behold. It brings back all the joy that the Canon A1's used to bring in the days of film (mid 1980's for me) - but with all the benefits of a mirror-less digital system.

To me, when you talk about mirror-less cameras, this is the current bench mark. Not because of its lovely retro styling or it's wonderful film emulation modes, but because of the quality of the build, the IQ, the low noise ISO, the ability to shoot colour RAW and B&W jpg side by side. Even the simple cable release for bulb or long exposure shots beats the hell off these modern computers on a cable just to press a shutter button.

It has its short comings compared with the upper end DSLR's when it comes to shooting action, but so do Hassalblads. The simple fact is - with the X-Pro 1, the future is here, the future is now.

It is for the likes of Canon, Nikon et al to start making the change.

For the purists, anything without a mirror will never be considered photography - but I thought that about anything that didn't require a roll of 24 or 36 slotted in at the back and sent off for developing.

In the way film is almost consigned to history, so will be the mirror in DSLR's.

I'm not saying this will happen at Photokina, but it will happen quicker than some people think.

Ultimately though - you should take your camera's out and actually take some pictures - that's how you'll best define yourself as a photographer


----------



## zim (Sep 6, 2012)

distant.star said:


> .
> For the folks who are trying to define "street photography" by type of camera, the real world gives the lie to your assumptions.
> 
> Street photography should be defined only by the product -- either a picture is street photography, or it is not.
> ...



Absolutely correct, I know a guy who does street with a Hasselblad….. wouldn’t be my weapon of choice!
The camera is a tool 'street' is the product


----------



## pwp (Sep 6, 2012)

Ryan708 said:


> Try using a mirrorless with the sun over your shoulders glaring on that screen. Anyone that has used a viewfinder would miss it. Try having a mirrorless with a large sensor and a 400+mm lens hanging off the pathetic grip, and hand-holding a shot. I'll keep my camera pressed against my face, thank you.



Professional level mirrorless cameras will need to include an EVF the likes of which we're still yet to see. But I have little doubt that we are all looking at an EVF future. So yes, like you I like to keep my camera jammed up against my face.

-PW


----------



## Danielle (Sep 7, 2012)

Just wanting to mention Fuji is no stranger to rangefinder cameras if you look even at the 645 rangefinders they've had in the past. Rangefinders which are obviously mirrorless are not new, I don't think this is what this mirrorless argument is about. Leica M cameras have been around a long long time, again this isn't new. Even bronica had one actually which I do believe is now tamron! Contax... Same, not new. The only new thing I can see is that Fuji Is getting back into that market with digital.

Leica still make a slr camera, enter the s series, the r series was before that.

For me personally, the most interesting alternative for mirrorless vs dslr is the new Olympus om-d. That said the tiny four thirds sensor doesn't thrill me. Maybe time will tell this tale. I don't think sony's nex really competes with that sector, as it's more a point and shoot.

I find the Fuji x-pro 1 and the olympus I mentioned (for very different reasons) quite facinating. But my dslr is going nowhere!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 7, 2012)

@Danielle


> Just wanting to mention Fuji is no stranger to rangefinder cameras if you look even at the 645 rangefinders they've had in the past.



Or the XPAN for that matter (yes I know it said Hasselblad on the box...)

And the Bronica RF was a thing of ultilitarian beauty. Another great camera I'll never now own (still want a contax G2 as well)


----------



## kdsand (Sep 9, 2012)

I welcome the day when E.V.F. equals then surpasses our mirrors & prisms. There are some huge advantages to e.v.f. . We are getting closer but not quite there yet. When it equals & surpasses what we have presently - great & good but until then no thank you.

Better yet just let me wi-fi stream everything to my contact lens overlays and I'll be as happy as a pig in §π¡±. 8)


----------



## jrista (Sep 11, 2012)

kdsand said:


> I welcome the day when E.V.F. equals then surpasses our mirrors & prisms. There are some huge advantages to e.v.f. . We are getting closer but not quite there yet. When it equals & surpasses what we have presently - great & good but until then no thank you.
> 
> Better yet just let me wi-fi stream everything to my contact lens overlays and I'll be as happy as a pig in §π¡±. 8)



Generally speaking, an optical view finder (OVF) will always be superior to an EVF in certain ways. For one there is little to no limit on the amount of detail or amount of light you could observe through an OVF. EVF's, being small digital screens, will always have certain limitations...on dynamic range, on resolution, on response time. Their small size is both a benefit (allowing the use of super cutting edge screen technology that costs a lot without it costing too much) while concurrently being a detriment (you can only do so much with so little space). We don't notice the limitations of a beautiful AMOLED screen on our smart phones because we observe them from an average distance of 10 inches...however when the same kind of screen is a mere inch or two from your eye, its limitations and flaws will become readily apparent. The key limitation that I think will always prevent EVF's from "surpassing", and possibly even equaling, an optical prism-based viewfinder, is dynamic range. With an OVF the only limit is your eye (i.e. you couldn't and shouldn't look at the sun through a camera)...however you could look at a very bright sky, and still pick out detail in the shadows with a little bit of focus. An EVF, even one using technology years from now, will never be able to offer that much dynamic range...something will have to give. You'll either get blown highlights, or lack the ability to see detail in the shadows. 

There are also the inherent lifespan problems with an electronic screen...OLED devices use organic substances that have limited lifetimes. Even inorganic technology can burn out, either at the pixel level (leaving you with a dead or stuck pixel or pixels) or simply dying entirely. How many times have you heard anyone say they couldn't use that 50, 70, 80 year old or even older camera because the view finder was burnt out? Never. An optical device will last forever, so long as it doesn't receive enough shock to break it.

I think the DSLR could be improved in one primary way. Since they use electronic sensors, I don't fully understand the need for a shutter. If we drop the shutter from DSLR's, that leaves only the mirror itself as the last mechanical component that could possibly wear out from extended use or age...and they are (and have always been) easy to replace if necessary. An electronic shutter could open up new avenues for DSLR's as well.


----------



## IronChef (Sep 11, 2012)

jrista said:


> kdsand said:
> 
> 
> > I welcome the day when E.V.F. equals then surpasses our mirrors & prisms. There are some huge advantages to e.v.f. . We are getting closer but not quite there yet. When it equals & surpasses what we have presently - great & good but until then no thank you.
> ...



I find the newest EVF's to be really good and I wouldn't mind using one. I can already see the composition really well and I don't think you need to see insane amount of detail and DR through your viewfinder. EVF's can provide more information like a histogram and a electronic level. Also in low light condition evf's are much brighter.

Camera's can't last forever anyways. Because of mechanical wear, camera's are rated a limited amount of clicks , for example 150 000. An EVF can actually limit the amount of mechanical wear. OLED's last about 14000 hours. Assuming you look a minute (which I think is really long) trough the viewfinder for each shot, the evf will last you 840 000 clicks.


----------



## jrista (Sep 11, 2012)

IronChef said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > kdsand said:
> ...



Optical viewfinders these days, at least from Canon, already include a high resolution transmissive LCD screen. You could easily add a histogram or electronic level overlay, as well as pretty much anything else, to such a HUD. A dynamic viewfinder with useful information is not relegated to the realm of EVF's. 

As for mechanical wear, read my second paragraph...I concur that a mechanical shutter is the only real legacy hangers-on in DSLR cameras, and it could easily be dropped...but keep the mirror and OVF. As for EVF lifetime...the EVF is always on if your actively using the camera as far as I've seen. Were not talking about an electronic shutter when referring to an EVF (and an electronic shutter could be used on DSLR cameras in place of a mechanical shutter as I already stated.) An Electronic View Finder, if your actively using a camera for hours at a time, will be on and _wearing_ the whole time. I often spend 8, 10, 12 hours a day (when there is enough light) with my 7D out in the field photographing birds. I recently spent nearly two solid weeks out every day from morning till sunset photographing birds. I'm looking through the viewfinder for most of that time. If we assume I spend 8-9 hours a day looking through the viewfinder, thats about 4 years of OLED life. Once it dies, your on the hook to get it fixed...which means finding and hitting up a repair shot, leaving your camera there for however long it takes to replace...and, on top of it all, paying to replace a wearable part. Depending on usage, that might be longer than a shutter...but its a hell of a lot shorter than the overall lifetime of a heavily used camera body could take, and a hell of a lot less time than an OVF would last. With a 1D X, I could keep the same body, with the same shutter, at the rate I take photos for over 4 years, and keep on going. If I had an EVF, an OLED viewfinder could die well before that.

The hype around mirrorless cameras is, IMO, rather unfounded. There might come a time, years down the road, where we find a way to produce mirrorless cameras with EVF's and electronic shutters that provide functionality that surpasses DSLR's enough to warrant such hype...but that is years, maybe even decades, down the road. Today, next year, over the next few years...I feel there is very little to be so hyped up about in regards to mirrorless, particularly as a DSLR killer. There are so many things still going for DSLR's that put current and prospective mirrorless cameras to shame.


----------



## kdsand (Sep 11, 2012)

I imagine consumer grade cameras especially cameras like G-12, X-1 (or was it 1-X ???) would really benefit by having a cutting edge E.V.F. especially if it is a module that's added on. Just having a high quality EVF might be enough to really spur on sales of these range finder type cameras. Perhaps the tech will then trickle over to the rebels _eventually_. As far as the tech goes developing the EVF should be fairly straight forward because the bodies already could support the screens & have huge processing power.
The rebels don't really have the greatest vf as it is right now so who knows perhaps eventually they will get it.

Allot can happen - change in 5-10 years & I can't see Canon & Nikons Mega pixel war lasting forever : (well I hope not) so they will have to wow consumers in other ways.


----------



## anselwannab (Sep 11, 2012)

EVFs just don't cut it. The only way they can is if it has the 'time machine' feature of some of Fuji's where the camera is always 'taking' pictures and can 'backdate' the camera click to get a picture of what you really wanted. The EVF lag is just physics, no way around it.

Viewfinders are lacking information and exact framing and really aren't a solution beyond 100mm focal length or for very wide shots.

Mirrorless is the crutch we are using right not, but I see REVENGE OF THE MIRRORS!!!

Not exactly dSLRs, but with fixed semi-reflecting mirrors like the pellicle mirrors of old in the Canon cameras. 

The MP race is over. Do we really need 24+MP cameras? We're talking 20x30 prints easily. Take the megapixels back to around 12 and increase sensativity and dynamic range and use that to allow the use of pellicle mirrors.

You get real thru the lens framing, with no screen black-out. Light always available to the sensor. At 12MP and no mirror slap, you should be able to get to 16fps.

Long live the mirror.


----------



## IronChef (Sep 11, 2012)

jrista said:


> IronChef said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Note that the EVF is only on when put your eye on it and shuts off automatically when you don't. But if you look 8 hours a day trough a viewfinder I guess EVF's are not the right choice for your application. For most people, the camera will die way before the viewfinder burns out. 

I don't believe the hype is unfounded. Most of the hype come from pros and enthusiasts who already have DSLR's. Mirrorless camera's can provide a compact, lightweight and yet high quality solution which many people fancy. It might not be the best option for something like bird photography, but bird photography requires really big tele lenses, which defeats the whole purpose of compactness anyway.


----------



## kdsand (Sep 11, 2012)

Not actually disagreeing with you per say but*if* the evf was a detachable unit (like the flash or GPS) then the working lifespan would not be as crippling and perhaps aftermarket units will be around though admittedly this is all just supposition (or is it postulation).
I imagine consumer grade cameras especially cameras like G-12, X-1 (or was it 1-X ???) would really benefit by having a cutting edge E.V.F. especially if it is a module that's added on. Just having a high quality EVF might be enough to really spur on sales of these range finder type cameras. Perhaps the tech will then trickle over to the rebels _eventually_. As far as the tech goes developing the EVF should be fairly straight forward because the bodies already support the screens & have huge processing power.
The rebels don't really have the greatest vf as it is right now so who knows perhaps eventually they will get it.

Allot can happen - change in 5-10 years & I can't see Canon & Nikon Mega pixel war lasting forever : (well I hope not) so they will have to wow consumers in other way(s).


----------



## Ryan708 (Sep 12, 2012)

The way current sensors work (atleast in canon SLRS, not sure about others) they need a mechanical shutter to work, they are somehow charged with electricity to become more sensitive, and the light triggers the photo-proto-electrons(i have no idea haha) I just know I read that current canon sensors need a shutter to be as sensitive as they are. But cell phones dont have a shutter and they take great low-light shots....(cough, cough)


----------



## ecka (Sep 13, 2012)

All I want is a proper size FF mirrorless (not pocketable, but smaller than a Rebel) with vari-angle touchscreen LCD, built-in EVF, all the dials and buttons, nice grip, LP-E6 battery, CF card slot, wireless flash control and some lens adapters for mounting whatever lens I want.

P.S. ...and maybe a decent 50mm f/2 macro kit lens :


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 14, 2012)

For street photography I would like a small, really stealthy Canon with excellent manual focus capability delivering image quality similar to a Leica, of course for a Canon price tag 8).


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Sep 15, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> For street photography .. a small stealthy .. excellent image quality


I'm considering the Sony RX1: FF mirrorless with fixed 35 Zeiss MF-AF lens and optional OVF-EVF.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 15, 2012)

The Sony's size is certainly what I am looking for. The only issue is that I have no idea just how responsive the camera is. Nevertheless prime Zeiss glass in a very useful focal length and a nice full-frame sensor are quite appealing. I also hope that it allows for really quiet operation.


----------



## @!ex (Sep 15, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> The Sony's size is certainly what I am looking for. The only issue is that I have no idea just how responsive the camera is. Nevertheless prime Zeiss glass in a very useful focal length and a nice full-frame sensor are quite appealing. I also hope that it allows for really quiet operation.



It has a leaf shutter, so it is silent (you can add an artificial shutter sound if you want).


----------



## RS2021 (Sep 16, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> apw100 said:
> 
> 
> > @Tcapp- As a wedding photographer, a mirrorless probably isn't of much use to you. These camera's are designed for street photographers and people who want DSLR image quality without the bulk. It's just another tool, no more, no less.
> ...



I wasn’t suggesting “Doing away” with mirrored, reflex-based systems by next Wednesday. I promise. 

I was resolute, and still am, that my 1DX will be my last, mirrored, sub-medium format flagship (wording chosen carefully there) .

My original post was a tongue-in-cheek musing (hence the “calf-on-the-conveyer-belt” reference) as to when Canon may feel the heat to move decisively on replacing the "mirrorbox" in a Full frame body in the face of emerging competition, rag-tag as they may be now. 

Don’t get me wrong, “mirrorbox” is a reliable platform, last century technology it may be. It works. But this in no way should preclude us or Canon from moving the ball further down the line; and without healthy competition and criticism there will be no innovation. I don’t’ resent mirrorbox’s current existence. But I do hope for its accelerated exit. 

I have no doubt that when SLR’s made their debut, they were derided by good many old pro’s. I can hear them saying “you can’t see the image when the mirror is up!”; “what’s that abominable slap sound!”; “A curtain shutter! How tacky!”; “Too many moving parts”. I think some of the righteous defense of the SLR mirrorbox I saw here, (and some of those indignant posts have magically disappeared as someone else noted earlier) is no different from those early push-backs to change.

I use “mirrorless” here as a loose term encompassing a motley crew of possibilities that may eventually supplant the current system that “moves the mirror out of the way to take a shot”. I don’t mean a single approach…clearly this in part involves autofocus related issues, EVF and alternatives (current, pipeline, or R&D stage)…I don’t know what the final configuration or the future will be. 

But one thing is clear. 

To be intentionally cheesy, there is “a great disturbance in the Force”  

Evidence… Nikon 1, Canon M, Sony, Fuji, and an assorted group of offerings with varying features… clearly there is “directional” movement.

The offerings may be substandard during these early stages and they may not hit all the buttons and check all the boxes, but we are seeing them evolve and they will eventually hit the viable combination. So Canon, despite the virtuous admonishments here, will also move ….they will have to. 

When mirrorless does get established (and it will), and becomes the new standard bearer (and it will be), I am certain all the righteous naysayers here will shamelessly jump ship to mirrorless and extoll its virtue and defend its superiority as they do for the mirrored systems now. I will welcome that with a wink


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Sep 16, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> The only issue is that I have no idea just how responsive the (Sony RX1) camera is.


Focus acquisition time is reported to be 150 msec. (0.15 sec).


----------



## ronderick (Sep 17, 2012)

The FF sensor in a body like the Fujifilm XPro-1 would be very desirable for enthusiasts who want a light camera body with a decent number of lens options. It's even better if you can fit it in a small shoulder bag, because you really don't have that much room if ur going with your wife and kids on a family outing.

Given the small body, I would prefer OVF over EVF, since it's less demanding on the battery.

However, I doubt that you can make something the size of a Leica M9 to be weatherproof and durable on the level of 1D...

Oh well, we can still wish.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 17, 2012)

Bengt Nyman said:


> Focus acquisition time is reported to be 150 msec. (0.15 sec).



150 msec????? This is sooo s---l---o---w. I guess that camera is not for me after all.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Sep 17, 2012)

Breaking: Hasselblad will release a high-end mirrorless camera | Photo Rumors


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Sep 17, 2012)

ronderick said:


> The FF sensor in a body like the Fujifilm XPro-1 would be very desirable


Look at the new Sony RX1.


----------



## RS2021 (Sep 17, 2012)

Like I said earlier...there is "a great disturbance in the Force"


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Sep 18, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> 150 msec????? This is sooo s---l---o---w. I guess that camera is not for me after all.


It's in the order of a young mans reaction time. Therefore a young man with a Sony RX1 would keep up with an old man with a DSLR.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 18, 2012)

Let's suppose my own reaction time would be 150 msec and the camera would add another 50 msec, then most of the time taken is my own reaction being what it is. Now if you take a look at a 300 msec total you are in a totally different area and no, I won't be able to optimize a lot by a quicker reaction on the photographer's side. 

Just think about seeing an interesting situation and wanting to take a photo and because of the camera wasting time on top of your own reaction time the moment is just gone. 

That's no good. Staying within a sufficiently short timeframe from looking at a scene to the picture being taken is the key element.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Sep 19, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> That's no good.


I agree with you. I am making a case for mirrorless because of its many other advantages. But you are right; the time to focus and some buyers fear of EVF is still a hold back. However, both of these are in the path of better chip technology which the semiconductor industry is very good at. I believe that in a couple of years it will be a mostly mirrorless market with a few DSLR holdovers.
I am prepared to buy a Sony RX1 right now. If there was an RX2 with interchangeable lenses or even with a hard mounted Zeiss 50-200 zoom I would buy that too.


----------



## ronderick (Sep 20, 2012)

Bengt Nyman said:


> ronderick said:
> 
> 
> > The FF sensor in a body like the Fujifilm XPro-1 would be very desirable
> ...



RX1 reminds me of Fujifilm X100. It's testing the waters to see if the market can accept the innovation. Sony's attempt is a big step forward for a small body with FF sensor, but it shows that there's still a problem with the price tag. If an all-in-one package comes for a price around 3,000, I could not imagine a body that accepts interchangeable lenses to be less than that - not to mention the new line of lenses designed to interact with the FF sensor.

Would it be cheaper than a Leica with 50mm summarit? Sure. However, there's still going to be a huge distance between that and what the average shooter would consider affordable.

Of course, we can see how the sales of RX1 turns out, but gut feeling says don't be too optimistic about it.


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 20, 2012)

ronderick said:


> Bengt Nyman said:
> 
> 
> > ronderick said:
> ...



Honestly the price is not that bad if you consider the price of the Zeiss 35mm f/2 alone. You trade the possibility to change lenses with the compact size. And yet, surely the price is pumped up because it's an innovative product with zero competition.

Sony has to be praised for the amount of tech they're bringing out these days. When other companies will make their first clumsy attempts, they will already have an extensive expertise. I would bet that in 10 years from now we will all have Sony or Samsung cameras, and in 20 years Canon and Nikon will be brands to tell to our children about, same as my father does with his old Yashica.


----------



## ecka (Sep 20, 2012)

ronderick said:


> Bengt Nyman said:
> 
> 
> > ronderick said:
> ...



IMHO, a body WITH an interchangeable lens would cost more, but a body alone should cost less. $2000-$3000? - that's the price range of FF DSLR and I would buy one, if they did it right, without the "pocket camera" fanaticism. I want a nice grip and long battery life.
How about Zeiss Ikon lens system adaptation? Adding AF shouldn't be a big problem with today's technology. They could put the AF motor inside the camera body.


----------



## RS2021 (Sep 21, 2012)

The fixed lens offerings are clearly opening ventures...one has to fully anticipate the prices to come down, paradoxically, with more features and interchangable lenses as the industry matures. Just look at the dSLR history. The break point would be them selling more bodies as more people gain more confidence in the technology, buy into the platform, increasing demand, increasing competition, all of which typically increases supply, generally reducing cost.


----------

